Secularisation

Secularisation (or secularization) is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward non-religious (or "irreligious") values and secular institutions. Secularization thesis refers to the belief that as societies "progress", particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance. The term secularization is also used in the context of the lifting of the monastic restrictions from a member of the clergy

Secularization has many levels of meaning, both as a theory and a historical process. Social theorists such as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim, postulated that the modernization of society would include a decline in levels of religiosity. Study of this process seeks to determine the manner in which, or extent to which religious creeds, practices and institutions are losing social significance. Some theorists argue that the secularization of modern civilization partly results from our inability to adapt broad ethical and spiritual needs of mankind to the increasingly fast advance of the physical sciences.

The term also has additional meanings, primarily historical. Applied to church property, secularization involves the abandonment of goods by the church where it is sold to purchasers after the government seizes the property, which most commonly happens after reasonable negotiations and arrangements are made. In Catholic theology, the term can also denote the permission or authorization given for an individual (typically clergy, who become secular clergy) to live outside his or her religious colony (monastery), either for a fixed or permanent period. 

The Secularization Controversy

Two kinds of priests served the Catholic Church in the Philippines. These were the regulars and the seculars. Regular priests belonged to religious orders. Their main task was to spread Christianity. Examples were the Franciscans, Recollects, Dominicans, and Augustinians. Secular priests did not belong to any religious order. They were trained specifically to run the parishes and were under the supervision of the bishops.

Conflict began when the bishops insisted on visiting the parishes that were being run by regular priests. It was their duty, they argued, to check on the administration of these parishes. But the regular priests refused these visits, saying that they were not under the bishop’s jurisdiction. They threatened to abandon their parishes if the bishops persisted.

In 1774, Archbishop Basilio Santa Justa decided to uphold the diocese’s authority over the parishes and accepted the resignations of the regular priests. He assigned secular priests to take their place. Since there were not enough seculars to fill all the vacancies the Archbishop hastened the ordination of Filipino seculars. A royal decree was also issued on November 9, 1774, which provided for the secularization of all parishes or the transfer of parochial administration from the regular friars to the secular priests.

The regulars resented the move because they considered the Filipinos unfit for the priesthood. Among other reasons they cited the Filipinos’ brown skin, lack of education, and inadequate experience.

The controversy became more intense when the Jesuits returned to the Philippines. They had been exiled from the country because of certain policies of the order that the Spanish authorities did not like.

The issue soon took on a racial slant. The Spaniards were clearly favouring their own regular priest over Filipino priests.

Monsignor Pedro Pelaez, ecclesiastical governor of the Church, sided with the Filipinos. Unfortunately, he died in an earthquake that destroyed the Manila Cathedral in 1863. After his death, other priests took his place in fighting for the secularization movement.  Among them were Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora. 

Secularization is a process by which the society is slowly transforming from that having close identification with the religious institution to a more separated relationship. This was considered to be the dawn of Philippine Nationalism, particularly after the execution of Gomburza.

The Gomburza headed the secularization movement. They advocated the right of the Filipino secular clergy over the assignment of parishes rather than giving them to the newly arrived Spanish friars in the country. The seculars were those who were not bound by monastic vows or rules. They were discriminated by the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans and Recollects. The Filipino priests then were assigned as assistants to Spanish friars.

Secularism began in 1861 when the parishes of Mindanao originally managed by the Recollect friars were handed to the Jesuits. The Jesuits were expelled from the Philippines in 1768 because of the conflict they had between the European leaders. However, they returned to the country in 1861 and regain power over the Mindanao parishes from the Recollects who took over during their absence. The Recollects were bestowed the parishes of Manila and Cavite by the colonial government to appeased their loss. The original administrators of the parishes, the Filipino secular priests, naturally protested.

Religious movements such as the cofradía and colorums expressed an inchoate desire of their members to be rid of the Spanish and discover a promised land that would reflect memories of a world that existed before the coming of the colonists. Nationalism in the modern sense developed in an urban context, in Manila and the major towns and, perhaps more significantly, in Spain and other parts of Europe where Filipino students and exiles were exposed to modern intellectual currents. Folk religion, for all its power, did not form the basis of the national ideology. Yet the millenarian tradition of rural revolt would merge with the Europeanized nationalism of the ilustrados to spur a truly national resistance, first against Spain in 1896 and then against the Americans in 1899.

Following the Spanish revolution of September 1868, in which the unpopular Queen Isabella II was deposed, the new government appointed General Carlos María de la Torre governor of the Philippines. An outspoken liberal, de la Torre extended to Filipinos the promise of reform. In a break with established practice, he fraternized with Filipinos, invited them to the governor's palace, and rode with them in official processions. Filipinos in turn welcomed de la Torre warmly, held a "liberty parade" to celebrate the adoption of the liberal 1869 Spanish constitution, and established a reform committee to lay the foundations of a new order. Prominent among de la Torre's supporters in Manila were professional and business leaders of the ilustrado community and, perhaps more significantly, Filipino secular priests. These included the learned Father José Burgos, a Spanish mestizo, who had published a pamphlet, Manifesto to the Noble Spanish Nation, criticizing those racially prejudiced Spanish who barred Filipinos from the priesthood and government service. For a brief time, the tide seemed to be turning against the friars. In December 1870, the archbishop of Manila, Gregorio Melitón Martínez, wrote to the Spanish regent advocating secularization and warning that discrimination against Filipino priests would encourage anti-Spanish sentiments.

According to historian Austin Coates, "1869 and 1870 stand distinct and apart from the whole of the rest of the period as a time when for a brief moment a real breath of the nineteenth century penetrated the Islands, which till then had been living largely in the seventeenth century." De la Torre abolished censorship of newspapers and legalized the holding of public demonstrations, free speech, and assembly--rights guaranteed in the 1869 Spanish constitution. Students at the University of Santo Tomás formed an association, the Liberal Young Students (Juventud Escolar Liberal), and in October 1869 held demonstrations protesting the abuses of the university's Dominican friar administrators and teachers.

The liberal period came to an abrupt end in 1871. Friars and other conservative Spaniards in Manila managed to engineer the replacement of de la Torre by a more conservative figure, Rafael de Izquierdo, who, following his installation as governor in April 1871, reimposed the severities of the old regime. He is alleged to have boasted that he came to the islands "with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other." Liberal laws were rescinded, and the enthusiastic Filipino supporters of de la Torre came under political suspicion.

The heaviest blow came after a mutiny on January 20, 1872, when about 200 Filipino dockworkers and soldiers in Cavite Province revolted and killed their Spanish officers, apparently in the mistaken belief that a general uprising was in progress among Filipino regiments in Manila. Grievances connected with the government's revocation of old privileges--particularly exemption from tribute service--inspired the revolt, which was put down by January 22. The authorities, however, began weaving a tale of conspiracy between the mutineers and prominent members of the Filipino community, particularly diocesan priests. The governor asserted that a secret junta, with connections to liberal parties in Spain, existed in Manila and was ready to overthrow Spanish rule.

A military court sentenced to death the three Filipino priests most closely associated with liberal reformism--José Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora--and exiled a number of prominent ilustrados to Guam and the Marianas (then Spanish possessions), from which they escaped to carry on the struggle from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Europe. Archbishop Martínez requested that the governor commute the priests' death sentences and refused the governor's order that they be defrocked. Martínez's efforts were in vain, however, and on February 17, 1872, they were publicly executed with the brutal garrote on the Luneta (the broad park facing Manila Bay). The archbishop ordered that Manila church bells toll a requiem for the victims, a requiem that turned out to be for Spanish rule in the islands as well. Although a policy of accommodation would have won the loyalty of peasant and ilustrado alike, intransigence--particularly on the question of the secularization of the clergy--led increasing numbers of Filipinos to question the need for a continuing association with Spain.

The Secularization Issue and the Execution of Gomburza

The Manila Cathedral was witness to the movement to Filipinize parishes and to the tragic aftermath of its persecution. The issue of secularization in the Philippines had long been a source of conflict among the religious regulars and church seculars. Among those who advocated strongly for the rights of the secular clergy were Fathers Pedro Pelaez of the Manila Cathedral and Mariano Gomez of Cavite .

Archbishop Meliton Martinez, bothered by the unrest among the seculars over the usurpation of the parishes by the regulars, wrote in 1870 to Marshal Francisco Serrano, who was regent of Spain , reporting:

“The tranquility of his diocese…was frequently disturbed as a result of the practice…of turning over curacies administered by the secular clergy to the religious corporations. This policy is the cause of ever growing enmity which is becoming more and more manifest between seculars and regulars, and which sooner or later, may bring lamentable results to our beloved Spain .”

A few years later, on January 20, 1872 , a mutiny broke out at the Cavite Arsenal over the unreasonable deductions in the salaries of the arsenal workers due to Gov. Gen. Izquierdo’s new tax imposition. Sympathizers for the workers mutineed that night causing the death of Sgt. La Madrid , the mutiny leader, and the fort commander whose wife was also injured.

