Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract as testified by his great grand nephew

From: http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/

Jose Rizal retraction, Part II

December 29, 2011

(Editor:This is Part II of the lecture delivered at the Chicago’s Newberry Library on June 18, 2011. The author is a great-grand nephew of the Philippine National Hero whose 150th birthday was marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on Dec. 30, 1896 after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort Santiago, Manila.)
By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.

L-R: Berth Salvador, Cultural Officer, Philippine 

Consulate General, Dr. Reagan F. Romali, President of Truman College, Philippine Consul General Leo M. Herrera-Lim and Dr. Ramon G. Lopez, direct descendant of Dr. Jose Rizal.

“How could this be?” we ask.  It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived.  It COULD BE, for there was no other recourse.  It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings!  Twenty-four years after the garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people.  However, it would not be completely so!  The man they had just martyred was a man whose politics and faith were unshakeable and timeless.  As we know, and as History recounts, it also projects.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of the University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history.”  Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal meticulously.  Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense before the court martial is resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in which the fiscal had treated him.”  For in man’s own tribunal, the tribunal and trial that condemned Dr. Jose Rizal to die was a sham; his execution, a foregone conclusion.

A portrait of Jose Rizal as a Mason. His membership in the fraternity had caused his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. His retraction is a subject of controversy.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four years he was exiled in Dapitan.  He truly loved her.  They had desired a canonical marriage but were presented with a pre-condition retraction of Rizal’s anti-ecclesiastical writings and beliefs.  As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-Church.  He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind their pretentious cloak of religiosity.  He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not worship God.  Neither the retraction nor the marriage occurred.  He and Josephine were parents to a son, though he sadly passed.  We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…”  As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute quotes, “To accept Rizal as having married Bracken is to accept his alleged retraction of religious error.”  From Austin Coates, British author and historian:  “Before God, he (Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract.”  And from Dr. Jose Rizal himself, I quote: “I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors… where faith does not slay… where He who reigns is God.”

Fraudulent Premise

From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully.  A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting.  He had decided to remain ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged “religious errors.”  Now, there seems to be a “disconnect”, or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the friars and the Jesuits.  Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have begotten a marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent.  Austin Coates’ book entitled Rizal – Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family.  To wit:

1.Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters.  The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful morning.  Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.
2. Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the execution.

3. Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could “describe” a wedding?  Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony?  Or was there really even one at all?

4. In Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.

5. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.

6. In Josephine Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim.  She did not pursue this.  Why not?
7.  In 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the religious.  Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”

“Unconfessed” Martyrdom”

From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be performed.  In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that “the Indio always retracted”, as he walked to his execution.  Austin Coates states in his book: “The Spaniards publish the same thing about everyone who is shot… Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.”  I say that if there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his martyrdom “un-confessed”:

1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent.  The entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the authorities.  Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered “un-confessed” and without spiritual aid at the time of death.

2.    Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a Christian burial, but they did not.  They must have known that no retraction was made.  Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin.  This was the onus of the “un-confessed.”

3.   One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage.  A message with that important information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.
4.   Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of retraction could be produced.

5.   The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family.  Though the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown.  They were told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.

6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for his soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body.  I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!

7.   The apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a  handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating author’s primary language was Spanish (not Josephine’s original language), thus  proving that the document was  manufactured and disingenuous.

8.  Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.

9.       In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made an exposé of six different articles and books that purportedly presented Dr. Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original” testament of retraction.  Intriguingly enough, even to this day, the claimed “original” document from which the facsimiles have arisen have not been seen by anybody.  Blatant in these six different presentations were differing dates and notes that had been doctored, traced-over, and altered, when these facsimiles were supposed to have come from the same “original” document!  This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.

Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs.  The arguments to the contrary made by his detractors are all smoke screen and “retreads” of the dubious accounts of the sycophantic Father Balaguer and his gullible minions.  Let us not allow for the sands of time to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious event.  Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent claim.  As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a panel of the world’s experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made.  Let this hidden document come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see, and to judge, and to know what is truthful.

When this comes to pass… in this 21st century, in this age of an “evidence-based” society that demands transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, then it should not be beyond the Catholic Church to NOW admit the pious fraud it had committed in saying that Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his writings and beliefs, when all evidences point to the fact that he did not!

