An ecclesiastical fraud

The morning after the execution of Jose Rizal, the newspapers of Manila and
Madrid recorded the event, and announced that on the eve of his death Rizal
retracted his religious errors, abjured freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life
had married Josephine Bracken.

In most newspapers the text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal

was printed in full. The government sent the announcement to Spanish
consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it the widest possible publicity.

Those who had read Rizal's books or who knew him closely and admired him,
both in the country and abroad, took one look at the announcement and declared
it "an ecclesiastical fraud."

In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt shortly after the execution, Fredrich Stahl, a

Manila pharmacist, wrote:

"On the day of the execution, the Spaniards published an article in all the local
papers, according to which, Rizal, in a written declaration made by him on the
day of his death, retracted all his writings and deeds and proclaims himself to be
a repentant sinner and a loyal Spaniard. But nobody here believes this, as the
Spaniards publish the same thing about everyone who is shot. Besides, nobody
has ever seen his written declaration ... It is in the hands of the archbishop."

Was there a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a

fraud?

There was certainly no signed letter of retraction, a contradiction in itself for a

man so strong in conviction as Rizal. There was also no marriage with Josephine
Bracken, although they did live together during his exile in Dapitan.

Rizal himself believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud after his death,
and that the prime mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars
who were zealously seeking his retraction. They even came up with several
retraction formulas for him to sign.

Rizal's intuition of fraud was not misplaced; what played him false was the
involvement of his mentors, the Jesuits, who took part in the effort to make him
retract and return to the Catholic faith.

Jesuit vouches for Rizal's retraction

It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the basis for the
story that Rizal retracted his words and deeds. It was also he who made the
claim that he married Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on
December 30, just minutes before Rizal was executed.

In the final chapters of his biography of Rizal, Austin Coates (Biography of

Rizal,Rizal: Filipino Nationalist and Patriot, Solidaridad Publishing House, Manila,
1968) totally demolishes the veracity of Balaguer's claims, which were made the
basis of the archbishop's announcement of a retraction, and which were also
contained in a letter from Balaguer to his Jesuit superior, Fr. Pio Pi.

Balaguer's retraction claim was not corroborated by the two Jesuits who were
present at Rizal's execution. If Rizal had indeed retracted, they would surely have
given Rizal a Catholic burial. How would he have been deprived of even a coffin,
as in fact happened.

Balaguer himself was not present at the execution. Josephine Bracken was also
absent during Rizal's final moments.

Killing Rizal's influence on the future

The lie in Rizal's retraction is soundly thrashed by Austin Coates. He wrote:

"A man of whom there is no record that he ever told a lie can scarcely be
considered as having chosen a solemn moment to tell his first one ... .

"The Jesuits who had visited him knew how unlikely it was that Rizal would
retract ... .

"While one might kill the man, his writings remained, and these were a danger,
needing to be sterilized, lest they poison the mind of future generations with anti-
clerical views. If he could be made to admit his errors against religion and retract
them, it would blunt the point of everything that he had written ... .

"The Jesuits' two attempts to make Rizal retract had different motives. The first
was undertaken for what the Jesuits sincerely believed to be his own good, and
possibly their own as well. The second was undertaken with the main purpose of
sterilizing his influence on the future."

Could Rizal have retracted in order to receive the sacraments of the faith. It is
part of Balaguer's elaborate fraud to suggest that Rizal feared for his soul during
his final hours.

He reported Rizal as saying to him:

"Father, since faith is God's grace, I promise that thetime of life remaining to me1
shall spend asking God for the grace of faith."

The Jesuit declared:

"I can certify with an oath that, loving God, Rizal died a devout, holy, Christian
death blessed by God. With His grace I hope to see him in heaven."

Balaguer was born in Alcoy, Alicante, Spain on January 19, 1851. He entered the
Society of Jesus on 30 July 1890, and came to the Philippines in 1894. In 1896,
he was transferred to Dapitan, where he met Rizal. Months later, he was
attesting to have heard the most important final words of Dr. Jose Rizal.

