# data[].attributes.body
"Furthermore, there are passages in the two books where it is not
anymore the novels’ characters but the author himself who speaks.
And among these passages, there are many which are derogatory
to Catholic beliefs and practices as such, aside from the criticisms
leveled upon unworthy priests."([Philippine Hierarchy] 1956, 4–5 par. 6)

# data[].attributes.body
It is due to being deceived by the notion of Rizal's works as a purely discriminatory attack on Catholicism that Cavanna comes to the conclusion that the novels are merely a mouthpiece for the author to speak ill of the church, rather than  the depiction of characters speaking as it befitted them.

# data[].attributes.body
“[Rizal] did attack the shield, that is, not only the superstitions which sometimes, due to ignorance, creep into religious practices, but the ritual itself of the Church, which are sacred acts of Catholic worship,” quoted by Cavanna

# data[].attributes.body
Palma falsely paraphrased some aspects, conflicting the purity of the text. Inserting defamatory words such as “rituals and superstitions.” Moreover, affected Ozaeta’s interpretation for further inferences.

# data[].attributes.body
Why did they appoint Father Cavanna as the principal author?

# data[].attributes.body
Translation of Epistolario Rizalino did not produce an accurate par on the German and Spanish original.

# data[].attributes.body
The amendment also induced tones of practicality and social justice, enlightening restrained ideologies on Rizal.

# data[].attributes.body
Further, the compromisation of said favor did not also affect the regulation of Rizal’s Anthems within education, but also deducted the possibility that there would be any annotated editions.

# data[].attributes.body
The senate as well as Late Former President Ramon Magsaysay, came with a uninamouse vote, which compromised the Church’s favor.

# data[].attributes.body
People dislodge the analogy of the students having service oaths, in regards of their access to Rizal’s novels.

# data[].attributes.body
Why does the catholic church need to defame Rizal's name by the latter period?

# data[].attributes.body
The “Statement” proceeded rather to quote canon law forbidding books of certainties, which aligns with the principle and genre of the two novels of Rizal. Only those who are permitted by the ecclesiastical authority may able to read these literary texts, under a justifiable reason and proper condemnation of religious faith (Schumacher, 2011).

# data[].attributes.body
Further configurations of the “Statements” did not merely came from Cavanna, but the ecclesiastical authority.

# data[].attributes.body
IV. Theoretical Overview

# data[].attributes.body
III. Lapsed interpretation from quotes

# data[].attributes.body
II. Omitting effects of the statement within religious and political consensus

# data[].attributes.body
c. Appointing Fr. Cavanna as the principal author.

# data[].attributes.body
b. Sen. Rodrigo inferring the use of annotated works of Rizal.

# data[].attributes.body
I. Initial prepositions regarding the changes

# data[].attributes.headline
Changes from Draft C to Bishop’s Statements

# data[].attributes.subject
Changes from Draft C to Bishop’s Statements

# data[].attributes.body
Finalization of the Drafts by Cavanna—bishops’ appointed principal author.

# data[].attributes.body
a. Visible conflicting perspectives of Draft C and the “Statements”