Dr. Rizal advice to investigate your religion

Seventh. Consider well what kind of religion they are teaching you. See whether it is the will of God or according to the teachings of Christ that the poor be succored and those who suffer alleviated. Consider what they are preaching to you, the object of the sermon, what is behind the masses, novenas, rosaries, scapularies, images, miracles, candles, belts, etc., etc., which they daily keep before your minds, ears and eyes, jostling, shouting, and coaxing; investigate whence they came and whither they go and then compare that religion with the pure religion of Christ and see whether that pretended observance of the life of Christ does not remind you of the fat milk cow or the fattened pig, which is encouraged to grow fat not through love of the animal, but for grossly mercenary motives.

IN TAGALOG FILIPINO:

Ang ika-pito. Liniñgin ninyong magaling kung ano ang religiong itinuturó sa atin. Tingnan ninyong mabuti kung iyan ang utos ng Dios ó ang pangaral ni Cristong panglunas sa hirap ñg mahirap, pangaliw sa dusa ñg nagdudusa. Alalahanin ninyo ang lahat ñg sa inyo'y itinuturó, ang pinapatuñguhan ñg lahat ng sermon, ang nasa ilalim ng lahat ng misa, novena, kuintas, kalmen, larawan, milagro, kandilá, corea at iba't iba pang iginigiit, inihihiyaw at isinusurot araw-araw sa inyong loob, taiñga, at mata, at hanapin ninyo ang puno at dulo at saka iparis ninyo ang religiong sa malinis na religion ni Cristo, at tingnan kung hindí ang inyong pagkakristiano ay paris ng naalagang gatasang hayop, ó paris ng pinatatabang baboy kayá, na dí pinatatabá alang alang sa pagmamahal sa kaniya, kundí maipagbili ng lalong mahal at ng lalong masalapian.

From the letter of Rizal to Young women of Malolos on February 22, 1889.

Examining the arguments that Rizal retracted or not

The unanswered question is: Was there any retraction? A bitter dispute has been waged from 1896 to the present day over this highly controversial question. Professor Padilla of the University of the Philippines states the position of many and perhaps most educated Filipinos in this succinct way: 

 

"Briefly then the picture presented before us is that of Dr. Rizal, the man, the scientist, and rationalist, who wrote vigorously against the Catholic Church, and who ridiculed the idea of hell. A few hours before his execution, when threatened with eternal damnation, he became suddenly 'distributed' and cried like a child, 'No, no, I would not be condemned.' Assured by Father Balaguer that he would certainly go to hell if he did not retract and return to the Catholic Church, the fear became greater, his reason capitulated to faith, and he exclaimed: 'Well Father, I promise that the remainder of my lifetime I will employ asking God for the grace of faith'. Whereupon he signed a retraction in which he disowned all that he ever said and wrote against the church, and abominated Masonry. . . This picture is too much for one's credulity. Too many of the supposed facts brought out in the way of evidence, when pieced together, do not seem to fit psychologically into the picture."

 

Let us examine the proofs on both sides of the question.

 

As first hand evidence for the retraction we now have four sworn statements: Fathers Balaguer and Visa swore that they saw the retraction signed. Father Pio Pi swore that he received it from Father Balaguer in the Ateneo, and a Colonel if the Infantry, R. Sominguez, swore on May 30, 1918, that he had seen Rizal kneel at the altar of the Fort Chapel and read the retraction "with voice clear and serene." Dominguez then quoted the retraction without a single error, twenty-two years after the event! He certainly copied this retraction, for he could not have remembered it, which fact, as Pascual insists, leaves one in doubt as to how much more he copied. Many of his sentences are exact duplicates of other records.

 

Another affidavit is often presented as circumstantial evidence. The Fiscal, Don Gaspar Castaño, visited Rizal between nine and ten the evening before the execution, and tells us that as he departed, Rizal "with jovial courtesy expressed his regret that he could not ask me to come again. . ." I said, 'Rizal, you passionately love your mother and your country, both of which are Catholic. Do not cause them the great pain of dying outside the true religion.' He answered in a tone of great solemnity, looking toward the altar, using this phrase which I well remember, 'Mr. Fiscal, you may be sure I will not close the doors of eternity.'

 

The most important evidence is the retraction itself, which was found on May 18, 1935, by Father Manuel Garcia. It had been wrapped up with retractions made by other men of the same period. In the same package was a prayer book ending with "Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity", under which appears the signature of José Rizal. These "Acts" cover the doctrines of the church much more fully than does the retraction. If the retraction and the signature are found to be genuine, then the fact of the retraction will be settled, though Father Balaguer's story will remain incredible.

