Three Cases of Partially Documented Franciscan Parish Priest
Confrontations with Colonial Authority©
Bruce Cruikshank
July 2021
Introduction
One of the more interesting topics in Philippine history before 1898 is the interaction among Spanish provincial governors, Filipino pueblo officials, parish priests, and the Filipinos living in the parishes and provinces.[1] Spanish governors (Alcaldes mayores or Corregidores) wanted to administer their provinces efficiently for the royal colony as well as to profit for themselves. As I argued in an earlier essay, “Gaming the System: The Tribute System in the Spanish Philippines, 1565-1884”), many provincial governors seem to have used their position to recoup expenses and bribes expended earlier to obtain the posting and then to maximize their personal profits while in office.
One scholar has acknowledged both that while not all governors were corrupt, the number who were “was sufficient to disrupt the system.”[2] Indeed, corruption among governors seems to have been widespread and commonplace. Priests serving in the provinces were aware of the character of the provincial governors with a clear sense that the majority were dishonest. In 1710, one priest noted that alcaldes mayores who have “a zeal for Justice and for the public good” “are rare and few” in number.[3] In 1760, a Bishop in the Camarines and Albay wrote a brief generalizing the pattern of Spanish governors’ exploitation of Filipinos.[4] About one hundred years later a Franciscan was able to name only one to his knowledge who was honest.[5]
Corruption to enrich self usually involved using official position and power to oppress and milk Filipinos in the pueblos through extortion of fees and labor. Ideally, one would think that the Franciscan parish priest would step up and try to defend the pueblo against excessive and injurious demands from Spanish or Filipino officials. However, Franciscans in the Philippines were generally enjoined against direct conflict with provincial governors except in the most grievous cases. A Franciscan wrote a circular letter of instruction to all of the Franciscans in the Islands in 1681:[6]
Avoid all confrontations with the alcaldes mayor since they would be useless
except to bring further discord and open old wounds, leading to unfortunate
consequences for us.
Even when the issues involved with the Spanish provincial governor were major and the impact on Filipino parishioners or the parish was grave, Franciscan parish priests were still directed to avoid conflict and personal confrontation. In those cases they were instructed to push the matter to higher levels in the Franciscan Province for more effective impact and resolution.[7]
Sometimes such instances resulted in written reports or in high-level conflicts that occasioned exchanges and appeals to the Governor General or even to the King in far off Spain. Resolution would then be delayed. Franciscans (I assume) recognized they would need to pick their fights carefully, not to squander what little influence they had with Bishops and Governors General. Under these circumstance, perhaps (another assumption) most interventions were verbal, unofficial, and occasional, unless the incidents and consequences were major enough to occasion formal complaint and resultant paper trail for historians.
Franciscans rules and expectations notwithstanding, we know that there were conflicts between Franciscan parish priests and alcaldes mayor.[8] Records of such occasions are sparse, details incomplete, and our ability to present a full exposition of who/when/where/what/why/ & how-did-it-play-out is customarily frustrated since necessary data are usually spotty or missing.[9]
Here is an example that provokes our avid interest and then perhaps inadvertantly illustrates the issues: “The Audiencia of Manila presents specific cases such as a Franciscan priest who, armed with a musket, defied the governor of the Camarines.”[10] The scanty information expanding on this is (loosely translated) here:[11]
… defiance with muskets to provincial governors, as happened to the governor
of Camarines some days ago by a Franciscan parish priest when the governor
tried to fulfill the royal order to establish schools for children to learn to read.
The Franciscan uttered some disrespectable words to the governor …
The governor apparently complained to the Audiencia. Presumably the conflict had less to do with schools themselves but rather that the language of instruction be in Spanish, since that was a current issue and schools already existed in most pueblos. It is not all that clear in this case that a musket was brandished; and we do not know the names of priest or governor, specific date, pueblo, or what happened after the reported exchange of words. The quoted material and my guess about the Spanish-language curriculum appears to be all the information available.
This 1690 case is the most extreme example I have encountered with an incident calling out for further investigation but with critical information seemingly unavailable. My goal here is to present two more references to such incidents to suggest patterns and causes while hoping that other researchers might find supplementary information in other archives.