Holes in the Jesuit's story

The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and the marriage. They knew that
that if he had retracted, he would certainly have said so in his 6a.m.
communication to his mother on the fateful day of his execution.

Balaguer's account exposed itself through major discrepancies in his story. His
claim of marrying Rizal and Josephine was totally belied by the facts.

In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that Rizal had written "Mi Último
Adiós" on the eve of his execution. Balaguer allowed no time for Rizal to write the
poem. The poem in its third stanza carries the exact date and time when it was
written.

In his claim of having performed the canonical marriage of Rizal and Josephine,
Balaguer said he performed it in front of one of Rizal's sisters between 6 and
6:25 a.m. on December 30. But none of Rizal's sisters went to the fort that
morning.

For all these contradictions and falsehoods in Balaguer's story, the church
nevertheless adopted the lie. And some Filipinos, including Rizal's biographer
Leon Maria Guerrero, believed that Rizal had retracted.

I find the words of Rafael Palma, who witnessed the execution and saw Rizal
turn away from the Jesuit holding out a crucifix to him, most persuasive:

Palma wrote:

"Of the version circulated by ecclesiastical authorities of that time, the part which
refers to Rizal's abjuration of masonry and to his conversion to Catholicism at the
last hour was not considered satisfactory and truthful by Filipino public opinion."
 Sources:

 Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us, Yen Makabenta, January 2, 2018, The
Manila Times

https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2247/did-rizal-really-retracted-all-his-words-and-deeds-
about-the-chruch-moments-before-his-execution

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.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896.
The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came
from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered in
the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when
Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This
fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received
"an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember
whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that
you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su
Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the
names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction
has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in
the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper
reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and
venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this
written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only Rizal’s
family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr.
Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.

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.

On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel
Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly
discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact
that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the
"original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz
Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the
retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’
copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").
Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in the
original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in the
original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not
begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second
paragraph immediately with the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of
Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the
newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was
signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the
proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr.
Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the
witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the
retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In
Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in
dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated
from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that
he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the
"exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest
account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question, because Fr.
Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which they (You)
gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the
other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I
remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction. The first, which came
from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact
copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). 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). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as
Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen
the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to
that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the difference
between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be
cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi.
Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and
educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as
unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to
believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the
original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted.
Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction.
However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr.
Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he
only "heard".
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895,
Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their
guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry
her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the
Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government
had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of
Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the
priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal
came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars
had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done by one who
could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the
Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s
handwriting.

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

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended

the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared
by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

R E AD
Pahayagang mag-aaral ng UST sa wikang Espanyol

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the
Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at
the History department of the De La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential
reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the
controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still
did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial
society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said.
“The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of
history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book
The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal
retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from
his famous nationalistic works.

R E AD
Mga rituwal at gawi ng isang manunulat
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he
was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared
the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a
Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses
were present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s
character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and
personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded.
Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De
Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that
Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is
enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

Mi Ultimo Adios (My Last Farewell) – this was one of the last notes written by Jose Rizal before
the day of his execution. Read again… “one of his last notes.” On the eve of his execution, on
December 30, 1896, he wrote this 14 five-line stanzas poem. This poem was unsigned, untitled
and undated. Perhaps unfinished? Perhaps, it really was unfinished. I mean, it was a farewell letter,
one who would be executed wouldn’t have enough time writing everything he needs to say
especially someone like Rizal.
Here is a copy of news story taken from The Inquirer dated December 30, 2002:

On the afternoon of Dec. 29, 1896, a day before his execution, Dr. Jose Rizal was visited by his
mother, Teodora Alonzo, sisters Lucia, Josefa, Trinidad, Maria and Narcisa, and two nephews.
When they took their leave, Rizal told Trinidad in English that there was something in the small
alcohol stove (cocinilla), not alcohol lamp (lamparilla). The stove was given to Narcisa by the guard
when the party was about to board their carriage in the courtyard. At home, the Rizal ladies
recovered from the stove a folded paper. On it was written an unsigned, untitled and undated poem
of 14 five-line stanzas. The Rizals reproduced copies of the poem and sent them to Rizal's friends in
the country and abroad. In 1897, Mariano Ponce in Hong Kong had the poem printed with the title
"Mi Ultimo Pensamiento." Fr. Mariano Dacanay, who received a copy of the poem while a prisoner in
Bilibid(jail), published it in the first issue of La Independencia on Sept. 25, 1898 with the title "Ultimo
Adios." N.B. The stove was not delivered until after the execution. Rizal needed it to light the room
and to be able to write the poem and his other parting words. VGPas 10/21/08.

