RPH Case Studies Berora PDF

Preview

Summary

Warning: TT: undefined function: 32 Case Study 1: Where did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines? There is a controversy regarding the site where does the first mass was celebrated here in the Philippines. Pigafetta says that the first mass was held on the Easter Sunday, March 31, 1...

Description

Case Study 1: Where did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines? -

There is a controversy regarding the site where does the first mass was celebrated here in the Philippines. Pigafetta says that the first mass was held on the Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521, on an island named “Mazaua” and attended by the two native chieftains: the rajah of Mazaua and the rajah of Butuan. After the mass, they climbed up on a hill to plant a wooden cross upon its summit. The subject of this controversy is to identify the place that Pigafetta says that named “Mazaua”. There are two conflicting claims as its to identify. Some say “Mazaua” is located at the small island of the Southern Leyte which in the map is called Limasawa. And the other also believed that “Ma zaua” is located at the mouth of the Agusan River at Northern Mindanao’s’ beach called Masao. Butuan claims based on their tradition that was almost unanimous and unbroken for three centuries namely the 17th, 18th, a 19th centuries. With the strength of their tradition, a monument was erected in 1872 near the mouth of the Agusan River at a spot that was then within the municipal boundaries of Butuan but which today belonged to Magallanes, named after Ferdinand Magellan. The monument was made by brick pillars on which was a marble that contained an inscription which might be translated as follows: “To the Immortal Magellan: the people of the Butuan with their Parish Priest and the Spaniards resident therein, to commemorate his arrival and the celebration of the First Mass on this site on the 8th of April 1521. Erected in 1872, under the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo”. Five evidences support the claim of the Butuan, the first evidence is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta which was the ‘First Voyage around the World’. The second evidence is the expedition traveled 20 to 25 leagues from Homonhon, the first landing point. The third evidence is the distance to Cebu from ‘Mazaua’ was 35 leagues (140 miles). The distance Limasawa to Cebu is only 80 miles. The fourth evidence is, it was mentioned that the king came to their ship in a balanghai. Butuan now the site of at least nine balanghai relics; by contrast, Limasawa has no significant archeological relics or balanghai tradition. The fifth and the last evidence is that the abundance of gold in Agusan Valley. It is also said that Magellan has been never landed at Ladislawa at all. According to BCHFI, there are 28 gathered new pieces of scientific shreds of evidence and comparison between the two islands (mazaua and limasawa) 10 recovery of Balanghai boat in 1976 near the Masao river at Agusan valley. Historian Gregorio Zaide, who originally supported the limasawa claim, also claimed that “It is high time for contemporary historians and the Philippine government to correct their mistake and accept that the first Christian mass was held in Masao, Butuan Agusan del Norte and not in Limasawa, Leyte, on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521”.

As a conclusion, the gathered data can be a proof that the first mass dated and happened on Easter Sunday on the 21st day of March year 1521 at Masao, Butuan. We can see it clearly that the site where the first mass was held. It is because historians, archeologists and etc., were able to find credible artifacts and visible shreds of evidence in Butuan which the Limasawa island did not contain any of it.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny? -

One hundred and forty years ago, on January 20, 1872, about 200 Filipino military personnel of Fort San Felipe Arsenal in Cavite, Philippines, staged a mutiny which in a way led to the Philippine Revolution in 1896. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny was precipitated by the removal of long-standing personal benefits to the workers such as tax (tribute) and forced labor exemptions on order from the Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo. Izquierdo replaced Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre some months before in 1871 and immediately rescinded Torre’s liberal measures and imposed his iron-fist rule. He was opposed to any hint of reformist or nationalistic movements in the Philippines. He was in office for less than two years, but he will be remembered for his cruelty to the Filipinos and the barbaric execution of the three martyr-priests blamed for the mutiny: Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later collectively called “Gomburza.” The mutineers were led by Sgt. Fernando La Madrid; they seized the Fort and killed the Spanish officers. Fearing a general uprising, the Spanish government in Manila sent a regiment under General Felipe Ginoves to recover the Fort. The besieged mutiny was quelled, and many mutineers including Sgt. La Madrid was killed. Later, others were sentenced to death or hard labor. Izquierdo used the mutiny to implicate Gomburza and other notable Filipinos known for their liberal leanings. Prominent Filipinos such as priests, professionals, and businessmen were arrested on flimsy and trumped-up charges and sentenced to prison, death, or exile. These include Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Jose Basa, and Antonio M. Regidor. It was said that the Cavite mutineers got their cue from Manila when they saw and heard fireworks across the Manila Bay which was really a celebration of the feast of the Lady of Loreto in Sampaloc. When the Archbishop of Manila, Rev. Meliton Martinez, refused to cooperate and defrock the priests, the Spanish courtmartial on February 15 went ahead and maliciously found Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora guilty of treason for instigating the Cavite mutiny. Two days later, the three priests were put to death by garrotte in Bagumbayan, now known as Luneta.