The Spanish authorities used this incident as an excuse to implicate those who were advocating religious reforms by connecting them to a separatist conspiracy. Thus, the government arrested Fr. Gomez, along with the outspoken advocate of secularization, Fr. Jose Burgos, a young doctor of canon law, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora. They were healed to a one-sided trial and publicly executed by mechanical strangulation at Bagumbayan on February 17, 1872 .

Archbishop Meliton Martinez privately sympathized with the struggle of the Filipino clergy. Although he threatened the three priests with excommunication in his pastoral letter, he refused to defrock them as requested by the governor general. Instead he even ordered the tolling of the bells of the churches of manila as a funeral dirge for the three martyr priests whom he saw as mere scapegoats against the rising tide of Filipino nationalism.

In keeping with the treatment of the enemies of the state, the corpses of the three Filipino priests were clandestinely taken to the Paco cemetery and were dumped in a common unmarked grave.

The Philippines is probably one of the most dramatic examples, if not the most dramatic example, of a modernizing Asian country seeking to rediscover its cultural identity. In asking basic questions as to what would be a better future for the nation, or whether such is even possible, the Philippine case appears to be an interesting study of how religion is used in imperialistic designs over less developed countries. (LDCs).

In the Philippine case, modernization could hardly be divorced from Westernization since its colonial history indeed propelled the very notion of nationhood and then of national independence from its colonial masters as a component or prerequisite of modernization. It is the common colonial exploitation and subservience that tied together the once disunited and unorganized clusters of semi-independent settlements that had then no particular consciousness of a common Philippine nationhood. The Philippines, in fact, acquired its name and its contemporary majority religion as a result of the actual occupation and colonization of the islands in the latter part of the 16th century.

The arrival in Philippine waters of Ferdinand Magellan on 17 March 1521 is traditionally dated as the beginning of the Spanish period. The Spanish intrusion in this part of Asia was a result of the rivalry between the Portuguese and the Spaniards in exploration of the non-European world. Between them, the world was divided by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 with the issuance of Inter caetera (a papal bull) drawing a demarcation line so that all lands lying one hundred leagues west of the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands were to belong to Spain, and those east, to Portugal. Since the Pope, Alejandro Borja, was a Spaniard and expected to favor the Spaniards, the papal bull was somehow suspect to the Portuguese. The Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 between the two powers thus moved the demarcation line 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. In 1529 the Treaty of Zaragoza extended the demarcation line and defined it in the Pacific at 297 1/2 leagues east of the Moluccas, with Spain gaining the right of ownership and settlement over lands east of this line. Interestingly, the Philippines even lay unquestionably within the Portuguese side of the demarcation line. Moreover, its acquisition was facilitated by the proceeds of the sale of whatever right Spain may have had over the Moluccas, except that the Moluccas actually lay within the Portuguese sphere of influence.

This pattern of deceit and religious-political intrigue become the leitmotif of the Spanish occupation and its imperialistic exploitation of the Filipinos. Religious interventions in political matters were justified by the principle of union of church and state which previously laid the foundation or rationale of the Spanish conquista -- that of "civilizing and Christianizing" such pagan lands initially assigned by fiat of the Pope. This led to encroachments by the ambitious and avaricious friars of the Catholic Church on jurisdictions of the civil government. Due to the short tenure of civil officials and the clergy's relative advantage of actual presence and knowledge of the local languages and possession of the technology of colonization, the Spanish friars became virtually the most visible element of stability and continuity of Spanish sovereignty in the rest of the Philippines outside of Manila. The civil officials, moreover, tended to be concentrated in Manila alone.

The friars' systematic exploitation and interference in the political, economic, and social life of the people made their domination so pervasive and oppressive that Filipino propagandists and reformists demanded their explusion from the Philippines. The contrary principle of separation of church and state thus became one of the constitutional principles that survived the Malolos Congress which was convened on 15 September 1898 to draft a Constitution for the First Philippine Republic. Even the subsequent war with the United States, and the defeat of the First Republic, did not change that historic commitment. In the Philippine context, "secularization" meant merely "nationalizing" the Catholic Church by replacing the friars with native secular priests. This was a reaction to the Spanish friars who were perceived as obstacles to education, progress, and freedom. The Filipino rebels against the Spanish actually had to fight two battles -- one against the Spanish, and the other against the Americans, who had initially led them to believe they were allies against Spain.

