[The Wide Shot] Rising to the Roque Ferriols challenge

When Filipinos chose Ferdinand Marcos Jr. over Leni Robredo despite warnings from religious leaders, many in the Catholic Church bowed their heads in collective shame.

Why didn’t Filipinos listen?

For me, however, the first question to answer is: Did they – the shepherds and the flock – even speak the same language?

In academic year 1969-1970, a 45-year-old Jesuit priest faced a similar question but in another realm: teaching and doing philosophy. Father Roque Ferriols, who earned his doctorate in philosophy at Fordham University in New York, pioneered the teaching of philosophy in Filipino at Ateneo de Manila University, a tradition now continued even by other schools.  

I was among his many students in the Jesuit-run Ateneo, where he taught for over 40 years. It was recently the 100th birth anniversary of Padre Roque, as we called him (he was born on August 16, 1924, Feast of San Roque), so I thought it was fitting to reflect on his legacy and the challenge he poses to this day. It is, by the way, also Buwan ng Wika (Language Month). 

Ferriols taught philosophy in Filipino because he wanted his students to think – and to think in the context of their community. He also believed that Filipino, like any other language, is capable of containing and expressing knowledge. He wanted to be more understandable and more relatable, a far cry from the snobbish attitudes of many bishops and priests we know.

In his classic 1991 book Pambungad sa Metapisika (Introduction to Metaphysics), Ferriols wrote: “Kung may tao sa aklatan, at sinusubukan niyang mamilosopiya sa isang wika na ibang di hamak sa sinasalita ng mga nagmamaneho ng dyipni, nagwawalis-tingting sa mga kalsada, nagsisilbi sa mga turo-turo, masasabi kaya na ang taong iyon ay gumagalaw sa katotohanan?”

(If there is a person in the library, and he or she tries to philosophize in a language different from that spoken by jeepney drivers, street sweepers, and eatery vendors, can it be said that that person is moving within the ambit of truth?)

Leaders of the Catholic Church need to reflect on these words by Ferriols, who died at the age of 96 on August 15, 2024, the Feast of the Assumption of Mary.

Like the great Jesuit philosopher, the Philippine Catholic Church should learn not only to converse but to think, reflect, and pray in the language of the common person, if it wants to be understood. 

True, doing philosophy is vastly different from providing moral guidance on sociopolitical issues, including elections, as the Catholic Church has done. Still, a common problem is the ability to understand one’s context, to better relate to others, and to engage in dialogues rooted in everyday truths. 

Does this mean Filipino is the only valid language for philosophy and theology in the Philippines? Should we throw away all our books in English and other foreign languages so that we can move, in Ferriols’ words, “within the ambit of truth”? Do we need to always write in Filipino and avoid other languages at all costs?

Ferriols – who spoke English, French, German, Latin, and Greek, as well as the Ilocano and Visayan languages – would be the first to say no. 

Explaining the importance of using the common person’s language in philosophizing, Ferriols said in Pambungad sa Metapisika: “Sapagkat hindi maipagkakaila na, angkinin man ng tao o sadyang limutin, palaging mananatiling totoo na lahat ng tao, pati ang mga namimilosopiya, ay napapaligiran ng mga kapuwa-tao na nagsasalita.”

(Because it cannot be denied that, whether people claim it or willfully forget it, it will always remain true that all people, even those who philosophize are surrounded by fellow human beings who speak.)

“At kapag ang nagsikap mamilosopiya ay pumipili sa wikang gagamitin niya, ang kanyang pagpili ay bunga ng kanyang atitud sa salita ng mga pumapaligid sa kanya. At ang kanyang atitud ay maaaring katotohahan, maaaring kasinungalingan,” he continued.

(And when the person who tries to philosophize chooses the language he or she will use, the person’s choice is a result of his or her attitude toward the words of those around him. And the person’s attitude can be the truth, it can be a lie.)

He also talked about this in his 1974 essay titled “A Memoir of Six Years,” published by the Ateneo journal Philippine Studies, in which he recalled his first six years of teaching philosophy in Filipino. He sought to answer seven questions about his decision to teach philosophy in the vernacular, called “Pilipino” rather than “Filipino” at that time. He wrote this piece in English. 

To the question, “Are you trying to help make Tagalog the national language,” his answer was “No.” 