(Garrote was a barbaric Spanish method of execution in which an iron collar was tightened around the prisoner’s neck until death occurred.) Father Burgos was of Spanish descent, born in the Philippines. He was a parish priest of the Manila Cathedral and had been known to be close to the liberal Governor-General de la Torre. He was 35 years old at the time and was active and outspoken in advocating the Filipinization of the clergy. He was quoted as saying, “Why shall a young man strive to rise in the profession of law or theology when he can vision no future for himself but obscurity?”. Father Zamora, 37, was also Spanish, born in the Philippines. He was the parish priest of Marikina and was known to be unfriendly and would not countenance any arrogance or authoritative behavior from Spaniards coming from Spain. He once snubbed a Spanish governor who came to visit Marikina. Father Gomez was an old man in his mid’70, Chinese-Filipino, born in Cavite. He held the most senior position of the three as Archbishop’s Vicar in Cavite. He was truly nationalistic and accepted the death penalty calmly as though it were his penance for being pro-Filipinos. The three priests were stripped of their albs, and with chained hands and feet were brought to their cells after their sentence. They received numerous visits from folks coming from Cavite, Bulacan, and elsewhere. Forty thousand Filipinos came to Luneta to witness and quietly condemn the execution, and Gomburza became a rallying catchword for the down-trodden Filipinos seeking justice and freedom from Spain. In the dedication page of his second book, El Filibusterismo, published in 1891, Dr. Jose Rizal wrote, “I dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat…”. It is well to remember that the seeds of nationalism that were sown in Cavite blossomed to the Philippine Revolution and later to the Declaration of Independence by Emilio Aguinaldo which took place also in Cavite. As for me, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny bolstered the stereotypical belief that Caviteños was the most courageous of my fellow Filipinos. • -

Spanish Accounts Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complemented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as to how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets

reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them the charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report, lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing. The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite, and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros. According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose, and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested, and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares. On 17 February 1872 in an attempt by the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

• -

Differing Accounts (1872) On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers insight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued. Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a fullblown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire desire to maintain power in the Philippines. Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos despite the native clergy’s zest for secularization. The friars, fearin g that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to the discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract? -

An article that I’ve read, it says th at Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidence presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. But the case is still just an argument right now. First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden? Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented were a forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original. Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements. Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the three priests who were garroted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial. Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal’s favorite teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student’s allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez told him to retract in exchange for a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate (Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer. Was argued that Rizal retracted to save his family from further persecution, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife, and to assure reforms from the Spanish government. It is more likely to be of Rizal’s mentality however, come to think of it, would Rizal just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that brought him to the point of being executed? No.

Rizal’s behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to conversion- the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula of the retraction. Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had coveted death a long time ago. His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do not believe that he has written a retraction. Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man, aged 33. He was mature enough to realize the consequences of the choice he had made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a behavior showing a threat from death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him knows this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed behavior consistent with what he was throughout his mature years. Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction controversy, “…it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.” • -

Balaguer Testimony According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in the morning. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion of some articles of the Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences that divided Catholics and Protestants. Since time was not on their side, they persuaded Rizal not to spend so much time discussing faithrelated issues and focus instead on how to die in the state of grace so that he could enter heaven. They explained to him that they could not administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. Fr. Balaguer mentioned that Rizal softened a bit when he warned him that his soul would go to hell if he did not return to the Catholic fold. He reminded him that outside the Catholic Church, there was no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam nulla datur salus) (Cavanna 1956, 8). The two Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the retraction letter or not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first meeting with Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him to recant. They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the t...