The American colonial period, which followed after some three centuries of Spanish rule, is officially dated as starting on 1 May 1898 with one-sided naval battle resulting in the destruction of Admiral Patricio Montojo's fleet of Spanish ships in Manila Bay by then Commodore George Dewey. Dewey, who was maneuvered into position as the American Asiatic Squadron by then Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, Sr., was even promoted to Rear Admiral for this naval victory.

The taking of Manila, however, involved more deceit and treachery. A mock battle was staged to save Castillian face or honor, while at the same time excluding the Filipino rebels from participating in the "liberation" of Manila. This colonial phrase of the Philippines was thus no better than the preceding one, in that design, deceit, and division were the same techniques used in dominating and exploiting the Philippine population in the name of their own brand of Christianity, in the case of the Americans, the various Protestant varieties.

That the American soldier used education as an enticement -- education having been virtually denied the Filipinos by the Spanish friars -- was a master stroke of colonial innovation. This had the consequence of having certain ideas and norms infused in the culture and values of the Filipinos even up to the present day. This is often the contemporary "demon" denounced and demanded to be "exorcised" by the present-day radicals in their analysis of what they call the "neo-colonial" aspect of Philippine culture, including the so-called "miseducation" of the Filipinos.

The apocryphal story of President William McKinley's having been told by God to "take the Philippines", and the assignment by General Arthur MacArthur of chaplains and non-commissioned officers to teach even before civil government was established, illustrate once more the role of religion in colonization. Emphasized here were the virtues enshrined in the Protestant ethic, so basic to the development of capitalism, while at the same time avoiding the establishment of a state church which is anathema to most Protestant sects. The establishment of a secularized public school system and the use of English as a medium of instruction and communication laid the foundations of a continuing Westernized direction to Philippine modernization, and an insidious acceptance of American values and models of development, notwithstanding gross differences in history, culture and resource bases.

Secularization, taken in its broadest sense, means the increase in the worldly, the temporal, or non-church functions or activities. Thus, it is only an added "political" dimension stressing greater participation where the original "religious" dimension was confounded with an authoritarian, exclusivistic, and special interest group characteristic. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the combination of these "political" and "religious" dimensions, resulting in a single "circular continuum," where secularization is merely an alternative to the church-state relation: (1) union, typical of less modern nations (at least, as defined by the West); and (2) separation of church and state, said to be typical of modern and modernizing states (at least, insofar as Christianity is concerned).

In the non-Christian part of the Philippines, and in the rest of Asia, religion is not of the exclusivist and intolerant variety. It occurs in many forms -- there are the essentially metaphysical or "other-worldly" religions; there are the religions that so pervade the very life of the people, or which provide the inner discipline of the individual to provide him with a strong moral foundation; or even the pantheistic or the animist varieties; or any combination of these. It is not uncommon to see these religious strains mixed, not only with one another, but even with social and political doctrines, with the resulting combinations confusing to Westerners. Ironically, Christianity, although Asian in origin, became so Westernized that it had difficulty being diffused in Asia as its other great religions. Its penetration of the Asian world appears limited at the rim, the Philippines being on the eastern side, from which Catholic and Protestant missions were often launched into the heartland of Asia.

Although safeguarding the principle of separation of church and state in the Philippines and preserving the secular outlook of education, the American colonial administration virtually obliterated native ideas, customs and traditions, and even the national cultural identity of the Filipinos. "Modernization" hence continued to mean "Westernization", just as "civilization" under the Spaniards meant "Christianization." The contemporary search, therefore, for a national cultural identity of the Filipino has often been therefore branded as "anti-clerical" or "anti-Spanish," "anti-American" or "anti-colonial," depending on what political or historical "demon" the ideologist or ideologue may wish to "exorcise" from the system. Even secularization is no defense against the monastic influence that still pervades the social and cultural life of the people.

Even though officially Christian, even Catholic Filipinos actually continue to practice paganistic rituals not only in rural but in urban areas as well. Paganization of Catholic devotions has even been commercialized as tourist attractions, so that the evolution of a "folk Christianity," often proscribed from the pulpit, generally persists despite incessant evangelization efforts of Catholic and Protestant missionaries. Of course, as long as the West defines modernization in its own image, such syncretic combinations will be regarded as "pre-modern," and their excoriation demanded as a "price" for modernization.

