AGLIPAY MEMORIAL LECTURE

Bishop Gregorio Aglipays Contribution to the Theology of Struggle in the Philippines

Bishop Gregorio Aglipay was not only an outstanding figure in the old National Democratic Revolution (NDR) but also symbolized the church people who directly resisted foreign domination and participated in the establishment of a new social order. He was a Roman Catholic priest, the Military Vicar General of the Revolutionary Government of Aguinaldo in 1896, founder of the Liwanag Branch of the Katipunan1 in Victoria, Tarlac, and head of a guerrilla unit in the Ilocos provinces with the rank of a General fighting against the Americans, and the first Obispo Maximo of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI). Nonetheless, the theological thought of Aglipay is the product of the socio-political condition of his time. It is his faith reflection of the severe suffering of the majority Filipino masses and his active involvement in the struggle for national liberation and democracy. However, Aglipay never wrote his theological thoughts into manuscript. He was more on doing his theology. Equally of importance, the faith reflections of the Filipino theologians involved in the struggle of the poor in the 1980s gave rise to the so-called Theology of Struggle. Its formation was certainly influenced by the Latin American liberation theology of the 1970s. I would like to believe that the kind of faith reflections and integral ministry initiated by Aglipay gradually taking form into the Theology of Struggle in the Philippines today.

This Aglipay Memorial Lecture was delivered by Revd Noel Dionicio L. Dacuycuy on the 64th Death Anniversary of Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, at Aglipay Central Theological Seminary (ACTS), Urdaneta City, on September 1, 2004. The Katipunan is the Kataastaasang Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (Highest and Most Respected Sons of the People).
1

Nonetheless, the Theology of Struggle is not about the struggle of the Filipino masses, but a reflection of and in the struggle toward liberation.2 The reflection focuses more on the condition and requirements of the struggle towards national liberation where there is justice and peace. The rich experience of Aglipay, hence, offers distinct contributions to the Theology of Struggle. In presenting, therefore, his contribution to the Theology of Struggle (a liberation theology that became familiar in the Philippines four decades after his death), it does not only aim to present Aglipays theology per se but to make his theology an inspiration, primarily, for the freedom-loving clergy and faithful of the IFI as well as to all Filipinos in the struggle for liberation. Hence, it is necessary for us to commence the understanding of the theological thoughts of Aglipay from his social analysis and its alternative vision of society. After that, we will discuss Aglipays cherished ideas of freedom and liberty that motivated him to make his historical position as a church people to participate directly to armed revolution as an option for social transformation. On Philippine Poverty and the Kingdom of God Aglipays analysis of the abject poverty in the Philippines preconditioned his unfeigned commitment into the old NDR. He described the Philippine liberation movement against Spain in his Manifesto on 22 October 1898, as a struggle to liberate our people from foreign domination which, irrespective of what they (colonisers) say, have governed us like serfs, that is, as slaves. Again in his letter to James Allen (June 3, 1937), Aglipay accentuates, we are still in the battlefront struggling against all the flatheads of the Philippine bureaucracy and international imperialism. Conclusively, foreign domination and bureaucratic corruption are the root causes of the unbearable suffering and the excruciating poverty of the Filipino people as identified by Aglipay. And, of course, the Theology of Struggle would add another one, the oppressive feudal relations in the countryside.

Mary Rosario Battung, et al. (eds.), Religion and Society: Towards a Theology of Struggle. Book I. (Manila: FIDES, 1988), p. vi.

Interestingly, Aglipay did not merely actively participate in the liberation movements but also offered an alternative social order rooted in its conviction of the teachings of Jesus. He offered the other side of Jesus life. He projected Jesus cross as the cross of challenge and struggle, not as the cross of patience and resignation. He emphasised that the Sermon on the Mount breathesthe palpable essence of social justice with which Jesus desired to relieve the insufferable misery of the masses, and to level all social classes by universal love.3 What is stressed here is the turning of the world upside downthe triumph of the poor and the perversity of the rich. Interestingly, the Magnificat in Luke would give credence to this view of Aglipay. Allen affirms that, The Jesus they (IFI) honor is a historical figure who led a revolution against Roman Caesars, against the exalted and powerful on behalf on the humble and poor. His (Aglipays) idea is a mixture of holiness and subversion. He predicted the triumph of the oppressed and downtrodden, envisioned their reign, condemned the plutocrats, the vicious and the despots, predicting for them a disastrous end as fit punishment for their perversity. The Aglipayan teachings are founded upon the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and his utterance on the cross. These are interpreted as a call for revolution against the despots.4 This was the precise reason why in its gestation period, the IFI avows as its supreme aspiration and asserts as enshrined in its Doctrinas y Reglas Constitutionales in 1903, the Kingdom of God would come with the triumph of the poor with the abolition of private property and (the institution of) the common ownership of goods. This vision presupposes that man desires private property for his daily needs but if everything were guaranteed, one would no longer have any reason to preserve private property other than

