Rizal’s Retraction from a Perspective of a Master Mason

Bro Paul C. Bilaoen

Nilad Lodge #12
Philippines Bodies - A&ASR
Piipinas York Rite Bodies

Introduction:

Today the issue of Rizal’s retraction is still raging. Whether or not he retracted from
the Craft. Even those in the Craft or even in the Order of the Knights of Rizal are
debating whether he did or did not. This subject hopes to clarify facts in accordance
to the view of a Master Mason and Knight Commander of the Knights of Rizal.

For today, there is even a bigger danger if we do not clarify this poignant piece of
history - that is the belief that whether or not Rizal retracted is insignificant, he still
remains to be the Philippines’ National Hero and that nobody can tarnish whatever
great deeds that he had done and written in the past that still affects us today. If
MW Manuel Quezon, PGM and Knight Grand Officer of Rizal (and one of those who
acted as honor guards when Rizal’s skull was enshrined at the Luneta) is with us
today, I am 100% sure that we will hear the words “Punyeta” to the person making
this comment on the issue of Rizal’s retraction.

I. Understanding the Philippines at the time of Rizal’s Execution:

1. General Political Climate -

By the late 18th century, political and economic changes in Europe were finally
beginning to affect Spain and, thus, the Philippines. Important as a stimulus
to trade was the gradual elimination of the monopoly enjoyed by the galleon
to Acapulco. The last galleon arrived in Manila in 1815, and by the mid-1830s Manila
was open to foreign merchants almost without restriction. The demand for
Philippine sugar and abaca (hemp) grew apace, and the volume of exports to Europe
expanded even further after the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869.
The growth of commercial agriculture resulted in the appearance of a new class.
Alongside the landholdings of the church and the rice estates of the pre-Spanish
nobility there arose haciendas of coffee, hemp, and sugar, often the property of
enterprising Chinese-Filipino mestizos. Some of the families that gained prominence
in the 19th century have continued to play an important role in Philippine economics
and politics.

Not until 1863 was there public education in the Philippines, and even then the
church controlled the curriculum. Less than one-fifth of those who went to school
could read and write Spanish, and far fewer could speak it properly. The
limited higher education in the colony was entirely under clerical direction, but by
the 1880s many sons of the wealthy were sent to Europe to study.
There, nationalism and a passion for reform blossomed in the liberal atmosphere.
Out of this talented group of overseas Filipino students arose what came to be
known as the Propaganda Movement. Magazines, poetry, and pamphleteering
flourished. José Rizal, this movement’s most brilliant figure, produced two political
novels—Noli me tangere (1887; Touch Me Not) and El filibusterismo (1891; The
Filibuster)—which had a wide impact in the Philippines. In 1892 Rizal returned home
and formed the Liga Filipina, a modest reform-minded society, loyal to Spain, that
breathed no word of independence. But Rizal was quickly arrested by the overly
fearful Spanish, exiled to a remote island in the south, and finally executed in 1896.

2. Type of Government

Spain reigned over the Philippines for 333 years, from 1565 to 1898. since Spain was
far from the country, the Spanish king ruled the Islands through the viceroy of
Mexico, which was then another Spanish colony. When Mexico regained its freedom
in 1821, the Spanish king ruled the Philippines through a governor general. A special
government body that oversaw matters, pertaining to the colonies assisted the king
in this respect. This body became known by many names. Council of the Indies
(1565-1837), Overseas Council (1837-1863), and Ministry of the Colonies
(1863–1898). It is implemented the decrees and legal codes Spain promulgated
although many of its provisions could not apply to condition in the colonies. It also
exercised legislative and judicial powers.

The Political Structure

Spain established a centralized colonial government in the Philippines that was

composed of a national government and the local governments that administered
provinces, cities, towns and municipalities. With the cooperation of the local
governments the national government maintained peace and order, collected taxes
and built schools and other public works.

The Governor General

As the King's representative and the highest-ranking official in the Philippines, the
governor general saw to it that royal decrees and laws emanating from Spain were
implemented in the Philippines. He had the power to appoint and dismiss public
officials, except those personally chosen by the King. He also supervised all
government offices and the collection of taxes.

The governor general exercised certain legislative powers, as well. He issued

proclamations to facilitate the implementation of laws.

The Residencia

This was a special judicial court that investigates the performance of a governor
general who was about to be replaced. The residencia, of which the incoming
governor general was usually a member, submitted a report of its findings to the
King.