“When I try to philosophize in Pilipino, it is with intent to live and to help awaken other people into living. Each language is a way of being alive that is irreducible,” Ferriols said. “Each language has unrepeatable potentials for seing and feeling, its very own genius, its own nuance. The more languages you really feel, no matter how in a glass darkly, the more you live.”

He added, “No, Pilipino is not my favorite language. But it is a good language.”

Jovino Miroy, who teaches philosophy at Ateneo, reflected on Ferriols’ role in the Filipinization movement at that time. After centuries of colonial rule under Spain and the United States, many Filipinos wanted to rediscover the Filipino language. Filipinization took on a different character in Ateneo which was once dominated by American Jesuits.

In a reflection piece for Rappler on Saturday, August 24, Miroy wrote that for Ferriols, “Filipinization was not merely changing the leaders with those holding Filipino passports in Catholic institutions.” It also “meant more than wearing a national costume or knowing that sipa is the national sport.”

“He was interested in something even more basic: awakening the Way within and around us. ‘Inner truth’ cannot be separated from meron, one’s ineffable being, which certainly included cultural rootedness,” Miroy said. 

“To awaken to ‘what is going on’ (talagang nangyayari) requires immersion in the experiences of Filipinos, especially poor farmers who possessed their own wisdom. Being Filipino is not to be known (or simply used as a branding strategy), but to be experienced and lived out,” he added.

Wilhelm Patrick Joseph Strebel, current chair of the Ateneo philosophy department, spoke along the same lines in the 2018 article “Pitong Sulyap sa Pilosopiya ng Wika ni Padre Ferriols (Seven Glimpses at the Philosophy of Language of Father Ferriols),” published by the University of Santo Tomas (UST) philosophy journal Kritike. 

“Tuwing tinatanong si Ferriols ukol sa kanyang pangangahas na mamilosopiya sa wikang Filipino, palagi niyang idinidiin na ang tunay na pakay ay ang mamilosopiya at hindi ang anumang pulitikal, lingwistiko, o kultural na dahilan. Ang hamon ay hindi ang hamon ng pagbigkas ng anumang wika. Bagkus, ang tunay na hamon ay ang hamon ng pilosopiya at ang hamon ng akto ng pamimilosopiya,” Strebel wrote.

(Whenever Ferriols is asked about his daring to do philosophy in the Filipino language, he always emphasizes that the real goal is philosophy and not any political, linguistic, or cultural reason. The challenge is not the challenge of speaking any language. Rather, the real challenge is the challenge of philosophy and the challenge of the act of philosophizing.)

Strebel said Ferriols’ choice of Filipino is basic: since Ateneo de Manila is located in Quezon City, he wanted to teach philosophy in the language spoken by the local community. 

Noting that Ferriols taught at Berchans College in Cebu before moving to Manila, he added: “Kung naiba lang ang kasaysayan at nalagi siya sa Cebu, malamang ang ipapasimuno niya ay ang pagtuturo ng pilosopiya sa wikang Cebuano.” (If only history had been different and he had stayed in Cebu, he would probably have pioneered the teaching of philosophy in the Cebuano language.)

The challenge is not about exalting one language over the other. It is about context. Do our philosophers and even our church leaders think, reflect, speak, and pray in the language “spoken by jeepney drivers, street sweepers, and eatery vendors”? 

I believe that language is one of the reasons for the disconnect between leaders and members of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. 

Many of our bishops and priests think in English, reflect in English, and pray in English. Why? Because even in the seminary, their theology books, classes, and papers are all in English. There is little effort to translate theological concepts like “transubstantiation” or the “preferential option for the poor” into local languages. If there are such efforts, they are not well known.

When it comes to Vatican documents, few have attempted to translate the words of the Catholic popes into Filipino. One of the commendable efforts comes from a layperson, Leo-Martin Angelo Ocampo of UST, who has produced Filipino translations of Pope Francis’ documents such as Laudato Si’ and Amoris Laetitia. We need more of his kind. 

When it comes to something as basic as the Bible, a number of Filipino translations have been produced through the years. But did you know that the Filipino translation officially used at Mass, produced by Monsignor Jose Abriol, dates back to the 1960s? How much has the language evolved since then? How relevant is the Abriol translation to the Gen Z?

The Catholic Church should not be surprised that “people do not listen” when the language used by many religious leaders is alien to them. 

Can the Catholic Church rise to the Roque Ferriols challenge? – Rappler.com