Joint Pastoral Letter on Catholic Education

Joint Pastoral Letter

on Catholic Education

Mindful of our responsibilities to the little ones of our flock, and conscious of the
pressing obligations of our office, we address this joint pastoral letter on the
Catholic education of youth, to our faithful people.
Twenty-five years ago Pius XI of glorious memory spoke to the whole Catholic
world on the Christian Education of youth. The educational problems which
occasioned the appearance of that Papal Encyclical are pressing upon us in the
Philippines more than ever today.
Leaving to parents, school administrators and teachers the fruitful task of
studying once again in its entirety the Papal Encyclical on the Christian
Education of youth, we will limit ourselves here to the recalling of some of its
salient truths and to the application of them to the concrete circumstances of the
Philippines today.
The Nature of Christian Education
Christian Education is integral education, for it takes cognizance of the whole
man all his powers, all his needs, all his strivings. It seeks to develop the
physical, mental and moral faculties of the child in such a harmonious way that
he may be prepared not only for the pursuit of happiness in this life, but
especially for external happiness in the life to come. It trains mans intellect in
right habits of thought and enriches it with the truths about God and man that are
our cultural and religious heritage. It directs the will by holding before it worthy
ideals and powerful, lasting motives for right human conduct. It disciplines mans
emotional powers by subjecting them to a will motivated by Christian principles
and by forming them in habits of appreciation for what is the truly good and the
truly beautiful.
Such an education enables man to live not in some imaginary world, but in this
world. It prepares a man for his particular calling, and disposes him to achieve
an excellent personal and social life within the framework of that calling. By thus
training him for the proper conduct of life in this world, it prepares him for
everlasting life in Heaven.
The Use of the Necessary Means
To accomplish these exalted aims, Christian Education utilizes all the necessary
means. The best methods known to man for training the youth through the arts,
sciences and humanities are not only utilized by the Christian educator, but in a
special way, owe their development to the Catholic Church. Even from the
merely natural viewpoint, Christian Education is surpassed by no other system

of education in the success with which it trains the youth for the making of a
living and the living of a life for the living of a happy useful life in this world, in
this human society, in this nation. Nor does the Christian educator rest content
with the natural methods he has thus far devised. He knows that education, like
the student himself, is capable of greater and greater perfection. He is alert to
the value of new ideas and new methods. He will, however, remove from them
any evil exaggerations to which they may be prone and convert them to the
greater glory of God.
But a natural view of man and his education is a very incomplete view, yes, a
distorted view. No education is truly integral unless, by supernatural means, it
develops in the youth supernatural life and thus directs him to his supernatural
end. This is the necessary element in true education and the distinctive feature
of Christian education. The child is taught the truths of the supernatural religion
founded by Jesus Christ. They, and they alone provide him with adequate
motives for right moral conduct; they purify the mind, chasten the heart, tame the
passions and give strength to the will. Jesus Christ becomes the Model of the
child; imitating Him, he acquires virtue. And the use of all the means for
acquiring divine grace, through prayer and the sacraments, is an essential part
of Christian Education. Without this grace man cannot attain his true happiness
to which education is supposed to lead him. Without this grace, he cannot
properly develop his moral faculties. With it, he can become the well-integrated
man of which modern educators speak with evident admiration. The Papal
Encyclical presents this doctrine clearly in this classic description:
The proper and immediate end of Christian education is to
cooperate with divine grace in forming the true and perfect Christian,
that is, to form Christ Himself in those regenerated by baptism The
true Christian, product of Christian education, is the super-natural man
who thinks, judges, and acts constantly and consistently in
accordance with right reason illuminated by the supernatural light of
the example and teaching of Christ; in other words, to use the
current terms, the true and finished man of character.
In the Home
Christian education must begin in the home. The most important role in education
belongs to the parents. It is during the plastic years of infancy that the foundation for
future Christian character is laid. The parents who have given life to their children have
not finished when they have brought them into this world. They are bound to rear their
children and to watch over them with loving care, to train them and develop their latent
powers. Thus they are educators in the true meaning of the term. They educate their
children by word and by example. From them, the children learn first of God and of the
things of God, of His Commandments, of His love for them and of their need for Him.
By imitating the example of Christian mother and Christian father the children become

more like to Christ. Words enlighten their minds and example draws their heart. Parents
who neglect their duty as educators must one day render an awful account before Gods
tribunal.
In the School
But the parents cannot provide for the full Christian education of their children within the
narrow confines of the home. Their parental responsibility impels them to seek in a
school the completion of the Christian education begun in the home.
In the concrete circumstances of the Philippines today, there are four types of schools
which profess to aid parents in the education of youth: the Catholic school, the Private
schools of other religious groups, the non-sectarian private school and the public
schools. It is of the utmost importance for the salvation of youth and the glory of God
that not only parents but also all Catholics clearly understand their obligations and duties
relative to all these types of schools.
The Catholic School
The Christian education of youth, as we have already described it, is the proper function
of the Catholic School. The objectives of Christian education are the objectives of the
Catholic School; the means for accomplishing these objectives are present in sufficient
abundance only within the Catholic School. We know from sad experience that an
integral Christian education is ordinarily attainable, as a matter of fact, only in the school
operating under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Only in such a school can purity of
Christian doctrine be preserved; only in such a school is there the general Christian
atmosphere, the daily sacramental life, the consistent Christ-like example of teachers and
guides, the text-books and curriculum permeated with a Christian spirit that are requisites
for a truly Christian education.
It follows that Catholic parents, on whom is the serious obligation to procure the
Christian education of their children, have the duty to send their children to Catholic
schools whenever their financial status allows them to do so. This obligation, confirmed
by the positive prescriptions of Canon Law and reiterated by the Supreme Pontiffs,
carries with it the correlative right in the parents to send their children to Catholic
schools. This right is based on natural law; it is confirmed by positive Divine law, and it
is recognized by the Constitution of the Philippines.
We have added to our above statement on parental obligation the proviso: whenever
their financial status allows them to do so. It is unfortunately the fact that some parents,
due to no fault of their own, are prevented by financial reasons from sending their
children to Catholic schools. Let us here caution parents not to lightly assume that his
condition is verified in their case; let them remember that they must answer to God, not
to men. But granted that such is often the case, this necessity gives rise to certain

obligations on the other Catholics of the Philippines.

