Here is an interesting
book in the history of the Philippine Independent Church (Aglipayan),
not only for students of history but also for non-students. The chapters
are well divided and clearly set forth in a language that would leave
no doubt to the reader.
Book One starts with Aglipay's early years, the events of the Philippine
Revolution, his appointment as Vicario General Castrence, his
ecclesiastical governorship, excommunication, the Assembly of Panique,
and his guerrilla days.
Book Two deals
with the events at the height of the Schism of 1902-1907, particularly
the climate of the schism, the role of Isabelo de los Reyes Sr, the
forces at work, official books, and official doctrines of the Philippine
Independent Church. Book three discusses the factors which caused
the decline, such as the question of church property, the counter
offensive of the Roman Catholic Church, the Manila Council of 1907,
and some other reasons. The Fourth book deals with problems encountered
by Aglipay and his Church, the question of Episcopal Consecration,
attempts to convert him back to Catholicism, intramural struggles
within the Church, travel and politics, the last years of Aglipay
and Isabelo de los Reyes Sr.
The authors used primary sources. The record of the Vatican Archives,
diocesan and church records which are inaccessible to the general
researchers. This book is a veritable source book of unpublished primary
materials.
The preface says that the authors did not intend to "denigrate"
Aglipay. Reading through the entire volume, that is precisely the
impression this reader gets. Perhaps, this is an admission that what
the authors set out to accomplish is the opposite of what they were
able to do.
Reading through the book, this reader cannot but feel that the authors
assumed that only they have the monopoly of the truth. Let me cite
specific instances, in page 450, they say "Thus, the Aglipayan
Church officials abandoned the CHRISTIAN dogmas, which in any case
have already been abandoned in its official books quite early in its
existence." The underlined is sufficient. It seems to imply that
Aglipayans are not Christians.
Then there are also some distortions in the book. On page 62 the authors
quoted a portion of Mabini's letter to Aguinaldo to the effect that
"If you accept the unity of religion you will alienate those
you rely (on) in critical times." The quotation is incomplete
and taken out of context, for in the previous paragraphs of the said
letter Mabini warned Aguinaldo that, whatever group he chose to side
with, the other side would be alienated from him.
For a complete text of Mabini see Teodoro A Agoncillo's MALOLOS: THE
CRISIS OF THE REPUBLIC (QUEZONC CITY, 1960 P. 304.) It is obvious
that the authors are trying to make it appear that Mabini was against
the union of Church and State and that he contributed to the defeat
of Calderon's article in the draft of the Malolos Constitution providing
for such union. This is abundantly clear in the author's statement
on the same page to the effect that "The chief proponent of the
amendment (separation of Church and State) was Thomas G. del Rosario
ably supported by others, including Mabini.
This, I think
is wrong, for Mabini was, insofar as the discussions on the religious
question were concerned, neutral. In fact in the previous paragraphs
of the same letter, which the authors did not did not give in full,
Mabini said: "It is necessary to commission one of the Secretaries
to tell Congress that so long as the condition of the country is not
stable the subject should not be discussed." (Agoncillo, op.cit.,
p.304)
There are also errors in the book. On page 27, the authors said that
Rizal was arrested on July 7, 1892. Rizal was arrested on the night
of July 6th and the news of his arrest was published in the Gaceta
de Manila . Also on page 62, the authors stated that the discussions
on the separation of Church and State took place on November 22, 1898.
Agoncillo, Malolos, p.30 citing the letter found in the PHILIPPINE
INSURGENT RECORDS (P I R) AGO-459472 dated Nov. 1898 said that the
discussion on the subject matter began on October 29, and continued
on November 4,5,8,15,33,24, and 29.
On page 63, the authors maintained "The separation of Church
and State was to be held in abeyance until after Philippine independence
has been 'recognized officially'. The authors are referring to the
Transitory Provisions of the Malolos Constitution (Article 100) which
does not provide for the separation of Church and State being held
in abeyance until after Philippine independence has been 'recognized
officially.'" Article 100 of the Malolos Constitution as finally
approved provided that "The execution of article 5, title 3,
is hereby suspended until after the meeting of the constitutent assembly."
See Malolos Constitution in Agoncillo, Malolos, Appendix D, p.784.
In spite of these
errors, the book is a welcome addition of Philippine history and culture.
*This review was originally published in COMMENT NO. 11, PP. 146-147
