issues about Rizal ???

1.

Why does Rizal’s works are written in Spanish when he said that we, Filipino people, should love and use our own language?

Jose Rizal wrote most of his famous works in Spanish. Even his farewell poem, Mi último adiós, was written in the language of his executioners. But it does not mean he loves the Spanish language and not his mother tongue, Tagalog. The mere fact that he wrote his works in the Spanish language and not in Tagalog tells us that he had a different audience in mind: The Spaniards and their government. His novel, Noli Me Tángere, was initially supposed to be written in French because it was the lingua franca (auxiliary language) of the world society, and he wanted it to be read by everyone in Europe. However, Rizal felt that his French was insufficient for prose writing, so he wrote it in Spanish in order for the Spaniards to read and understand it as he actually intended the Spanish government to listen to the grievances of the Filipino people about the abuses committed by the friars as stated in the novel, and for the common Filipino people coming from different ethnolinguistic groups to read it since Tagalog was not the lingua franca of the Philippines when it was written.

2.

Rizal’s Retraction Controversy: Did Rizal retract his works and words against Catholic Church and Spanish Government?

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia in 1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself. Many historians arguing whether Rizal retracted from what he had stated about the Catholic Church or not. From Rizal’s statement: “I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church”.

The morning after the execution of Jose Rizal, the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the event, and announced on the eve of his death that Rizal retracted his religious errors, abjured freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken. Those who had read Rizal’s books or who knew him closely and admired him, both in the country and abroad, took one look at the announcement and declared it “an ecclesiastical fraud.”

The controversy whether Rizal actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgement of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other. But the only thing is, even if Rizal retracted or not, the knowledge he inculcated to us will not change.

During his exile in Dapitan in 1892, Dr. José Rizal had the opportunity to engage Fr. Pablo Pastells through correspondence. They argued about many things, including the concept of God. Based on the letters Rizal wrote, it can be said that his concept of God could be summarized into three notions. First, he believed that God existed. Second, he believed that God was plus supra. Lastly, he believed that God was the origin of nature; that is, nature was the expression of God.

As regards the first notion, Rizal made explicit that he believed that God existed. He was convinced that a supernatural power behind all creation had to exist. It was clear that he subscribed to the idea of “necessarycontingent beings” where the contingent being needed other beings for it to exist while the necessary being existed on its own. As such, the necessary being becomes the “origin of contingent beings. This necessary being has been labeled by many as “God”.

As regards the second notion, Rizal argued that his God was not like the God of the Catholics, as his God was far above such things. He thought that a requirement to the Godliness of God was His being above all things, which meant His being incomprehensible.

As regards the third notion, Rizal believed that if one was to “understand” God, he was going to do well to note that books which others claimed were tools of revelation were not reliable. The reason was books were too removed from actual reality as these were written by people, interpreted by others, rewritten by people, obscured by others, etc. The best way to have an idea of God was through connecting with Him personally, directly, and physically through His extensions. These extensions were nature.

American sponsorship: Is Rizal an American-sponsored hero?

In his seminal work, the Veneration Without Understanding, historian Renato Constantino argued that Rizal’s pre-eminence among our heroes was partly the result of American sponsorship by citing laws enacted by the Americans that ‘reduced’ the role of other historical figure in our history in order to emphasize the role of Jose Rizal. He argued that the Americans made Jose Rizal more special than the other heroes by encouraging a cult by enacting laws such as Act No. 137 which created the Rizal province, Act No.

243 which leads to the construction of Rizal monument in Luneta and Act No. 346 which sets December 30 as day of observance for Rizal. He also argued that Rizal was selected because of his peace-loving and compromising image and the perception that he never advocated for an abrupt and chaotic approach to independence will suit their (American) imperialistic interest in the Philippines.

On the other hand, Professor Ambeth Ocampo, a known Rizal ‘expert’ refuted the claims of Constantino saying

Did Rizal believe in God even if his works opposed the Catholic Church? 4. 5.

that Rizal was already venerated long before the American sponsored him, referring to the proclamation of Emilio Aguinaldo on December 20, 1898, which sets every December 30 as National Day of Mourning in honor of Jose Rizal. He also claims that “The Americans just built on the prevailing sentiment of the people towards Rizal. They used Rizal: anti-Spain, assimilationist, reformist, peace-loving stance to further their imperialistic agenda”.

Does Rizal deserve to be the National Hero of the Philippines?

In terms of the fight for the country’s independence, my answer is No. Rizal was an advocate for equal rights and endemic cultural recognition and perhaps fight for autonomy. For him, he would prefer that the nation underwent gradual process of self-determination, like becoming an autonomy or commonwealth of the kingdom of Spain which could result to independence after formal lobbying and years of proving that we could effectively govern ourselves. Unfortunately, he was way ahead of his time. No powerful government at that time was civil enough to agree to such arrangement.

He was in the league of Gandhi and other non-violence advocates. However, he has been sympathized by non-Filipinos around the world after he died. It means that Rizal’s grounds of becoming a national hero is due to exemplary works from academics to actual practice patriotically. He was really patriotic fighting against the tyranny of the Spanish colonialism. His two novels inspired the movement which eventually gathered his fellowmen to rise up and put into action their long-desired dream to be free from the shackles of Spanish conquest, tyranny, and enslavement. He was the hero to other Filipino heroes. He was the spark that ignited the series of flames which eventually led to the revolution by the Filipino people— indigenous or mestizos, rich or poor, men and women alike. He may not be the direct face who led to the gathering of bolos and knives, but he was the heat that tempered them. And then he made the ultimate sacrifice of facing the bullet from the nervous Spaniards who did not even have the courage to pull the trigger themselves. Even in his death, he made them tremble in their clear and imminent demise.