Le, lahi man ang case ni Rizal, kay datu man sha and he was very previledge to study abroad, and he learned so many things contrary to what the friars taught us! even ang spanis rulers sa Spana has nothing to do with all the attitudes these friars showd us. If you all know what they showd us was not only to teach about christianity which is so different from the EDUCATED COUNTRIES. If you guys remember that people were not allowed to read the bible during the Spanish regime.....(sumpayi ninyo kay mangita sa ko ug kape)
Rizal was already different from his contemporaries that studied in Europe, 'te, because the man was a polymath. Whatever he touched, he mastered its understanding ranging not only in Medicine (he specialized in Opthalmology), but in History, Philosophy, Architectural Science, Fencing, over 8 languages, Journalism, Novelty, and many more to even list. The man did not come from an elitist family, no not at all, but came from an average middle class family. Whose father was Chinese and his mother a Spanish-Mestiza. He was one of 11 children; all of whom were educated by the will of their father. They came from rather humble beginnings. It is also important to note, 'te, that money itself does not bring intelligence; one can be extremely rich but have the mind of a pear. One can be poor and have the mind of a sponge, like that of Rizal, and absorb everything one hears, learns, reads.
Rizal, is just like that. He was not 'rich', but he was intelligent. It wasn't his monetary income that sent him to Paris, Hiedelberg, Madrid, Barcelona. Nay, because he came to Madrid to study without his parents knowing it.
He finished his medical licentiate and practiced opthalmology in Spain, continued his studies in Germany and France. He made friends through his own intellect and god-given whit.
He focused his energy on written works that addressed the Spanish Cortes and the reading citizenry of Spain; whose focus was to address the grievances that the Noble Filipino people were subject to by the Colonial Government in the Islands and also the pseudo-feudalism that the Friars were ruling the islands in. These friars in question were politically-minded and advocates of the current status quo; keep that in mind.
This is the very reason why some Friars and Church leaders within the Philippines regarded Rizal as a threat. Clearly, corruption within the church leaders, at that time, is visible. For centuries they had significant power in the islands and for them, the 19th century was a tumultuous epoch due to the liberalization of Spain's policies in the islands. Hundreds of more Filipinos (Creole, Mestizo and even Indio) were sent abroad to Spain and Europe to be educated; coming back and bringing their European ideals with them--to the detriment of the old governing system and old traditionalist views circulated. It was a clash of ideals; clash of views. Rizal, for all counts and purposes, represented this new Filipino-hood. Represented the vocal Filipino, one who knew his history as well as cultural ties.
You see it is true what you say, 'te Belle, that the friars that ran the dioceses in the Philippines were indeed corrupt. They ran the entire country's churches in almost an absolutist-autocratic manner. They ran it as if they were still living in the 16th century when the country was still non-christian, paganistic, animimalistic; Pre-Hispanic. Rizal, in his works, voiced his concerns about this multiple times in
La Solidaridad because he understood the beauty of the Mother-Child relations between Spain and the Philippines. He studied the ethnological nature, the cultural assimilations and what not; but he questioned the religious mannerism that the church ruled the islands. In this, he pointed out that the Philippines, was a representative of Hispanidad in Asia. A pivotal and significant member of the Spanish Empire; in that the Filipinos were civilized in manner as which Spain had envisioned during its days of
Pax Hispanica (from 1492-1850). Rizal championed the advances in science, in language learning, education (though it was limited to the elite class and those with economic substance), as well as the bureaucracy. Evolutionarily speaking, the country had transitioned itself from feudal barbarism of pre-Hispanidad to one that was a member of Latin States, with a people that knew how to speak Spanish as the Lingua Franca, but also retained the indigenous dialects from region to region (tagalog, bisaya, illocana, pampanganero, chabacano etc). Yet, even despite this culturo-socio-economico-political transition, still the churches ruled in feudalry. Rizal pointed this out TIME and TIME again. And it sheds light to the abuses of power of the past.
Rizal, in his writings, makes it clear that what the church should have done was to mold itself and change as the population changed. In this I mean that as the Philippine Islands became more and more Spanish-European in culture and societal aspects; so too the church should have loosened its control and liberalized its agenda. Rather, what we see in the country, historically speaking, is that the country moved towards transition, education, agricultural reformation etc, but the church leaders in the land--in union with some Filipino Peninsulares members (landed Aristocracy) favored the antithesis of the present phenomena of the day.
Rizal, by chance and perhaps by the will of Providence, voiced out the need to change.
What makes him so popular was due to his moderate toned nature. Never so radical to declare death to the church or the Spanish regime, yet not too weak as to deafen or dilute the pains and grievances of the Filipino people. His fellow, "Malay Brothers".
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=14395.0