According to their respective capacities, the Catholics of the nation, clergy and laity
alike, should do everything possible to increase the number of Catholic schools and to
bring their Christian education within the financial means of all Catholic parents. That
even the present inadequate number of Catholic schools is able to continue in existence
under their tremendous financial burdens, is due in large measure to the self-sacrifice of
our secular clergy and of the religious congregations of men and women which conduct
so many of these schools. Proportionate sacrifice on the part of other Catholics would
greatly extend the benefits of Christian education.
Let all realize that the Catholic schools of the nation, without benefit of support by public
funds, are making a tremendous contribution to the education of Philippine youth and are
thus of great benefit to our beloved Republic. They are unsurpassed in the type of
education which they give to the youth even if viewed from a purely secular viewpoint.
Any measure which would hamper the Catholic schools in the pursuit of their rightful
educational objectives, is a disservice to the cause of Filipino nationalism; its effect is to
impede the parents of the nation in the exercise of their God-given and constitutional
right to obtain for their children an integral Christian education. With full realization of
these rights, the Catholics of the nation will defend their Catholic schools with the same
unselfish patriotism, far-seeing wisdom and courage, and for the same ultimate reasons,
as they would defend their homes and their altars.
Private Schools of other Religious Groups
Little remains to be said about the Catholics duties relative to the private schools
conducted under the auspices of other sectarian groups. Canon Law (1374) expressly
forbids Catholic children to attend these non-Catholic schools. The reasons for this
prohibition are clear from what we have already said about the nature and means of an
integral Christian education and the obligation of parents to provide it for their children.
Only the Bishop of the Diocese can permit an exception in particular cases, and this only
for weighty and sufficient reasons.
The Non-Sectarian Private Schools
Many Catholic children are in private schools not under the auspices of the Catholic
Church nor of any religious group. The extent to which the education imparted in these
schools falls short of the requirements for an integral Christian education varies greatly in
degree. If the Catholic parents of these children are unable, because of circumstances, to
send their children to Catholic shools, there remains upon them the obligation to see that
the education of their offspring approximates as nearly as possible the conditions of
Christian education. They must intensify their educational efforts in the home and use all
possible means to improve the education in the school in question. For similar reasons,
the Catholic owners, administrators and teachers in these schools should do all in their
respective powers to remedy the situation. In this connection, we warmly commend the

zealous efforts of Chaplains, faculty members, Catholic Action groups and other
individuals and organizations engaged in apostolic work in some of these institutions.
May their efforts increase and prosper to the greater glory of God.
The Public School
That no Catholic parent should be compelled to send his child to a public school is
perfectly obvious. On this subject, the Papal Encyclical on the Christian Education of
Youth expresses the doctrine in this fashion:
Accordingly, unjust and unlawful is any monopoly, educational or
scholastic, which, physically or morally, forces families to make use of
government schools contrary to their Christian conscience, or contrary even
to their legitimate preference.
Actually, however, a large percentage, indeed, the vast majority of our Catholic children
are attending the public schools. Almost four fifths of our Filipino children go to the
public schools. In most cases the compelling cause is economic.
It is therefore evident, that our pastoral solicitude should be concerned, most of all, with
our children who are forced to attend the public schools. We cannot remain unconcerned
about the spiritual welfare and eternal destiny of these little ones. We cannot stand idly
by and see them grow up as lost sheep, with false notions of Almighty God, with little
knowledge of Jesus Christ and His commandments, with no love for the Virgin Mary and
woefully ignorant of religious truths and fundamental moral principles. We must not
delude ourselves into thinking that training in good manners or ethical culture or a
course in religion in general can adequately supply for training in the doctrine and
religious moral principles of their Catholic Faith.
In his farewell address, Washington gave these words of wisdom to the American
people. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on
minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.
Good manners cannot replace morality. Men must be governed by God, or they will be
ruled by tyrants. Moral religious principles are necessary to hold in check the passions
of men. When these safeguards are thrown away there is no force capable of curbing the
rapacity of the human heart. Cardinal Newman has vividly expressed this truth in the
following words: Carve the granite with a razor, moor the vessel with a thread of silk,
then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments, as human knowledge and
natural reason to contend against the passions and pride of men.
And here, we appeal, with all the earnest as we can command, to our Legislators and civil
authorities to make actual and effective the constitutional provision for optional religious

instruction in our Public Schools. We would remind them that apart from their often
repeated pledges to implement religious instruction in the public schools, they have a
sacred duty not only to God, but also to our country, to strengthen and protect the moral
fibre of our youth. Much still remains to be done to implement fully the provision of the
Civil Code. What is needed above all, is vigilance and insistence that the responsible
officials should not merely give lip service to the constitutional provision, but should
loyally and wholeheartedly put it into execution. We cannot ask for less, we will not ask
for more.
Pastors must recruit and prepare catechists to teach in Government schools, even in the
remote barrios of their parishes. They should be helped by Catholic Actionists, by other
religious organizations, and by the religious congregations of men and women.
The parents or others in loco parentis should avail themselves of the provisions of the
Civil Code by applying for religious instruction for their children, and see to it, with
firmness, that their children loyally attend such instruction.
Instructors in Religion should be given the proper time, suitable rooms and all necessary
facilities for the religious training of their pupils. Superintendents of schools, supervisors
and other school authorities should be reminded that, as servants of the people, they
should do all in their power to assist the parents in the exercise of their God-given and
constitutionally recognized right, to make adequate provision for the Christian education
of their children.
For God and Country
From first to last, the general principles which should govern the Catholics attitude and
actions with regard to the education of our Catholic youth are simple and coherent. It is
our duty and our right to obtain for the children an integral Christian education. Such an
education must begin in the home but, for its adequate fulfillment, it needs the Catholic
schools. Parents therefore have the duty and the right to send their children to Catholic
schools. If circumstances over which they have no control prevent parents from sending
their children to Catholic schools, then the utmost caution must be used, to see, that as far
as humanly possible, religious instruction is given to those children. If the great majority
of our children are forced by economic reasons to go to public school, then the public
schools must be made to correspond as nearly as constitutionally possible, with Catholic
educational requirements. That provision of the Civil Code on religious instruction be
made actual and effective, is of paramount importance.
In so insisting upon the need for the Christian education of youth, We, the Bishops of the
Philippines, are conscious, first and foremost, of our sacred duties before God. We
hearken to the words of Christ: Suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid
them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. (Mk. 10:14) Our hearts are warmed by
the words with which He depicted the sublimity of the Teachers vocation: And
whoever receives one such little child for my sake, receives me. (Mt. 18:5) And we,

with all men and women responsible for the well-being of these children, tremble at
Christs words of condemnation of those who put obstacles in the way of their salvation:
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it were better for
him to have a great millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of
the sea. (Mt. 18:6)
But we are conscious also that, in so urging the Christian education of youth, we are
doing the greatest service to our beloved Philippines. These words of the Papal
Encyclical are our words too:
Let it be loudly proclaimed and well understood and recognized by all,
that Catholics, no matter what their nationality, in agitating for Catholic
schools for their children, are not mixing in party politics, but are engaged
in a religious enterprise demanded by conscience. They do not intend to
separate their children either from the body of nation of its spirit, but to educate
them in a perfect manner, most conducive to the prosperity of the nation. Indeed
a good Catholic, precisely because of his Catholic principles, makes the better
citizen, attached to his country, and loyally submissive to constituted
civil authority in every legitimate form of government.
The product of a truly Christian education is well prepared to make his due contribution
to the social, economic and political life of his country. In an eminent way, the Catholic
School is qualified to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience, and
vocational efficiency, and to teach the duties of citizenship. (Philippine Constitution,
Article XIV, Sec. 5) It instills in its product the knowledge and respect for human dignity
upon which the preservation of the countrys liberties depends. It combats the spread of a
materialistic philosophy and inculcates spiritual values, without which communism or
some other type of state tyranny is the logical outcome. It has produced in the past our
greatest leaders and patriots Rizal, Burgos and Zamora, the forerunners of Filipino
nationalism, were brought up in the Catholic Schools. It will continue to produce good
citizens, leaders of the people, men and women dedicated to the service and love of God
and to the honor of our country.
Given in Manila on Easter Sunday, on the 10th day of April, in the year of Our Lord,
1955.
(Sgd.)+JULIO R. ROSALES
(Sgd.)+SANTIAGO C. SANCHO
(Sgd.)+JAMES T.G. HAYES, SJ
(Sgd.)+PEDRO P. SANTOS