 

Let us now consider the evidence against the retraction. Several exceedingly stupid blunders were made if the retraction is authentic, so stupid that they seem to point to fraud. Rizal's relatives were promised that the retraction would be read to them in Paco church, but they never heard it. That caused doubt. The newspapers published different versions. That caused doubt.

 

Then came the well-nigh incredible report that it had been lost! Nobody could believe it! After four years of effort to convert Rizal had been crowned with success, after the orders had all prayed with penances and mortification, the retraction, the most precious document the church possessed in the Philippines, ought to have been guarded as nothing else. Yet it had disappeared! Father Balaguer swears under oath (in 1917) that he took it to the Ateneo before Rizal was led out to be shot, and that Father Pio Pi carried it to the Palace of Archbishop Nozaleda, entrusting it to Secretary Gonzalez Feijoo, who deposited it in the chest for reserved papers. There all trace of it was lost. Father Pio Pi said they looked for it and could not find it. That caused doubt.

 

For thirty-nine years, millions of Filipinos, whether Catholic or not, denied that such a paper existed. Then the retraction was found in the very files where it had formerly been sought in vain. That fact caused doubt. Why had it been missing thirty-nine years? Asked the incredulous Filipinos.

 

The Archbishop permitted Ricardo R. Pascual, Ph.D. to examine the retraction, and give him a good photostat of it. Pascual wrote a devastating book called "Rizal Beyond the Grave" in which he seems to show by minute measurements that the retraction diverges from the style of Rizal's other writings of that period, and he concludes that the paper was a forgery. Pascual points out that both signatures of the "witnesses" were signed by the same man, and they do indeed look alike. Pascual's book caused doubt. Until world experts on handwriting give their judgment, suspicion will continue. Perhaps even with such scientific judgment, people would believe or doubt the document according to their prejudices, for it is difficult to be dispassionate.

 

 

Unfortunately for the historian there was more blundering, which has led many writers into uncertainty, concerning the marriage of Rizal. Father Balaguer swears that he married José and Josephine about fifteen minutes before the time for the execution. But the marriage record could not be found in the Manila Cathedral nor in the Registry of Fort Santiago where it ought to have been place. This raised doubt. Rizal's sister Lucia, who went with Josephine to the chapel that morning, saw a priest in vestments, but said she did not see the ceremony. One fact supports the marriage statement. Rizal wrote in a copy of The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas á Kempis, these words: "To my dear and unhappy wife, Dec. 30, 1896."

 

The obvious answer might be that Rizal had regarded Josephine as his wife since they first held hands in Dapitan a year and a half before, -- but in no letter now available did he call her "wife" before this time. Or the writing may be forged.

 

The strongest circumstantial evidence for the wedding comes from Rizal's sister Maria. When she went to say farewell the last night, José said to her:

 

"Maria, I am going to marry Josephine. I know you all oppose it, especially you, yourself. But I want to give Josephine a name. Besides you know the verse in the Bible, 'The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children to the third and forth generation.' I do not want them to persecute you or her for what I have done."

 

There were three more blunders, which produced doubts. Rizal was not buried where persons in good ecclesiastical standing are buried in Paco Cemetery, but "in unconsecrated ground" between the outer and inner wall where Father Burgos had been buried after his execution. This raises doubt. Then he was not buried in a coffin or box of any kind. This raises doubt.

 

Burial Record.  Note page number, although with a December date.

 

The record of his ecclesiastical burial is not on the page (147) where persons who died in December, 1896, were recorded, but on page 204, where persons buried ten months later, in September, 1897, were recorded. His name seems to have been written ten months after he was buried. This raised doubt. Pascual's theory is that they buried Rizal as an unrepentant criminal, and then had to frame a case later to fit the retraction.

 

Was there ever such blundering with important circumstantial evidence?

 

Doubt has also been raised by the fact that neither the Archbishop nor the Jesuits asked for pardon or mitigation of the sentence. Only his family begged for mercy.

 

The strongest argument was the character of Rizal. It was but a few months before that he had rejected Father Sanchez' offer of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate if he would retract; and he had declared that he could not be bought for half the Philippines.

 

That sounds like Rizal, as every one of his old friends will testify. He was not only incorruptible, but very angry at the least suggestion that he might be bribed. That character speaks so loud against the retraction that all of Rizal's old friends believe he could not have written it. They look at the writing and say, "Yes, that is his handwriting, but then Mariano Ponce and Antonio Lopez and many others could write exactly like Rizal. A good forgery is meant to deceive."

