Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2a PDF

    Uploaded by

    Krizia Louise Zanoria
    60 views27 pages

    Original Title

    2A.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    60 views27 pages

    2a PDF

    Uploaded by

    Krizia Louise Zanoria

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 27
    JOHN N. SCHUMACHER, SJ The Rizal Bill of 1956 Horacio de iz Several drafts of a pastoral letter, written by Horacio de la Coste for the bishops in 1952, survive. De la Costa's Rizal emerges as an outstanding moral figure whose devotion to the truth made his novels a source of moral as well as social and political wisdom for Filipinos. Although subsequent drafts show he was forced by an unknown interlocutor to temper this view, he retained an essentially positive reading of the novels. In the face of Recto's 1956 bill imposing the novels, however, Abp. Rufino J. Santos commissioned Fr. Jesus Cavanna to draft anew “Statement.” Beginning with a few positive paragraphs from De la Costa, the “Statement” then absolutely condemned the novels and forbade their reading, a prohibition that proved quite ineffective, The drafts of De la Costa show that there was within the Catholic Church a totally different attitude toward Rizal, whose legacy the church could embrace. KEYWORDS: CATHOLIC CHURCH - JOSE RIZAL - CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS - PHILIPPINE NATIONALISM PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011) 528-53 © Ateneo de Manila University ceynaldoTleto (2010), in a recent esay has studied the efforts ofthe 1950s to create a new vision forthe nation in the wake of independence. Prominent was the newspaperman Jose LLansang, who expressed some of his ideas as speechwriter for Pres. Elpidio Quirino, but, more importantly was associated ‘with a number of professors from the University of the Philippines in ceovisioning a secular nationalist program for building the nation. tn “Lansang’s vision what was weeded was what leo calls a “new Propagands Movement” of these later-day ilustrados. Purallel to Lansang’s appeal to the nineteenth century wae wartime president Jose P. Laurel's Rizalian edueational philosophy, it too envisioning a secular nationalism, ‘Asa fil to Lansong lleta (bid, 233) singles out Fr Horacio de la Casta, Sj, tetumed in 1951 to the Ateneo de Manila with a PhD in history from Harvard Univesity, as representing “the Catholic position” toward building, the nation, Although Meto makes brief mention of Senate Bill 138 in 1956, inteoduced by Sen, Claro M. Recto and sponsored by Laurel, making Riza’ inall colleges and universities, he does not tw novels compulsory specifically attach Father de la Costa tothe conflict over that bill (which indeed falls outside the scope of his article) But asa matter of fact, De a Costa would play contested, but hidden, role in that contoversy. It seems worthwhile to examine how this Jesuit intellectual Tooked to Rizal as the inspiration for another view of nation building, o see that dhere was more than one view in the Catholic Church than appeared inthe bishops letter cof 1956, As Meta (ibid, say, “the descendants of [Rizal's] teachers were not about to surrender their Rizal tothe national visions of a Lansang, or even ‘4 Laurel” Although in the end other views prevailed, De la Costa's Rizal, based on accurate historical scholarship and a contemporary nationalist vision, could have let the Catholic Church come to terms with Rizal as bilder ofthe nation. 1M appears that, atthe cequest of a committee of the bishops, De lz Costa had drawn up a draft pastoral letter on the novels of Rizal “some year” before 1956, when Recto introduced a bill, sponsored by Sen. Jose P Laurel, presribing ther reading in all public end private schools (Kennally 1956a)" Infact, the initiative for Dela Costa's work must be dated late 1951, since én 5 January 1952 Dean Jose M. Hemandez of the University ofthe East, who had published a book on Riza in 1950, forwarded to De la Costa through Sen. Francisco “Soc” Rodtigo nine pages of passages from Rizal's = sIPPIN STUDIES 8.2. (2011) [Noli me tanger, supposedly containing attacks on, or praises ofthe church (Hemandez 1952)? Several drafts ofa proposed letter are tobe found among, De la Costa's papers, as his orginal was modified in response to citcisms fiom another source thas not been possible to identify this source for certain. At fist sight, itdoes not seem to have been Fr, Jesus Cavanna, OM, who was the principal ruthor of the 1956 “Statement ofthe Philippine Hierarchy on the novels Of Dr, Jor Rizal Noli me tangere and El flibusteriamo” (Kennally 19563; Constantino 1971, 244). For the "Statement" is drastically diferent in text ‘and in tone fiom De la Costa's drafts, even though it did make some use of his inal draft in it opening paragraphs. “That beng said, however, titi posible that Cavanna was responsible {forthe gradual changes that appeat here, before breaking drastically from De 1a Costa's drafts. For he published a book on Rizal's teraction of Masonry in 1952, which he had been preparing since 1951 or earlier? Hence his own ‘work on Rizal coincided in time with that of De la Costa's, Moreover, iti Tikely thatthe bishops mightsolieitthe aid of more than one expert priest and itis dificult to name others aside from these two, Nonetheless, itis apparent from the extant drafts that De la Costa was the principal author und, ifthe bishops’ committee had also named Cavanna, it would be as interlocutor to De la Costa. Presumably the two men were expected to come to a common text. Since there are no letters from Father Cavanna among De la Costa's ‘apes (Allayban 2010), any such contribution to De la Costa's drafts must hhave been made in meeting() ofthe two men, with De la Costa producing ‘new deaft subsequently. This could not have happened in 1956, sinee De la ‘Costa had been finishing his term as dean af the Ateneo de Manila College ‘of Arts and Sciences in the early months and was already abroad some weeks before the bill was introduced on 4 April 1956 (Acosta 1973, 71) “Moreover, the Jeni vice-provincal was not aware of any activity of De la Costa inthis ‘matter in 1956 and wrote to him as ifthe appearance of the pastoral leter and Cavanna’s principal authorship were enttely unknown to De la Coste (Kennally 1956a). Its quite certain then thatthe modifications made by De la Costa in his successive drafts were made in 1952, whoever may have been his interlocutor. If Cavanna were that interlocutor in 1952, he would only have made suggestions to De la Costa and could not drastically alter the draft. In 1956 the was principal author and was free to make litle of no use of Dela Costas SOMMACHER THE RIZAL IL OF 1958 Arals. Moreover, in 1956 Abp. Rusfino J. Santor, the future cardinal, was administrative president ofthe Catholic Welfare Organization, and it would bbe over his signature that the bishops statement would appear, as wll be see below. Santos was noted for his intransigence on matters of church doctrine cor practice’ In any eas, the identity ofthe interlocutor does not mater for the purpose ofthis article, which isto display the differing altitudes toward Rizal and his novels within the church, most especially the views of De bs ‘Conta asa Catholic protagonist ofthe “new Propaganda Movement.” "Among De le Costa's papers, there ae five drat, all containing many passages of his original, bt with significant diferences at times, We may hname the diferent drafts A, B, C, D, and E, All of them ate carbon copies, the originals presumnably having been sent to his eritie andr to the bishops" committee, A isthe original dif, twenty typewritten pages. Bisanther copy Of A, but with afew handwritten changes, pechaps made while meeting with his etic. These are all