The Visita

The Council of the Indies in Spain sent a government official called the Vistador
General to observe conditions in the colony. The Visitador General reported his
findings directly to the King.

The Royal Audiencia

Apart from its judicial functions, the Royal Audiencia served as an advisory body to
the Governor General and had the power to check and a report on his abuses. The
Audiencia also audited the expenditures of the colonial government and sent a
yearly report to Spain. The Archbishop and other government officials could also
report the abuses of the colonial government to be Spanish king. Despite all these
checks, however, an abusive governor general often managed to escape stiff fines,
suspension, or dismissal by simply bribing the Visitador and other investigators.

The Provincial Government

The Spaniards created local government units to facilitate the country’s

administration. There were two types of local government units – the alcadia and
the corregimiento. The alcadia, led by the alcalde mayor, governed the provinces
that had been fully subjugated: the corregimiento, headed by corregidor, governed
the provinces that were not yet entirely under Spanish control. The alcalde mayors
represented the Spanish king and the governor general in their respective provinces.
They managed the day-to-day operations of the provincial government,
implemented laws and supervised the collection of taxes. Through they were paid a
small salary, they enjoyed privileges such as the indulto de comercio, or the right to
participate in the galleon trade.

The Municipal Government

Each province was divided into several towns or pueblos headed by

Gobernadordcillos, whose main concerns were efficient governance and tax
collection. Four lieutenants aided the Governardorcillo: the Teniente Mayor (chief
lieutenant), the Teniente de Policia (police lieutenant), the Teniente de Sementeras
(lieutenant of the fields) and the Teniente de Ganados (lieutenant of the livestock).

The Encomienda System

Spain owed the colonization of the Philippines to Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, who
valiantly and loyally served the Spanish crown. To hasten the subjugation of the
country, King Philip II instructed Legazpi to divide the Philippines into large territories
called encomiendas, to be left to the management of designated encomenderos.
To show his gratitude to his conquistadors, the King made them the first
encomenderos in the colony. As the King’s representatives in their respective
encomiendas, the encomenderos had the right to collect taxes. However, the
encomiendas were not there to own. The encomenderos were only territorial
overseers who had the duty to:
A. protect the people in the encomienda;
B. maintain peace and order;
C. promote education and health programs; and
D. help the missionaries propagate Christianity.

3 Types of Enconomienda:
Royal Enconomienda
Ecclesiastical Enconomieda
Private Enconomienda

3. Tempo and Influence

The Union of Church and State - it was a time of Frailocracy wherein the Priests are
superior to that of the Local Authorities. The Archbishop of Manila can countermand
public the Governor-General of the Colony. There were some Church Officials who
were also appointed Governor-General. Thus furthering the lopsided Encomienda
System.

Plaza Complex - this best illustrates politico-religious structure of the colonial

government, The houses of the “Natives” or “Illustrados” were situated around the
Plaza or Town Center to bring them close to the Church, the Convent, the Municipio,
and others. This setup allowed the Spaniards to administer and control the natives.
The Church easily controlled and regulated the activities of the natives under the
Peal of the Bells or Bajo de las Campanas.

Polo Y Servicio - Forced labor requirement to Native Filipinos

II. The Retraction

The 4 different Retraction Documents:

December 30, 1896

La Voz Espanola
Diario De Manila

February 14, 1897

La Juventud (Barcelona, Spain)

May 1935
Fr. Balaguer’s Text
The Perspective of Josephine Bracken:

From the perspective of Josephine Bracken, Rizal died a Roman Catholic “at heart”.
However, history also decided that Josephine would not have any “legal” or “proof”
that she and Rizal were married under the Roman Catholic Church. This is
inconsistent with the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that Rizal retracted
otherwise they would have been married. The Archdiocese of Mania would not
confirm if such a marriage happened.

Although, a lawsuit filed by Bracken vs Rizal’s Mother against the the estate of Rizal
as Bracken claims that she is the wife of Rizal was not recognized by the Rizal Family.
There is also an admission that the Rizal Family at the time of burial or the
enshrinement of Rizal in Luneta, they received a sum of USD 1,000 from
“Freemasons” to support the Rizal Family of which Bracken wants a part of. This
lawsuit shows that there is cabletow extended to to bereaved family of a worthy
brother.

The Perspective of the Rizal Family:

It is very clear that the Rizal Family accepted Rizal being a Freemason all time. They
were well aware. The strongest point was when the Rizal’s mother had a photo of his
son’s skull with the square and compasses at his public viewing inside a masonic
lodge in Manila.