 

The question, "Did Rizal retract?" rests upon the genuineness, or otherwise, of the supposed retraction. The Archbishop should settle this question, or at least attempt to settle it, by permitting the document to be submitted to the greatest handwriting experts in the world, preferably to several of them working independently. He should permit the paper and ink to be subjected to the best tests of modern science. Since Father Balaguer has told us an incredible story, nothing is certain.

 

The most painstaking analysis which has thus far been made is that of Pascual, and he pronounces the document to be a forgery. Under these circumstances the Church must shoulder the burden of proof that it is not. Everybody, it would seem, would like to have this question settled convincingly.

Dr. Rizal's so called retraction letter is a possibility of a forged letter by Spaniards

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But ever so often in our collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skilful use of forgery can redirect the flow of history itself.


      In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from the rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people. 

   That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all over the world, but forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a redirection of events and undoing of history. It has the power to obscure or beliee an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire.  It also has the power to enslave and destroy.
 

      In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army,  led by Austrians, with Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were battling it out for territory called Kanizsa. The Ottoman army was outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy to be allied with the Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be captured by the Austrians. The letters contained Hungarian alliance with Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters signed by a reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.


 The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from within. Thus, did the Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged communication.


      During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan to invade Sicily in 1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This was a deception campaign to mislead German Intelligence about the real target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.


      A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures, were attached to a British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach in Spain, where plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.


      The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents seen by German agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as the targets of the Allied invasion. The Germans believed it, and was caught with their pants down when allied forces hit the beaches of the real target, which was Sicily.


      This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans in North Africa. They placed a map of British minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The minefields were non-existent but the Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus, they rerouted their tanks to areas with soft sand where they bogged down.


      In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to Japanese military officials who were captured, and later released, they were accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino fisherman recovered some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US Intelligence. The documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a result, the Americans shifted their invasion target to Leyte instead of Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.  


      On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was lightly defended as the Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy launched their last offensive strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once and for all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers were considered by some military strategists as spurious and could have been manufactured by the Japanese to mislead the American navy into thinking that Leyte was a defenceless island. That Leyte was a trap. And the Americans nearly fell into it. 

       In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of documents served to negate the existence of an independent Philippines.

      In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio Segismundo who carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The American then faked some documents complete with forged signature, telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him guerrillas with American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia, the Americans assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers, the Macabebe scouts. These were the soldiers who penetrated the camp of Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They managed to capture Aguinaldo. With the president captured, his generals began to surrender, and the Republic began to fall.

      The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.

      It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.


      However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported   that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also copied it verbatim.


      In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.”


      Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.


      So which is which?

      Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

      This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours.


      To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.

      Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.


      Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.


      There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other letters written by Josephine to Rizal.


      Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.

SOURCE: http://www.nhcp.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=664&Itemid=3

JOSE RIZAL EXPOSE

Other proofs that Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract his anti Catholic beliefs

http://joserizal.info/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm


“The strongest argument was the character of Rizal. It was but a few months before that he had rejected Father Sanchez’ offer of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate if he would retract; and he had declared that he could not be bought for half the Philippines.”

http://joserizal.info/Reflections/retraction.htm


(1) The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.


(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:


http://www.inquirer.net/saturday/nov99wk2/spc_3.htm

The film holds that Rizal did not retract, because it would run counter to everything he believed and wrote about the church’s complicity in the subjugation of Filipinos


http://www.backpackingphilippines.com/2007/12/on-jose-rizals-retraction-great-debate.html


There no records of marriage between Rizal and Josephine Bracken as a reward if Rizal did retract. The love birds earlier sought this while Rizal was exiled in Dapitan (FYI, there’s also a version of an earlier Dapitan retraction that Rizal signed but withdrawn at the right time. some sort of retraction retracted)

The “original” retraction document was never submitted to an independent testing body for authentication.

The blown-up picture of Rizal’s execution, now displayed at the Manila City Hall, shows Rizal without a rosary in his hand like what Fr. Balaguer and biographers Guerrero and Cavanna have written.

All these arguments and counter-arguments continue to fuel one of the greatest debates on history and possibly the greatest hoax in history.


http://www.dapitan.com/rizalsadapitaninsert.htm


The streamer Cebu which brought Rizal to Dapitan carried a letter from Father Pablo Pastells, Superior of the Jesuits parish priest of Dapitan. In this letter, Father Superior Pastells informed Father Obach that Rizal could live at the parish convent on the following conditions:

1.”That Rizal publicly retract his errors concerning religion, and make statements that
were clearly pro-Spanish and against revolution”.

2.”That he perform the church rites and make a general confession of his past life”.