Some sixty years later we have a report from a Franciscan in the pueblo of Tayabas alleging that an alcalde mayor tried to interfere in Church customs. The Franciscan parish priest wrote a strong report dated 29 March 1754 indicating with an abundance of references to Church authorities that the governor had overstepped his bounds. Only the first of the ten paragraphs speaks to the incident itself.[12] It is not at all clear that the priest was present or if the alcalde mayor and the priest directly confronted each other. The priest, P. Fr. Roque de la Purificacion,[13] wrote that the governor (unnamed) was in the church with parishioners, religious personnel of the church, and school children who apparently had gathered in order to pay homage to the dead and offer oblations. According to Father Roque, the governor ordered pueblo officials that they not permit such offerings in the future since it was unseemly. If such items were still presented even after this order, the offerings were to be “thrown out on the street.” The governor later backtracked and said he made no such order prohibiting offerings nor that in the future they were to be tossed into the street. He averred that he was merely observing that their placement was inappropriate or unattractive. Father Roque wrote that what the governor originally said was reported accurately and that it offended the officials, leading citizens, and caused not a little scandal to all who heard it. Father Roque suggested, at the start of the second paragraph of the manuscript, before he begins to cite Church authorities repudiating such an order, that he is concerned that the authority of the governor (and behind him, the king) could lead to more significant interference in Filipino religious practices and customs.[14]
More information and subsequent events seem to be absent in the sources I have seen.
Here is a 1777 confrontation between a Franciscan and the gobernadorcillo of Milaor when the pueblo official attempted to execute an order of the provincial governor’s. The order, based on a decree given by the Governor General of the Philippine colony before his death, ordered that the royal arms be placed on the front of the church. The manuscript,[15] which is damaged and missing about four inches of text, reports that the priest objected. The Franciscan averred that he revered the royal arms and that he was loyal to the Spanish king, but that he could not acquiesce to such an order based solely on the directive of the provincial governor. Since there was no copy of the Governor General’s decree with the governor’s order, he opposed the governor’s mandate. Moreover, the royal treasury had not established and maintained this particular church building. Rather it was created due to the work and sweat of the parishioners, who founded and maintained it. The Franciscans who served as priests were the ones who furnished and provided the items necessary for worship.
Apparently there was more interplay between the priest and the gobernadorcillo, but it is lost in the four inches missing portion of the manuscript. In the end, even though the Franciscan objected both in Spanish and in the language of the pueblo, the gobernadorcillo and his men proceeded to attach the royal arms to the front of the church. They said they persisted in doing so out of fear of the provincial governor if the order were not carried out.
See Appendix 2 for the transcription of the portion of the manuscript that is available.
Conclusion
These three cases, incomplete and few in number, suggest that given sufficient provocation Franciscans in the parishes might contravene Franciscan rules and directly challenge a provincial governor or the Filipino local official working on his behalf. Our three cases suggest that topics impinging directly or indirectly on the church (schooling and royal arms on the building) might trigger direct confrontations more readily than the more common gouging occasioned by governors pushing pueblo Filipinos to provide more in tribute and labor.[16] Presumably the latter would be seen more as systematic evils best fought in Manila by the higher levels of Franciscan authority, while infringement on the church as well as its practices and autonomy might push the cleric to step forth at the local level. Three cases with remarkably sparse documentation make up a fragile base to argue this conclusion with any confidence. What is less doubtful is that we need more information on these and other cases of parish priests and colonial authority.