(Sgd.)+JOSE MA. CUENCO

(Sgd.)+RUFINO J. SANTOS
(Sgd.)+CESAR MA. GUERRERO
(Sgd.)+LUIS DEL ROSARIO
(Sgd.)+MANUEL M. MASCARINAS
(Sgd.)+MIGUEL F. ACEBEDO
(Sgd.)+MARIANO A. MADRIAGA
(Sgd.)+ALFREDO MA. OBVIAR
(Sgd.)+JUAN C. SISON
(Sgd.)+WILLIAM BRASSEUR
(Sgd.)+ALEJANDRO OLALIA
(Sgd.)+VICENTE P. REYES
(Sgd.)+MANUEL YAP
(Sgd.)+PEREGRIN DE LA FUENTE
(Sgd.)+LINO GONZAGA
(Sgd.)+ANTONIO FRONDOSA
(Sgd.)+FLAVIANO ARIOLA
(Sgd.)+TEOPISTO V. ALBERTO
(Sgd.)+PATRICK SHANLEY
(Sgd.)+HERNANDO ANTIPORDA
(Sgd.)+CLOVIS THIBAULT
(Sgd.)MSGR. CHARLES VAN DEN OUWELANT

(Sgd.)+TEOFILO CAMOMOT
(Sgd.)MSGR. PATRICK CRONIN
(Sgd.)MSGR. GREGORIO ESPIGA INFANTE

Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the Nationalization of Schools

Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the
Nationalization of Schools

There is a movement these days to impose upon our schools, (a) the
prohibition to appoint persons who are not natural-born citizens of the
Philippines to the positions of heads of schools, colleges and universities or
teachers, instructors or professors in any social science subject; (b) the
prohibition to allow any person who is not a citizen of the Philippines or any
corporation or association, more than twenty-five per centum of the capital
of which belong to persons who are not citizens of the Philippines to
organize or engage directly or indirectly in the operation or management of
any school or college in the Philippines; (c) the requirement that at least
sixty percent of the members of the Board of Trustees or governing body of
schools, colleges and universities shall be composed of Filipino citizens.
(Bills S. No. 38, H. No. 202, H. No. 222, and H. No. 381).
The objectives of the movement, as stated by its authors, are the following:
1. To ensure adoption and execution of more dynamic pro-Filipino

policies in our educational institutions. (S.No. 38 and H. No. 381).

2. To ensure impartiality and truthfulness in the teaching of social
science subjects (history, customs, mores, traditions, culture and
ideals of countries and people). (S. No. 38.)
3. To prevent communists from infiltrating our educational system. (S.
No. 38).
4. to prepare a type of citizenry trained through our educational
system, to promote national unity and defend national
independence. (H. No. 202).
5. To preserve our democratic way of life and conserve our historical
treasures, cultural or otherwise, so that each may live in glory,
abundance, peace and contentment. (H. No. 222).
Since this movement affects a number of our catholic educational
institutions, We, the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines, deem it our duty
to express our concern not in regard to the objectives of the movement
which are praiseworthy and commendable, but about the means proposed
in order to attain said objectives and about the reasons advanced in favor of
such means.
These are the reasons upon which We base our stand.
The facts
Let us consider the following facts:
The American educators who came to this country after the change of
regime at the beginning of the century immediately engaged the services of
Filipino teachers to help them in their educational work. From the very
start, then, our educational system in the Philippines had a majority of
Filipino teachers. After some years the administration of the system was
entrusted to the hands of Filipinos. The schools which remained in the
hands of foreigners were, and are, relatively few. We can therefore say,
without fear of contradiction, that our people, under fifty years of age,
except the relatively few who attended the schools run by foreigners, have
been educated by Filipinos.
Now, some of our national leaders, whose patriotism we have no reason to
doubt, have accused our people of lack of nationalistic spirit, of colonial
mentality, of deep-seated inclination to imitate whatever is foreign. Is this
accusation true? If it is, then, since we have been educated by Filipinos, it
cannot be true that our own countrymen have proved themselves to be the
best teachers of nationalistic spirit.

If the accusation is false, then we do possess that nationalistic spirit. So

let us further ask: Is the spirit a monopoly of those Filipinos who have been
educated by Filipinos? Or to put it in another way, are those who have been
educated in our foreigner-run schools utterly lacking in love of country
and of things Filipino?
The life history of the majority of our heroes and of our great men will
answer that question. Speaking only of the last fifty years of our history, are
we going to say that Quezon, Osmea, Arellano, Mapa, and a host of others
were imbued with anti-filipinism by the schools which educated them?
Furthermore, the names of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom
in the last war are still fresh in our memory. Thousands of them received
their education from the hands of alien Catholic mentors.
Could it be that those heroes and leaders came to love their country in spite
of the education they received in the schools managed by foreigners? This
is a serious indictment against a considerable number of our educated
people. It would imply that those heroes and leaders were the exceptional
few who managed to learn love of country amidst the deleterious influence
of their alien teachers, while the majority of the allumni and alumnae of our
foreigner-run schools and colleges succumbed to the anti-Filipino
teachings of these schools.
Let these alumni and alumnae answer the indictment. All We can say is that
the religious, social and political life of these men and women is a clear
proof that the Catholic foreigners who have charge of some of our schools
are not anti-Filipino in their policies and in their teachings, as they are
purported to be.
The Reasons
Let us now study the reasons advanced to justify the enactment of the proposed
measures as they appear listed in our first paragraph. We think that these reasons
do not warrant the necessity of adopting such means to attain the objectives.
First, it has been said that natural-born Filipinos will adopt more dynamic proFilipino policies in our educational institutions as their heads. On the other hand,
it is feared that foreigners may not care about such policies. (S. No. 38).
The policies to be followed by our schools, colleges and universities, as is the case
with their curricula, are determined by the National Board of Education and the
Department of Education. If we want pro-Filipino policies, those are the
government agencies that can shape such policies and make them effective.
Just because it is feared that some educators may not care about these policies,

