VARGAS, WESLEY MARCEL B.

2COM-4

I. SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

a. SYNOPSIS

“The Rizal Bill of 1956: Horacio de ka Costa and the Bishops” written by John N.
Schumacher, SJ (2011), explores the “New propaganda movement” during the 1950-60’s where
the church and state collided with agendas, as the church released a new “statement” entitled
“Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the novels of Dr. Jose Rizal: Noli me tangere and El
filibusterismo” while the state released a bill requiring colleges and universities to include in
their curriculums the studying of the two novels of Rizal. Schumacher reiterates the endeavours
that de la Costa had to face while making the initial drafts of the pastoral letter, from the first
draft (Draft A) to the final released statement, seeing how his vision of portraying Rizal as more
than just what he was depicted to be during that time to what the church thinks of him and what
they want the public to perceive as well.

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 Cuesta also 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 is evidences of what happened
in the past and will be sued as reading material for public and private schools to study about
however that is one danger that de la Costa stressed is 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. 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.

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. Draft C also examines the structure
of both novels and disregards the literary device Rizal uses for Philosopher Taiso and his satire
towards purgatory, and omitting that part of the first draft from Draft C. “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, this was
one of the main naratives, and major adjustments on Draft C. And 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.

b. BULLETS OF DRAFTS AND SUMMARIES

DRAFT A
 Rizal’s works give out political, social, and moral reforms for the country.
 Rizal’s devotion to the truth never wavered.
 His novels can be sources of moral teachings besides the religious subjects.
 Rizal’s works targeted the acts of the church and not the church themselves.
 Rizal’s works should be analysed and discussed with teachers or editors when used as
reading materials for the youth

DRAFT C
 Limited Rizal as a social and political reformist only
 Removed paragraphs that supported de la Costa’s main theme
 Implied that Rizal’s works were only fiction and have no proper basis with history

DRAFT C TO THE BISHOPS STATEMENT

 No mentions of the Spanish tyranny
 12 pages of de la Costa’s mention of mass distribution of Rizal’s works were removes
 Fr. Jesus Cavanna lead the revisions and was credited as principal author of the letter.
 Little to no praise toward’s Rizal
 Made Rizal look like he was against the church
 II. COMMENTS AND INSIGHTS ON THE ARTICLE

a. Was the endeavour of Horacio de la Costa worth revisiting?

The perspective of de la Costa was refreshing since the majority of Rizal’s depiction is of
freedom and going against oppression but not many tackles on Rizal’s teachings he puts into his
works. It’s interesting to also ready about how powerful the church still is and it attempts to
intervene with state issues. De la Costa knew he would have no control on his drafts on Draft C
and left the letter on to someone else since his idea was already butchered down to a new
context, and hopefully he continued on his mission to express this new perspective towards Rizal
to the masses.

b. Do you now have a clearer mental clout of what and how “scholarship” ought to be?
What is “scholarship” to you?
Scholarship, based on the reading and to my personal perspective is a state of might to seek and
fight for the truth. Usually the term scholarship or scholar is always tied to academia and
learning, be as human we always have new ways to learn and always learn new things, so
perhaps scholarship is applying what we learned and integrating it to our truths, as what Rizal
had said “my narrative is objective” since that is how much he values the truth.

c. Do you envision yourself to be a potential scholar, especially as your profession would

warrant it, with emphasis on the areas of developed skills and knowledgeability for
investigation and documentation?
We are all scholars in our own walks of life, college students specializing in medicine, Art
majors, even hotel and restaurant management students have their own respective fields to tackle
and develop on. What sets us apart from one another is the distinct industry we move in and the
level or degree as to what extent do we consider ourselves to be knowledgeable and prominent
with our skills. We continue to learn and from teachers of our own situations we put ourselves
into while we uphold our own morals and standards. Our learning is not confined within the four
walls of our classroom and in the same way, our teachers are not limited to the ones at school,
teachers are where we are able to gain experience and familiarity with a subject and they could
be present even beyond college. We continue to learn and grow and try to master the art of
living, knowledge is ever changing and what we know now might not be constant in the future
therefore I continue to progress bearing in mind that life is in itself a continuous attempt of trial
and error and that despite of my excessive attempts, I am faced with the heavy burden of veering
away from what I know now for the sake of progress but in the terms of profession, especially as
i’ll be going into media, its a constant learning curve as this field of work is of the most dynamic
ones out there. It is a known fact that this field in general demands an abundance of our time and
I am going into this eyes wide open, knowing what I am getting myself into especially as a
Communication Arts student, we are being groomed to take on these tasks heads on immediately
or in occasions, sometimes during our early years as students, all depending on the ever changing
wants and needs of the public. Unlike most fields of specialization, ours in particular is distinct
for it requires us to be fully equipped with extensive and in depth knowledge but even then, we
must also ceaselessly strive to achieve the absolute peak of our capabilities all in view of the fact
that our respective specializations heavily relies on its specialists as the very foundation of said
field whom without, our very society would fall into complete disorder.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schumacher, J. N. (2011). The Rizal Bill of 1956: Horacio de la Costa and the Bishops.
Philippine Studies, 59(4), 529-53.