-
“Unfortunately, Rizal and Josephine were not destined to have a child. One day in early March 1896,
Rizal played a practical joke on Josephine, which frightened her terribly. As a result of her great
fright, she gave birth prematurely to an eight-month baby boy.

The baby was very weak and was gasping for breath. Seeing the baby’s condition, Rizal immediately
baptized him Francisco in honor of his father. He did everything he could to save the life of his infant
son, but in vain. All his knowledge and skill as a physician could not save little Francisco.
Sorrowfully, Rizal saw his child die three hours after birth.

With a heavy heart, he drew a sketch of his dead son. Then he buried him under a shady tree near
his home. He prayed": "Oh, God, I give you another tiny angel. Please bless his soul." –
from Jose RizalUniversity

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Dr-Jose-Rizal-Controversies

The result proves that the so-called original “Mi Ultimo Adios” had not been inserted in the
cocinilla’s fuel tank; thus, the manuscript in the National Library could not be the original.

The late Fr. Casal told me that Ambeth Ocampo does not believe the “Mi Ultimo Adios” in
the National Library is the original but he never expressed this view in his Rizal books.

Jaime de Veyra, an ardent Rizalist, described the paper on which the “Mi Ultimo Adios” was
written: “Era un pedazo de papel comercial ordinario con lineas azules … (It was written on
an ordinary commercial paper with blue lines …) This description does not match the
“original” manuscript which shows no blue line. De Veyra made a big error.
The “Mi Ultimo Adios” is a key element in the contentious subject of Rizal’s retraction of
Masonry and his marriage to Josephine Bracken.

Except for Austin Craig, who believed in the retraction and marriage, prominent Rizalists
who reject Rizal’s retraction and marriage believe the “Mi Ultimo Adios” was smuggled out
of Fort Santiago in an alcohol lamp, which was actually not a lamp but a stove.

Read more: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/218103/rizals-alcohol-lamp-was-actually-a-

stove/#ixzz6BZVMYRd6
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/218103/rizals-alcohol-lamp-was-actually-a-stove/

To begin with, Retract, as what Merriam Webster defines it, is to draw back or in; take back,
withdraw; disavow; to draw or pull back; to recant or disavow something, and synonym
for abnegate, forswear, recant, renege, renounce, repeal, repudiate, abjure, take back, unsay,
withdraw.
The “Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal”, dated December 29, 1896, said to have been signed by the
National Hero himself, stated:

“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.”
As controversial as it is ever since it was presented and until now. There were many arguments
as well as evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal retracted or not that until
now, has not been proven or justified to end this issue.

For those who does not believe that Rizal did not retract, there were testimonies that somehow
could indeed question the validity of the so-called retraction that was allegedly signed by Rizal
before he died.

First, it was the fact that the retraction paper was even kept secret and was only published in
newspapers that when Rizal’s family asked for the original copy, it was said that it was lost
under the Jesuits which was quiet unbelievable of how can they be irresponsible for such a
valuable paper or maybe if it was hidden, for what reason?
After thirty-nine years, when the alleged original retraction paper was found in the archdiocesan
archives and was permitted to be examined and later concluded in the book, “Rizal beyond the
graves” was said to be a forgery and the common rebuttal of this argument was either Father
Balaguer or Father Pi has made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.

Another thing that is questionable for non-believers was the marriage of Jose and Josephine after
the signing of retraction since there were no marriage of certificate or public record about it. For
them, why would Rizal retract when he knew the fact that even if sign the paper he would still be
executed since his case being judge under the military court where church and civilian’s
interference was not allowed.