We do not think it is necessary to adopt such drastic measures as are now

proposed. The phrase may not care indicate that as yet there is no proven antiFilipinism in foreign-run schools. If there is sufficient ground for fear, would it
not be better, after the competent government authorities have laid down the proFilipino policies to be followed by the schools, to investigate and punish these
educators, Filipinos or foreigners, who neglect their duties in this regard?
In the second place, it alleged that natural-born Filipinos will be impartial and
truthful in teaching social science subjects. For alien teachers, the temptation to
slant their teaching in a manner more favorable to their fatherlands will be very
great. (S.N. 38).
In the teaching of any subject, either geometry, or biology or social science, what
makes a teacher a good teacher, aside from his professional skill, is primarily his
faithful and strict adherence to truth. This quality does not depend upon the color
of his skin nor upon other accidents of birth but upon the moral standards he has set
unto himself in the performance of his duties as a teacher. And it certainly would
not be impartial and truthful to say that Filipinos have high moral standards and
foreigners have low moral standards in this regard.
The test of objectivity and impartiality in any given lesson of any social science
subject is factual evidence and right reasoning. Place of birth has nothing to do
with it. It would be highly unsound to adopt the criterion that in social sciences in
the Philippines, if a Filipino says it, it is true and if a foreigner says it, it is false.
This is precisely the brand of nationalism against which We want to warn our
faithful. This is nothing but the old Nazi dogma of racism, the kind of nationalism
that ignited the second World War. We must realize that race and blood and the
place where one was born have nothing to do with impartiality and truthfulness.
Truth and virtue have no country nor skin color. If because of human frailty there
is a great temptation on the part of foreigners to slant their teaching in favor of
their fatherlands, we Filipinos, not being angels, have the same human nature with
the same human frailties and our temptation would be to exaggerate our national
virtues and the achievements of our race.
It is further averred that natural-born Filipinos could impart more effectively to
our students the social science subjects. (H. No. 381). But we must remember
that effective teaching is not a product of ones nationality, but of ones training as a
teacher. While it is true that there are Filipino teachers who are professionally
better than many alien teachers, it is also true that there are alien teachers who are
professionally better than some Filipino teachers. Efficiency in teaching depends
upon professional training and proffessional growth.
We are not blind to the fact that when a teacher teaches, for example, the history of
his own country, to the actual act of imparting knowledge to his pupils, there could

be an added emotional glow of pride and love which can arouse in the hearts of the
pupils a greater love for the Fatherland. For this reason We favor in principle the
idea that where it can be done, social sciences should be taught by Filipinos. But
We do not agree that a law is needed for this. A mere directive from the Bureaus of
Public and Private Schools will suffice. At any rate, We believe that this fact
cannot justify the condemnation of foreign teachers of social sciences as ineffective
teachers, wanting in impartiality and truthfulness.
In the third place, it is said that foreigners may teach communistic propaganda in
our schools and this filipinization-of-schools movement will prevent this. (S.
No. 38).
That the measure cannot prevent communistic infiltration in our educational system
hardly needs to be shown. It is based on the assumption that non-Filipino school
administrators and teachers, simply because they are non Filipino, are likely to be
communists or communist sympathizers; whereas native-born Filipino school
administrators and teachers, simply because they are native-born Filipinos, are not
likely to be communists or communist sympathizers. One merely has to bring this
assumption into the open to see how absurd it is. Communism follows no racial
lines. We all know who composed the Politburop in the Philippines and in what
schools they were educated.
In this connection We recall with pride the words of the late President Magsaysay,
delivered a few hours before his death in Cebu, when he lauded a University
managed by foreign Catholic missionaries, as a bastion against communism in the
Philippines.
In the fourth place, it is said that it is very important and necessary to a nations
school system as chief agency for citizenship training that its schools and colleges
should be controlled and directed by her citizens. (H. No. 202).
Let us remember that the nations school system is actually in the hands of
Filipinos. Our Department of Education and our Bureaus of Public and Private
Schools are administered entirely by Filipinos. The superintendents and
supervisors who periodically inspect the relatively few schools and colleges
directed by foreigners are Filipinos and they have ample means to see that the
nationalistic policies enunciated by our government are followed in these schools
and that no anti-Filipino doctrines are taught in them.
Finally it is affirmed that schools which are owned by aliens may, for example,
teach or advocate doctrines which are inimical to our democratic way of life or
against principles of our duly constituted government. In order to prevent this
unhappy situation, nationalization of heads of schools and of their Board of
Trustees is proposed. The better cause of mankind needs guidance and
govermental regimentation so that it may live the way people should live,

unaffected by undesireable foreign influence. Time is now when we should have

graduated from the idea that we cannot handle our educational institutions as
effectively and fruitfully as others. (H. No. 222).
In this contention, there is an obvious transition from the realm of mere possibility
to the realm of accomplished fact, (from may teach or advocate to this unhappy
situation). We think that a law of such far-reaching consequences cannot be based
on a supposition graduated with no more ado into a situation.
As We said above, if there are reasons to believe that in school the unhappy
situation exists and that there is an undesirable foreign influence, that school
should be duly investigated and the administrators duly penalized if found truly
anti-Filipino. But why should other schools be included in the measure when they
have not committed the crime?
Our Stand
We want to go on record that We are not against this movement because We think
that Filipinos cannot handle our educational institutions as effectively and as
fruitfully as others. We are firmly convinced that Filipinos can handle as
fruitfully our educational institutions as the foreigners. We are well aware of the
fact that the majority of the colleges and universities of our country are operated by
our countrymen and they are run most efficiently and effectively. And We cannot
admit that our Filipino Priests and Sisters will never be able to do what the other
Filipino educators can do.
We sincerely believe that by the natural development of our religious Orders and
Congregations, the day will surely come when our Catholic educational institutions
will be in the hands of Filipinos. But We cannot accept the idea that this process
should be hastened by legislation.
As Catholic Bishops We would wish to point out that vocations to the priesthood
and to the religious life may not be regarded in the same light as any other secular
calling. There is the supernatural element in every vocation to the priesthood,
brotherhood or sisterhood which transcends all temporal considerations. The grace
of God is a necessary requirement in that vocation. It cannot be calculated or
regulated in accordance with natural or purely human standards. So We cannot
subscribe to any artificial acceleration in so sacred a matter whereby great harm
could be done to souls.
Our religious Orders and Congregations have years ago opened their doors to
Filipino novices. Their Filipino members are growing in number. The fact that this
growth has not been faster is to be lamented, but a vocation to priestly and religious
life simply cannot be forced upon our young men and women.

But there is no reason to doubt that in the future our religious Orders and
Congregations will have enough Filipino members to meet all the demands of our
educational institutions. This happened with the secular clergy in charge of
parishes. At the turn of the century they were few. Now they administer the great
majority of our parishes. There are still foreign parish priests, to be sure, but they
are mostly in those provinces and cities where Filipino priests are scarce or where
the peculiar purposes of a Congregation are needed in a certain locality.
Besides, the Hierarchy, in its majority, is now composed of Filipinos. In fact, only
one, out of nine Archbishops, is a foreigner. But his successor, already appointed,
is a Filipino. Of the Bishops, sixteen are Filipinos (one naturalized) and twelve are
foreigners. The foreigners administer those regions which are staffed by their own
missionaries.
So the Catholic Church in the Philippines, with the exceptions noted above, is now
governed and administered by Filipinos. Contrary to what has been said recently,
religious Orders and Congregations are not the Church in the Philippines but only a
part of the Church; a part which, God willing, following the course of our
development, in due time will be composed too, in their majority of Filipino
members.
The situation obtaining in this country where alien religious operated Catholic
schools is by no means unique. In the United States of America and in England, for
example, there are schools which are operated and staffed exclusively by
foreigners.
If nationalization of schools is imposed upon us by law, many of our schools will
suffer. In those places where there is still a scarcity of Filipino priests, our
parochial schools are directed by foreign missionaries. They are meeting financial
difficulties in the maintenance of their schools. If they are made to engage the
services of Filipino lay directors, many of these schools will be forced to close for
lack of funds. It is also hard to persuade our Filipino teachers to teach in those
remote, almost inaccessible places of our missions.
The Catholic Church believes that Catholic education of the youth is an essential
part of her life. To force her to close many of her schools by legislation is to do her
a great harm.
We do not want to close this statement without paying our homage of gratitude to
the missionaries, past and present, who have come to our shores to bring to us the
light of Christian faith and to help us live the life of that faith. They spend the best
years of their lives in the ardous task of helping us to be better Christians. They go
about that task in parishes and in schools silently, without fanfare, not seeking
human applause, sometimes misunderstood, sometimes even persecuted. But they
endure the hardships of their work because they love God and for His sake they

love the Filipinos entrusted to their care by Gods Church.

