Tarlac Agricultural University

College of Veterinary and Medicine

Camiling, Tarlac

Rizal died as a Protestant

CRUZ, Nicole Kate

ORTIZ, Gillen
QUIDES, Geriel
TOMAS, Scott Renz Owen
VALLARTA, Ian Pol

DVM 1A
Rizal died as a Protestant

Rizal became a Protestant. Rizal was not only a nationalist but also a
Protestant. He was essentially a Protestant but he doubted the divine inspiration
of its Scriptures that he believed in the supremacy of private judgment.

Rizal being anti-clerical and anti-Catholic was proven to be a Protestant

when he made it uproariously plain that he did not believe in the uses of grimy
scapulars, girdles, votive candles and holy water. Theologians and Catholic
apologist have professed to find attacks against the Catholic religion in Rizal’s
Noli Me Tangere and his El Filibusterismo. This is according to what General
Despujol have inferred, that Jose Rizal through his works, wanted to uproot from
the loyal Filipinos the treasure of the Catholic faith in order to awaken his
countrymen’s outlook on the country’s current status.

During his rustication in Dapitan a controversial argument sprouted

between Fr. Pastells and Rizal. It appeared to the Jesuit then that “Rizal did not
admit the authority of the Roman Church and had for his rule of faith the
Scriptures interpreted by his own judgment; in belief, that he was guided by
what seemed a Protestant criterion but was in fact mixed up with free-thinking
and strange pietism. Pressed further, Rizal finally came to say that he was guided
only by his own reason and that he could not admit any other standard than
that of his own mind which God had given him. Rizal revealed his anti-Catholic
ideas, which he had acquired in Europe, were caused of his resentment with the
friars because they use religion as a cloak that enables them to abuse people. “I
was forced to attack the false and superstitious religion in order to fight the
enemy who hid himself behind it” quoted from what Rizal has stated. According
to Rizal, individual judgment is a gift from God and everybody should use it like a
lantern to show the way and that self-esteem, if moderated by judgment, saves
man from unworthy acts. He also argued that “religion may vary but they all
lead to the light”.
 The revolution was anti-friars, and therefore adjudged to be anti-clerical,
even anti-Catholic; Rizal was no tonsured cleric like the GomBurZa brother, he
was an intellectual, a modernist, a Protestant. Attacking the friars with his works
is the same as striking the church for the friars believed that when someone
attacks an individual belonging to an organization it also affects the
organization for they are accounted as one entity having one core belief.

Another, evidence was the incident with Father Balaguer and Rizal’s first
meeting. On first impression Rizal showed himself a Protestant because of his
rational religious belief. Father Balaguer then demonstrated to him the absurdity
of rationalism and of the absurd monstrous errors committed by the wisest men
of pagan times, Balaguer tried to prove to him that there is no and can be no
other rational criterion than supernatural faith and divine revelation guaranteed
by the authority of the Church. It took long for Father Balaguer to convince a
determinedly convicted person like Rizal to retract but still not wholeheartedly.
“Look, Father, if I, in order to please you, said yes to everything and signed
whatever you put before me, without conviction, I would be a hypocrite and
offend God.” stating this with a hint of loyalty on his belief, still.

Rizal was a Protestant in his mind and belief. It is the belief he uphold in his
heart for his conviction with it is so strong that even he felt hypocrisy upon
agreeing to retract with Father Balaguer. It may not be his birth religion, but
upon his encounter with various circumstances that awakened his
consciousness to the struggles his nation faced his views in life and even his
belief changed and that’s when, with the help of the Europe’s influence on his
judgment, he became rationalistic and started interpreting Protestant scriptures
in view of his judgment.

What was the great debate all about?

The great debate is an issue that revolves on the matter of the religious
argument between Dr. Jose P. Rizal and Fr. Pablo Pastells – Superior of the Jesuit
Society in the Philippines. It started a short while after Rizal was exiled to Dapitan
and had a long scholarly debate with Fr. Pastells which lasted for months
containing a total of 9 letters, 5 of which is from Rizal himself and the 4 from Fr.
Pastells. The Jesuit Obach had opened the Dapitan Controversy by handing
Rizal a gift from Pastells, the apologetic of Sarda, with the message “Tell him to
stop being fatuous, wanting to look at his affairs with the prism of his own
judgment and self-esteem; nemo judex in causa propria” (no one can sit as
judge on his own cause). It was the heart of the matter and Rizal seized on it
without hesitation. In all his letters to Fr. Pastells, Rizal revealed his anti-Catholic
ideas which he had acquired in Europe. He resented the friars because they use
religion as a cloak that enables them to abuse people. “I was forced to attack
the false and superstitious religion in order to fight the enemy who hid himself
behind it” quoted from what Rizal has stated. According to Rizal, individual
judgment is a gift from God and everybody should use it like a lantern to show
the way and that self-esteem, if moderated by judgment, saves man from
unworthy acts. He also argued that “religion may vary but they all lead to the
light”.

It was plain, to the Jesuit’s dismay, that Rizal did not admit the authority of
the Roman Church and had for his rule of faith the Scriptures interpreted by his
own judgment; in brief that he was guided by what seemed a Protestant
criterion but was in fact mixed up with free-thinking and strange pietism. But still
Fr. Pastells, tried his best to win back Rizal to the fold of Catholicism. He even told
Rizal that no matter how wise a man is his intelligence is limited; hence he needs
the guidance of God. He refuted Rizal’s attacks on Catholic dogmas as
misconceptions of rationalism and naturalism, errors of misguided souls. The
controversy ended on an uncertain note.
What is the relationship of the retraction issues of Jose Rizal being a protestant?

The retraction became the tool for the people to know whether Rizal
admitted his Protestantism and his anti-Clerical and anti-Catholic acts and if he
renounced what he ever did that put the Church in a bad position. Let us
remember that Rizal was a modern man in a medieval community, and that his
religious beliefs, different as they were from those of the majority, were a matter
of great weight, both to himself and to the society, than we would now be
inclined to think. He was a non-conformist in a society where Church and State
were united, and where religious skepticism was “unpatriotic” and political
dissent “irreligious”. And it explains why the Jesuits, under the orders of the
Dominican Archbishop, exerted extraordinary efforts to win him back to
Catholic orthodoxy through retraction.

Rizal has written a number of works with religious ideas. These works of his
truly reflects his religious convictions. Since he was a Protestant the friars took it
as something against the entire religion that could be held liable for the
church’s downfall as well as the governments, for church and government
within this time period are adjoining entities. During this time because of the
publication which publishes his works, an immense quantity of the society have
already set their views same with that of what Rizal relays in his works. Fearing
that this would cause a mutiny among the Filipino Indios , the only action the
friars could come up with is for Rizal to retract his religion and all his works that
was against the church. It would change the views and side of the Filipinos on
this issue thus ridding the Spanish empire of mutinous problems. Therefore
retraction is the solution the friars could come up with Rizal’s Protestantism work
that pose a threat to the rule of the Spaniards. By agreeing to retract, Rizal also,
although he denies, embraces the fact that he became a Protestant that seeks
to uproot the loyalty of the Filipinos on their belief to the Catholic Church.