3.That henceforth he conduct himself in an exemplary manner as a Spanish subject and
a man of religion.”

Rizal did not agree with these conditions. Conse- quently, he lived in the house of the commandant, Captain Carnicero. THE ALLEGED RETRACTION LETTER OF RIZAL CONTENT (PERHAPS IT WAS REALLY FORGED BY THE FRIARS) because Rizal once exposed that it was one of the ways a friar can destroy the reputation of his enemy.

THERE IS REALLY A POSSIBILITY SINCE RIZAL NARRATED IT ON HIS NOVEL. (CLICK THE PICTURE TO MAKE IT BIGGER) IT IS IN CHAPTER 60 OF NOLI ME TANGERE.

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896

Jose Rizal

Jefe del Piquete
Juan del Fresno

Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure

Translation (English)

I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.

I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

La Voz Española, December 30, 1896

Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir.

Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mis cualidades de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia y como sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como autoridad superior eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.

Manila, 29 de Diciembre de

1896-Jose Rizal

Jefe del Piquete
Juan del Fresno

Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure

Fr. Balaguer's text, January 1897

Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto Ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia.

Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia, para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar, y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.

Manila, 29 de Diciembre de

1896-Jose Rizal
FOR MORE INFO: YOU CLICK THIS

Dr. Jose Rizal letter to Father Pastells part 2

Dapitan, April 4, 1893

My Most Reverend Father:

In time I received your gift, Monsignor Bougaud’s work*, which I am reading with the liveliest interest. It is one of the best works of its kind that I have seen, not only by its exposition, but also by its eminently Christian and conciliatory spirit, by the clarity with which the author writes and the strength of his convictions. If Sarda’s work is that of a champion or a polemist, Monsignor Bougaud’s is that of a prelate in the most beautiful sense of the word.

Let us see if by reading it, I shall change my faith or the faith that you miss in me will be restored; if not, we shall have to content ourselves with what God has given to each of us.

Do not be surprised that I am quite late in answering your esteemed letter of last February 2nd. For such delay, I am very sorry. Were it possible. I should prefer to be charged with discourtesy rather than be accused of wounding your convictions directly in this discussion.

With Your Reverence it would have been much pleasanter for me to confine myself to defending my views rather than taking the offensive. However, you challenge me, and so, much against my will, I accept the challenge but with manu nuda (naked hand) as I do not like to use arms –– for that matter, I do not have any, not even books with which to prove my citations.

We are in accord that God exists. How can I doubt His existence when I am convinced on my own? To recognize the effect is to admit the cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt one’s conscience; and to doubt one’s conscience is to doubt everything. In such a case, what would be the purpose of life?

Now, if the result of reasoning may be called faith, my faith on God is blind, blind in the sense that it knows nothing. I neither believe nor disbelieve the qualities that many people ascribe to Him. I smile at the definitions and lucubrations of theologians and philosophers about that ineffable and inscrutable Being. Convinced that I stand before that supreme Problem which confused voices wish to explain to me, I cannot but answer: "Perhaps, you are right; but the God I am aware of is far greater and far better. Plus supra!" (far beyond)!

I do not believe the Revelation impossible. Rather, I believe in it. Not, however, in the revelations which each and every religion claims to possess. If we examine, compare, and scrutinize such revelations impartially, we shall detect in all of them human claws and the stamp of the age in which they were written. No; mans makes his God in his own image and then ascribes to Him his own works in the same manner that the Polish magnates used to choose their king and then impose their will on him. All of us do the same: Your Reverence does it when you say, "He who made eyes, will he not see? He who shaped ears, will he not hear?" Pardon me, but since we have already spoken about the bull of Anacreon,, let us hear it below: "He who made the horns, will he not know how to gore?" No; what is perfection with us may be imperfection with God.

Poor inhabitants that we are of a small planet lost in at the infinite space, let us now make God in our own image. However brilliant and sublime our intellect may be, it is at best a tiny spark that glows and is extinguished in a moment. But it alone can give us an idea of that blaze of fire, that conflagration, that vast sea of light.