Santiago Lopez, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay y la Religion del Porvenir [Cronica de una historia reunion], Manila, February 1936, 4.6. James Allen, The Philippine Left in the Eve of World War II, (Minneapolis: MEP Publication, 1993), p. 43.
4

pure selfishness, which is contrary to the Christian teachings.5 It is like the Hebrew prophets that emphasised the encounter with God through neighbourly relationship guided with justice. They gave priority to social justice over the ceremonial purity as such devotion to the Lord is closely linked with justice in society (Amos 5:21-24). As such, both Aglipay and the Theology of Struggle would agree that the struggle waged by the Filipinos is a struggle for the establishment of a new social order wherein the poor will triumph against injustices and oppressions. It was an attempt to transform the blasphemous and idolatrous social system in accordance to Gods purpose free from foreign domination and feudal oppression. Its concern was a genuine independence and the eradication of oppression and exploitation of the poor, primarily, the emancipation of the working and peasant classes. This struggle for liberation is towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God where justice and peace reign. However, Aglipay would insist that the abolition of private property and the institution of common ownership of goods as one of the features of this kingdom. Aglipay had a positive approach to religion stressing concern for liberty and human freedom rooted in Jesus teachings of social justice. This will demonstrate that religion is no longer an opiate of the people, but it serves for liberation of the poor, the needy, and the afflicted. On Church in Politics, Religious Liberty and Human Freedom Aglipay fiercely asserted, There is no merit in applauding the masses for their tenacious and frenzied fanaticism, of which he claims, the colossal errors which the conscience of the majority of the Filipino continues to be enchained. 6 This is a religious fanaticism exemplified by prayers and concern merely for the deliverance of the soul, while neglecting the life on earth that resulted in oppression. Because of this kind of religiosity, there are excesses which, far from leading us to God, clearly alienate us from

5 6

DRC, Second Part, Chapter I, Section. Lopez (1936), p. 8.

him. In other words, it was a religiosity that reduces God to almost complete oblivion, i.e., an enormous blasphemy.7 Allen also confirms, His (Aglipays) church rejects the attempt to encase religion in immutable molds and applies the deductive and scientific method to the solution of religious enigmas, re-establishing the essential human identity of Jesus in history, without deception, without falsehood, and with no better guide than logic and truth.8 This affirmation testifies that it is impossible to separate the religious realm from the politico-economic realm. Indeed the economic and socio-political realms are able to shroud themselves in religious realm. Thus in an interview by the Herald Magazine in 23 September 1933, Aglipay had no pretension to assert the participation of the church in politics. As such, the church is obliged to support and even to participate in a movement that works towards the realisation of the reign of justice and peace. In like manner, the involvement of church in politics is understood as an act of confessing the faith in the midst of social injustices. Aglipay asserted this way, I believe that the Church should take part in politics, for it is part of our national life and any political changes that take place here (in politics) are unlikely to affect the affairs of the Church. He emphasised in this same interview that beneath the religious robes of the IFI clergy, like other Filipinos, cannot remain indifferent to the independence movement.9 Thus, in the face of the insurmountable difficulties, Aglipay sought avenues to keep vibrant the nationalist consciousness of the people. The pulpit was used in the advocacy of peoples rights, i.e., women suffrage and the human rights advocacy campaign, such as the release of political prisoners.10 In other words Aglipay challenged the policies of the

7 8 9

DRC, Chap. II, 3. Allen (1993), p. 42. Loc. cit. A letter dated 28 January 1937.

