Compare and contrast ideas.

1. Compare & Contrast

 The first draft (draft A) started off with twenty typewritten pages with the
statement “Among the many Filipinos who have distinguished themselves for the
service to their country, the first place of honor belongs, by universal consent, to
Dr. Jose Rizal” for his moral virtues that he exhibited is of a true patriot.
(But De la Costa brings back Rizal’s notion that Filipinos cry out loud of being
oppressed by the Spanish but are just as oppressed by their own vices and
defects, calling out that not everyone is perfect, though on the right side of
history since the Filipinos were the ones that were being stripped from their
rights, it is always right to acknowledge their faults as well.)
 As part of history, Rizal’s works are evidences of what happened in the past and
will be sued as reading material for public and private schools to study about,
and the unmonitored or unprecedented reading of Rizal’s works for they have
fictional works that can be confused as primary sources of history, though the
fictional events and characters in the novels are/were passed on facts, under
young eyes, can be confused to truth, to which can be considered many attacks
towards the church.
(But De la Costa stressed that the works of Rizal are not defacing the church but
rather calling out their actions in the past, and their actions only. And is Rizal’s
works were assigned for mass reading, especially for the youth, de la Costa
wrote out that these novels needs to be aided with competent teachers or
editors.)
 By the Draft C, many alterations were made by the initial draft, and slowly
changing de la Costa’s first idea of what he wanted to express about Rizal and
his works.

 Firstly, draft C of the pastoral letter only focused Rizal on the political and
social standpoint, not bothering or stating instances where he has shown
excellence in moral development, also removing a whole paragraph about
Rizal’s policy for truthfulness, deducting his character, and the objectivity
of his narrative with his “unwavering dedication for the truth”.
 “Let us therefore, by all means, honor Rizal, but for the right reasons”
again reduces Rizal as a political and social model, besides that fact that
many valuable lessons can be taught with his works.
 “Rizal wrote fiction, not history; fiction, moreover, in the lurid style of the
Romantic school. We must not then take padre Damaso or Padre Salvi as
representatives of the Spanish clergy of the period” basically saying that
this work of fiction has only a fraction of factual sources to back up its
credibility.
 (By the time Draft C was made, de la Costa had no more input in the letter for his
original idea was already to altered to continue and he had to go out of the
country to continue his studies.)
 By the time the Official bishop’s letter came out, on April 21, 1956 so did the
Rizal Bill or Recto’s 1956 Bill on April 4, 1956. The final letter dropped out many
more paragraphs and sentences, and edited out any mentions of the Spanish
occupation. Also it seems like they suppressed any form of praise towards Rizal
and made him look like more of an enemy to the church rather than his true
intention of calling the church out solely for their actions.
(The new principal author of the letter was Fr. Jesus Cavanna and most likely the
one in charge of the alteration, including the heavily religious context of the letter.
Since both bill and letter were released during the same time, there had been an
uproar with the church towards the bill saying that it is a threat to morality,
however the State offered the church a compromise and, de la Costa’s mission
towards the new perception of Rizal continues on.)

Conclusion
 As much slander that Rizal’s novels expressed towards the actions of the
Church, they all have conformity with the gospel, de la costa also expressed that
Rizal’s novels can offer teaching towards moral virtues besides the religious
subjects, calling Rizal’s work examples for political, social, and moral reform.
 In his pastoral letter, Archbishop Santos argued that the compulsory reading of
the original versions of Rizal’s novels would negatively affect students.
 Thus, the Rizal Bill only became the Rizal Law after a compromise between the
Catholic Church and the legislators was reached.
 The legislators, especially Recto, agreed to the condition of watering down the
morally offensive parts of Rizal’s novels before they were taught to schools. They
called it the expurgated versions. Further, it was agreed that only colleges and
universities would teach these materials to their students.
 The Rizal Law was enacted on June 12, 1956, coinciding with the Philippines’
Independence Day.