taken up into C, which has a considerable number of further changes. nC the orginal texts ofthe passages quoted inthe draft disappear from Uie endnotes, replaced by simple reference notes. C seems to be the definitive drat, which Father Cavanna, asthe principal author ofthe bishops’ “Statement,” had at hand when he did the composition of that letter For the “Statement” had quotations that donot appear in A, but {do appeat in C. D isa drastically shortened version of C, only ve pages, though it incorporates an additional paragraph not found elsewhere in the drafts ori the "Statement." Perhaps De la Costa was asked fora shortened version, since it omits all his numerous quotations from the novels, yet itis later thon C. It was not used, however, by Cavanna, who rather made use of C. E sa copy of C, with the phrases or paragraphs underlined by De la Costa to indicate the omissions or changes introduced by the “Statement” jn the five pages of C used in part by Cavanna as an introduction before launching into the outight condemnations of the novel. Finally, we should tote that Cavanna was only the principal author ofthe bishops’ Gina letter, ‘0 doubt supplying al the actual references to Rizal’ writings, but there are ‘nications that the bishop()themseles may have interned to strengthen the condemnatory conclusions ofthe lettr and the strict prohibition to read the novels under church law, For reons which will be seen below, its mast Titely that this intervention came From Abp. Rufio J. Santos, a noted above tis important therefore to see A, the original drat, though &is to long ie except in summary, as presumably manifesting De la Costa's to repro on pwm.ane SuotEss9.na (2011) own views most cleatly. It shows thorough knowledge of the two novels, from which he quotes copiously to establish his insights into Rizal. The original ofthese and other quotations in the text appear in two-and-s- half pages of endnotes in Spanish, French, and Latin. Iti clearly the work of a scholar, nd of one who has veneration for Rizal, whom he ipinos of the sees as having a moral, social, and political message for twentieth century. ‘Summary of A “Among, the many illustrious Filipines who have distinguished themselves for service to their county, the fist place of honor belongs, by universal ‘consent, to Dr. José Rizal” For he “possessed to an eminent degree those ‘moral vitues which together make up true patriot.” He devoted himself to “dispelling the ignorance of his people, raising their moral standards, and combating the injustices and inequality under which they labored.” When condemned to death for this a5 a rebel, he preferred to suffer death rather than abandon the principles on which “the welfare of his country depended” ‘But his love for his county was not ‘an unthinking love” Itwas not one that “attibated al ills tothe tyranny and greed of strangers" His “marvelous balance of judgment saved him” from that. He "boldly proclaimed the fact that while the Filipino people suffered greatly from colonial rule, they "were as much the vitims of theic own vices and defects” “While fearless in denouncing the evils ofthe Spanish colomal administration, he was no less feales in pointing out to his fellow countrymen” thei defects, “That is why he could say ofthe Noli Me Tangere that ‘ny book may have—does hhave-—defects from the artistic, the aesthetic point of view. Ido not deny it But what no one can dispute ithe objectivity of my narative.™ “For even greater than his uller devotion to his country was his unswerving devotion to the tuth” He embraced rationalism because he thought it led to truth, But at the hour of his death, “he permitted neither pride nor passion to hold hin back" but rectified his ertor andl embraced the truth in his retraction, and “God who is truth’ gave bin his reward ‘Because of his devotion to truth, he had 2 clear insight and vision, =No Filipino before oF after him has understood so well or 30 memorably ‘expressed the mos, politcal, and social principles upon which the peace ‘and prosperity of our beloved country must be based” “Would that our leaders of today and our people would put into practice the starlingly prophetic teachings contained in [his] writings” “Hence we cannot but approve and applaud in principle the desire of many thatthe writings of Rizal be more widely cizcalated and read, and ven introduced as reading matter in the public and private schools of the nation, We can think of no more effective means, after the formal teaching, of religion, to develop in out youth a sane and constructive nationalism, the mora qualities of justice, esponsibility and integrity, and the evi virtue, so necessary in our times, of the subordination of individual ambitions to the ‘common good” “The most valuable of Rizal's idea ate contained” in his to novels. But “since there is 2 widespread impresion that these novels are locked upon with difavor by the Catholic Church as attacking the Catholic faith,” we want to give our views, "The Catholic Church mn itself” is never “against the legitimate political and socal aspirations of any people’ “Hence it follows that the clear and even forceful expression of sch aspirations can never be Injurious fo the Catholic Church” (Leo XI is quoted tothe effect that there cannot be sch a confit. He also quoted to the effet that the Catholic Chareh does not condemn) “the ‘desir that one's nation should be fie fom foreign rule” This is suggested by Rizal in El flibusterimo in the words of Padre Florentino to the dying ‘Simoun, These “contain the very essence ofthe Gospel.” ‘But some say tht it wat imposible for Rizal not to attack the church since it was 90 closely hound up with colonial role. In proof they cite ‘nimerons pasiages ofthe wo novels “in which Catholic beliefs ae satirized and the most heinous crimes atetibed to Catholic priests and eligion “This is a serious charge and we have to investgate it withthe utmost cae,” since ifthe novels constitute a serious danger tthe faith and morals of our people we would have na choice but reluctant to forbid them, Is that true? Fitt, “we must carefully distinguish between cert passages as quoted, interpreted, and employed by the enemies of the Catholic Church, and these same passages a they ae in themselves and in proper contest.” Even a Seripture passage can be misused if taken from its context, For example, the passage on veneration of saints by Capitan ‘Tiago, “If we read the chapter in is entirety... we find that what Rizal is satiricng is not the invocation of saints as such but the abuse of this practice by nominal Catholics ike Capitan Tiago.” Not only i this not ou arene sTuoneso.40$ 0h) attacking, Catholicism but Rizal is also following in the footsteps of the Fathers ofthe church, (A similar judgment can be pased on the passage on Purgatory.) ‘We mast not lt enemies ofthe church make Rizal out to be an enemy of the church. Rizal himself asserted that it was not the church itself but the abuses he was attacking a: may be seen from his letter to a fiend, Resurreccn Hidalgo (quoted on p.54#).