Note 1 — Chapter V · The Sectarian Missionary Movement.

There are grave problems ahead which will tax the wisdom of the American Congress far more than the military occupation of the country. John Foreman, who spent some years there, and claims to be a Catholic, advocates (National Review, September, 1898) the disendowment of the Church as a necessary financial measure which would bring a certain amount of relief to the colonial treasury. With the exception of £3,000 a year paid to the Archbishop of Manila, and £1,500 to each of the three other bishops, it is difficult to see how the endowment comes in except as a measure adopted by every civilized State in dealing with its uncivilized subject races; and unless the United States is prepared to abandon the rôle of civilizer, she will be obliged to keep up the paltry endowment made in the past by Spain for that purpose. The Church in the Philippines is, on the whole, self-supporting. She is in the position that the Church in France, Spain, and Portugal was before the Revolution, which, when it appeared successively in each country was followed by a seizure of ecclesiastical property. The salaries paid to the clergy in those countries are given as a compensation for past robberies. The writer has been at pains to get at the truth in this matter and has put himself in communication with a Dominican Friar, who lived for twenty-seven years in the Philippines, and now holds the distinguished position of Rector of the Spanish-Dominican College, in Rome. From him the writer has received the following information regarding the landed estates of the Friars, and the salaries paid to them by the Spanish Government. As far as he knows all these estates were acquired by purchase, and were not given by the Government; they hold the title-deeds of them in their possession. He is not prepared to say whether on their first introduction to the country, three centuries ago, the Government made them grants of land; but we ourselves may infer from the early history of the Dominicans there, that whatever they got was from the early Spanish colonists and the converted natives as free gifts. He adds that in any case the introduction of agriculture is due to their exertions. The Friars who ministered to the spiritual wants of the people may be placed in three categories. There were, first of all, the ordinary parish priest, who lived among a settled Catholic population. He subsisted on his benefice, which is not Government property, and was endowed by no subsidy from the Government. Secondly, there was the missionary parish priest, who lived in a parish where the majority are Catholics, but which also contained a proportion of the heathen. He received some salary from the Government, but much less than that given to the missionaries pure and simple, who lived in the midst of an entirely heathen population. These latter, whose business it was to civilize as well as convert the people to Christianity, and to teach them agriculture and the mechanical arts, were paid according as the mission district was large or small. In the large districts they received £200 annually, and £50 a year was paid to the native priests who acted as their assistants and curates. In the smaller districts the sum allowed was £100. The Jesuits, too, on their return to the Philippines some forty years ago, whence they had been banished in the middle of the last century, got an annual subsidy as compensation for the lands they formerly possessed, which had been confiscated by the Spanish Government of the day. Something also was given towards the education of young Franciscan missionaries, and they were allowed their passage out from Spain. The figures we have quoted are modest enough, seen in the light of modern colonial salaries and expenditure. A continuance of the very moderate subsidies allowed to the missionary Friars by the Spanish Government would no more mean a union between Church and State than did the “contract” system which was sanctioned by Congress up to 1894, for dealing with the education of the North American Indians. According to this system, both Catholic and Protestant missionaries were paid by Government according to the number of pupils who attended their schools, and these schools, of course, were taught on strictly denominational lines. That system had most beneficial results as long as it lasted, and was acceptable to the Indians. Its abandonment in favor of the public-school system has resulted in the crying injustice of compelling Catholic Indian fathers and mothers to send their children to certain schools to which they have a conscientious objection.1