I believe in revelation, but in that living revelation of Nature which surrounds us everywhere; in that powerful, eternal, incessant, incorruptible, clear, distinct, and universal voice like the one from whom it emanates; that revelation which speaks to us and pervades our being from birth to death. What books can reveal to us better God’s goodness, love, providence, eternity, glory, and wisdom? Coeli enarrant gloriam Domini, et opera manum ejus enunciat firmamentum (The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork). What more Bible, what more gospel, does humanity wish? Ah, does not Your Reverence believe that men did wrong in seeking the divine will in palimpsests or parchments and temples, instead of searching for it in the works of Nature and under the august dome of the heavens? Instead of interpreting obscure passages or phrases designed to provoked hatred, wars, and dissensions, would it not have been better to interpret the works of Nature to enable us to adapt our lives more readily to its inviolable laws and utilize its forces for our perfection? When did men begin to act as brothers? Was it not only when they found the first pages of the work of God? Like the prodigal son who, blind to the joys of his parents’ home, left in search of other homes, mankind has for centuries wandered, miserable and full of hate.

I do not deny that there are precepts of absolute necessity and usefulness clearly enunciated in Nature, but God has lodged them in the human heart, in man’s conscience, His best temple. Hence, I adore more this good and provident God. He has endowed each of us with all that is necessary to save ourselves and has continuously opened to us the book of His revelation with His priest unceasingly speaking to us through the voice of our conscience.

Consequently, the best religions are the simplest ones, the most natural, the ones most in harmony with the needs and aspirations of man. Herein lies the principal excellence of the doctrine of Christ.

When I say that the voice of my conscience can come only from God, I do not prejudge; I merely deduce. God could not have created me for my misfortune; for what wrong could I have done to Him before I was born, that He should decree my perdition? Nor could He have created me for no purpose or for an indifferent one; for then, why my sufferings why the slow torture of my unceasing longing? For a good purpose He must have created me, and for that I have no better guide than my conscience, my conscience alone, which judges and appraises my acts. He would be inconsistent if after having created me, He did not provide me with the means to attain that purpose. He would be like the blacksmith who wanted to make a knife, but did not sharpen any of the edges.

All Your Reverence’s brilliant and subtle arguments, which I shall not try to refute because it would require a whole dissertation, can not convince me that the Catholic Church is endowed with infallibility. In it the human claws are no less apparent. It is a more perfect institution than the others, but human nevertheless, with all the defects, errors, and vicissitudes inherent in the work of man. As the direct heir of the political sciences, the religions, and the arts, of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, it is more wisely and ably managed. Its foundation lies in the heart of the people, in the imagination of the multitude, in the attachment of women; but like all other religions, it has its dark points, which veils under the name mysteries; it has its puerilities, which it sanctifies as miracles; it has its divisions or dissensions, which it calls sects or heresies.

Nor can I believe that before the advent of Jesus Christ, all the peoples were in the abyss you speak of. Precisely, there is Socrates who dies for proclaiming the existence of only one God. There is divine Plato. There are the virtuous Aristides, Phocion, and Miltiades. There is Zarathustra, founder of the religion of force; and there is Kung Sien, founder of the religion of reason and China’s lawmaker.

Neither can I believe that after Christ everything has been light, peace, and happiness; that the majority of men have become just. To confute all such assertions, you have the battlefields, the stakes, the destructive fires, the prisons, the crimes committed, the tortures of the Inquisition, the hates that Christian nations engender against one another on account of flimsy differences; the slavery that for eighteen centuries was tolerated, if not sanctioned. Prostitution is still rampant. There is, finally, a great portion of society that is still hostile to its own religion.

Your Reverence will tell me that all this exists because they left the church. But did not these evils exist when the church was dominant? Did they not exist in the Middle Ages, and when the whole of Europe was a battlefield? Did they not exist when in the first three centuries the church was in the catacombs, in distress, and without power? If there was a peace then ––and there was no peace ––it could not have been due to the church because the church was not in power.

I rejoice , my dear Father Pastells, when I see men like you, filled with faith and virtue, sustain a faith and lament the present troubles of humanity. This shows love of that faith. I rejoice, too, that generous spirits like Your Reverence watch over the future of that faith. But I rejoice more when I behold humanity in its immortal march, always moving forward, in spite of its failings and errors, in spite of its deviations, because all this proves me its glorious end, and that it has been created for a better purpose than to be devoured by flames. All this fills me with trust in God who will not allow His handiwork to be destroyed in spite of the devil and all our acts of madness.

As to contradictions in the canonical books and miracles I confess that the subject has been so thoroughly threshed out that it is a waste of time to go over it again. All can be explained when one is favorably inclined to hear, and all can be accepted when one is willing to believe. This will has an enormous power over the will. I shall not speak either of the contradictions in the genealogies or of the Cana miracle which Christ performed although he said His hour had not yet come. Nor shall I speak of the loaves of bread and fishes, or of the temptation, etc. All these things do not reduce the stature of the man who uttered the Sermon on the Mount and the famous, "Father, forgive them . . ." What I am after far transcends all that.