° "This claim i fully confirmed by careful reading of the novels themselves” “Let usthen heed the warning of Rizal and not confound the abuses of teligion with religion itslE” There were scandals in the church in Rizal's time, “Why should we deny i?” There were unfaithful priests, like the Apostles Peter and Judas. But that fat does not make Catholic doctrine tae. However, we must not exaggerate the evil. As to the fact of these cv, “the Church awaits. the sober judgment of histor.” But the history of that period is only imperfectly known and thus people take fictional ative ike Rizal's novel as history. Especially withthe young, we foresee in the indisriminate and ndiected reading of the novels a danger, since the young are “too apt to take as literally true whatever they see in print Moreover, they “eannot he expected to make the necessary distinctions between what the persons in a novel say in conformity with their characters nd what the author ofthe novel says on his own account, between what is said ironically and what is seriously stated: between the condemnation ofthe individual andthe condemnation ofthe society or organization to which that individual belongs” (Esampls ofthis are given.) “Unless these distinctions which the matte and wel instacted make almost automatically in the course of theie reading are made forthe young itis quit likely that Rizal's works, if assigned as reading mater in ovr schools, may cause more harm than good. This does not imply any radical defect inthe novel; the same is tue of certain books of the O16 Testament ‘and some plays of Shakespeate, which “cannot be read by young people ‘without the aid ofa competent teacher or editor.” Hence we judge that Rizal’snavels “not only can but should by all means ‘be made familiar to our students: the editions of them which are assigned 35 reading matter should be zecurate translations of the Spanish text, should be propery annotated by a competent scholar familiar with the ecclesiastical and civil history of Rizal's period, and should, ordinarily, be commented on and explained by the teacher in charge” SEUMICHER THE REZ BTLLOF 1286 We call on our Catholic historians and literary cites to prepare such an annotated text as a service t the church, We also needa solid and readable history ofthe church in the Philippines in English, “written with serupulous ‘egard forthe uth and according othe most exacting standards of modem scholarship.” We are confident that thiswill show thatthe religious did not consist only of Padres Dimaso and Salt but of many like “the wise Padre Fernéndez andthe faithful Padre Florestno.” In conclusion we say, fist, that “we find nothing in [these novels} that constitutes a serious danger to the faith oF morals ofthe mature well instructed Catholie” but “natch in conformity with the teachings of the Gospel and sight reason.” Secondly, “prudence demands that they should not be given as reading mater tothe young without proper diction and {guidance in the fons of annotations the printed text and explanations by the living teacher. If this prescription of prudence is complied with the salutary politcal and socal ideas of our national hevo will strike deep roots in the minds and hearts of our people.” Propositions of the Draft Letter A 1. Rizal, by universal consent, ix fist among Filipinos who have dlstinguished themselves for sevice to their county. 2. Forhe possessed toan eminent degie those moral virtues that make up tnve patriots. 4. He devoted hinwelf to dispelling the ignorance of his people, raising their moral standards, and combating the injustices and inequality tuner which they labored. 4. His love for his county did not blame sll ils on strangers, but proclaimed thatthe Filipino people were also victims oftheir awn vices and defects, 5. That is why he could say of the Noli that “vo one can dispute the objectivity of my 1 6. His devotion to the tuth gue him clear vision. No Filipino before or after i has understood so well ors0 memorably expressed the moral, political, and social principles upoa which the peace and prospeily of ‘our countay must be bused 7. We must applaud in principle tha the wetings of Rizal be more read and even introduced into our schon! 8, Apart from the formal teaching of religion, there is no are effective means to develop in our youth a sane and constructive nationalism; the moral qualities of justice, responsibility, and integrity; and the civic viatue of subordinating individual ambitions to the commen good, 49, Rizal declared he did not intend to atack the Catholic Church itself, but the abuses init 10, We mut not allow the enemies of the Catholi Cl fiom their contest to imply the opposite. 11, Rizal's statement is boene out by 2 critical examination of the novels, according (their nature 3s ition 12, Hee wrote about fietional crimes of fictional characters, which had a basis in fat 13, In doing this, Rizal did not attack the Catholie Church itelf rather he did ita service. 14, Astothe facts, the church awaits the judgment of history 15, Bot since the history ofthe nineteenth centuy is impereety known, this induces many to take @ tional natrative like Rizal’s novels asa substitute forthe fats, 16. Thisisthe main danger we forescein their indiscriminate and undirected reading, expecially bythe young, who are apt to take as iterally tue whatever they seein print 17. Young people cannot be expected to make the distinctions between what the petsonsina novel sayin accordance with theircharacteynor between what is sid ironically and seriously stated, between the condemnation ofan individual and the condemnation ofthe organization to which he belongs. 18, ‘Therefor, it is or judgment that, while Rizal's novels should be made fanuiliar to our students, the editions should be accurate translations fiom the Spanish text, properly annotated by 2 scholar fails with the ecclesiastical ave civil history of Riza’ period, and should ordinarily be ‘commented on and explained by the teacher in charge 19, ‘There is nothing inthe novels that constitutes a danger to the faith and morals ofa mature, welhinstructed Catholic. 20, Rather, they contain much that isin conformity with th: Gospel and right cazon, and wil serve to develop in our people a wise and generous. love oftheit native land rch to tea texts Soames TE RIZAL GIL OF 856 or ‘Changes in A Introduced in Draft © From these propositions i is obvious that for De la Costa, as shown in A, Rizal ithe national hero not just because he was executed by the Spaniards, nor becanse he analyzed the problems of the nation with perspicaity, nor because he enunciated political and social principles for the good ofthe nation, He did all these, but he was also a moral teucher and even a moral cxample (nes. 2,3, 6,8) AraftC there isa conscious effort to deny to Rizal the moral role, so prominent in draft A, and which played so important a pat in his life. He is rnolonger sud to have devoted himself “to raising the moral standards" of his people. His novels are ssid to develop in the youth °a sane and constructive rationalism” but nat “the moral qualities of justice, responsibility, and egrity:” The whole long pastage on Rizal's “unswerving devotion to the truth” is omitted. So too isthe quotation from Rizal that had been adduced in suppor of that characterization, where he insisted on “the objectivity of ny naratve” with regard tothe Nol Indeed, a new paragraph isadded “to suggest that the affectionate ealism with which Rial regarded his county and his people should characterize ‘our own attinide towards Rizal himself "He had his human failings ike the rest of us, and while he showed great wisdom and courage in ceturning to the tre Faith before his death, we cannot ignore the fac that he did lapse from that Faith.” "Let us therefore by ll means honor Rizal, but for the right reasons: fret ofall, for hi unselfth devotion to this country, and secondly, for the depth of insight with which he examined and analyzed our national probleins” The moral dimension of A is completely omited as a reason for honoring Rizal, whether in his person or inthe teaching he imparted ‘Similars, while repeating the assertion “that no Filipino before or after hhim bas tinderstood s0 well or so memorably expressed the political and social principles upan which the peace and prosperity of our beloved country rust necesstly be based,” the original additional qualification of “moral” principles is pointedly omitted, And so forthe rest ofthe draft, Rizal is purely apolitical and social reformer, nota