They came to the Philippines not to enhance the prestige of their own country, not
to promote trade relations to fill the coffers of their countrys banks, not to seek
personal glory and aggrandizement, but only to work for the glory of God and the
salvation of souls. Such truly dedicated men and women love us with genuine,
Christian love. May the Lord in His mercy, through the intercession of our Blessed
Mother, shower upon them His choicest blessings.
Manila, January 28, 1959.
For the Hierarchy of the Philippines:
(Sgd.)+JUAN C. SISON, D.D.
President
Catholic Welfare Organization

Joint Statement of the Catholic Hierarchy on the Religious Instruction Bill

Joint Statement of the Catholic Hierarchy
on the Religious Instruction Bill

As Pastors and teachers of the flock and representatives on earth of that Divine
Master who showed a special tenderness and affection for children, expressing
His predilection in those touching words: Suffer the little children to come unto
Me (Mark 10, 14), we feel that we must speak out clearly and firmly on the
issue of religious instruction which is now being debated in the halls of our
Legislative branch of government. As members of the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church which is the Mother and Teacher of nations, we have inherited the

double task entrusted to this Church by her Divine Founder; of begetting sons
unto herself, born in Christ Jesus, and of educating and governing those whom
she begets, guiding with maternal providence the life both of individuals and of
peoples. In this nation where we are the Spiritual leaders of the vast majority of
the people we can not keep silence when an issue of such vital importance is in
danger of being misinterpreted, misrepresented, and distorted by a small but
articulate minority. In such circumstances silence would be a betrayal of our
sacred trust and duty to our beloved Catholic people of the Philippines.
We refer, of course, to the proposed bill before the Senate, known popularly as
the Cuenco Bill which authorizes public school teachers to teach religion in public
schools voluntarily. The Bill provides that the teachers will confine all their
voluntary optional religious teaching within the period authorized by law for
religious instruction and during other school periods will conduct their classes as
they should as public school teachers. The children will attend such classes in
the same manner as the law now prescribes, i.e., with the written approval of
their parents or guardians submitted to the principal teacher. No pupil will be
required to attend such instruction against their conscience. Full liberty for the
individual pupil and parents is guaranteed by the provisions of the proposed
legislation. The Bill also provides for disciplinary action to be taken against
anyone who abuses this right to teach religion so as to do harm to the pupils, the
discipline of the school, or for arousing disloyalty to the Philippines. Finally, we
note that every religious sect which wishes to do so may take advantage of the
proposed legislation; no religious group is favored by the law; it is not
discriminatory legislation.
Long ago Pius XI, of Sacred memory, in his encyclical on Christian Education
insisted on the inalienable right as well as the indispensable duty of the Church,
to watch over the entire education of her children, in all institutions, public or
private, not merely in regard to the religious instruction there given, but in regard
to every other branch of learning and every regulation in so far as religion and
morality are concerned. And as he pointed out, the exercise of this right should
not be considered undue interference but rather maternal care on the part of the
Church in protecting her children from the grave danger of all kinds of doctrinal
and moral evil. From the proper exercise of this maternal care the State not
only does not suffer but rather profits immensely since it helps to the right
ordering and well-being of families and the whole of civil societies by keeping far
away from the youth of the land the moral poison which at that inexperienced
and changeable age more easily penetrates the mind and more rapidly spreads
its baneful effects.
If we allow our youth to pass through their school years without religious
instruction we will find verified again to our sorrow what Leo XII pointed out long
ago: without proper religious and moral instruction every form of intellectual
culture will be injurious; for young people not accustomed to respect God, will be

unable to bear the restraint of a virtuous life, and never having learned to deny
themselves anything, they will be easily incited to disturb the public order.
What Catholic father or mother in our dear land, indeed what Christian, would not
want their child to be educated in a school that reflects the Christian values so
cherished in the home? How can anyone object the youth of the land being
taught their creation by God, their redemption by Christ, their being elevated to
the dignity of adopted Sons of the all-loving Triune God? Or being inspired to
imitate the Holy Family at Nazareth, with Jesus, Mary and Joseph as models by
which to fashion their lives? Or being introduced to the Sacramental system
wherein they encounter God through Christ in their baptism, confirmation, in the
confessional, and above all, in the loving gift of Himself in the Eucharist? Who
will deny them an opportunity to study the life of Christ and, as their minds slowly
mature, to gradually assimilate the lessons that were taught by Him who was and
is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Who came that we may have life and have it
more abundantly? In a world torn by hatred, who will prevent the children from
learning the great commandment of Christ: that you love one another, as I have
loved you? And to see how He Himself proved His love by reflecting on His
words and above all His deeds during the years of school when a child is most
susceptible to ideals and moved by good example? How can any education be
judged complete if it ignores the main point of our existence: Now this is eternal
life: That they may know Thee, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou
has sent. (Jo 17,3). Who would be so pagan, so un-Christian as to forbid or
prevent our dear youth from learning the doctrine that Christ came on earth to
teach and sanctified by His Passion and Death? Who would prevent His Church
from carrying out the divine mandate to go and teach all nations whatsoever He
had commanded? Would not such a person be flying in the very face of God?
Would he not be the enemy of his own people, thwarting the will of the great
majority of our dear Catholic parents who desire this training for their children as
we know from our nation-wide contacts and reports, from our parish priests and
Catholic laity who speak for the far flung barrios and towns of our nation?
In the Civil Code of the Philippines we read that The family is a basic social
institution which public policy cherishes and protects (art. 216). We are proud of
our strong family ties and we almost instinctively favor anything that fosters and
protects the family. Obedience of the children to the parents, their love and
respect for them are things that we consider sacred and basic to our whole
cultural pattern and way of life. Who does not see how these virtues and values
are reinforced, made stronger and more meaningful, when learned in a
classroom where the life of Christ and His long hidden years of obedience and
love and respect at Nazareth are studied and presented as a model to our
youth? What greater force for good could they find than to be instructed in the
things that pertain to their soul, to their eternal salvation, in the ways of the
commandments, of prayer and of grace?

