Note 2 — To the Brave Sons of the Philippines

When, on the American occupation, the friar question could be freely discussed, hot disputes at once ensued between the friar party and the Philippine clergy, supported by the people. In the meantime, an Apostolic Delegate, Monsignor P. L. Chapelle,2 was appointed by the Pope, in agreement with the American Government, to endeavour to adjust the friar problem. The details to be considered were manifold, but the questions which most interested the public were the return of the friars to the parishes and the settlement of their property claims. Monsignor Chapelle so vigorously espoused the cause of the friars that he appeared to be more their advocate than an independent judge in the controversy. Many friars, anxious to quit the Islands, were dissuaded from doing so by this prelate.3 He arrived in Manila on January 2, 1900, and, without having made any personal investigations in the provinces, by the 16th of April he deemed himself competent to declare that “the accusations adduced against them (the Religious Orders) are the merest pretexts of shrewd and anti-American Filipino politicians.”4 As a matter of fact, nothing anti-American, or American, had any connexion with the subject. The struggle to expel the friars from these Islands was initiated years before the Americans contemplated intervention in Philippine affairs. Open rebellion was started against the friars twenty months before the Battle of Cavite. Nozaleda and Chapelle wished to appoint friars to the provincial benefices, whilst protests against this proposal were coming from nearly every Christian quarter of the Colony. The Filipinos desired to have the whole administration of the Church in their own hands and, if possible, to see every friar leave the Archipelago. The representative Philippine clergy were Dr. Mariano Sevilla, Father Rojas, Father Changco, and Father Singson. The great champions of the national cause were the first two, who stoutly opposed Nozaledaʼs schemes. Fierce discussions arose between the parties; Father Sevilla and party defied Nozaleda to make the appointments he desired, and then sent a cablegram to the Pope to the following effect:—“Archbishop and Apostolic Delegate want to appoint friars to the Philippine benefices. The Philippine people strongly oppose. Schism imminent.” Father Sevilla could not be wheedled into agreeing to Nozaledaʼs and Chapelleʼs plans, so he was sent to prison for two months in the Calle de Anda, Manila, and deportation to the Island of Guam was menacingly hinted at. When the reply came from Rome, disapproving of the action of the two prelates, Father Sevilla was released from prison. Nevertheless, Nozaledaʼs wrath was unappeased. He then proposed that the benefices should be shared between Filipinos and friars, whilst Father Sevilla insisted on the absolute deposition of the friars. At this time there were 472 members of the four confraternities in the Islands, mostly in Manila.5 At a meeting of the Philippine clergy the expulsion of the friars was proposed and supported by a majority; but Father Sevilla vetoed the resolution, and his ruling was obeyed. Moreover, he agreed that the friars should hold some benefices in and near Manila and the ecclesiastical-educational employments in the colleges. “We,” said Father Sevilla, “are for the Church; let them continue their work of education; it is not our function.” Nozaleda then made advances towards Father Sevilla, and endeavoured to cajole him by the offer of an appointment, which he repeatedly refused. Rome, for the time being, had overruled the question of the benefices contrary to Nozaledaʼs wish. For the moment there was nothing further for the Philippine clergy to defend, but in their general interests Father Sevilla, their spokesman, elected to remain in an independent position until after the retirement of Monsignor Chapelle, when Father Sevilla became parish priest of Hagonoy (Bulacan).