0.3 Opus dei book's darkened rizal & Why - chapter 3

Chapter 3

A Disproof of Rizal’s Retraction (That Hides Him as a Faith-Killed Freethinker)

Freethinker: a person who forms his opinions about

God and religion using his own reason…

─Webster’s New World Dictionary

Cover-up’s Basis

The “Crime-Scene-Investigating genre” of television and the movie got me thinking in the beginning to title this pivotal chapter of this paradigm-breaking work as “Crime-Scene Investigating of the Retraction-Influenced Paradigm’s Planted Evidence.” Its replacement above makes my meaning clearer, I hope. It gave the same message of the retraction issue’s importance. It really pays to face that issue head-on since what you’ll likely find and report in Rizal studies depends on your stance in regad to th matter. My disproof of the retraction accounts for why the real historical Rizal that emerges here from the retraction’s ruins is so radically different from the still reigning viewpoints about him. It cannot be evaded in writing and teaching about our iconic subject. Recall in the previous chapter how a scholar with two doctorates no less turned him into a kind of Machiavellian sham freethinker in his book. His faith-influenced belief in the retraction led to that. Just as it led the influential Jaime de Veyra before and after the Second World War to invent the myth (since enshrined in Fort Santiago) of the last poem’s smuggling from the death cell in early evening of December 29, 1896; thus reversing and demolishing its earliest status as the unretracting December 29-30 Death Poem. Nor can you evade the issue by staying neutral out of respect for Catholic sensitivities. Dr. Quibuyen did this in his major 1999 book and so all the more over-developed and over-stretched his hero into a Bonifacian rebel. Even the answer to “Who really killed him?” depends on one’s retraction stance. In view of this successful disproof, for instance, we can say all the more that as a bone-deep Masonic scientific freethinker, it was Taliban-type Catholicism of Spain in it Philippine colony that he challenged to the death as his main enemy. The latter’s obsessive pursuit of the retraction may be seen in the Archbishop’s leading the religious in praying and doing all, through the Jesuits too, that was necessary for it. Before that and behind the scenes they set things up to obtain it with his death, and to fake it as last resort. This account buttresses the death poem’s defiant lines on “the enslaving oppressors-executioner’s faith that killed.” Him, in this historic case.

In fairness to Rizal’s retraction-blackened character, and for 21 ^st century civility’s sake, we should give this disproof the scientifically oriented investigators’ benefit of the doubt. Suspend your disbelief in this chapter’s bold claim about a continuously rising virtual mountain o conclusive no-retraction evidence since earliest days of this controversy. It distills from findings of my ignored slim books of 1996 and 1998 respectively. Whether as a Catholic you like these findings or not should not matter to an objective understanding and evaluation of the issue. Just as if you’re a Bonifacian nationalist, you should still open your mind to the evidence that the Philippines’ top hero was not. It’s not true I, as a scientifically oriented non-Catholic, cannot emotionally and ideologically accept a Catholicism-returning Rizal. Why ever not?, had he done so in an openly and properly witnessed way in the bosom of close intimates and in his customary explaining letter style. Likewise in that spirit should you consider this disproof. It requires no need for foreign handwriting experts’ consensus. Only religious ideology blinds one from seeing this no-retraction mountain of evidence right in front of our faces, looming over us, so to say.