We are saddened to find that there are some who say that they are Christians
and yet would keep Christ out of the schools. They are trying to do what the
enemies of the Church have always doneput every possible barrier between
Christ and the young. When the Communists do it by open legislation or by
subtle persecution we are not surprised. They are avowedly atheistic and
materialistic. But when Christians do it we fail to understand how they could ever
come to such a position. For to interfere or nullify the wish of the parents that
their children be given religious instruction in the schools is to go against a right
of the parents, the right to have their children instructed according to the
conscience of the parents. Long ago this was clarified by Leo XIII when he
declared that By nature parents have a right to the training of their children, but
with this added duty that the education and instruction of the child be in accord
with the end for which by Gods blessing it was begotten. Therefore, it is the duty
of the parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights in this
matter and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remains
under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty, and above all to
refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing the
deadly poison of impiety. And what greater impiety, what greater poison than to
be educated in a school where God is treated as an extra-curricular activity,
where religion is something to be merely tolerated, even to be ignored, for which
there is no time? There is nothing more deadly in its effect on the mind of the
children and nothing more opposed to the wish and obligation in conscience of
our dear Catholic parents.
This prior right of the parents to decide the education of their children, a right
granted by nature and anteceding the right of the state, is now enshrined in the
United Nations Bill of Human Rights, Article 26 which reads, in part: Parents
have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their
children. In his most famous encyclical, Pacem in Terris, John XXIII, of happy
memory, insisted that the family is the first and essential cell of human society.
To it must be given, therefore, every consideration of an economic, social,
cultural and moral nature which will strengthen its stability and facilitate the
fulfillment of its specific mission. Parents, however, have a prior right in the
support and education of their children. Today, outside of the totalitarian
nations, no one could argue with this doctrine by denying the prior right of the
parents. And it is very clear to all how this doctrine fits in perfectly with our
constitutions and our whole democratic way of life because the Law of the land
considers the family a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects and it assigns the duty of education primarily to the parents (Art. 316:
Civil Code). When the Catholic parents insist that the education of their children
be carried out according to their wishes they are insisting on a basic right, a right
that is enshrined in the law of our land, a right that is so basic that no subsequent
legislation can ever contravene it or, in doubt, be interpreted in such a way as to
render that right null and void. And it is in accord with every democratic principle
that the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, especially when it

touches on such a basic right, must be honored and implemented by their legally
elected representatives. To deny such a right to a clear majority because of the
prejudice, bigotry and/or hatred of an articulate minority would be a flagrant
violation of the most elemental rule of democracy, namely, that in case of a
conflict of opinions, the will of the majority prevails. Anything else would lead,
especially in this case, to a tyranny of the minority over the majority. The rights
of the minority must be respected but not to the extent of violating the rights of an
overwhelming majority. In this case of religious instruction the rights and feelings
of the minority can easily be protected and the legislation proposed provides just
such protection by including only those who wish to receive religious instruction.
Anyone who claims that the minority will suffer by their legislation is speaking
from ignorance or prejudice or both; he is not basing his arguments on the
proposed legislation.
The arguments proposed against the legislation, if indeed they can be honored
with the title of arguments, must needs sadden any true Christian. The enemies
of the Church, completely repudiating all their previous ecumenical overtures and
gestures of good will, rushed to the attack imputing to us the lowest motives and
resurrecting the long dead anti-clerical shibboleths and fabrications that have
been their stock in trade for more than half a century. Some, it is true, argued
on the point of law that the proposed legislation was unconstitutional. But the
opinion of outstanding legal luminaries, among them framers of the constitution
or constitutional experts were sought and they firmly maintained that the
legsilation as proposed passed the test of constitutionality. Experts have spoken
and we can rely on their judgment.
Others brought forth the shopworn argument that religion is divisive, that children
would be turned against one another on religious grounds, if such religious
instruction were introduced into our public school system. If there were any merit
to this argument, it would have been reinforced with evidence and statistics
showing this divisiveness since religion has been taught on release-time
schedule, actually at various hours of the day in our public schools for years and
no one has ever raised the objection that it was dividing the children into warring
groups, pitting one religion against another. Surely, if this argument had any
merits the evidence to back it would have been available for one and all to see
long ago. The truth is that a religion that teaches that all are made in the image
and likeness of God, that the great commandment is love of our neighbor, that
love of our enemies is imposed upon ussuch a religion is exactly the opposite of
divisive. A moments reflection will make this clear; surely the opponents of the
bill on religious instruction cannot be serious in making such an objection that
flies in the face of the facts.
Some went so far as to say that religious instruction could be of no avail in
reforming or purifying or protecting morals and forestalling criminality since
criminals are born and not made. Such crass determinism is beneath contempt

in a Christian land such as ours. It flies in the face of our whole system of
jurisprudence which supposes free will and guilt and personal responsibility. It is
an insult to every father and mother who strive to protect their children from
moral harm and create a home and an environment where virtue can grow and
characters be molded by instruction and good example and, especially, by prayer
and the sacramental life. Such effort would be meaningless and unintelligible,
not to say downright foolish, if the child was already determined by his nature to
be or not to be a criminal. No psychologists who profess to be Christians in any
sense of the word could endorse such a crude materialistic approach to a
human problem. Free will and the power to triumph over evil and rise above our
environment is one of the basic tenets of our culture, our way of life and our
Christian creed. We are free men who are used to fighting against typhoons and
tyrants and temptations. We are not helpless marionnettes, mere puppets predetermined by some capricious fate. We believe with St. Paul that by the power
of God we can rise from any depths of sin to the surpassing glory of the children
of God: Our sins had made dead men of us, and God, in giving life to Christ,
gave life to us too, it is His grace that has saved you; raised us up, and
enthroned us too above the heavens, in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2, 5-7).
Indeed, there is scarcely a passage in the Bible that does not suppose that man
is free and responsible, that Christ will come to judge the living and the dead for
their free actions as St. Matthew records for us in the twenty-fifth chapter of his
Gospel.
Another objection was based on the fact that among prison inmates a high
percentage of prisoners professed some religious creed. Therefore, the
argument runs, religion is proven to be useless since so many of the criminals
were members of one religious sect or other. Time and again this argument has
been exposed for the fallacy that it is. In a prison, as anyone who took the time
to investigate would know, it is to a prisoners advantage to list himself as a
member of some religious sect or other. In such a situation even the most
hardened criminal usually lists himself as a member of some sect in order that
the humdrum routine of prison life might be broken by the few but treasured
privileges that are connected with religious services. And investigation proves
over and over again that nominal Christians are in the majority in prisons, men
who had only a nodding acquaintance with religion, who came from broken
homes, for the most part, who had scarcely a day of true religious instruction in
their whole life. When this pitiful objection is raised against religious instruction
we cannot help but wonder at the ignorance or the bad faith of those who offer it.
Speaking of prisons reminds us of the confusion created by those who would
hold up the Godless Communist nations as examples of countries that have
eliminated many public vices without the need of religious instruction. Anyone
who visits a prison will readily see that many of the ordinary vices of life are
eliminated. This might seem like virtue to a superficial observer but in reality he
will find that worse vices are flourishing and festering, forced underground by the

vigilance of the officials. A people that cannot purchase pornographic literature