The parade was even done by the members of the Masonic Fraternity and the
Knights of Rizal in broad daylight and full media coverage at that time, the pomp and
pageantry that befits a national and all. Masonic Markers were erected all over the
country with the Rizal Family members participating. The public display of support is
more than enough to show that they knew that Rizal was a Freemason and have not
retracted - oh yes, it would be interesting to note that Rizal’s parents were now
Aglipayan or Iglesia Filipina Independiente at this time.

III. The Retraction Effect:

What Historians Say

Needless to say there are objective historians that say that Rizal never retracted,
these are;

Teodoro Kalaw, Teodoro Agoncillo, Rafael Palma, Gumersindo Garcia, Reynold

Fajardo, Samuel Fernandez, and Flor Nicolas just to name a few.

Rizal’s friend Blumentritt, and even Austine Coates do not also believe that this has
happened. Younger historians like Xiao Chua, have doubts on the retraction
documents, for some simple reason. If the Retraction Paper were true, then why the
following;
- Rizal was not given a Roman Catholic Burial
- Why was he buried in the Parian Section of the cemetery
- It was an unmarked grave.
- why was there no marriage certificate or proof from Josephine and Rizal’s wedding.
- Why are the Rizal’s Books limited reading in the Roman Catholic School system and
they could not allow the unexpurgated version to be discussed openly.

The Socio-Political Ripple

The Retraction documented for or against had sent out a great ripple effect on the
Socio-Political standing of the country. This has put the Roman Catholic Church in the
defensive specially when the more educated and affluent Protestant movement
came in with the Americans. This even furthered the fire amongst the Roman
Catholic conservatives and Freemasons who are now recognized by society under
the “republican” model with clear “separation of church and state”.

The passage of the Rizal Law in 1956 making it mandatory for secondary education
to be educated on ‘Noli” and “Fili” and the learning of Rizal’s Life and Works in
College has faced daring opposition from the Roman Catholic side.

IV The Retraction Legacy:

The Retraction has brought upon learned discussions of our past. Sometimes, even
biased studies leading towards a pre-disposed conclusion that is well within the
agenda of a particular religious belief or political strata.

As a Master Mason who knows the truth about the Craft, such retraction is false. To
retract to being a mason is to say that you have been conscripted, where in fact, you
came in with your free will and accord and “petitioned” for membership. Its is a
conscientious effort and free from influence of friends.

As Mason of the “high degrees” even more that one could not accept the retraction
to be true as we have learned the value, of Justice, Freedom, Liberty of Thought,
Tolerance on other religious beliefs. To us, it is about the protection of orphans,
destitute widows, and those needing aid.

The Retraction issue brings forth a bitter truth in our history as a people, that an
institution that was supposed to be ordained by God himself is the very institution
that delivered havoc, injustice, death to the native Filipinos. But we should recognize
that, and move forward, we cannot cleanse the errors of the past, we can only do
what is right today and hope for a better future.
IV. Postscript:

I just want to reiterate, contrary to some “Very Worshipfuls” who are peddling
inaccurate information regarding the state of Freemasonry and the Roman Catholic
Church.

The Masonic Ban of the Roman Catholic Church is still in full force and effect.

There are even some Masons who say that the “Vatican 2” has allowed Freemasonry
in the Roman Catholic Church is a BLATANT MISGUIDED ASSUMPTION. Even if MW
Quasha at that time sought at an audience with the Pope, or even the CBCP, it is
interesting to ask if there is a viable result.

Let me put in a timeline:

January 14, 1954 - CBCP Statement on Freemasonry, signed by the members of the
CBCP

“To sum up — Roman Catholics are forbidden to join the Masonic Fraternity. Catholics who
knowlingly and willinlgy become Masons are automatically excomunicated; they may not
receive any of the Sacraments of the Church; they may not act as sponsors in Baptism and
Confirmation; they may be excluded from acting as witnesses in Catholic marriages where
such action would cause scandal, and finally Masons may not be buried in Catholic
cemeteries.”

http://cbcponline.net/statement-of-the-philippine-hierarchy-on-masonry/

October 11 to December 8, 1965 - VATICAN 2

November 26, 1983 - Declarations of Masonic Organizations, Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II

“This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion
which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are
contained in wider categories.

Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since
their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and
therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are
in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of
Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in
line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp.
240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126
_declaration-masonic_en.html
Mach 14, 1990 - CBCP Guideline on Freemasonry

The CBCP on March 14, 1990 issued its own guidelines in pursuance of the above directive. "Any
Catholic who is publicly known as Mason, i.e. whose membership in any Masonic association can be
proven in the external forum:

(a) may not receive Holy Communion

(b) may not be allowed to act as sponsor in Baptism, Confirmation, and weddings;

(c) may not be admitted as members of religious organizations;

(d) Church funeral rites may be denied unless some signs of repentance before death has been shown;

(e) where Church funeral rites were allowed by the Ordinary, no Masonic services shall be allowed in
the church or cemetery immediately before or after the Church rites in order to avoid any public
scandal."

http://203.177.157.5/misamis/masonic3.htm

January 2000 - Episcopal Commission on the Doctrine of the Faith at the January
2000 Plenary Assembly of the CBCP

III. LOOKING AHEAD

As we look ahead in the fulfillment of our pastoral duties, we see the need to make known to all that it
is this incompatibility of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith that explains the Church's
continuing and unchanged condemnation and rejection of Masonry also here in the Philippines. The
militancy or non-militancy against the Catholic Church of a particular Masonic association like the
Grand Lodge of the Free and Accepted Masonry of the Philippines is not the determining factor here. A
Catholic should not join any Masonic association whether it is hostile to the Church or not, because he
or she would be untrue to his/her own beliefs if he/she were really to adhere to Masonic principles we
have seen above. And if he or she only joined Freemasonry for pragmatic, non-ideological reasons,
he/she would be unnecessarily exposing his/her Catholic faith to serious dangers. Int other words,
from a moral viewpoint, Masonry is objectively wrong in as much as its fundamental principles or
tenets are in themselves morally unacceptable. As the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines stated
in 1991, the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations is a "statement of the
objectively serious wrongness of such membership by Catholics." It is a grave moral disorder. That
means the faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a situation or state of grave sin, "
although they are not ipso facto (automatically) excommunicated from the Church."

Indeed, the Church is not therewith passing judgement on the conscience of the individual Catholic
enrolled in a Masonic association. With maternal concern she is aware that many of those so enrolled
are in ignorance of the true nature of Masonry or of its basic principles. But neither this ignorance nor
the good intentions of such enrollees, who might have been led into thinking that their Masonic
association is purely civic or philanthropic in purpose, justify such membership or continuing in such
membership. For a behavior to be morally upright it must be based on truth, and truth must be based
on objective reality.

The detailed declaration of the Philippine Catholic Church is in fact to help among others individual
Catholics who are enrolled in Masonic associations. Among these are Mason (a) "in the know" who are
aware of the Church prohibition for Catholics against joining a Masonic association but nonetheless
remain in active membership. These may be long-standing members familiar with Masonic principles
and consciously adhering to them. They may also be publicly known as Masons, i.e. their membership
in a Masonic association can be prove in the external forum. To these Masons the practical guidelines
of 1990 by the CBCP given the above fully apply: they are precluded from reception of Holy
Communion, from sponsorship in Baptism, Confirmation and weddings, from membership in religious
organizations, and from the celebration of Church funeral rites, unless repentance has been somehow
shown before death. To them the Church extends the call for a closer examination of the principles of
Masonry incompatible with Christianity, and for a renewal of their commitment to the Catholic faith.

Also, there are those Masons (b) "in good faith" who may have joined the association only recently
and/or are only of the initial low degrees, and who do not know of nor consciously adhere to the
Masonic principles irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. These may either know nothing of the Church
prohibition or know of it only vaguely or confusedly. To these Masons the 1990 practical guidelines of
the CBCP apply once they have been informed of this content and intent of declaration by CBCP. And
provided there is no scandal, there should br greater tolerance of their individual phases in
understanding the truth. To them and to those attracted to the Masonic associations the Church gives
the reminder that promises of social or financial advancement or fellowship directed to some
worthwhile humanitarian causes should not be at the expense of one's faith commitments nor
glossing over the irreconcilability of basic Masonic principles with the Catholic faith.

To all priests, sisters, and lay teachers of the faith, we enjoin in homilies, catechesis and other means a
vigorous and clear proclamation of this declaration, in view of the prevailing ignorance regarding the
true nature of Freemasonry and the confusion about the corresponding position of the church. To end
the scandal thereof. We should with fraternal solicitude try to win those in error or ignorance back to
the truth. We pray with St. Paul that by "doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him
who is the head, Christ" (Eph 4, 15)

http://203.177.157.5/misamis/masonic2.htm