0.3 Opus dei book's darkened rizal & Why - chapter 3  (Page 10/21)

Indicative of its deep rootedness in faith-and-ideology (rather than in scientific search for understanding), typical discussions of Rizal’s alleged retraction take place without having a copy of its text before the discussants. Dishonestly assumed by the defenders and respecters is that the text pertained only to doctrinal matters of pure faith. I have a copy of ‘Knight Supreme Commander’ Hilario Davide’s January 2007 official reply to Victor Murillo to illustrate this. The letter replies to the Murillo’s letter which chided the self-promoting knightly defenders of Rizal over their ongoing failure to defend him from the retraction’s character assassination. The former Supreme Court head, named most recently to lead the just-elected government’s Truth Commission, replied that for himself “the retraction is a non-issue”. An irrelevancy in the understanding and assessment of the hero’s prime mission and greatness, he thought. Aside from that remark’s subconscious show of respect for the Church’s document in question, at least of giving it the benefit of the doubt, nowhere in the discussion did he cite any of its specific contents. That false and obviously stupid opinion continues the pretense of the document’ being purely about minimal doctrinal matters of faith. Well, read it again above and tell us with a straight face its confinement to minimal doctrines of faith. From the document’s beginnings and contents in the context of 1896, all the concerned parties of Church, State, media and the public understood its five-sentences to have broadly covered beliefs, works, deeds, other offences “against Church and State”. If Catholic readers of this chapter would just let go of faith-and-ideology’s often unconscious influences in regard to the proper interpretation of the text in question, which they should have in front of them in serious discussions, they would surely see in front of their faces and in their minds the broad coverage of beliefs, convictions, works, teachings, affiliations, and deeds. That proper literal understanding alone should immediately and conclusively falsify the five-sentence retraction document. For, it is just utterly inconceivable that the brave principled Masonic scientific humanist Rizal could freely write and sign such a morally self-destructive about-face. Today’s Catholics, especially their priests, should feel deep shame for their own kind in 19 ^th century Spanish Philippines tried hard to obtain such a broad abhorrent document from Rizal. In gross violation of basic individual freedoms of thought, inquiry, dissent, association, press, etc. that he championed and died for.

Let us keep climbing up our virtual mountain of conclusive anti-retraction evidence, to continue using that metaphor. Let me go back to the short impersonal and non-explaining style of the manifesto, which contradicts Rizal’s customary way of issuing and personally explaining very important matters. Can I further buttress this claim? Recall the many relatively long letters to family, and to countrymen explaining important decisions of his in much longer personal ways, so much so that you couldn’t possibly doubt its handwriting’s authenticity. Not even if it differed in some respects to its maker’s his usual penmanship. Even if you couldn’t possibly agree with some or many of its contents. Recall the two secret letters to family and countrymen respectively in mid-1892 to be opened upon his death. Recall the personally long and patiently explaining letter to fellow countrymen dated December 15,1896. There, to the embarrassment and anger of the highly nationalistic, he dared to explain why on fundamental principles he categorically opposed the 1896 rebellion against Spain. No matter how fiercely nationalistically you disagree with its contents, you cannot deny its authorship. Take the unsigned untitled death poem. Its very constricted penmanship differed with the usual writings. Does anyone seriously doubt its authorship? But, this is not so for the relatively very short December 29, 1896 impersonal and unexplained Retraction Manifesto, for its extraordinarily shocking contents and bizarre announcements to the world. Even if the relatively short half-page text and signature appears to fall within a representative sample of Rizal’s actual writings, this is trumped by the virtual mountain sampled here of conclusive anti-retraction evidence, which has only kept growing and firming up over the generations and decades.