6 October 1888

Barcelona

6 October 1888

Mr. Jose Rizal

My very dear Friend,

I have received your pleasing letter of the 30th of last month. You have nothing to thank me for. One who is only complying with his duty does not deserve gratitude. Moreover, what I do is so little that I would not even dare say that I am fulfilling my duty.

Plaridel’s work is not yet finished. Send me what you mention in your letter in order to put it as an appendix to the little work.[1]

An illustrious fellow countryman,[2] recognized in Manila as a profound theologian and great philosopher, in view of Fr. Rodriguez’ little treatise, tried to write him a letter to show him that his little book is full of Catholic aberrations and to defend at the same time the Nolie me tangere against his assertions that it contained propositions that are heretical, blasphemous, and impious. The letter did not reach the hands of the blessed Fr. Rodriguez as the friends of the writer counselled him against sending it. But the author of the letter entrusted to a young writer the work of preparing a treatise that would show the opposite of the passionate assertions of the friar-author in point of religion. I shall try to give you an extract of the said letter.

After stating that he has read and reread the Noli and declaring that he has not found any confirmation of Fr. Rodriguez’ accusations, he states his opinion in the following observations:

Dr. Rizal by means of veiled allusions severely censured the great abuses of individuals of certain institutions, absolutely without involving in the censure institution and their inherent goodness owing to his primitive spirit. The iniquity of the abuses infects indeed, like leprosy, the members of the corporation, not so the criticism that is made of them so that they may reform. Unfortunately passion or interest often confuses men with things; identifying the person of the religious with immaculate religion.

He cites the ridiculous boasting of so-called pious persons who dispute recklessly who of them has won more indulgences, etc., and says: “To put in bold relief with vivid and loud colors of criticism that foolish boasting, that arrogant bragging and ridiculousness of such pious persons, is that by chance to deny the existence of purgatory, the efficacy of indulgences, and the infinite value of the sacrifice of the Mass? Can anyone assert it unless he is obfuscated by passion?”

He demonstrated that you prove the existence of purgatory by citing church councils and ecclesiastical decrees, and he quotes “between us we can say that the idea of purgatory is good, holy…..The evil is in the abuse of it.”

“You said,” addressing Fr. Rodriguez, “that Dr. Rizal is irreverent, heretical, and blasphemous who induces others to atheism, but you do not cite a single proposition of his that indicates hi impiety and heresy. In his words or various concepts that I am going to cite I see his faith in God and the Christian religion that rejects all idea of impiety and atheism.” He quotes Tasio on page 68 which says: “I do now know Madame, what God will do with me. When I am agonizing, I shall entrust myself to Him without fear; He may do with me what He likes.” And he says: “Is he thus an atheist who denies the existence of God or a godless man who induces others to atheism?” He quotes also this: “If the only ones who can save themselves are the Catholics,…” until the end of chapter XIV. In order to stress the Christian faith of the author of the Noli he quotes what Ibarra says to the teacher on page 88: “I have meditated better and I think that in order to realize the ideas of my father,…” until the end of the paragraph. And he proceeds: “Here is the religion of Jesus Christ professed in spirit and in truth, not officially and interestedly, not with words belied by the works and abuses that dishonor it and that God abominates in his ministers.” Another point discussed and refuted with powerful arguments is that of Fr. Rodriguez, which says: The only thing that is evident in the author of the Noli is his hatred of religion and Spain,” quoting the dialogue of Ibarra and Elias in chapter 49. And the said letter ends by saying that the intelligent public far from believing Fr. Rodriguez’ assertions attributed his declarations to another motive—incredulity based on the following reasons: “1. It is publicly known that the book was denounced to the Governor General and to highly influential persons keenly interested in your disappearance. They have made strong representations to the highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities to prohibit its circulation. It is known that it was subjected to censorship. And what was the result? His pretension did not prosper; so far as we know the prohibition requested by the interested party has not been ordered. This result was already expected as a consequence of the present policy dominant in Spain and given the prevailing atmosphere there, here, and everywhere. I have seen the opinion of the curate censor which was certainly and of course very favorable to the pretension. It seemed to me very weighty and its official approval would have been a matter of course had it been made twenty years ago, that is to say, in the day of gags when one could not speak against the abuses of a certain class of persons, because a quiet voice of terrible vengeance resounded everywhere whose echo was similar to the Noli me tangere. 2. During the sojourn here of Rizal of more or less one year, they had already initiated a tolle-tolle[3] that gave so much importance to this book that six pesos were offered for a copy. If it is true that it is full of heresies and blasphemies, our prudent and zealous prelate would have wrested from the hands of the faithful that book that is said to be poisonous to the soul, prohibiting it under canonical penalties. 3. On page 25 you say that the ecclesiastical authority is the only one that can judge the goodness or the wickedness of a book. Well then, is the Fr. Prior of Guadalupe,[4] solely for being so, possibly the only competent ecclesiastical authority? No? Then de ore tuo te judico. These three reasons are enough to convince anyone of the necessity that you give adequate explanations on the matter or the competent authority render its especially condemnatory verdict against the said book if you think it convenient…”

La Oceania of Manila of 3 August last alludes to you, your novel, Blumentritt, and Molo, the Maguinoo.

Please give me Mr. Basa’s address in Hong Kong in order to send the books you wish. Today I send you the copy you ask together with two booklets of our “good friend” Fr. Rodriguez.

The Filipino colony of Barcelona as well as some countrymen in Madrid are actively working to revive the periodical España en Filipinas, not without counting on the valuable support of enthusiastic Manilans who offer to provide funds. And, as we as well as the friends in Manila wish you to manage the periodical, I take the liberty to ask you if you are definitely staying abroad or going back to Spain, in which case, should you accept it, our most ardent desire shall be realized.

What work is that which you have finished?

Your sincere friend embraces you,

M. Ponce

P.S.

Antonio Luna is with us at present to see the Exposition; he sends you many regards. He asks me to advise you not to tell his brother Juan about his trip to this city. We also have with us Paco Esquivel and Evaristo Aguirre, and the arrival shortly of Eduardo Lete is announced.

02-333 [Blumentritt V.1]