Who died on the Cross? Was it the God or the man? If it was the God, I do not understand how a God, conscious of his mission, could die. I do not understand how a God could exclaim in the garden, "Pater, Si possible transeat a me calix ista" (Father, if it possible, let this cup pass from me) and again exclaim on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken?" This cry is absolutely human. It was the cry of a man who had faith in the justice and goodness of his cause. Except the words, "Hodie mecum eris" (Today you will be with me), it is the cry of Christ on Calvary. All this shows a man in torment and agony, but what a man! To me, Christ the man is greater than Christ the God. Had it been God who said. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," those who laid hands on him should have been forgiven, unless we say that God is like the certain men who say one thing and then do another.

I find another objection to the miracles of Christ in the apostasy of his disciples and their refusal to believe in his resurrection. had they really witnessed so many acts of wonder and resurrection, they would not have deserted him so cravenly nor doubted his resurrection. Whoever gives back life to others can very well recover his own.

As to Your Reverence’s explanation about the miracles that He has decreed the laws will not contradict himself by suspending them at certain times in order to attain certain objectives, it seems to me that though he may not contradict himself, yet he is inferior to him who can realize the same objectives without suspending the operation of laws. A good one governs in peace without changing or disturbing anything.

Your Reverence calls this the stupid pride of rationalists. But a question suggests itself: who is more stupidly proud, the man who is satisfied with following his own reason, or the man who tries to impose on others what reason does not prompt him to tell them, but just because he surmises it to be the truth? What has been reasoned out has never appeared stupid to me. Pride has always manifested itself in the idea of domination. . .

I congratulate Your Reverence for the relative rest and leisure give you in reducing the load you used to carry.

Dr. Jose Rizal letter to Father Pastells part 1

RIZAL'S THIRD LETTER TO FATHER PASTELLS

Dapitan, January 9, 1893

My Most Reverend Father:

With great pleasure I have read your esteemed and profound the letter of December 8th. I am most grateful to you for your continued interest in me.

For some time now I have been examining my beliefs and the foundations on which they rest. I have reviewed what little is left of what my dear professor, Father Sanchez has aptly called "shipwreck of faith," or the solid bases that have withstood so many storms. In the definition and exposition of my ideas I should like to be a sincere and accurate as possible as I value Your Reverence so much only for what you are, or for what you were to me in my adolescent years, the recollection of which is always dear and sacred to me, but also for your being still one of the few persons who, far from forgetting me in my adversity, have so benevolently lent me a helping hand.

Gladly, therefore, I shall answer your questions in all candor so that you may see for yourself whether all is lost or there is yet something left which may be made use of.

More than by faith, I firmly believe by reasoning and by necessity that a Creator exists. Who is He? What human sounds, what words of any language, can enclose or envelop such Being whose wonders stagger the imagination that pictures them? Who can give Him an adequate name when a petty human being here on earth with an ephemeral power has two or three names, three or four surnames, and the many titles?

Dios we call Him in Spanish, but that merely recalls the Latin deus and the Greek Zeus. What is He? If fear of my ignorance did not deter me, I should ascribe to Him to an infinite degree all the beautiful and holy qualities that my mind can conceive. Somebody has said that each man makes his God in his own image. If I remember right, Anacreon said that if the bull could imagine a god, it would imagine him to be like itself –– with horns and a superlative bellowing power.

Nevertheless, I believe God to be infinitely wise, perfect, and good. But then, my idea of the infinite is imperfect and confused, considering the wonders of His works; the order that governs them, their overwhelming magnificence and extent, and the goodness that shines through all of them. The lucubrations of a poor worm, the least of all creatures on this tiny ball of earth, can never offend His inconceivable majesty however crazy they may be. The very thought of Him overpowers me, makes my mind reel, and every time my reason tries to lift up its eyes to that Being, it falls dazzled, bewildered , overwhelmed. Fear seizes me and I resolve to keep silent rather than be like Anacreon’s bull.

With this vague but irresistible feeling pervading whole being before the inconceivable, the superhuman, the infinite, I leave its study to clearer minds . In suspense I listen to what the different religions say, and unable to pass judgment on what lies beyond my comprehension, I content myself with studying Him through His creatures, my fellow-beings. In my mysterious voice I hear within me, the purity of which I endeavor to preserve above all things so as to enable me to act in accordance with it, I try to read, to guess, His will in all that surrounds me.