10

existing regime that were inimical to Gods purposes. This perhaps the positive response of Aglipay to the clear teaching of St. Augustine regarding the duty of Christians to cooperate in the promotion of peace while become aware to denounce draconian laws and decrees. St. Augustine stated that, The citizens of the heavenly city will gladly co-operate in promoting earthly peace as long as they live in the land of their pilgrimage. Yet they must challenge the laws of the earthly city whenever these laws infringe on their own supreme loyalty to God.11 For the church that refrains to speak against the oppressive systems and draconian policies of the state is an abdication of its prophetic ministry. It should be recalled then that about a half of a century before liberation theologians and the Theology of Struggle have seriously discussed integral mission, Aglipay had been advocating already for national freedom and democracy. Concurrently, the question of religious liberty and human freedom is very much related to the notion of a person. Religious liberty is more than the legal exercise of religious faith in society. Similarly, human freedom is more than the formal concept of the free from approach perception. For there are many factors that limit religious liberty and human freedom which are not only confined to external factors but also determined by factors within a human person, concerning of his or her being. The Epistola VI12 of the IFI explains the nature of a person with all its rights and liberty. It is a perfect and admirable creation of God (Genesis 1:31). It describes a free humanity. This freedom is not only a dimension of its subjectivity to God. But it is a liberating praxisa power that transforms the world in accordance to Gods purposes. It stresses that man (humanity) was born with all rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and

Brookes, Edgar H. The City of God and the Politics of Crisis. (London: Oxford Univerity Press, 1960), p. 62. See also Edward R. Hardy, The City of God in A Companion to the Study of St. Agustine, ed. Battenhouse. (New York, 1955). There are six Fundamental Epistles of the IFI that served as the doctrinal guidance and outlined the ecclesiastical polity of the church from 1902-1903, during its first year of existence.
12

11

property. Thus human freedom is the whole totality of a person, its total life. It is more than of being free from all restrictions. It is stated that, He (humanity) was born free as the bird that sings among the branches of the trees, free as the air that gives us life, the plant that perfumes the valleys with the aroma of its flowers, like the stars and all other creatures. We Christians have been called to liberty (Galatians 5:13); since Jesus has come to free us (Luke 4:18 and Isaiah 61:1). Ah, Liberty! Its worth is understood only when it is lost; it can only be loved in the saddest darkness of prison cells. A free man is a complete man, dignified, honourable, of lofty sentiments, attended by all his rights and by his unavoidable duties as well; but a man who becomes a slave of his own free will is a man with a vile heart, a deceitful, object sycophanta person, in short, deserving of pity. We are born with the right to think freely and express our thoughts according to the light of reason which the Divinity has given us; we are born with the right to associate freely with those we choose for the purpose of our own perfection and needs; we are born with the right to govern our own persons, our families, home and birthplace; we are born in short, with the right to do freely whatever is our pleasure so long as we do not violate the liberty and rights of others. Man has the obligation to defend these liberties of his for which God has given him heart and brawn, just as other animals and creatures defend theirs. And he who does not know how to defend his liberty is the most despicable of beings and merits all the tyrannies, cruelties and most incredible outrages of the master to whom he faint-heartedly submits. So God permits him to find his punishment in his own cowardice.

Liberty is one of the most precious gifts with which the Creator has favoured us; so it is that we may in no way the purest morality and right conscience imposes on all things. The perfect law is the law of liberty, according to the General Epistle of St. James (1:25). Justifiably, with the God given rights, inherent to humanity to associate freely and with the right to self-determination, but having these rights, humanity has the obligation to defend this liberty. Religious liberty and human freedom are not only legally permitted by the laws of the land, but in actuality are even beyond the economic, political, cultural and religious systems of society. A human being that becomes a slave of his/her own free will is not free at all. Thus when the Christian faith or religiosity became an instrument of oppression, it did not maintain religious freedom at all. Because one is no longer free to express his or her thoughts, but according to the whims of the oppressors. In his letter to Celedonio Mateo de San Jose in 12 June 1903, Aglipay asserts, A dignity denied, a reasonable position scorned, and rights trampled underfoot the rights of any race sought for relief and redress in vain; and what course is left to us but to defend ourselves against such cruelties and acts of violence? Logically it would seem that this type of organized disobedience exemplified by Aglipay should sometimes be used as a weapon against evil legislation or inimical action in a field not purely religious. This is the very reason why Aglipay did not only talk on social transformation but also actively participate in the process of revolution. Thus, let us look at what Aglipay said on social transformation and revolution. On Social Transformation and Revolution Aglipay explained in the Manifesto of 22 October 1898 that the revolution waged by the Filipino people was to redeem the country from slavery. In his insight, revolution is not only the last recourse of the Filipino people in order to achieve freedom from exploitation, but also a legitimate option. He asserted that,