Appendices
Appendix One, relevant text from AFIO 93/32[17]
Las oblaciones Voluntarias, Echas á Dios, y a sus Sanctos;
no se pueden licite impedir, ni quitar. Mas si, las que son inVoluntarias.[18]
Es bien savido el Casso sucedido, en este Pueblo y Cavezera de Tayabas, en este año pressente de cinquenta, y quatro; no solo de los Religiosos, y Principales de los Naturales, si tambien, aun de los niños de la Escuela, con poca edifficacion de todos, y mucho escandalo de todos los que Vieron, y oyeron mandar por el Alcalde maior de esta provincia, quien tiene obligacion á edifficar, y enseñar, mas que a destruir y dar mal Exemplo con la accion atentada, de mandar (dige) anojar las Oblaciones, o mandar, que los fieles nuevos acen en su Iglesia a Dios, y a sus Difuntos: Encargando á los oficiales, que no permitieran semejante cossa, en adelante por parecer mui mal; y que las actualmente ofrecidas, las arrojassen a la Calle. Este es el mandato, y echo del Casso Veridico, aunque despues, conociendo su yerro, y haciendole cargo de el, á querido cohonestarlo, diciendo: que el, no mando arrojarlas ni prohivio a la Iglesia las Ofrendas: Si, solo (dice) dixe, que no pusiessen los Platos de las Psigas[19] en los Altares; los que, dice, Tenian puestos en ellos, porque parecia mal. Mas, es dige, y digo aora, querer Cohonestar lo que mando con escandalo de los indios Principales, que lo oyeron, y no Principales con sus officiales, a quienes intimó el mandato, y con expecialidad al Cappitan de este Pueblo, como lo tienen Certificado de baxo de sus firmas,[20] Viniende, como Vinieron todos, á quexarse: que el Alcalde los pribava [sic], y prohivia, el offrecer á Dios, y a sus Diffuntos, lo que siempre avian hecho, segun la posibilidad de cada uno. Aun no estando, dige, enterrados de la Verdad de el Casso, es dificultosso creer, lo que dicho Alcalde nos quiere dar aora á Tragar: Pues siendo los Indios mas Ecclesiasticos, que el Alcalde; no ignorarian, que el poner los platos en los Altares, era grande indecencia lo Uno; y lo otro, que frequentando mas los Religiosos el entrar, y salir de la Iglesia; y yo, algunos a nos en esta mas que el Alcalde, no hemos Visto semejante cossa; sino es, puestas las offrendas en donde se deven poner; y si acostumbraran á ponerlas, a donde dice el Alcalde, antes que el, se les huviera hecho la advertencia, para que en los ojos de el Alcalde, no pecará su ignorancia; y Tempoco hiciera semejante avisso; estando ya el Pueblo de el, de antemano corregido.
Supuessto, que es frivola la escusa, que ace; entraremos preguntando en la propuesta diciendo: Si pueda lo dicho, en algun modo mandarlo; y lo offrendado, prohivirlo? Respondo, que suponiendo su authoridad de Alcalde, y lo que el Rey, en este punto manda; puede prohivir á los indios, las oblacciones echas contra su Voluntad, y forzados á hacerlas, aunque sean con el fin bueno, de que son para la Iglessia, y alivio de los Diffuntos ….
Appendix Two, surviving text from AFIO 97/20[21]
En el Pueblo de Milavor, En Seis dias del mes de Junio de mil setezientos setenta y siete años. Yo Don Juan Marcelo Governorcillo de Naturales de dicho Pueblo, en cumplimiento de un Mandamiento del Señor Alcalde de esta Provincia de Camarines, Don Ramon de Orendain, pasó con [ ] Ofiziales a colocar los Reales Armas del Rey, Nro. Señor (que Dios Gue) en la portada de la Yglesia Parroquial de dicho Pueblo, y haviendo primero pasado un politico recado al P. Ministro, que lo es el R. P. Fr. Pedro de Gascueña[22] (como asi me lo previene el dho. Señor alcalde en el dho. su Mandamiento) Respondio con comedidas palabras, y dixo: Que veneraba las Reales Armas del Rey Nro. Señor como que lo son de su Señor Natural, de quien protextaba ser fiel, y leal Vasallo; pero que no obstante esta humilde protexta, en punto de la fixacion de dhas Armas Reales en el frontispicio de la dicha Yglesia, no podia permitirlo, en virtud de un Simple Mandamiento del Señor Alcalde, como lo era el en quie me ordena la Colocacion de dhos Armas, pues aunque en el dho. Mandamiento, insinua ser orden del Superior Govierno de esta Yslas, mas no inserta dicho Orden (como devia hacerlo para la Constancia del) Pero que no obstante este tan notable defecto del dicho Señor Alcalde, aunque sabe por circular Carta, que despachó en Superior Prelado, ser cierto haver decretado el difunto Señor Governador, que lo fue de estas Yslas Don Simon de Anda y Salazar, se colocasen las Armas Reales en las fachadas de las Yglesias, como signo demonstrativo de que sobre ellas tiene el Rey Nro. Señor (que