Conceptually, religion can mean not only the organized doctrine, ritual and practice in or by a collective, but also the unorganized set of values, beliefs, and norms that are accepted on faith by an individual. It may include or involve a faith in, and/or worship of, a deity or deities, and it could mean a devotedness or dedication to a holy life, no matter how defined. In this case, the issue of religions and secularity in Asia is hard put to be resolved on the issue of modernization. Religion and the religious influence are so pervasive in Asia that secularization often means not a rejection, but a repudiation of a decadent clergy who have become exploitative, rigidly formalist, and standing in the way of genuine spiritual development. This was the experience of the Philippines, both in the failure of some nationalist native clergy to form a Philippine national church and in the conversion of only a small percentage of Filipinos to Protestantism by the American missionaries. It was materialism, which perhaps reflects the American colonial heritage much more, and the acceptance of the Western models of modernization that make it difficult for the contemporary Filipino who is interested in rediscovering his national cultural identity.

The "essence" of modernization should not be confused with its "accidents," one of which is its Western location or identification by Western culture-bound writers. But if "modernization" is defined as "a dynamic form of social and technological innovation resulting from the knowledge explosion in recent times," or as " the process by which historically-evolved institutions adapt to the rapidly changing environments, taking on new and growing functions that are consequences of unprecedented increases in man's knowledge, permitting control in turn, over these same environments," one can avoid the mistake of equating it with "Westernization." "Westernization" could be one form, but not the only form of modernization.

The complexity and interrelatedness of all aspects of the modernization process is perhaps better appreciated in a holistic and syncretic manner, rather than in the mutually exclusivistic perspective of the West and its religions. The line between religions and secularization is not quite that clearly drawn in Asian societies. For in the experience of some Asian nations, both have been instruments for "modernization," although under colonial ventures both have been eschewed as unacceptable. Thus, the search for rediscovering one's national cultural identity has to involve an analysis of the impact of religion and sacred values on modernization as well as the reactions of religion to the challenges of modernization. It is this holistic syncretic and eclectic approach, which is typical of Asia, that can satisfy the Kukugaku-type scholars in their search for national self-determination in pursuit of modernization. In the Philippines, we at the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines have taken on the task of establishing stronger linkages with our Asian neighbors, relating to our own rediscovery of our cultural identity from a perspective of international cooperation.

Prior to the execution of the three Filipino martyrs, there had been an unresolved issue about secularization in the Philippines that resulted a conflict among the religious regulars and the church seculars. Father Mariano Gomez was a strong advocate of the rights of the secular clergy.

Father Jose Burgos, however, was liberal and had strong nationalist views. He went for ecclesiastic reforms to empower native clergy, the reason he became a target of opposition by Roman Catholic authorities.

Father Jacinto Zamora, on the otherhand, loved playing cards. No one knew about this except his playmates. Unfortunately, on the day of the Cavite Revolt, Father Zamora received an invitation that said, his friend has "Powder and Munitions." In a gambler's language, Powder and munitions meant they had much money to gamble. This invitation fell into the Spanish hands. This invitation is one of the reasons why the Spaniards blamed the three priests.

1. Martyrdom of GomBurza

During the Spanish era there were two kinds of priests: the regular and the secular. The regular were the Spanish priests trained and studied in seminaries in Spain belonging to the major missionary order like Jesuits, Recollects, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Benedictines while the secular were Filipino priests studied and trained in the seminaries in the Philippines.

The secular priest were Filipino priests trained in the Philippines and were considered inferior and given limited assignments. They were not allowed to hold parishes. Due to this kind of treatment, the seculars boldly clamored and demanded for an equal responsibilities and assignments as clergies. This was known as the secularization issue headed by Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora. Somehow, they were able to get the sympathy of some Filipinos, which alarmed the Spanish authorities. This crusade became also an issue of Filipinization.

On January 20, 1872, the same year of the emergence of the controversial secularization issue, Cavite mutiny took place. It was a mutiny spearheaded by Lt. La Madrid, in-charged of Spanish arsenal, who was disgruntled because of abolition of their benefits including forced labor and tax exemptions by the reactionary Governor General Rafael de Izquirdo. The Cavite mutiny was failure and easily subdued within two days. The Spanish authorities was able to get a chance to silence the GomBurZa in their secularization crusade by having them implicated as plotters of the Cavite mutiny.

Consequently the GomBurZa were executed despite of archbishops’s plea for clemency because of their innocence. Mounted fabricated evidences and false witnesses sent them to garrote on February 17, 1872. It was considered martyrdom by the Rizal family and some patriotic Filipinos in the Philippines.

Paciano was a friend, teacher and housemate of Fr. Jose Burgos while he was studying in Colegio de San Jose in Manila. He was deeply affected with the execution of his friend. As a sympathy and protest against the injustice of Spanish authorities, he quit studies and went back to Calamba. He aired out his remorse by telling and retelling the heroic stories of Fr. Burgos to his family. He came to realize the injustice and racial discrimination in the Philippines.