Such injustices, such barbarism justify in our eyes the revolutionary movement of the people, as this was the only means which was left to us to conquer our liberty and independence, inasmuch as the colonizing Government which was advised by the friars, was bent on denying us the very just reforms that we asked from it, disowning the most elemental rights of man. In challenging the patriotism of the Filipino people and clergy for direct participation in the war of independence, Aglipay unleashed the stirring words in the Manifesto Al Pueblo y Clero Filipinos on 19 August 1899, Visit the towns, the barrios and the countryside; enter homes, huts and workshops; preach the holy war of independence, speak of legitimate rights purposely ignored; tell them of injuries and injustices committed against our honour, our persons and our properties; tell them of the miseries, humiliations and agonies brought about by indifferences, and a hesitant and fainthearted attitude; teach them to respect human rights and the law; teach them love of country and the constant practice of justice and charity; encourage those terrorized and the uncommitted. Reminding them that material and heavenly goods are conquered by work and sacrifices; tell them to have confidence, for we shall overcome. In like manner, the IFIs Epistola II of 2 September 1902 states, Neither the leaf of a tree nor a single bird falls to the earth without the will of the heavenly Father (Mt. 10.29). Revolutions, therefore, are perfectly providential, and despite them causing us momentary disasters, they ultimately bring the far-reaching redemption and result in benefits that will bless many generations to come. They are like typhoons which, in the twinkling of an eye, destroy and erase secular vices and abuses, and their social upheavals, moreover, have this time been used by Divine Providence to castigate the errors of an

enthroned frailocracy, errors over which we now wish to draw the veil of merciful oblivion. Revolution as providential action is also ingrained in the political theology of the doctors of the faith, especially, St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas even encourages the idea that anyone who liberates his country from a tyrant is worthy to be praised and rewarded.13 Likewise, no one would disagree to John Lockes idea that in opposing an inimical system of society is acceptable in the sight of God for it is a fulfilment of Gods will for creation.14 Political leadership of a priest in any liberation movement can hardly deny if we accept Jeremiah into the canon of the Christian Scriptures. Likewise, the earthly Martyrs of the Christian Church disobeyed the inimical empires and accepted death rather than to become disloyal to God. Their action was not a rebellion against the oppressive empire or draconian state, but martyrdom for a Christian cause. What is inherent in an armed revolution is the issue of violence. However, God had legitimised the use of violence to free the Israelites from the unjust and oppressive hands of Pharaoh Rameses II of Egypt. God had slaughtered the first-born sons of the Egyptians to manifest His willto liberate His people from injustices and oppression in order to restore the dignity of His people. Indeed, God liberates his people from the bondage of oppression. But God no longer works through miracles as what He did for the deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of slavery. God works now through His people and of the Church, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As Hezekiah placed his faith in Gods strength and obeyed Gods commandment thus he was victorious in rebelling the whims of the mighty Assyrian empire because God was working in him. Thus, if the Church or a religious person works for social transformation even through an armed revolution, it is the Spirit of God that is working for the liberation of His people. Unsurprisingly and with this theological thought, no wonder why Christian symbols and forms were or continuously appropriated in the course Philippine struggle
13

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lambard, Bk. II, Dist. 44, Q. 2, Art. 2, in A.P.D. Etrews, (ed.); Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948) pp. 182-185. John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch. 16, Paragraph 196, edit. By J. W. Gaugh, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), p. 96.
14