It was argued that Rizal retracted to save his family, to give Josephine a legal status as his wife
and to assure reforms from the Spanish Government since its more likely of him, but non-
believers of this retraction believes that Rizal cannot just neglect all the writings—his poems, his
novels, that he had done and all his sacrifices and hard work, the same thing that it was the cause
and what brought him in execution. And personally, this was also what I cannot believe in the
said retraction. The second sentence was not just Rizal, it was way out of his character. I also
wonder that, if the paper was valid, then maybe there was some sort of coercion or maybe there
was something that happened that we did not know that made him signed the paper.

Also when Father Sanchez who was Rizal’s favorite’s priest in Ateneo visited him in his exile in
Dapitan and who also happened to be sent by the Jesuits Priests to convince him to retract in
regards to his allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the country, but
Rizal rejected.

Rizal’s last hours in Fort Santiago did not also point his retraction, his Mi Ultimo Adios and letter
did not indicate or mention about his religious stance by that time and also when the night he was
visited by his sister and mother, the retraction was not even mentioned. It was just Father
Balaguer who was insisting about it. All throughout, Rizal was fixated on the thought that he
would die for the love of his country and committed himself to it from a long time ago and most
specially when he decided to return to the Philippines knowing what can possibly happen to
him.. He was so consistent about it that even his friend do not believe his retraction.
As for the arguments of the believers of retraction, there were also a lot of arguments aside from
the evidence itself that were presented. And one of the believer is Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of
UST’s department of History that had somewhat presented his arguments. He believe that Rizal
retracted and just renounced from the freemasonry and not from his Nationalistic works. He also
pointed that it is not possible to forge his retraction letter because there were said to be witnesses
during the signing of Rizal and that the evidence speaks for itself.

As for the character of Rizal, He believes that Rizal was human in character and not a perfect
person and are bound to have flaws. He also add that he believes that Rizal wanted to be at peace
when he dies and that’s why there was retraction.
History books even presented the last moments and hours of Rizal in his cell in Fort Santiago
and until his last breath. If you will follow them thoroughly, Rizal indeed died as a Catholic, On
December 30, 1896, at three o’clock in the morning, hours before his death, he heard mass,
confessed his sins and took Holy Communion, he also left Josephine a religious book, “Imitation
of Christ” by Father Thomas a Kempis which was autographed by the latter himself. Before he
faced his death, he was blessed by a priest who also offered him a crucifix to kiss and Rizal
reverently bowed his head and kissed it.

As for myself, if I would be asked what I believe, I must say, I do not know what to believe and
who to believe. I just thought that whether Rizal retracted or not, I know the fact that what he
wrote about the Spanish Church in the Philippines at that time was the truth and there’s nothing
to be retracted about.

Aside from that, I also know that Rizal was a believer of God, the Divine Providence, from the
very start and up to his last moments, and he might have wavered on the Catholic Teachings
presented by the friars at some point in his life but he never once wavered on his faith with God.
He had always Faith in Him but he strongly disagreed of the twisted ways of the friars who ran
the Church and the Government during the Spanish Regime. And his works, his letters, his
poems, his diary entries, and during his last moments, his life as a whole, could attest to his
Strong Faith in Him. And for me, that was more important than knowing the truth about his
retraction.

From the presented Retraction paper, I like that idea of him dying as a Catholic, which at some
point I think, he does not have to retract since he never stop being a believer of God and he was
still practicing Catholicism in his own ways, and the documented life of him in Dapitan was a
witnessed to that, that despite of the many attempts of the Jesuits priest to make him retract and
him being consistent to his rejection, he himself still continued to hear mass in Catholic church
in Dapitan and celebrate Christmas and other religious Fiestas in the Catholic way.

At some point I thought, If he really did retract, then I can say that it’s his choice and he
probably had his reasons but it also does not change the fact that he died serving and honoring
his beloved country, my perception about him will not also change, it might be relevant for
others, but for me, it does not make any difference since Rizal’s life as a whole is bigger and
significant than this retraction paper of him that if it was true was just one aspect of his life
and “…it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.”

https://assenad.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/an-argument-on-whether-rizal-retracted-or-not/