moral one, Where A had spoken of “the ‘ot valable of Rizls ideas [being] contained in his two novels," C hastens to limit thoee idea to being only “in the political and socal order.” ‘When analyzing the novels as such, A had warned against enemies of the church who by passages “torn violently from the context” use them to “dizcreit the Church in the Philippines” As an example it takes the a waurptne snus $90.41) passage on Capitan Tiago’ veneration ofthe saints and shows that, rather than attacking this doctrine, the pasage Seen as @ whole i string “not the invocation of saints as such, bet the abuse of this practice by nominal CCatholies like Capitan Tiago, who distort itino something indistinguishable fiom superstition." Tis i retained nC. imilaly, A takes the passage in which Rial is alleged to attack the atholic doctrine of Purgatory, in which “certain sayings of Taso. the Philosopher are quoted as proof” Analyzing the passage as a whole it finds that Rizal didnot intend to take all hats said there seriously, but rather was “merely using » common cnough literary device, that of making a character eveal himgef instead of deseribinghim.” Hence “we must seek Riza’ true meaning by a dispassionate examination ofthe works themselves.” , while retaining the example from Capitan Tiago, omits the one io the Philosopher, apparently unconvinced by the argument that Rizal is simply using # literary device. There is a single page inthe folder, entitled “Objections against Rial’ novels,” apparently writen by someone aftr reading A, It wes probably writen informally by 2 fellow Jesuit whom De la Gosta had consulted at home, since itis caelesly typed and without signature. Is ew brief paragraphs further support the need for annotations to the text, and sugges that actually this would be a good teaching opportunity for the church, It objects, however, that: “[the novel] portray the friars (with possibly two exceptions) as lieentious seamps. The imptesian given even to adult readers, it that these friars are representative of the Catholic priesthood." Another paragraph has question about Maria Clara's entance into the monastery. Those are ll hebriefeomments excep fo the following, and none of them lead to modifications to the text of A. Only the last of its few paragraphs leads to change. It say: “the pages treating of Purgatory, altho [sc] not necessarily Riza’ are extremely offensive to Catholic, even to adults” It is clear that De la Costa took the advice on Purgatory, and substituted a different brief example as appears in C ‘Whoever was the author ofthis page, he was not the one responsible for the other changes from A to C, since he doesnot treat anything but the brief points noted, in which only the oneon Purgatory has an effect on C. ‘Although the claim of A thatthe satize on Purgatory by Tasio was not meant seriously is dropped, De la Costa rephrases the heat ofthe matter by 4 new insertion where he observes that “several of Rizal's characters i the novels ae “liberal Catholics of the ype only too common in the ater part from SovRMC HER THERIZAL BTL OF 188 = ofthe nineteenth century, of Catolis who have lost thee aith:"Thus Rial has them speak aconding to die Btional penonaliy. "Hence, Tso the Philosopher questions the exitince of Pugaton if Don Custodio refuses to believe in the inability ofthe Pope... it may reasonably be agued that Rial is merely making use of te novel’ tight to portray people as they ae" Ifthe novelist were to suggest that hse enor were his om opinion, ‘he would be teaching and ct merely portraying eox. And asa mater of fact, we ae able to discover no clear example of Rizal doing this in either of ito ave (italien ade Hence C repeat the asertion of A though changing “it is evident” i seems to Us that Rial makes i sficiently clear” “that what he wished to attack was not the Catholic Church itself but the abuses and ditions with which her unworthy chien adulterated the purty of her principles and practices” In corroboration, De la Costa repeats the quotation fom Rizal's eter to Hidalgo in Ato that elect, and concludes, “This els i fully confined bya carefal eeading ofthe novels themselves. ‘As i A, De la Coats observes that we must not exaggerate the ei “Rizal wrote tion, not histo tion, moreover, inthe lurid tye ofthe Romantic school, We must na then take Padre Dimaso or Poe Sali as representative ofthe Spanish clergy of this period” But whee A added ‘Rizal did wot intend we shoul” this is ited by C, and two sentences ate added tothe effect tht sch cial novels give the impression that dhe evils they dept are pica. “Hence, while adniting thatthe erimes which Rizal inakes his characters commit may have had a basis ft ews remember that they ae afte all tional exes by tinal characte” italics added), Ahad sid thatthe crimes hada basin fact. “Ihe et of C fellows A ewept fortwo practical mates To the role of the teacher in is aked the nzed fora handbook o explain the text. inl, anew: paragraph considers it not advisable that high school student be given the entire text ofthe novels Initesd, they should be given “an abridged edition. adapted tothese age levels, which] contains theesence of R's thought, and yt (ill ot bea scandal to youngand tender consciences” “The question must arse: Were the changes from A to C actually the ‘result (apa fom the ston canceming Prgatony) ofa etic suspicious of De a Costa's appreciative view of Rizal and his novels or did Dela Costa himself, a change of ics, temper his enthusiasm in C? Inthe absence «of any evidence postvely identifying the presuned ert, iis impossible to be completely certain, The rewritten passages are surely fiom Dela Cost’s hand, as they blend into the text too neatly to be simply critic's suggestion inserted. Bu the question about the substance ofthe changes remains. Its true that some verbal and stylistic changes may have been De la Costa's own original idea, Thus in the third paragraph of A, Rizal's love of country is said not to be an “unthinking love,” which in C is changed to “unteflectng love.” Buti shard to believe that he could have written A, clearly dove with eaeful study of the novels aswell a of other sourees, and then removed so many key passages reflecting his estimation of Rizal and his roves unless he were compelled to do so by an authorized eit. Mis thus extremely likely thatthe episcopal commission that asked De la Costa to ‘wit a dtaft pastoral should have included Cavanna or some other pesson to work with hira as his interlocutor. ‘his being ssid, C remains the draft De la Costa submitted to the episcopal commission in 1952. It doesnot contain all that he had wished to say about Rizal and his novels, but, having apparently accepted that the bishops werenot likely toadopta pastoral letter which held up Rial asaunoral cxemplar and extolled his moral teachings, Dela Costa apparently contented himself with maintaining thatthe novels didnot attack Catholic teaching if properly understood as novels and commending—with the proper caution cf an annotated edition thee reading for those capable of understanding them with the help of a teacher. He was, afterall, not expresing his own, ideas on Rizal and his navels—he had done that in A~but offering to the bishops who had commissioned him a statement with which he could still agiee. It did not say all that he thought of Rizal and his novels, since he had been compelled to omit much, But it did not deny his essentially postin view. He himself would not be the one sign C, but he could propose it to them asa all postive appreciation of Rizal and his novel [At this point in 1952 the draft was out of his hands, and apparently remained in the files ofthe episcopal commission for the next fou Since De la Costa was out of the county for some weeks before Recto introduced his bill