should be considered blessed but when the prohibition extends to any literature
dealing with God, religion, Christianity, even with true freedom then we say
the price is too high and such people must be considered prisoners incapable of
exercising their human freedom, unable to freely choose virtue, the victims of an
intolerable tyranny. What seems to be a virtue, the elimination of certain more
obvious public vices, is in reality a manifestation of a way of life unworthy to be
called human. Per accidens some good comes from it but by its very nature it is
foredoomed to beget even worse moral evil.
As we might have expected whenever the word religion is even mentioned,
someone will stand up to warn us that we are endangering the separation of
Church and State. To them the wall of separation between Church and State is
to be a Berlin Wall, a proof of opposition , enmity and hatred, born of an
essential opposition and antagonism. President Macapagal recently gave quite a
different meaning to this so-called wall.
In Cebu on May 2nd, on the occasion of the Quadricentennial Celebration,
President Macapagal warned against those who would pit the State and the
Church against one another, and misconstruct acts of public officials as
violations of the principle of separation of Church and State. The President
recalled that Christ Himself recognized the existence of two distinct and separate
societies, and he cited the words of Leo XIII urging a well ordered harmony
between the two societies, harmony such as is had between the body and the
soul of man. The President then concluded that it is therefore to be expected
that in this mutual harmony and mutual cooperation each should welcome from
the other suggestions that would enable each to perform better its assigned task,
especially on matters that affect their common interest such as public morality.
This cooperation, harmony and dialogue in no way indicate that one is fused with
the other.
A wall can support two institutions; it can give strength to both of them. It can
provide passage ways for mutual assistance and aid. And when the same
people live on both sides of the wall, when the same people are the Catholics,
Christians, and citizens any other interpretation is unintelligible; it would be pitting
the people against themselves, penalizing them because of their religion,
violating the Constitution and the Universal Bill of Human Rights. It should not
be a Berlin Wall where families are torn asunder and an atmosphere of fear
and hatred is created and deliberatively fostered. The separation of Church and
State is an integral part of Catholic social doctrine. The State is a natural
society, with a definite God-given role to play; the Church is a divine institution
with its own unique and peculiar function. Both derive from God; both have their
intrinsic nature and prerogatives; neither one can absorb the other nor interfere
with the other; one looks to the temporal welfare of its citizens, the other, the
Church is concerned with the eternal salvation of souls and with the temporal

only in so far as it involves morality or relates to eternal values and religion. The
Mother and Teacher of all nations does not want to absorb, dominate or rule but
merely to fulfill her divine mandate to teach all nations.
And yet, very recently it was said that the Church is using the current bill on
religious instruction as a means to control sectarian education. And it was
boldly stated that they must let the public schools alone because they are the
domain of the state. If left unqualified this has totalitarian overtones. The
parents are excluded; their children must be handed over to the school
authorities who will determine the entire school curriculum without consultation
with or approval by the parents. Then, indeed, democracy will be dead. The will
of the parents, their God-given right to control the education of their children will
be but words, crushed under the boot of a new kind of dictator who will assign
education to the domain of the State, to the complete exclusion of the parents,
not to mention the Church. And what will be the norms followed by these selfchosen instructors who will rule the schools as their domain under the aegis of
the State? What ideals will they present, what attitudes? Totalitarian?
Communistic? Atheistic? Materialistic? No one shall be allowed to criticize or to
dissent. Since they are so opposed to religious instruction we must conclude
the worst and say that they ambition a Godless, materialistic education as the
ideal, taught in a public school system under the absolute domain of the State
with the parents contributing their children and deprived of any voice in the
running of the schools. This may seem like an exaggerated picture but what else
are we to think when such arguments are proposed by men who have been
associated with the public school system for a lifetime and are also known as
enemies of the Church? Are we to listen to such men when it comes to voting on
a bill which merely aims at implementing a God-given right of the parents and to
carry out the will of the majority? Whom should we listen to? The parents who
wish their rights to be enacted into law or men who would take to see the rights
of the parents violated just that their enmity against religion may be satisfied and
their goal of a completely secular, Godless education may finally be achieved?
At one point a demonstration was arranged to show that the public school
teachers themselves were in opposition to the proposed legislation. How can
anyone take this seriously when we know that the vast majority of the teachers
are themselves Catholic mothers and have time and again shown their
willingness to cooperate with any such program. Our priests and lay leaders
scattered throughout the nation are a better source of information on the matter
than a handful of teachers mixed in with members of a fanatical sect who never
miss a chance to oppose anything Catholic. Demonstrations manipulated for
effect are not the evidence that intelligent people weigh when considering the
pros and cons of such a measure. We should rather rely on hard facts than on
emotional demonstrations that are so easily infiltrated. In this case we do have
some facts that can not be ignored.

In May 1955, the President of the Philippine Association of School

Superintendents and the President of the Philippine Public School Teachers
Association issued the following joint statement:
1. The PASS and the PPSTA are for the full implementation of the
optional religious instruction in the Philippine public shools as provided
for in the Constitution. The superintendents in convention last May in
Baguio, expressed the following beliefs as regards optional religious
instruction:
1. That the curriculum on moral and character education has to be
strengthened;
2. That religion is a potent factor in the development of morality
and character;
The mind of the Superintendents and the President representing the Public
School Teachers is certainly clear: they esteem the role that religion plays in the
total educational process. Anyone who says that such spokesmen for the
teachers are against the Cuenco Bill has the burden of the proof. And we believe
that it is obvious to all that a quickly organized rally is no such proof.
That this minority sect which thrives on anti-Catholicism should be so vociferous in
opposing the bill on religious instruction should not surprise anyone. Having so few
members and having so little positive doctrine to present they would indeed find no
advantage in the bill. But it is surprising that some politicians are prone to fear their
threats or reprisal at the polls. This is based on a legend which, if true, would mean that
this minority sect has abandoned the traditional doctrine of separation of Church and
State and wants to dominate the halls of Congress and dictate the votes of our legislators
through threats. Their alleged ability to control the votes of their members would make
them more of a political party than a true religious sect. But whatever their true political
or religious status we cannot allow a minority that thrives on hatred of things Catholic to
make us second class citizens in our own land, to make our religion a handicap to us,
something to be insulted at every turn. We cannot allow them, no matter how vociferous
they are, to dictate a policy that will affect the education for life and for eternity of our 8
million children in public schools. When it is a question of the basic right of the parents
to decide the curriculum of their own children in the public school system which they
maintain by their taxes, no belligerent minority can claim a right to have the final word.
The rights of a minority must be protected but not in such a way that the basic rights of
the majority are grossly violated or ignored. This would not be democracy but that
tyranny of the minority that we referred to above.
Finally, some have said that the extra burden of teaching religion would be unfair, unjust
to our public school teachers. We are the last ones who would wish to impose any further
burdens on the public school teachers whom we admire and esteem so much. But the
problem can be solved; where there is a will there is a way. And here we insist that it is a
question of a right of the parents which is to be carried out by the State as the agent of the

