AGLIPAY MEMORIAL LECTURE

Bishop Gregorio Aglipay’s Contribution to theTheology 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.

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

This Aglipay Memorial Lecture was delivered by Rev’d 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.

1 The Katipunan is the Kataastaasang Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (Highest and Most Respected Sons of the People).

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

1

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 Aglipay’s

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 Aglipay’s 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

Aglipay’s 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.

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 “breathes…the palpable essence of social

2

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 down—the 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 (Aglipay’s) 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

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).

3 Santiago Lopez, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay y la Religion del Porvenir [Cronica de una historia reunion], Manila, February 1936, 4.6.

4 James Allen, The Philippine Left in the Eve of World War II, (Minneapolis: MEP Publication, 1993), p. 43.

5 DRC, Second Part, Chapter I, Section.

3

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 God’s 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

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 (Aglipay’s) 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

6 Lopez (1936), p. 8.7 DRC, Chap. II, 3.

4

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 people’s 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

existing regime that were inimical to God’s 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

8 Allen (1993), p. 42.9 Loc. cit.10 A letter dated 28 January 1937.

5

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 praxis—a power that transforms the world in accordance to God’s purposes. It

stresses that man (humanity) was born with all rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and

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).

11 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).

12 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.

6

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 sycophant—a 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

7

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.”

8

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 IFI’s 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

9

rewarded.13 Likewise, no one would disagree to John Locke’s idea that in opposing an

inimical system of society is acceptable in the sight of God for it is a fulfilment of God’s

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 will—to 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 God’s strength and obeyed God’s 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

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 Aglipay’s time, the privileged class had a secular viewpoint of liberal

capitalism, while the Filipino masses had the religious ideas of popular Christianity.

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.

14 John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch. 16, Paragraph 196, edit. By J. W. Gaugh, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), p. 96.

10

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 Aglipay’s 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

Aglipay’s 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 God’s people into ‘nothingness’. But its great tenets of human

freedom and equality of opportunity are wholly Christian and must be fought for along

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 IFI’s Epistola

VI, “Revolutions are never made by halves…half 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

15 Allen (1993), p. 137.

11

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 people’s democratic right, and to assert and exercise sovereignty

by any necessary means against national and class exploitation towards a better world of

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 people’s 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

12

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