making the reading ofthe novels obligatory in all schools, asnoted above, he didnot take any further pat in preparing the statement of the bishops which appeared om 21 April 1956. He was evidently dismayed, however when afterward he sav what had been done to his draft C in the bishops’ “Statement” For he underlined in green ink in E the passages in C which had been altered oF suppresed, and in a printed copy of the ‘Statement’ fom the Boletin Eclesiastco ((Philippine Hierarchy] 1956) the underlines the changed passages. It now remains to see what these changes were Changes from Draft ¢ to the Bishops’ “Statement” “The sx paragraphs (five double-spaced pages) of deft C are taken up asthe introduction tthe public letter (hereafter "Statement, giving itan intl positive approseh. There are, however, phrases or sentences dropped and othersinserted Examining these omissionsandadditions, we Find asignificant ‘rend, although there are vomte minorchangesthatare relatively insignificant, or are matters of style. We find, however, for example, thatthe word “short- sighted," said ofthe Spanish colonial government in C,isomited. Similarly, another reference tothe “Spanish colonial administration” i changed tothe “colonial administration of his time” (bid, I par. 1 and 2), Presumably this vas intended to avoid attracting atention to the Spanish religious orders More seriously, there appeats 2 conscious effort not to praise Rizal 10 highly, even where there is na question of religious matters. Where C had tributed to Rizal “the fst place of honor... by universal consent,” he was now given “the highest” but dropping the “universal consent” (ibid, pat 1), His “excellent” qualities become simply “great” (bid, 2 par. 3). And the lst remaining atribution of “moral virtues” that comprise patriotism is dropped (ibid, | par 1). His “startlingly prophetic” teachings become merely “patriotic” (ibid, 2 par. 3). Even a quotation from Rizal's dedication ofthe Noli fo his county omits (using an ellipse) his declaration that he proposes “to describe your present state without fear or favor” (ibid 1 pat 1), Finally, the azertion that "no Filipino before or after him has undertond 0 well or 0 memorably expressed the politcal and socal principles upon which the pease and prosperity of our beloved country rmist necessarily be based” is pointedly omited, eventhough itis the topic sentence of the paragraph that llows (ibid, 3 pat. 3) ‘Taming from Rizal himself to the novels, there is evident a desire not to grant too much importance to them even when nat dealing with religious matters. Where C had spoken of “the most valuable of Rizal's ideals inthe political and socal order (being] undoubtedly contained in his two novels” the “Statement” spoke of "some of his most cogent insights,” and quickly Aropped the ststement of C regretting the impression that the novels were “looked upon with disfavor by the Catholic Church” (ibid). Similarly, C hha asserted that “in ao far as these novels give expression to our people's oe muppINe STTES 5.0 42011) Aesie for politcal freedom and a social order based on justice, they have nothing to fear from the Catholic Church” (bi, 3 par. 4) This ast elanse is replaced by the tortuous evasion “they ae nota variance with the practical applications af Cathal doctrine tothe exigencies of the socal milieu as it existed at the time” (bid). Even so seemingly noncontroverial a statement about the individual's dignity as “child of God” ie till more tortuusly and ‘uninteligibly paraphrased as “one whois adopted by our hemenly Father as filial participant in His own exalted nature” (ibid) ‘After omitting completely the passage in © from FEI fibusterismo, in which Father Florentino gives hie program for the edemption ofthe country to the dying Simoun, said by C to contain “the very essence of the Gospel,” paragraph 5 of the “Statement” ends its appropriation of C with a drastic distortion of its orginal. Repeating C's first two sentences te the effect that Rizal intended in the novels to expose in terms of fictional narrative the actual evils which then afficted Philippine society” its change of words entails a quite different view of the novels (ibid, 4 par. 5). For G that “social cancer” was “in (Rials} opinion, largely due to the decadent state ofthe religious orders and the abuses which had crept into the practice of the Catholic religion."* With 2 total change of meaning, the abuses in the practice of religion Rizal opposed becomes not abuses but “some practices ofthe Catholic religion” thus laying the foundation fr the ater pat ofthe Ietier in which wholesale condemnations of the novels would be detailed (ibid), Similarly the following sentence of C is distorted. Ithad said: “Hence «aconsiderable portion of these novels is devoted to castigating or satrizing bad priests and superstitious obsersances” This becomes: “Hence the larger part of these novels is devoted to castgating disedifying pricsts and to satiizing what he deemed to be superstitious observances and practices of the Church” (ibid, italics addled in both sentences). In these two sentences ‘we find the radial differences between De la Casta and Gavanna. Where the former finds Rizal castigating “superstitious observance” (hough with vividness, ashe wil say Iter in the draf), Cavanna, without even admitting the superstitious observances, finds Rizal rather castgating the “practices of the Church” themselves. The “considerable portion” of the novels is changed to “the lager part” and the priests are not said to be “bad” but merely “dseifying” “Afiec this paragraph in its mangled form, the remaining twelve pages of Cae dropped in favor of wholesale condemnation of the novels. Within those pages De la Costa had argued that the novels should be read according SMEAR HE RIZAL BTL OF 1986 cs to their character as novels, Hence, ifthe persons in the novel ae liberal CCatholies or have lost thei faith, itis only ight thatthe opinions they express be taken as what fiting for such a character to say, and do not express the teaching ofthe author ofthe novel, He had added that “we are able to discover no clear exarnpe of Rizal doing this,” thats, “suggest that these ae his own ‘opinions which he proposed ta his veades s tue” soas to be “teaching and not merely portraying error” Thus he concludes that no passage may be found in which Rizal show: that he wishes to attack the church itself rather than the abuses and distortions ofher teaching, In suppor ofthat conclusion, ‘C quotes in translation Rizal’ letter to Resurrecei6n Hidalgo T have unmasked the hypocrisy of those who under the cloak of religion have come amongst us to Impoverish and brutalize us. I have distinguished the true religion from the false, from superstitious religion, frm the religion that trafies with the Gospel to extract money, to make us believe in nonsense st wich the Catholic Church would blush i it ever came to her knowledge, (Retana 1907, 125-26) "This quotation is omited by Cavana, but to counteract its implication he quoter another letter of Rizal's (this one to Blumentrt, though he does not say so), Cavatina relates that when ‘Trinidad Pardo de Tavera defended Rizal to Fe Federico Faura from having attacked the chu, by saying that in altacking the friars the stone was thrown so high and with such Force that it reached celigion, Rizal corrected him, saying: “This comparison, |s not quite exact; wished to throw the missile against the friars; but as they used the ritual and superstitions of a religion ava shield, I had to get rid ofthat shield in order to wound the enemy that was hiding behind i” ((Philippine Hierarchy] 1956, + par. 6). Cavanna then concludes that Rizal “id attack the shield, that is, nat only the superstitions which sometimes, due to ignorance, ereep into religious