Many religions claim to have that written in condensed form in their books and dogmas, but apart from the numerous contradictions, the varied interpretations of words, the many obscure points . . ."

Dr. Jose Rizal letter to Father Pastells

Excerpt's of Rizal's discourse against father Pastell's of the Jesuit's, Pastell is convincing Rizal to go back to the fold.

"We are entirely in accord in admitting the existence of God. How can I doubt his when I am convinced of mine. Who so recognizes the effect recognizes the cause. To doubt God is to doubt one's own conscience, and in consequence, it would be to doubt everything; and then what is life for? Now then, my faith in God, if the result of a ratiocination may be called faith, is blind, blind in the sense of knowing nothing. I neither believe nor disbelieve the qualities which many attribute to him; before theologians' and philosophers' definitions and lucubrations of this ineffable and inscrutable being I find myself smiling. Faced with the conviction of seeing myself confronting the supreme Problem, which confused voices seek to explain to me, I cannot but reply: 'It could be; but the God that I foreknow is far more grand, far more good: Plus Supra!...I believe in (revelation); but not in revelation or revelations which each religion or religions claim to possess. Examining them impartially, comparing them and scrutinizing them, one cannot avoid discerning the human 'fingernail' and the stamp of the time in which they were written... No, let us not make God in our image, poor inhabitants that we are of a distant planet lost in infinite space. However, brilliant and sublime our intelligence may be, it is scarcely more than a small spark which shines and in an instant is extinguished, and it alone can give us no idea of that blaze, that conflagration, that ocean of light. I believe in revelation, but in that living revelation which surrounds us on every side, in that voice, mighty, eternal, unceasing, incorruptible, clear, distinct, universal as is the being from whom it proceeds, in that revelation which speaks to us and penetrates us from the moment we are born until we die. What books can better reveal to us the goodness of God, his love, his providence, his eternity, his glory, his wisdom? 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork'."

Dr. Rizal's most anti-clerical work

JUST CLICK HERE TO READ OK?

MY COMMENT: I am not surprised it is because Dr. Jose Rizal once read the Bible when he was a student. The Bible is one of the books on his mini library before.

This is the reason why he rejected from believing in Purgatory as he said in his novel named Noli Me Tangere in the person of the book's character, Pilosopo Tasyo

My proofs that Dr. Rizal never retracted his anti Catholic views before he was executed by the Spaniards

This is the picture of Philippine's national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal

I am just sharing my views about Catholic defense to discredit anti Catholic views of Rizal being used sometimes by Evangelicals, INC and ADD religion to prove the Catholic Church's doctrines folly with an intention to get converts.

Here are my views:

1) Four retraction letters surfaced with different words which cannot be found to each one. If really Rizal retracted, only 1 formula will appear since during that time, there is a so called printing press.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

 At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.

2) The friars will brag to show it to Rizal's family since the family wants to see it to confirm it is true. but sadly, even the family never saw it. Really this is not really true.

3) Even Fr. Sanchez failed to bring Rizal his faith in Catholicism. So Rizal will not even follow the Jesuits wishing him to retract who is not Fr. Sanchez whose priest is Rizal's favorite teacher at Ateneo because Rizal even disobeyed Fr. Sanchez's wish to return his faith in Catholicisim.

This is why Rizal and Josephine Bracken never get married while they are in Dapitan.

So Both the Jesuits and Dominicans are not sure if Rizal really retracted.

 http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

 Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

Fr. Balaguer is not really sure if really Rizal wrote the retraction himself.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the copyist-did not).

This is the reason why it is still debatable because the friars themselves are not really sure that Rizal really wrote the retraction.

In my own opinion, You can read in Dr. Rizal's novel named NOLI ME TANGERE that one of its antagonists in the novel, Fr. Salvi fabricated a fake letter to accused falsely of Crisostome Ibarra (The main protagonist of the novel) to a revolution.

So Rizal knew before that one of the friars doings is to make a fabricated document to destroy their enemies' reputation.

IN MY OWN OPINION, The ones who created Rizal's so called retration are the friars themselves in order nullify Rizal's anti Catholic views fearing that this will cause total apostasy within the Catholic Church of the Filipino People.

I believe that authors who believe Rizal's retraction are devoted Catholic and they cannot accept that the hero himself is convinced that the Church's teachings are unbiblical and being used by the 19th Century friars to maintain the ignorance of my Filipino ancestors to hold their power in my country.

because if my ancestors will be educated, they will have the power to disagree to abusive measures done by the friars like imposing high taxes and many more.