parents. When the parents endorse such a program, they will that their public
representatives choose the best means to implement the will of the parents. And the
teachers should not suffer in any way. In fact, We the Bishops endorse every endeavor to
ameliorate the financial status of the teachers, since we consider their profession to be a
most important work for the nation and hence, deserving of a correspondingly better
economic or financial reward.
In this year of the Lord 1965, when the Philippines is the center of worldwide attention
through the quadricentennial celebration of the Christianization of our dear land, how
will we appear before the world if our legislators in the Senate fail to pass this bill which
was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the Congressmen? What explanation can
be given for condemning religion to the status of an inferior subject in our public
schools? Can we appeal to an anti-clerical past, to an era dominated by enemies of the
Catholic Church, a breed which, fortunately, has now almost disappeared from our
midst? Shall we live as though the changes of the past fifty years never took place? or
shall we open the way to a true aggiornamento when the rights of our parents and their
sacred wishes are honored in word and in deed!
This year 1965 has all the sign of being a year of decision for our Fatherland which is not
only Christian nation in Asia but is now almost an oasis of democracy in a fast worsening
international situation. The roar of jets and the thunder of guns is just over the horizon.
The more insidious threat of infiltration and the struggle for mens minds is closer than
the horizon; it is right here in our midst. This is truly a cause for alarm; it is a time to
think and a time to reflect and a time to act. What better protection for the minds and
souls of our youth in its confrontation with an ideology which is based on atheistic
materialism than the knowledge of their faith and their religion! The knowledge of their
Church which is the greatest single force in the world opposed to all the evils that are
summed up by that one wordCommunism! Who would deny this aid to our Fatherland
in its hour of peril, in an hour when we are taking our stand with the Free World in what
well may be the last struggle for freedom in Asia? When the war is a religious war
against atheism and materialism, is it not the height of folly to refuse to teach religion in
the best possible way, to reach the greatest number, through our public school system? It
would be depriving ourselves of our greatest weapon in the hour of our worst peril!
Wittingly or unwittingly, whoever opposes this bill is guilty of giving aid and comfort to
the most insidious enemy this land ever faced!
Our beloved Pontiff Paul VI, in a sermon given in 1961 said: It is necessary to remake
Christian society; it is necessary to reawaken it, to be aware that we are responsible!
This is a frightening word We are responsible for our times, for the life of our
brothers, and we are responsible before our Christian conscience before Christ, before
the Church and before our history; we are responsible before the face of God. This
sermon was addressed to all of the people of God, to all of us who have been given the
new commandment of love which impels us to share our spiritual treasurers with others,
by professing our faith before men, by establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. All of
us are called, but as happens from time to time in history, a moment comes when an

individual or a small group suddenly finds within their hands the power to make a
momentous decision that will affect the lives of millions for good or for evil, for time and
for eternity.
Such an hour is the present one for the members of the Senate. When the world echoes
with stories of almost unbelievable rises in crime rates, in divorce rates, in the amount of
juvenile delinquency, when each country worries about its own beginnings of a
breakdown in morality, at such a moment this Bill has been placed on the agenda of the
Senate. Other nations are beginning to talk of a need to return to religion in education to
prevent the complete breakdown of the family, the home, and society. We have seen
reports of leading and highly respected doctors and psychiatrists abroad who are deeply
concerned about the malaise that is spreading through society on almost every level. In
the past century religion was separated from education, not only separated but ignored ,
even condemned. Educators and rulers sowed the wind and now they reap the whirlwind
of crime and corruption. Now they stand aghast before the social evil which they
spawned. Must our dear people pass through the same sad history before they learn the
lesson that even non-Catholics are slowly realizing today? Will our legislators pass up
this golden opportunity to apply to the ills of society a remedy which is at once so
efficacious, so much in harmony with our aspirations, our ideals, our culture, our whole
way of life? Shall we fail to do what other nations are now recognizing as their only way
out of the moral chaos which is now threatening to engulf them? Our Legislators hold in
their power the answer to our question which is also the question, even the plea of
millions of our Catholic parents.
We, the members of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines, conscious of the four
century-old tradition of Christianity in our dear land, with a deep sense of our obligation
to speak out as the representatives of the People of God at this unique moment of history,
in a year of decision that might affect the very lives of all of us and the history of our
land for the remainder of the century, if not longer, urgently insist on the need to pass this
proposed legislation.
We rest our case on the intrinsic merits of religious instruction for the formation of the
youth of our land, the leaders of the next generation, and on the fact that we speak for the
overwhelming majority of the people of the land, for the Catholic parents who have the
prior right to determine what kind of education their children shall receive. Justice and
respect for this basic right of the parents demands that the will of the majority be
respected. There must be no tyranny of the minority in this matter. Their rights are fully
protected in the proposed legislation; it is by no means discriminatory legislation. Justice
and democracy itselt demand that the will of the majority must prevail.
To facilitate the legislative procedure we also urgently recommend His Excellency,
President Diosdado Macapagal, to certify the Bill to the Senate in its special session.
We close with a quotation from St. Pius XI who ended a letter on religious instruction by
citing the words of Moses: If any man be on the Lords side, let him join with me!

And we urge our beloved priests and people to join with us in prayers to the Holy Spirit
during this Pentecostal season that God may inspire our chosen leaders to pass this Bill
and thus bear witness themselves to their Faith and be at the same time true
representatives of a Catholic people in a Catholic land.
We fervently desire all our Reverend Parish Priests to read this episcopal document at
their Sunday Masses and to keep it in their archives.
Given in Manila, on the 6th day of June, 1965, on the Feast of Pentecost.
For the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines:
(Sgd.)+JULIO R. ROSALES, D.D.
Archbishop of Cebu
President, CWO Administrative Council

THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ON THE APOSTOLATE OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES ON THE APOSTOLATE
OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

The Council instructs us to expound the whole mystery of

Christ and to show that earthly goods and human institutions are
structured according to the plan of God and the Creator are also
related to mans salvation1 We are charged therefore, by the Church
to be witnesses of Christ before all men2
It is in obedience to this injunction that we remind the faithful, and especially
those engaged in the apostolate of Christian education, of the message of
Vatican II. We likewise categorically reaffirm the teaching function of the Church
as the voice of God, particularly in these times of crisis and of change.
Today, we address ourselves to the question of Christian education.
The Church affirms the inalienable right of each person to education corresponding to
his proper destiny and suited to his native talents, his sex, his cultural background, and
his ancestral heritage3
As a distinctive means to help Christians grow into manhood according to the mature
measure of Christ4 the Church charges the pastors of souls with the most serious
obligation to provide a Christian education to all the faithful.
The Church has taken upon herself the responsibility to give her children the kind of
education through which their entire lives can be penetrated with the spirit of Christ,
while at the same time she offers her services to all peoples by way of promoting the full
development of the human person, for the welfare of earthly society and the building of a
world fashioned more humanly5 Education for the Christian is an instrument to share
values and a culture which transcend the temporal constraints of both the political
demands and the socio-economic conditions of a country or a locale. For the Christians
community education is a means to permeate human cultures with Christs values and
vivify them from within. These cultures, in our times specially, are to be shaped in the
atmosphere of education with Christ as its focal point. From this follows that in a
Catholic school environment, education is the means of sharing the Good News of
Christ. Through education the Christian community deepens its perceptions of what its
faith means, shares it with those whose good will disposes them to listen to this message,
and by its efforts to live this faith, the community through its schools slowly transforms
the social milieu to the image desired by Christ.
Or as Vatican II has expressed it, the proper functions of the Catholic school are to

6 Ibid., 8
7 Ibid., 9
8 Ibid., 6
9 Ibid., 3
10 Ibid., 5
11 Ibid., 8
12 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 8(1), Art. XV
13 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 11, Art. XV
14 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 7, Art. II
15 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 9, Art. II
16 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 3, Art. V
17 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 6, Art. XV