practices, but the ritual itself of the Church, which are sacred aets of Catholic worship” (ibid,). However, CCavanna here quoted (with some minor inaccuracies), not from the original Jeter, which was in German, but fron its wanslation in the Oaaeta version of PPalma's biography of Rizal, Pride ofthe Malay Race, thus from a translation of translation (ibid, n. 8; Palma 1949b, 115). Moreover, although Ozaeta correctly translated Palma the latter had neither translated from the German orginal nor used the Spanish tansation ofthe Episolario Rizalino (Palma 1949, 133; Rizal 1938, 523-34, 527-28). Although the fith volume in which tie letter appears was sil n press when he completed the biography in 1936, (Palma 1949s, 369), he must have had an advance copy of the Spanish translation (or of the German original, if he knew that language, ‘hough the tanslation accurately reproduces the orginal). However, in spite of his quotation mak, Palma in fact merely paraphrases the key passage, and dishonesty inverts the words “rituals and superstitions” which do not ‘occur in ether the German or the Spanish translation. What it actually says inthe German original i as follows: wanted to hit the friars, but sinee the friars use retigion not only as a shield, but also as @ weapon, protection, citadel, fortress, armor, et., Twas therefore forced to attack their false and superstitious religion inorder to combst the enemy who hid behind this region... Why shoulé I not attack this religion with all my strength itis the prime cause of our sufferings and our tears? The responsibilty lies on those who misuse its name. Christ did the same withthe religion af is country, which the Pharisees hod so misused. (Rizal 1938, §23-24; Schumacher 1973, 152-53) It is clear thatthe word “ual” nowhere appears and hence the argument of the “Statement” is simply false, although its lubificatiow came Gran Palma rather than Cavanna. Nonetheles, the ‘cotect passage is indeed capable of being interpreted to make the novels an attack on the church, However, it deserves to be matched withthe quotation contained in C above from the letter to Hidalgo that what Rizal sud he attacked were the abuses (Retana 1907, 125-26). The quote fom the leter to Blumentsitisikewite capable of being interpreted in the sume way as De la Costa saw it asa attack on the abuses and superstitions of the time, not on the church at such, CCleatly Cavatna chose to itegpet it a an attack on the church itself, ‘even apart from being deccived by the tendentious translation of Palma- ‘Ozaeta, Fr, in an implicit ejection ofthe assertion of C, denying that there ‘was any passage in the aovels where Rizal could be shown to speak in his ‘own person attacking the church, rather than having his character speak as befted them, the “Statement” continues in contradiction: in the quotation, Furthermore, there are passages inthe two books where it isnot anymore the novels’ characters but the author himself who speaks ‘And among these passages, there are many which are derogatory to Catholic belles and practices 2s such, aside from the crtcisms leveled upon unwerthy priests. (Philippine Hierarchy] 1956, 45 par 6) CGavanna then proceedsto give over 120 references to passages that either “ate against Catholic dogma and! morals” or “disparage divine worship" oF “make light of ecclesiastical discipline.” Evidently he has cast his net wide, since one finds even sch temas education in Catholic schools, processions, stole fees, bells, and other matters on which even a devout Catholic might have negative opinions (ibid, 5 par. 7-9) Thus, in effect, he doesnot allow that in any ease the offending statements were intended to portray characters asthey were. Basically he i using» different principle than De la Costa, and thus comes toa conclusion totally contradictory to De la Costs. Rather than there being no conclusive pasage in which Rizal attacks the church, there are ‘more than a hundred of varying importance. Two men, both familiar with the novels of Rizal, come to opposite conclusions. It ishardto believe, however, that the conclusion reached in the “Statement” come fom "serene and inpatial reading of the two novels” (bid, 6 par. 10). On arving at this point, there was no longer any place for De la Cotas suggestion that annotated editions of the novels be prepared by scholar Familiar with the times. The “Statement” proceeded rather to quote canon law forbidding certain types of hooks, under whose categories it declared the two novels fell. Only with permission of ecclesiastical authority, “eadily granted for justifiable reason" to those with ficient knowledge of Catholic doctrine, could they be rad (ibc.). This part ofthe “Statement” 38 well 2s some of the minor alterations refered to above, ‘may well not have come from Father Cavanna but fom ecclesiastical authority, in this ease Abp. Rufino J Santos, president ofthe administrative council ofthe Catholic Welfare Organization over whose signature the “Statement” would eventually be published (Acosta 1973, 74; Cavanna 1983, p.3:229).Cavanna’s analysis ofthe novel, however, ad laid the foundation fo the prohibition. Therestofthe Statement” éealtwith te unreasonablenessand injustice “ofthe Senate bill, making it obligatory for Catholic stadentstoread attacks on their ith, Such a law would, under the guise of nationalism, violate “one of, the fundamental freedoms of our county, viz, thei freedom of conscience” {Philippine Hierarchy) 1956, 6-8 par. 11-13). I then proceeded to offer to al Filipinos, especially tothe law-gving bodies, eleven brief statements oo vaLzptne TUTE, Nas (201) for their guidance, After expresing their veneration for Rizal the bishops insisted that, although he wrote the novels ata time when he was alienated fiom the Catholic Church, before his death he retracted whatever he had ‘written sgainst her. Thot lat will of his should be inviolable. “Taking into account Rizal's last will, we must carry out for him what death prevented hhim from doing, namely, the withdrawal of all his statements against the Catholic fit” (ibid. 9 par. 14, i. In answer to the charge that to praise Rizal without taking the trouble to read him was hypocritical, the “Statement” suggested “that a Rizalian ‘Anthology be prepared where all the patriotic passages and the social and political philosophy of Rizal... be compiled,” not only from the novels but fiom all the writings of Rizal, and announced that for this purpose “we have already organized a committe which is making the necessary studies” (ibid, pet. I, vill)? he idea of selecting “patriotic passages” from the novels without the stadents reading them within ther historical context or within the genre of a novel indicates how diferent a perspective fiom that of De la Cesta was behind the “Statement” The isolating of "patriotic pasages” probably came from Cavanna, who i alleged to have said at a symposium fon the novels thatthe Noli “was not really paviotic because out of 333 pages contained patitic passages while 120 were devoted to anti-Catholic (Constantino 1971, 245). In faimess to Cavanna, however, it should be pointed out that De la Costa wrote his drafts in 1951-1952 ata ime when no controversy raged and the bill of Recto and Laurel had not yet been introduced with its political subtext, The precise gecasion for De la Costa's work is unknown, apart from: the fact that it was done atthe request of a committee of the bishops (Kennally 1956). Its likely that it was not requested fora particular ‘occasion, but was a cautionary measure, motivated by the controversy 8 litte over a year earlier concerning the proposal to publish at government expense for compulsory reading in public high schools the Palma-Ozaeta book, Pride of the Malay Race, in which, among other tendentiously ant- Catholic