THE FILIPINO AND THE FRIAR.
By Editor
FOR several weeks the Philippine commission, sitting at Manila, has been giving hearings to the Filipino Catholics on the one side, and the Catholic archbishops and friars on the other, on the vexed question of the title to the property held by the friars in the islands. As indicative of the political methods used by the church officials in accomplishing their ends in this matter, we quote the following from the New York Evening Post, being an extract from the letter of a Manila correspondent:— “Archbishop Chapelle is taking an active hand in affairs, and now claims that he secured the recall of Otis. He has warmly championed the side of the friars, but church matters have not progressed except for several decrees from Otis depriving the priests of immunities and privileges they had enjoyed under Spanish laws. He and Chapelle had an animated correspondence, Chapelle reminding Otis that it was most important to President McKinley that matters be adjusted satisfactorily to the Catholics before election, and Otis replying: ‘You are a priest and I am a soldier. I did not know that it was the business of either to concern himself about elections.’” With the matter of General Otis' recall we have nothing to say; but it is certain that had the archbishop been as well acquainted with the requirements of true Gospel work as General Otis with the requirements of his position, no such well-aimed rebuke would have been necessary. It is quite impossible to imagine Jesus holding over the head of Pilate or Herod such a political threat as is implied in the archbishop's reminder to the general. That reminder implies an influence at the White House which might work to the general's disadvantage. General Otis saw the challenge and accepted it. He is now in the United States. Something of the real feeling of the Filipinos in regard to the friars is shown in the correspondence of Mr. Harold Martin, the representative of the Associated Press in Manila. Mr. Martin has been residing and touring in the islands for twelve months, and declares that he has not met a single native but what desires that the friars be expelled. He says they do not ask for the curtailment of the friars' power, nor for their regulation, but always emphatically for their expulsion; and that, tho as loyal Catholics as ever, they look upon Archbishop Chapelle simply as “one friar more,” so ardent is he in advocating the friars' claims. This is an anomaly that could be found only in a State-fostered religion; for in none other could the demands of the church officials be forced upon the people; and no religion but a State-fostered one could hold sway over the people while its demands were so obnoxious to them. The principle of force, compulsion, which is here exemplified, is diametrically opposed to the principles of the Christian religion. The one is the whipping-in principle; the other, the lifting, drawing principle. The one scourges; the other pleads. The one drives its adherents into the bearing of heavy burdens; the other says, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The Filipinos are crying for rest from the heavy burdens they have been compelled to bear through the exactions of the friars and other Catholic orders. Were that church the “body of Christ,” then it would voluntarily strip off the yoke, and undo the heavy burden. The Filipino is not asking the friars to give him their coat or cloak, but to return his. But with all the power of the church against him, coupled with the power of the present civil rulers, it is safe to say he will never get it. The need of the world for the true Gospel of Christ, both in preaching and practise, was never greater than it is to-day. C. M. S.