A.

The concealment of truth to protect the clergy against political aspiration? Or to hinder to the
truth from those who seek it, these are probably the two facets of these narrative by which
Horacio de la Costa SJ represents the “Catholic position” in nation building. In 1956, Senate Bill
438 was introduced by Sen. Claro M. Recto and sponsored by Laurel, making Rizal’s two novels
compulsory reading in all colleges and universities, it does not specifically attach Father de la
Costa to the conflict over that bill by which critics and an interlocutor has paved changes for
Dela Costa’s original drafts which led to the “Statement” launching the outright condemnation
of the two novels. There are indications that the bishop(s) themselves may have intervened to
strengthen the condemnatory conclusions of the letter and the strict prohibition to read the
novels under church law, this intervention came from Abp. Rufino J. Santos. De la Costa in his
first writings portayed Rizal as an inspiration for another view of nation building, to see that
there were more facets than one narrow view in the Catholic Church that appeared in the
bishop’s letter of 1956. An interlocutor was responsible in omitting various words and
paragraphs from Dela Costa’s original work claiming that it is an attack against the Catholic
Church and might cause grave danger to the formation of conscience especially of the young
believers, however that Rizal makes it sufficiently clear” “that what he wished to attack was not
the Catholic Church itself but the abuses and distortions with which her unworthy children
adulterated the purity of her principles and practices.” In corroboration, De la Costa repeats the
quotation from Rizal’s letter to Hidalgo in A to that effect, and concludes, “This claim is fully
confirmed by a careful reading of the novels themselves.” This being said Acosta affirmed that
he does not contain all that he had wished to say about Rizal and his novels, but, having
apparently accepted that the bishops were not likely to adopt a pastoral letter which held up
Rizal as a moral exemplar and extolled his moral teachings, De la Costa apparently contented
himself with maintaining that the novels did not attack Catholic teaching if properly understood
as novels and commending. The “Statement” proceeded rather to quote canon law forbidding
certain types of books, under whose categories it declared the two novels fell. Only with
permission of ecclesiastical authority, “readily granted for justifiable reason” to those with
sufficient knowledge of Catholic doctrine, could they be read (ibid.). This part of the
“Statement,” as well as some of the minor alterations referred to above, may well not have
come from an interlocutor/Father Cavanna but from ecclesiastical authority, in this case Abp.
Rufino J. Santos, president of the administrative council of the Catholic Welfare Organization
over whose signature the “Statement” would eventually be published. Cavanna’s analysis of the
novels, however, had laid the foundation for the prohibition.

From the above objective narrative it can be drawn that the writings of Rizal did not have an
intention to attack the Church, but by shedding light on ignorance, Rizal made a huge impact
that with such force it reached religion. Rizal corrected these by saying that he wishes to throw
the missile against the friars; but as they used the ritual and superstitions of a religion as a
shield, I had to get rid of that shield in order to wound the enemy that was hiding behind it”.
Hypocrisy of those people who preach but do not practice what they preach and people who
uses religion as scapegoat to establish a justifying excuse is what Rizal condemns. It is not
religion that he condemns but the person who hides behind religion and uses it to perform
malady and such sinister acts which are immoral and against the principles of faith. Currently
these it still happening although the colonization has ended, we cannot escape the fact that
hypocrisy is evident and if left unchecked may do more harm than good. Wolf on a sheep’s
clothing is the metaphor that vividly demonstrates what Rizal may try to portray.

The narrative clearly expresses clear logical points on how Rizal’s narratives cannot affect
Catholic faith, thus I firmly believe that the ugly truth about the clergy does not make the
Catholic doctrine untrue. Thus my eagerness to seek truth and enlightenment was triggered by
Rizal’s writings. I am also instigated and dismayed by the fact that the Bishops made a salient
point that the novel constitute a serious danger to the faith and morals of people when it is a
part of history. Clearly what is a thing of the past teaches us something valuable in the future.
When used out of context, Rizal’s writing can be quoted, interpreted and employed with flaws,
however this is not the case, so instead of antagonizing his writings, the search for truth is what
I yearn more.