pesages, Rizal's retraction of Masonry and return to Catholicism was denied, and the Jesuit priests who testified to it were termed fiauds, (On this occasion the hierarchy published a pastoral letter, dated 6 January 1950, protesting the anti-Catholic measure, and perhaps foresaw that similar aternpts to use Rizal as a weapon against the chusch might be made in the future, This explanation ofthe occasion for De la Costas drat is supported by the fact that, in one ofthe same folders containing his drafts of the Rizal _SUMNCPER THERIZAL BILL OF 188 7 letter, these is another typescript entitled, “Some Observations on “Pride of the Malay Race,” dated New York, July 1949." Here, while conceding that the fact of Rizal's retraction might not be proved apodictically, he defly showed the lack of bassin Palma’ arguments against. Dela Costa filed his to efforts at studying Rizal and his writings inthe same folders: Nonetheles, the two approaches to a statement as a whole are dramatically different. Not only is theres different concept fhow'to read nove, there is azo different attude toward Rizal as natioual heso. There are, moreover, diferent concepts ofthe monopoly ofthe Catholie Church asthe only guardian of morality Although Cavanna (making some minor use of De la Costa surely wrote the larger part af the "Statement," it is probable that the strict prohibition of the novel, as well ¢ perhaps other minor elements, can from Archbishop Santos. As president of the adminis Catholic Welfare Organization, it was he who issued the “Statement,” even though it bore no signature, Santos’ role is indicated in a letter of Sen, Soc" Rodrigo to the archbishop, dated the day preceding the iswance of the "Statement" Rodrigo had been, and would be after the “Statement,” the principal defender of the church's position in the Senate, bearing the brunt af Recto’s relentless and often vicious onslaughts (Acosta 1973, 72-73; Locsin 1956, 2-4; Constantino 1971, 244-46). In his eter Rodrigo (1956) nade “this last appeal regarding my suggestion . that if the Philippine hierarchy will issue @ Pastoral prohibiting the reading of these two books, an exception be made as o editions which contain annotations approved by Church ‘his apparent reference to De la Cost’ drafts becomes elar when among the lve reise Rodrigo gave in support of his suggestion was n0, 12: ‘Catholic theologians are not unanimous on the outright condemnation of these books. Fr. De ls Costas opinion, several years ago, i fully compatible with allowing footnoted editions" (bid). Although Rodrgo's appeal was probably too lite to alter the “Statement” in any ease, i is clear that, given the latter's tone aleeady discussed, it had litle chance of geting 2 hearing Moreover, Santos’ communications on the novels had not yet ended Unlike the pastoral letter ofthe bishops in 1949 against the imposition of the Palma-Oraets book, which was signed by each ofthe Philippe bishops ([Catholie Hierarchy] 1950), the “Statement” orginally contained no signatory; merely is tite attributing it to the Philippine hierarchy. This led to considerable confusion when the “Statement” appeared. Rect, among ie eotnal of the cthers, questioned whether the “Statement” really came from the whole Philippine hierarchy, while simultaneously denouncing it asa repudiation ‘of Rizal (Acosta 1973, 73-74; Constantino 1971, 245-46). No doubt in an ello establish is authenticity, Rodrigo apparently approached Archbishop Santos for a clarification (Acosta 1973, 74). He received it, but peshaps had ‘ot anticipated all that it would contain, ‘The archbishop declared that the “Statement” on the novels “is fully authorized and approved by all members of sid hierarchy” (This declaration is stil ambiguous. It could be tue even ifthe "Statement” had been drawn up in Monila under the sole direction of Archbishop Santos as president ofthe administrative council, who th asked the bishops in the provincial dioceses for thei authorization and Approval by telegram, even without thei all having seen the “Statement.” In fact, it is improbable that, in the days preceding fax, the “Statement” could have been drawn up with all ts details of condemnable passages, approved by the archbishop, and sett the provinces fora retum approval in the ime between the inttoduction of the Recto bill on 4 Aptil and the appearance ‘ofthe “Statement” on 21 April. One must believe tht the “approval” ofthe bishops wa simply a generic prior authorization ofa statement tobe approved by Atchbishop Santos as president. Itcould then be sid in some sense to have been approved by the entire hierarchy, eventhough itwasapproved specifically only by Santos Thin the subsequent editions of his book, Rizal's Unading Glory, Cavanna, who was it a position to know, simply put down Santos's ‘name a sigoatory [Acosta 1973, 74; Cavanna 1983, pt. :229},) However, the archbishop went on to say, in statement directed to those of is archdiocese, not merely that the novels were forbidden by the chuch. Rather, he emphasized, “without due permission, itisa sn fr any Catholic to sea these novels i their entity, oto keep, publish, sell, translate, or communicate the same to others in any frm” ({Santos 1956, 350). This may hhave caused apprehension among booksellers and libraians especialy, but ‘twas too extreme ta be effective for most people." In fact, Redrgo would later say in private communication to the bishops that, as result, the novel "sold like hoteakes" (Rodrigo 1957, 6).* “The senators oon after worked out a compromise, by which a student who would “serve written notice under oath, to the head ofthe college ot ‘university that the reading and study ofthe . unexpurgated edition is contrary to his religion or religious belief, said student shall be exempt from using the said edition” (Acosta 1973, 7). Although Acosta considered that this was “a vitory or the local Catholic Church,” it was in fact a face-saving compromise, which enabled it to receive the unanimous vote of the Senate, and the signature of Pres, Raman Magsaysay. Professors who have taught the Rizal course can testi that no student has ever come with such an affidavit (Ocampo 2000, 9). (The following year an effort was made to introduce an amendment removing the impractical provision, It apparently was unsuceessfl [Rodrigo 1957, 3, 7], and the proviso continued to be ignored.) Nor did people conceive it to bea sin to read the novels. That isthe experience of this writer. Indeed, when I returned to the Philippines to teach the Rizal course in 1965, T ust took it for granted thatthe two novels were to be read as part of the course By insisting on an outright condemnation, the bishops did not prevent the novels from being read but merely removed the possibility that there would be an annotated edition explaining the possibly offending passages. Even devout Catholies saw no possiblity of following the “Statement” and its “clarification” by Archbishop Santos, when faced with a contrary civil Taw, Indeed, many no doubt shared, in a less enudite way, De la Costa's evaluation of the novels. Although in retrospect one may perhaps question the practicality of preparing an annotated edition of the novels, 2 statement such as De la Costa had prepared would have enlightened and satisied those who cared. Under the term of Archbishop Santos there ‘was not much more tolerance for taking a benign view of Rizal and his novels than under the Spanish eivil and religious authorities of the late nineteenth century. Although De la Cost’ ole in the “new Propaganda Movernent” was not over by any means it would be in other fields that he ‘would be active, particulary in expounding the social justice teaching of the Catholic Church, and in refuting the alternative Communist program (see, eg, leto 2010, 233-35) 1 Tsp ether paso carats dint arlene rao Dent re ‘steht dpoad wh tet tN prt Aloa Mana ners Aries. 