Dios guarde) el derecho de Patronazgo; a un con la cierta ciencia de este orden Superior dijo no podia permitir se fixassen dichas Armas en la fachada de dha. Yglesia, por Constarle tambien que en ella no se hallan las circunstancias, que el Rey N. S. quiere que tengan las Yglesias, en las que se hayan de fixar, o colocar sus reales Armas, y que el dho. Señor difunto Don Simon de Anda y Salazar, su pone en su Superior decreto; quales son que esten fundadas, y mantenidas dichas Yglesias, a expensas del Real Erario, circunstancias, que no se Verifican en esta dicha Yglesia, pues no el Rey Nro. Señor (q. Dios gue) sino al Sudor, y trabajo de los Naturales de este Pueblo, la levantó a fundamentis, y tienen el cuidado de repararla siempre que la necessidad lo pide para su conservacion; esto es en lo material, que en lo formal, el zelo de los Religiosos que han sido Ministros en ella la han alhajado, adornado, y surtido de lo necessario al divino Culto, pues de no, no seria decente morada de su Divina [f. 1v]
[about 4 inches of text lost]
Y oyo el Supra dho. Governadorcillo (no obstante lo representado por el M. R. P.) prosegui a colocar, como de facto cologue en la Portada de dicha Yglesia las reales Armas del Rey N. S. (q Dios gue) en obedecimiento del is dho Mandamiento de mi Superior el Señor Alcalde mayor Don Ramon de Orendain, pues de no executarlo asi temo ser por el Castigado. Solo si condescandi a lo que el dicho R. P. me pidio que es este Testimonio, bien entendido que no puedo alegar ignorancia, de todo lo que el dicho R. P. lleva dicho, pues no solo lo hablo en el Ydioma Castellano, sino que tambien lo esplicó en mi proprio Ydioma, hallandose presentes todos mis Oficiales, de los que firmaron dos conmigo, en dicho dia, mes, y año. Ut supra.==Juan Marcelo=Domingo Pestano=Juan Gmes [sic]
Concuera con su Original del que se trasladó, ocupió fiel, y legalmente, hallandose presentes los arriba firmantes, de que doy fee, en dho dia, mes, y año ut supra. [signed] Manuel Vizente de San Lorenzo Escribano
[1] I use the term Filipino to mean any non-Spaniard born in the Islands and living in the provinces. The usage is anachronistic but convenient. It does not mean to imply a sense of nationality.
[2] Luis Ángel Sánchez Gómez, Las Principalías Indígenas y la Administración Española en Filipinas (Ph.D. dissertation, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Departamento de Prehistoria y Etnologia. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991), 738pp.; here, 588 and 589.
[3] Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental [AFIO, henceforth], 7/18, Informe al Gobernador General sobre reducción de Infieles (por un franciscano), 1710, p. 12.
[4] AFIO 92/22, Informe del Sr. Obispo sobre las vejaciones y atropellos causados por los Alcaldes mayores. Camarines, 6 May 1760. 2ff. Also see my “A Bishop’s Complaint, Camarines and Albay, 1760.
[5] AFIO, 71/27, Recurso a los oficiales Reales, protestando y defiendo la propiedad de sus fieles de Meycauayan. Meycauayan, 2ff., undated [1814?], by P. Fr. Francisco Gascueña, O.F.M.; here, f. 1v.
[6] AFIO 79/3, P. Mateo de la Asuncion, Patente, exhorta a sus subditos a la caridad fraterna, a que traten con caridad a los Indios, que no se entrometan en negocios seculares y que eviten todo trato con personas sospechosas. Ntra. Sra. de la Candelaria, Dilao, 3 ff., 11 junio 1681; here, f. 2v. Here is the original, which I have translated loosely:
… se eviten las contenciones con los Alcaldes mayores pues de estas no se sigue ningun util,
si muchas discordias y renovar muchas cicatrices olvidadas con mucho vituperio de nuestro
estado ….
[7] I capitalize Province for the Franciscan corporation, the Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de N. S. P. S. Francisco en las islas Filipinas. The head of that organization was the Provincial. I use a lower case for the provinces and the provincial governor designations in the civil administration.
[8] Here is a rare instance of a fuller case: Francisco Mallari, “Alcalde versus Friar in Camarines,” Philippine Studies, 40:4 (1992), 464-79. In this case P. Fr. Francisco Valverde, O.F.M., went to bat in the early nineteenth century in order to protect parishioners in Libmanan from abusive and ill-timed exactions by the alcalde mayor.
[9] Here is a fine essay that explictly sets forth the difficulties incomplete documentation of disputes by committed and sly partisans can cause a historian: Norman G. Owen, “Problems in Partido: 1741-1810.” Philippine Studies, 38: 4 (1990), 421-52.
