The Accounts

Fr. Balaguer's Statement

At about ten o'clock in the morning (December 29), Father Villaclara and I went to Fort
Santiago, where the chapel cell of the convict was. He received us with great affection
and embraced us. I think it convenient to point out that when the Archbishop sent his
commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of conversion, before ministering
the Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors publicly professed
to him in words and writings and a profession of the Catholic faith. To this effect, when
the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, he brought by way
of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including what he thought
out to be extracted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient.
He said however, that he would prepare or order to prepare another more extensive
one.

Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders and instructions
from the Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of
faith, composed by Reverend Father Pio Pi...

Therefore, when we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings
with him and talking on various matters, I knew the history and errors contained in his
books, in order to fulfill our delicate mission asked Rizal to give an explanation of his
ideas on religion… He came to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the
word of God contained in the Sacred Scripture. I tried to make him see how false and
indefensible such a criterion was, inasmuch as without the authority to the Church he
could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture or of the books truly revealed
by God; how absolutely impossible it is for the individual reason to interpret at his will
the word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist freethinker, unwell to
admit any other criterion of truth than individual reason.

I then pointed out to him that absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of the
immense majority of humankind, and for the absurd monstrous errors professed by the
greatest sages of paganism… When I attacked him with the arguments of Catholic
doctrine, he began to expound the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a
thousand times refuted already… When I attacked him with the logic and evidence of
Catholic truth, I told him with energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason for
the sake of faith, he would soon appear for judgment before God and would surely be
damned. Upon hearing his threat, tears gushed from his eyes, and he said: “No I will not
damn myself.”

“Yes,”—I replied—“You will go to hell, for whether you like it or not. Yes; out of the
Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one.”…
At three o’clock or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Fort where Father Villaclara
had remained, and I resumed the discussion with Dr. Rizal, that lasted until dusk,
arriving at the point which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo and then
went to Father Viza to the Palace. There I reported on the condition of the convict, who
offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula for retraction.
Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised, and he told me that it
was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to me.

It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal impatient. He asked for
the formula of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o’clock; upon knowing it, the
convict asked me for it insistently. Without letting me read it first, he called and asked
me to read it to him.

Both of us sat at a desk, where there was stationery and I began to read it. Upon
hearing the first paragraph, he told me: “Father, do not proceed. That style is different
from mine. I cannot sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it
myself.”

I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. I read the first
paragraph and he said to me: “That style is simple as mine. Don’t bother, Father, read it
all. Dictate what I ought to profess and express, and I shall write, making in any case
some remarks.”

And thus it was done. As I suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady and
clear letters, making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Certainly, after
the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had retired into
himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus he appeared to be while writing his
retraction…

He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half past eleven; it was dated
December the twenty-ninth…

This declaration or retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Senyor Fresno,
Chief of the Picket, and Senyor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza…

After all these acts… he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the Virgin,
placed in the chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers, of the Judge Advocate, of the
Chief of the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked
me for his retraction and profession of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and
devotion…

Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge, I have personally
intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirm it with an oath. And
lest, perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details,
after twenty years, I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s death I wrote a very detailed
account of everything. The original of his account I have preserved, and from it I have
taken all the date of the present narration.

Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to the Ateneo and delivered the
aforementioned document to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palace
and handed it to Archbishop Nozaleda.
Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement

On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel, that is, on December the
twenty-eight, I received the commission, which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the
Jesuit Fathers, for the spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only
because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object was to
reconcile with God and with the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very
distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special
esteem and affection even after his estrangement from the Church and had rendered us
good service…

Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not visit
him. All the Fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who
accompanied him to Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request
or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all the happenings…

In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficult was found in convincing and
persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with Father
Balaguer, became necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his
Christian sentiments. At last, he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the
proofs of religiousness and piety were such and so many that, with much less, the most
exacting person would have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said,
wondering at the change wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some time ago,
but another entirely different…

When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the form of
he composition presented by Father Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one
which I had made was shorted although conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless,
to make it appear more of his own and spontaneous, he wished to introduce some little
modifications. He wrote it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand…
Beneath Rizal’s signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of
the Plaza, Eloy More, also signed as witnesses.

Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure from
anyone, took into his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the
chapel. Aloud and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity, he head his own
retraction…
Rafael Palma's Critical Analysis

For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the beginning
because of their direct intervention in the act of conversion and retraction of Rizal,
speak and confirm in all its parts the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su
Obra. That should be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein cited are
those of ecclesiastics and their friends, and it is to be supposed that all of the latter
would not contradict the version given by the former. The only testimony that might be
considered impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal, but his
testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere heresay, that is to say, what he heard the
priests say, and that diminishes its value very much.

We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial and
interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said
persons; but as Brutus said, “You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend.” Lastly, we
must consider whether the coetaneous acts performed by the ecclesiastical authorities
or by the government are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if
they are not, they would not produce the moral evidence that is needed.

Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the
Catholic church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place,
the document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was
able to see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspapers, but with the
exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such
a way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place,
when the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a copy of it as well as
a copy of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions
were denied. In the third place, Rizal’s burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been
delivered to the members of a Catholic association friendly to the friars instead of being
delivered to the family, who had claimed it. How is Christian charity applied to one who
dies within the Church if not even the desire of this family to bury him on their own
account is respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos
and of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral by the
Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled with
the Church, he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground
without any cross or stone to mark his grave. Only the diligence of the family was able
to identify the spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book burials
of the interment of Rizal’s body is not made on the page with those buried on December
30, 1896, where there were as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein
appear those buried by special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures on a page
between a man who burned to death and who could not be identified and another who
died by suicide; in other words, he was considered among persons who died impenitent
and did not receive spiritual aid. In the seventh and last place, there was no moral
motive for the conversion. The extraordinary or abnormal acts of a person are always to
some reason or rational motive. What was the motive that could have induced him to
adjure masonry and reconcile himself to the rites of the religion which he had fought?
Did he not realize that to do so was to be a renegade to his own history?

Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many circumstances of
his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers
talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he
renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?

***

In short, Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that that
extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the Church which he had fought.
The Archbishop was interested in his conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits
lent themselves as his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in
the whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with
his abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and his conversion
would be unbelievable? So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His
aureole of glory had to be done away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only
an indio.
Austin Coates's Critical Analysis

The morning after the execution, the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the
event, and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal had retracted his religious
errors, adjured freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had married Josephine
Bracken. In most newspapers the text of a lette retraction supposedly written by Rizal
was printed in full. By the government the announcement was sent 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, which at that time meant
the family and his wide circle of personal friends, most of whom were abroad, took one
look at the announcement and dubbed it… an ecclesiastical fraud.

While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop’s announcement

was issued knowingly, or that there was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical
authorities to perpetrate a fraud is going too far. The nature of society within the church,
the society of priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things to
happen. When frauds occur, they are not the planned work of the church as an
organization, though this may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the
work of a small man with his own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud
as genuine, had to protect him. Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of
fraud, and that the prime mover in this world be the friar archbishop. It was the friars
who wanted his retraction. But while in the event Rizal’s intuition did not play him false,
there is no evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along came small man with what the
Archbishop wanted.

Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed and
audacity with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a
retraction, hoping for it. When news of it came he would announce it immediately, after
which it would be too late for any of Balaguer’s colleagues to gainsay it.

Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too well the damage such
letter would do to him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to
retract…
Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public disbelief the Archbishop’s
statement provoked, had there been a signed retraction letter it would certainly have
been produced for inspection, particularly to the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and to
many of whom—Teodora Alonso in particular—it would have been a source of
consolation.

Once the execution was over, and Villaclara and March returned to be faced with
Balaguer’s claims, the fraud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to
rectify matters.

What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits
of probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Villaclara and
March, who were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a
retraction, it is inconceivable that they would not have given him Christian burial. The
Jesuits had been entrusted by the Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned
man; and it was their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to
see he was decently buried. This the two Jesuits at the execution did not do…

The Rizal family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage. They
knew their brother; they knew that if he had retracted he would certainly have so in his 6
a.m. communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given her.

Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer’s urge to
elaborate and to see himself publicly praised. As he affirmed an oath in 1909, he settled
down that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it
to be published anonymously, he included much praise of himself, an aspect which,
since he admitted the authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure…

Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church’s case. Worse than this, he had unwittingly
revealed his own fraud. In his account, he made no mention of the Ultimo Adios.

That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told a
journalist about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol
burner remained to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no
poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing
the truth, which was that he was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that last
night, and had no knowledge of what was then taking place…

Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem, he made his account so
elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the  Ultimo
Adios is needed to show that it would have taken several hours to write…