Refamonte, Ma. Abigail D.

8,4
1:30-3:00MW 1/24/18
“The Last Spaniard”

I. Summary
This article is a satire that mocks the friars or religious personnel who were considered true Spaniards
because of their immorality. It ends with a conclusion that such people are the first enemies of a Filipino.

II. Highlights
 He was the most dangerous of men, one combining great power with a sense of mission, a self-justified
ruler and governor of souls and bodies.
 The Spanish friar was the true explorer and conqueror of the archipelago.
 This, then, was the great antagonist of the first Filipino.

III. Reaction

I am a Roman Catholic. I was fostered in a family that feeds on Scriptures, and thrives off prayers. As I
mature into years, I have decided to adhere to my Christian faith as faithfully as I have grown into one.
However, I’m also not blind about it. I am aware of the abuses that my ancestors endured in the hands of the
religious leaders who were supposed to walk in Christ-likeness. I am also aware of the immorality that they
lived and the contrasting life they had that was far from Christ’s mission. If anything, they seemed like the
religious orders that Jesus Christ had mocked Himself, whom He considered to be hypocrites.

I agree that such man is dangerous. He is blind to his immorality, and yet thrives on immense power. It’s
hard to disagree either, when such is the case portrayed by Jose Rizal over and over. Such religious man
may be bound to err, but the only difference with him from a regular man is that the former swore he
wouldn’t.

The friars were also great “explorers” evidenced by their regular missions to the different corners of the
country. However, I can’t agree that such is only because they seek to have someone “under” them. It’s hard
to reach such conclusion when one reads actual, first-hand accounts of the struggles of a missionary. They’re
always troubled with unyielding tribes, vicious uproars, or difficult living conditions when starting in a new
mission. Why then would they enjoy the missions if it’s anything but comfortable?

Moreover, are friars really the greatest antagonist of the Filipinos? Or are the rotten apples in the basket the
only ones? The thing is, we can’t say for sure that they were all abusers, especially when our opinions are
already tainted by revolutionary writings such as Rizal’s. I can’t say that all friars were evil, because I believe
that no one is inherently evil. This apple basket may contain a huge portion of rotten apples, but I believe
some good ones also exist. Why then are only abuses enumerated in historical writings? How else do you
fuel a revolution if you include some praises for the good ones in your writings?

I would like to end this by saying what I’ve been taught about erring religious officials – these people are
anointed servants of God. What they do in their lifetime, they are accountable to God Himself; but how we
react, respect, and hold them as, we are also held accountable for such actions to God Himself.