10

for liberation from oppression. With the emergence of the working class and the spread of liberal ideas, popular Christianity in the Philippines progressively incorporated different secular elements into its basic worldview as a dimension of its struggle against the existing social order perpetuated by foreign domination and the local ruling class. Generally, in Aglipays time, the privileged class had a secular viewpoint of liberal capitalism, while the Filipino masses had the religious ideas of popular Christianity. Politically, the Filipino people were united in the struggle for national liberation and democracy. Organisationally, they were unified through the Katipunan, the armed revolutionary group during Aglipays time. The common enemies of the Filipino masses were the Spanish friars and, later, the American aggressors that symbolised feudal and colonial politics. Thus the struggle for economic and socio-political liberation was also entwined to the struggle for religious reform, which became the impetus for the establishment of the IFI. It is interesting to note that Aglipay fought against Spanish colonialism along with the members of the Masonry in the Philippines for national liberation. And when he accepted the leadership of the IFI, Aglipay struggled along with the leadership of the old Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) in the resistance movement against US imperialism. It is equally important to note then that in his letter to James Allen (April 8, 1937), Aglipay wrote with amazement, At last your books have arrived and the first one I read has already confirmed me in my convictions about communism And it gives me a thrill discovering that Lenin, Marx, Stalin and all the friends of the Proletariat are one with me in this.15 Remarkably, Aglipay was able to work with all walks of life and political belief even the so-called non-Christian believers without pretensions. It is quite clear to Aglipays direct contact with the members of the old CPP that the Church cannot be made means to fight against communism but its calling is to war against forces of darkness that reduce Gods people into nothingness. But its great tenets of human freedom and equality of opportunity are wholly Christian and must be fought for along

15

Allen (1993), p. 137.

11

with other people regardless of political belief and religious creed even non-believers that uphold these great Christian tenets. Possibly this is the essence of the IFIs Epistola VI, Revolutions are never made by halveshalf measures are counter-productive and lead us to nothing but ruin. With these, let us now look at the distinct contributions of Aglipay to the Theology of Struggle. Perhaps, some has been integrated already in the view points and standpoints in the Theology of Struggle, but it is necessary to talk about as to work out the theological thoughts of Aglipay. Bishop Gregorio Aglipay and the Theology of Struggle Poverty is not only a reality in the Philippines, but also of religiosity. Though a vow of poverty is a religious virtue; however, the Christian faith is also oriented to the abolition of imposed and tyrannical poverty in the Philippines today. In this manner, Aglipay highlighted a positive role for the Christian faith in liberation at a time when the religious and pious people tended to see only the alienating aspects of the Christian faith. Firstly, Aglipay had not only denounced the oppressive and unjust systems but also announced national freedom and liberation of the struggling poor and oppressed in the Philippine society. While denouncing the oppressive and unjust system of Spanish colonialism and American imperialism, Aglipay offered the resources of the Christian faith for the struggle of the Filipino people. Likewise, he did not only announce national freedom and liberation, but directly participated and worked closely with the masons and communists without any religious pretension at all. Seemingly, he did not only recognise the legitimacy of armed struggle but also accepted it as a legitimate option in the struggle for national liberation and democracy from foreign domination and domestic oppression. Secondly, Aglipay inextricably drove a wedge between the Church and State. While upholding the tenets of the separation of church and state, Aglipay had demonstrated that a Christian or a church people can effectively contribute to the struggle in order to uphold the peoples democratic right, and to assert and exercise sovereignty by any necessary means against national and class exploitation towards a better world of

12

freedom, justice, progress and peace. Likewise, he called the whole church, the clergy and lay people, to participate in the struggle for national liberation and democracy. Finally, Aglipay also worked for reforms within the churches to harness its moral and material resources for the peoples struggle for liberation. While institutional churches tend to legitimate the enforced socio-economic and political structures of the ruling class, Aglipay turned the Filipino church, especially the IFI, into the side of the popular struggle and brought about the desired renewal in the church through developing of progressive theology, demanding to eradicate the individualism and the sense of fatalism in religious culture, and empowering the faithful by calling a greater co-responsibility and equal participation in the ministry of the church. Obviously and importantly, he consciously linked these reforms within the Filipino church to the overall struggle of the Filipino people for national liberation and democracy. An Afterthought In resurrecting the experiences of Bishop Gregorio Aglipay y Labayan, it attests that while the Christian faith may tend to legitimate existing socio-economic and political structures, it also inspires prophecy and proposes an alternative vision of society, even at a popular level. On the other hand, the poor and the oppressed Filipino people are not unaware of their oppression or without a desire for change, but faith alone, however, cannot bring about that societal change. For that, there is a need for clear social analysis of the abject poverty of the Filipino masses and for more coherent socio-political mobilisations in the struggle for national liberation and democracy. Nonetheless, religious conviction can help, but the Filipino people, the masses, are the agents of their own liberation and transformation. #

13