[10] Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de Filipinas, 26, R. 1, N.3: Carta de la Audiencia de Manila sobre situación en las islas, 26 June 1690 (also found in AGI, Filipinas, 163, N. 22, with marginal notes by government officials), 20 and 22 images respectively . The description that I translated (including my choice of “musket” for arquebus) reads in the original Spanish (found on Image 2 from PARES): Se mencionan casos concretos como el desfio con un arcabuz de un religioso de San Francisco al alcalde mayor de Camarines ….
[11] The original reads: … a desafiar con arcabuzos a los Alcaldes maiores; como sucedió con Vro Alcalde mayor de Camarines, poco dias á, y un Religioso de San Francisco cura de un partido, sobre da cumplimiento a una zedula en que V.NM. se establescan escuelas de niños, para enseñarlos a leer en aquella provincia; que despues de decir algunos desprecios a la persona Vra ….
[12] AFIO 93/32, Informe de Fr. Roque de la Purificacion sobre las obligaciones voluntarias hechas a Dios y sus Santos contra un Alcalde mayor, que mandó retirar las obligaciones de los Indios. Tayabas, 3 ff., 29 marzo 1754.
[13] Father Roque was born in 1703 in Abenojar in the archbishopric of Toledo, Spain. He arrived in the Philippines in 1732. He was appointed parish priest of Maoban in 1738, Meycauayan in 1742, Nagcarlan in 1744, 1745, Tayabas in 1747, 1748, 1750, 1751, 1753, 1754, Bocaue in 1756, 1757, 1759, 1760 and again in 1765, 1766, 1768, 1769, and 1772, and then in Lumbang in 1771. He held various administrative positions in 1739, 1741, 1756, 1757, 1774, 1777; including Provincial in 1762, 1763. There is no listing for him in the assignments in 1775 and he died in 1778. Bruce Cruikshank, Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, 1578-1898. Catalogs and Analysis for a History of Filipinos in Franciscan Parishes (Hastings, Nebraska, USA: Cornhusker Press, 2003), v. 5, 265. It may be significant that he left Tayabas and became parish priest of Bocaue in 1756. However, since later he became Provincial, it appears clear that his implied confrontation with the governor did not lead to significant censure (if any) from the Franciscan Province.
[14] The relevant sections of the manuscript are transcribed in Appendix One, below.
[15] AFIO 97/20, Protesta de P. Esteban [José] de Gascueña oponiendose a que se pongan las armas reales en la fachada de la Iglesia de Milaor. Milaor, [6] June 1777. Damaged.
[16] For a more systematic look at these and other seemingly common extortions, see my “Gaming the System The Tribute System in the Spanish Philippines, 1565-1884.”
[17] AFIO 93/32, Informe de Fr. Roque de la Purificacion sobre las obligaciones voluntarias hechas a Dios y sus Santos contra un Alcalde mayor, que mandó retirar las obligaciones de los Indios. Tayabas, 3 ff., 29 marzo 1754.
[18] I have spelled out some but not all abbreviated words. I did not change punctuation as presented in the manuscript. I retained spellings and associated orthography found in the document.
[19] I cannot find this word in my Spanish dictionaries.
[20] Not found with this manuscript.
[21] AFIO 97/20, Protesta de P. Esteban [José] de Gascueña oponiendose a que se pongan las armas reales en la fachada de la Iglesia de Milaor. Milaor, [6] June 1777. Damaged. Brackets indicate lost text.
[22] The Franciscan was actually P. Fr. Esteban José de Gascueña, though there was a P. Fr. Pedro de Gascueña among the Franciscans at that time. P. Pedro was born in 1744 in Gascueña, Spain, arriving in the Philippines in 1770. He died in 1780 in Naga, after serving as a parish priest in Sorsogon (appointed in 1774) and Cagsaua (1778) with an administrative position in Manila in 1777. He was not listed in the 1775 Capítulo roster of assignments. (Cruikshank, Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 5, 134). P. Fr. Esteban José de Gascueña, on the other hand, was born in 1718, also in Gascueña, arriving in the Islands in 1752. He served as parish priest in Himoragat (assigned 1754), Lupi (1756), Libmanan (1763), Milaor (1765; and again in 1774 and 1775), Libong (1766; and again in 1780), Canaman (1769), Calabanga (1771), Milaor (1772); with assignment as Definidor in 1777 and 1778; and service as Presidente of San Francisco del Monte (1777, 1778). He is not listed in the Capítulo assignment lists for 1757, 1759, 1760, 1762, 1768, and 1781+. He died in Santa Cruz in 1789 (Cruikshank, Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 5, 133). I cannot explain the error in the priest’s name in the manuscript.