2 Thlenty "de whos lated byte trea fhe Cee of Ut ‘rss Eas ware Herne ean, True auton as sow tat “ewer wa refried srr regis eke ‘pyre Dea Conta wha st recat edb nar ro vig been bre Ste ice 3845 wasnt perry negra th Herder, whe odio an ernie ‘ree wellcqonie ran th aco parton nth Cail tno the Popes. 0 emupeme sTotesso.Na 4010) 13 The bet was Rats Uti aA Domntary Hitry he Cameron f Jae Rist (Covne 1952189) met ater Coes cay 051 ater symptom Re wed a Cesar a9 Apt 1058, wich 4 ana’ 1988) sans hig ws ated eral apres ert ar Me wok nth Une ae He sto ‘tesco Meh toh tought rns send progres apr at sting Inte cet rsa cn th Camel non hw 4ownrectanc ands praste dares tab inner worse tr arene ron Rom 17 tsps tt Os tema Fi reo art amentr aie Arse Mami con rn Frater tcp te we psn 105 ara eka oe 1a Costs {rol rt tens wth th pad ot alae one et arti Rea 9569), 1 Cepmase-te caer state oe rj eder ican reign oc (apie Hererey] 85, pr 8 Augh th chge of peng Fests py amin ce te comands n seh Tiss reba h oghn of Pte Cova eok uted in 187 Acton Pines gris 10 Twewaswta dat polite tana etn chr ing whe recone Para rts eter dom pen gy of sed wer Re ety treat sone ments ight Cann we werent craves bel he ‘hon rote er ont atone” 11 ewig on of ne ria et of 27 Fo. 2953, to Lv A Cin, eer he ena Phin Stes ting ane Cort erased ecu Oa Casa teva er eal Frat ctr apps alte peed ped {eter Rent alee, i Th aor 2 a 58 edn preaten irate’ Scere peta of eng tegen eegh by aT es ings ot Dols a ane hers msg a th Esra ‘otng tomthe Jesuit rs Spm A Cay 153) 5. "You wel et haves he ‘ete yu egret wth rT tr wed ly be pubened rar De ess mts tensa ean S80 nebo he Rect Poses Corspndence Ist ln at De ost was mar iin Ah al mh es 84-185 aoa he wn ertining Pipe dosent ‘Theo tester ho epee bl wee Desir Rosle othr ot Ape Raaes fet vo Come tote At Jose Ma Cue of. 13 Thenuner of pesgecodaeing he oes eed by Ret wat a ross niga We have gente creck esloenty age uber above 14 Howe Ao, Gil Reyes, the acing Mant nd nitro Cbs, haere ‘gee sty ese oot Par gratia ge or ito cage 280 {3 swe ert rm a sttmertth wleeraoy fiche rtdpsn ‘he Cini ection beng prt stgoreneert een dinpse eer he schoo, SCHMACHER THERIZAL STL OF 158 1 Tes tee ngs find entra nen te Ran eae es scsus Haining epimers er mucha tam Crd ‘Sete Peres 200 2004, References Asst Carman 173 Tefen Creat Snts. uatn iy Kayenare Pres “Alaban Rat 2030 Eon tt 102k Banana 964, Pe it Ponte caepenerce Coen iy Ateneo e Mania Urversty {csvatie sear 1950 don tatenenttteCabetsararyttePapreanthebeck Te Pie oh Maly ace Orne cet ip nbpane scents 0SO850- Crna Man Je Ms, 1957 Resend Be Pippines oN oys Aninuedcton totes ‘ree war ands Mtl eso ocorect preci fran Mo 100, Ri neg sa curt try oe oes of Jos ik. ist, ert. 97. Te malig a ine Stary of rine soi pots). 2 (unm Cy Malay Bas, ar 00.2963 Ltr terrace [lot 2 Fb. Int ars personal pases manne 3882 Lato oe ern] Oa oe [aces Raige.S Jan. Ta the to Rera ©2010,HaronsNstuns nthe new roped Moen 160-153 Paine ena, Vincent T2950, o Oar Hrce [Cot 7 Ma. te an pesea 185 ete fer Here 27 Eth unr econ possess Lectin, andre M1556. The hurch uncer tack. ines Fe ress 5 Moy. Onin ip ‘hippos waren con I/00Se cure ancy S195, aed 9 saps, Ambeth 200 awit neo Se Pasig he A Pts. la, 184 Bogie Mane Brent tng ~~ 194, Terie he toy race ography of José iar Roman On. New (Pipive nwt 2956. Stamatis arr 2 the ees af Or doe Rak Na me unger an El bustaramo lati Este eps State a Node sa pan penne sTuars 6.4 23) ta, Weal 107, ey xr el ad Ra Me tae Stn aty Ale. dev 1938. ptr zon wo S Muna Brut Pring. 17 Late wt Aare Cael Cate Wane razon 239 T tn {sei dine J] 1988. CHO stmt on Ra nes OF by Neer lt atin de pines 30 ap 348-8, Schumer tH 1872. The Ppapend Movant 1460-1055. The erent Fn ‘oso thera Mahl Sra Pasig et, John N. Schumacher, SJ, 1 plese wna chris at aya See 1 cog Ase de Mans Ue Lepage. Qn Cy IDK, Ppnes. Ang is irk patios eT Pago Hoare 145-105 87 807. Te Roto Clee ‘he Fn ry nd he Nant Meet, 2850-1809 (5B), a eter ss Burges: A Dicuneery Hy 990, spsudrea er x 244 THE MAKING OF A FILIPINO ras Recto’s everlasting credit that he saw these contradictions earlier than his colleagues and that unlike the occasional nationalism of most of his contemporaries, his nationalism became a constant and growing ideal. THE RIZAL LAW AND THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY Recto’s next big fight was over the Rizal bill. Though this did not directly affect our colonial relations with America, his championship of this measure was an integral part of his nationalism. It was his belief that the reading of Rizal’s novels would strengthen the Filipinism of the youth and foster pat- riotism. Recto was the original author of the bill which would make Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo compulsory reading in all universities and colleges. Reported out by the committee on education, it was sponsored by Senator Laurel, committee chairman. The measure immediately ran into determined opposi- tion from the Catholic hierarchy spearheaded in the Senate by Senators Decoroso Rosales, brother of Archbishop, now Cardinal Rosales; Mariano J. Cuenco, brother of Archbishop Cuenco; and Francisco Rodrigo, former president of Catholic Action. Their argument was that the bill would violate freedom of conscience and religion. The Catholic hierarchy even issued a pastoral letter detailing its objections to the bill and enjoining Catholics to ppose it, Despite the fact that public hearings had already been onducted, Rodrigo proposed that the education committee hold ) clk sed-door conference with the Catholic hierarchy to search for solution to the dispute. Laurel and the other supporters of the bill rejected the ismuch as the public hearing had already afforded the unity to be heard fully. Recto said that Father Paulist Fathers, who had written the Pastoral gainst the bill during the public h A if se obviously one of the means by which tl archy t pressure against the bill. i well as the clerics throughout the NEW INSIGHTS AND NEW AWARENESS 245 A more organized campaign against the bill was launched under the auspices of the Catholic Action of Manila. Its first activity was a symposium and open forum in which two announcements were made: first, that the Sentinel, official organ of Philippine Catholic Action, would henceforth be published daily instead of weekly, and second, that Filipino Catholics would be urged to write their congressmen and senators asking them to “ill” the Rizal bill. Speakers at the symposium offered a variety -of objections to the measure. Fr, Jesus Cavanna, introduced as an authority on Rizal, said that the novels “belong to the past” and it would be “harmful” to read them because they presented a “false picture” of conditions in the country at that time. He described the Noli Me Tangere as “ an attack on the clergy” and said its object was to “put to ridicule the Catholic Faith.” He alleged that the novel was not really patriotic because out of 333 pages only 25 contained patriotic passages while 120 were devoted to anti-Catholic attacks. Jesus Paredes, a radio commentator, declared that since some parts of the novels had been declared “objectionable matter” by the hierarchy, Catholics had the right to refuse to read them so as not to “endanger their salvation.” Narciso Pimentel, Jr., another radio commentator, offered the interesting speculation that the bill was Recto’s revenge against the Catholic voters who, together with Magsaysay, were responsible for his poor showing in the 1955 senatorial elections. Against this background of bitter opposition, one can more fully appreciate the integrity and courage of Recto in championing ic church for its pastoral Jetter, He declared | letter had been “more severe” in its

    You might also like