Letter there is another typescript entitled some

This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 26 pages.

letter, there is another typescript entitled, "Some Observations on 'Prideof the Malay Race ,'" dated New York, July 1949. 10 Here, while concedingthat the fact of Rizal's retraction might not be proved apodictically, he deftlyshowed the lack of basis in Palma s arguments against it. De la Costa filed histwo efforts at studying Rizal and his writings in the same folders.11Nonetheless, the two approaches to a statement as a whole aredramatically different. Not only is there a different concept of how to read anovel, there is also a different attitude toward Rizal as national hero. Thereare, moreover, different concepts of the monopoly of the Catholic Churchas the only guardian of morality.Although Cavanna (making some minor use of De la Costa C)surely wrote the larger part of the "Statement," it is probable that the strictprohibition of the novel, as well as perhaps other minor elements, camefrom Archbishop Santos. As president of the administrative council of theCatholic Welfare Organization, it was he who issued the "Statement," eventhough it bore no signature. Santos's role is indicated in a letter of Sen."Soc" Rodrigo to the archbishop, dated the day preceding the issuance ofthe "Statement." Rodrigo had been, and would be after the "Statement,"the principal defender of the church's position in the Senate, bearing thebrunt of Recto's relentless and often vicious onslaughts (Acosta 1973, 72-73;Locsin 1956, 2-4; Constantino 1971, 244-46). 12 In his letter Rodrigo (1956)made "this last appeal regarding my suggestion . . . that if the Philippinehierarchy will issue a Pastoral prohibiting the reading of these two books,an exception be made as to editions which contain annotations approved bythe Church."This apparent reference to De la Costa's drafts becomes clear whenamong the twelve reasons Rodrigo gave in support of his suggestion was no. 12:"Catholic theologians are not unanimous on the outright condemnation ofthese books. Fr. De la Costa's opinion, several years ago, is fully compatiblewith allowing footnoted editions" (ibid.). Although Rodrigos appeal wasprobably too late to alter the "Statement" in any case, it is clear that, giventhe latter's tone already discussed, it had little chance of getting a hearing.Moreover, Santos's communications on the novels had not yet ended.Unlike the pastoral letter of the bishops in 1949 against the imposition ofthe Palma-Ozaeta book, which was signed by each of the Philippine bishops([Catholic Hierarchy] 1950), the "Statement" originally contained nosignatory; merely its title attributing it to the Philippine hierarchy. This ledto considerable confusion when the "Statement" appeared. Recto, among548 PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Mon, 02 Jul 2018 01:54:59 UTCAll use subject to
others, questioned whether the "Statement" really came from the wholePhilippine hierarchy, while simultaneously denouncing it as a repudiationof Rizai (Acosta 1973, 73-74; Constantino 1971, 245-46). 13 No doubt in aneffort to establish its authenticity, Rodrigo apparently approached Archbishop

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture