See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/377470196

Jose Rizal's Retraction Controversy

Presentation · January 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19551.02724/3

CITATIONS READS

0 8,734

1 author:

Diego A. Odchimar III

University of the Philippines
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Diego A. Odchimar III on 30 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY:
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
CONTROVERSY
DIEGO A. ODCHIMAR III
 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is Jose Rizal’s retraction letter about?
2. Why is Jose Rizal’s retraction an issue?
3. How should we resolve Jose Rizal’s
retraction controversy?
4. Is Jose Rizal’s retraction letter authentic?
5. Must we dismiss doubts about Jose Rizal’s
retraction?
 WHAT IS JOSE RIZAL’S
RETRACTION LETTER ABOUT?
Jose Rizal was excommunicated by the Catholic
Church for being a Mason in 1883.

He was said to have rejected Masonry

on the eve of his death, but his retraction letter
remains controversial.
In 1868, less than twenty years before Rizal
arrived in Spain, Masons like Juan Prim led the
Glorious revolution in Spain that set up a liberal
government, which advocated for education.

Masonic principles like individual liberty,

freedom of speech, equality, religious tolerance,
separation of Church and State, and others were
also made part of the laws (Fajardo, 1996).
Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre
was a Mason.

In 1869, following the victory of the liberals

in the Glorious revolution in Spain,
he was assigned to administer the Philippines
from June 23, 1869 to April 4, 1871.
Governor-General de la Torre was recognized
as a “champion of liberty.”

Among the liberal reforms he implemented

was the secularization of higher and secondary
education in the Philippine colony in 1870,
through a series of decrees approved by
overseas minister Segismundo Moret.
In 1883, when Jose Rizal was in Madrid, Spain,
to study medicine, he made the acquaintance
of some liberal and republican Spaniards
who were mostly Masons (Zaide, 2008: 68).
Among these Masons was Miguel Morayta,
the Grand Master of the Grande Oriente
Español.

He was a professor at the Central University

of Madrid.
Rizal was impressed by the way the
Spanish Masons openly and freely criticized
the Spanish government and the friars,
which could not be done in the Philippines
(Zaide 2008: 68).
In March 1883, Rizal joined Logia Acacia No. 9
of the Gran Oriente de España in Madrid, Spain.

He pledged allegiance to a brotherhood that the

Catholic Church, more than a century earlier,
had condemned as a “depraved and perverted”
secret society.
Seal of Grande Oriente Español
Rizal’s reason for becoming a mason
was to secure Freemasonry’s aid in the fight
against the friars in the Philippines.

Since the friars used the Catholic religion

as a shield to entrench themselves in power
and wealth and to persecute the Filipinos,
he intended to utilize Freemasonry as his shield
to combat them (Zaide, 2008: 68).
In 1889, Rizal joined the Logia Solidaridad
No 53, under the Grande Oriente Español.

Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo del

Pilar, Antonio Luna, Juan Luna, Felix Pardo
de Tavera, Julio Llorente, Teodoro Sandico
were among its prominent members.

Here he was made a Master Mason

on November 15, 1890.
In 1891, as his second novel, El Filibusterismo
was being printed in Ghent, Belgium, he applied
for admission in the Temple de L’Honneur et de
L’ Union, a lodge in Paris, France.

Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Valentin Ventura,

and Dr. Ariston Bautista were among its
members, (Fajardo 1996).
Masonic historian Reynold Fajardo called
Jose Rizal “an international Mason” as he also
joined Masonic lodges in France and Germany.

As a Mason, Jose Rizal used the name

Dimasalang.
Marcelo H. del Pilar, Jose Rizal, and other illustrados in Madrid, Spain in 1890.
La Solidaridad, the official organ of the Filipino
propagandists in Spain proclaimed:

“Masonry will exist as long as there is tyranny, for Masonry is but an

organized protest of the oppressed. And tyranny will prevail in the
Philippines as long as the government remains in the hands of the
friars at the service of their interests. For that reason tyranny in the
Philippines is synonymous with oligarchy of the friars, and to fight
against tyranny is to fight the friars.”

Quoted from Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022.

Jose Rizal's last studio portrait 1890, aged 29.
Photo taken from Austin Coates (1968) Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr.
Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere (1887) and El Filibusterismo (1891).
As a Mason, Jose Rizal was not as active
as Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena,
and Mariano Ponce.

His only Masonic writing was a lecture entitled

“Science, Virtue, and Labor,” which he delivered
in 1889 at Lodge Solidaridad, Madrid.
“The duty of modern man, to my way of thinking, is to work for the
redemption of humanity, because once man is dignified there would be less
unfortunate and more happy men that is possible in this life. Humanity
cannot be redeemed so long as there are oppressed people, so long as there
are some men who live on the tears of many, so long as there are
emasculated minds and blinded eyes that enabled others to live like sultans
who alone may enjoy beauty. Humanity cannot be redeemed while reason
is not free, while faith would want to impose itself on facts, while whims are
laws, and while there are nations who subjugate others. For humanity to be
able to attain the lofty destiny toward which God guides it, it is necessary
that within its fold there should be no dissensions nor tyranny, that plagues
do not decimate it and no groans and curses be heard in its march. It is
necessary that its triumphant career march to the tune of the hymns of glory
and liberty with a bright face and a serene forehead.”

Portion of Jose Rizal’s Masonic lecture.

Jose Rizal (left), Marcelo H. del Pilar, and Mariano Ponce (seated)
Miguel Morayta, the Grand Master of the
Grande Oriente Español, commisioned
Pedro Serrano Laktaw to return to the
Philippines and organize Filipino lodges.

With the help of Moises Salvador

(initiated in Madrid) and Jose A. Ramos
(initiated in London), Laktaw organized
Logia Nilad on January 6, 1892.
On March 20, 1892, Logia Nilad No. 144
was the first Filipino lodge from which others
were organized. It was called mother lodge.

On the same month, Logia Balagtas No. 149

was organized in Sampaloc, Manila
(Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).
Apolinario Mabini, Doroteo Cortez and several
other patriots were initiated in Logia Balagtas
No. 149 .

These members started forming Masonic

Triangulos (triangles) in Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao to recruit members from
their areas.
Labong No. 153 in Malabon
Masala No. 154 in San Fernando, Pampanga
Majestad No. 155 in Bacolor, Pampanga
Dampulan No. 156 in Jaen, Nueva Ecija
Bathala No. 157 in Ermita, Manila
Walana No. 158 in Calle Trozo, Tondo, Manila;
Taliba No. 165 in Trozo, Tondo, Manila;
Dalisay No. 177 in Santa Cruz, Manila;
Lusong No. 185 in Tondo, Manila.
On July 3, 1892, when Rizal returned to the
Philippines, he organized the La Liga Filipina,
a progressive league that aimed to unite
the archipelago and involve the people directly
in the struggle for reforms.

La Liga Filipina was a patriotic and civic

organization largely composed of Masons.
La Liga Filipina was a secret society patterned
after the Masonic lodges.

The league was set up as mutual aid and

self-help society dispensing scholarship funds
and legal aid, loaning capital and setting up
cooperatives.
La Liga Filipina was founded by José Rizal
in the house of Doroteo Ongjunco
at Ilaya Street, Tondo, Manila.

Ongjunco was a member of Logia Lusong

No 185 of the Gran Oriente Espanol
(Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).
Among the founding members of the La Liga
Filipina was Andrés Bonifacio, who became
the supreme leader of Katipunan (Philippine
Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).

He was made a Freemason at Taliba Lodge No.

165 in 1892, the same year he founded the
Katipunan with five other Freemasons, and
never retracted.
Another founding member of La Liga Filipina
was Apolinario Mabini, who was a member
of Logia Balagtas No. 149, organized in March
1892 in Sampaloc, Manila by Moises Salvador
(Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).
Masons who were members of the Liga Filipina
suffered the fate of Rizal.

Faustino Villaruel of Logia Walana,

Moises Salvador of Logia Solidaridad (Madrid)
and Logia Balagtas, Domingo Franco
and Numeriano Adriano of Logia Nilad,
along with others who became known
as the 13 Martyrs of Bagumbayan
were executed a few days after his death.
Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, and Apolinario Mabini were among the founding
members of the La Liga Filipina established on July 3, 1892.
Governor-General Eulogio Despujol,
who administered the Philippines from 1891
to 1893, found out about the La Liga Filipina
and suspected it as an illegal association.
Eulogio Despujol (March 11, 1834 – October 18, 1907)
On July 6, 1892, barely three days after forming
La Liga Filipina, Governor-General Despujol
ordered the arrest of Rizal on trumped-up
charges and exiled him to Dapitan, Zamboanga
del Norte.
On July 7, 1892, shortly after the arrest
and deportation of Rizal to Dapitan,
Ladislao Diwa, Andres Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata,
Valentin Diaz, Jose Dizon, all from Logia Taliba
No. 165 , and Deodato Arellano of Logia Lusong
No. 185 founded the Katipunan, short name
for Kataas-taasang, Kagalang-galangang
Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan
(Supreme and Honorable Society of the Children
of the Nation).
Bonifacio and other Logia Taliba members
were hardliners. They saw Rizal’s deportation
as a sign that reforms were no longer attainable.

Mabini and other moderates formed

the Cuerpo de Compromisarios
and tried to continue sending funds to finance
the Propaganda Movement in Spain.
Residence of Deodato Arellano in Calle Elcano corner Azcarraga,
birthplace of the Katipunan
In “Kartilyang Makabayan” (1922),
Hermenegildo Cruz wrote that the Katipunan
was modeled after Masonry.

The Katipunan borrowed from Grand Orient

Symbolic Masonry, the system of an initiate’s
progression into three degrees,
the use of passwords, signs of recognition,
certain symbols, and officers’ jewels.
Instead of aprons, black, green, and red colored
hoods were substituted to distinguish the three
degrees.

Instead of the Masonic degrees, Aprendiz,

Compañero, and Maestro, the degrees
were called Katipon, Kawal and Bayani,
whose passwords were Anak (ng Bayan,)
Gomburza, and Rizal.
A Katipon could graduate to Kawal class by
bringing several new members into the society.

A Kawal could become a Bayani upon being

elected an officer of the society.

(Agoncillo, 1990: 153)

The method of interrogation and admission
of a candidate and the oath of secrecy
and loyalty were also borrowed from Masonry.

The Katipunan added the pacto de sangre

(blood pact), which was copied from the
Carbonari of Italy, wherein each member
made an incision on his arm to draw blood
by which his signature was signed.
As regards interrogation, a recruit must
correctly respond to three questions.

1. Anó ang kalagayan nitóng Katagalugan noóng unang panahón?

(In what condition did the Spaniards find the Tagalog land when they came?)

2. Anó ang kalagayan sa ngayón?

(In what condition do they find themselves now?)

3. Anó ang magiging kalagayan sa daratíng na panahón?

(What hopes do they have for the future?)
The three questions were purposely framed
to instill in every recruit the people’s duty
to redeem the lost glory of the Katagalugan
by fighting for its independence as a condition
for restoring its well-being and abundance,
a return of the golden age, which proved to be
an attractive appeal to the working classes.
In Ang Dapat Mabatid ng Mga Tagalog
(What the Tagalogs Should Know), Bonifacio
portrayed in his 1896 manifesto the pre-colonial
past as one of great prosperity until the
Spaniards came and seduced the natives into
becoming their allies, through the first blood
compact between Datu Sikatuna of Bohol and
Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, the King of Spain’s
representative on March 25, 1565.
The Katipunan referred to all of the natives
of the archipelago collectively as Tagalogs.

The Philippines was referred to as the

Katagalugan.

Tagalog is the abbreviated form of taga-ilog

(river dwellers).
The candidate was first led blindfolded into a darkened room that served
like the Masonic chamber of reflection. Then the blindfold was removed.
On a wall was written the admonition that only the strong and courageous
could continue; that one motivated only by curiosity should withdraw,
and that the door of the Katipunan would remain closed to anyone who
could not overcome his bad habits. On a table covered with black cloth,
were a human skull and crossbones, along with a long bladed weapon,
a revolver, a small knife with sharp edge, a pen, a copy of the Kartilya
ng Katipunan, and a sheet of paper where three questions were written.
The three questions were about the condition of the country before,
the present and the future. In Grande Oriente Español, the candidate
was led by a brother called the Terrible; in the Katipunan, the initiate
was led by a Katipunero called Mabalasik, its Tagalog translation.

Katipunan initiation rites borrowed from Masonry.

The Katipunan added the pacto de sangre
(blood pact), which was copied from the
Carbonari of Italy, wherein each member
made an incision on his arm to draw blood
by which his signature was signed.
Carlos “Botong” Francisco’s mural Filipino Struggles Through History (1964). WikiArt
Mariano Llanera’s Katipunan flag featured a skull and crossbones depicting
the Masonic symbolism in the Katipunan’s initiation rites.
As regards recruitment, the Katipunan followed
the triangle system (tungko) designed to guarantee
that only two members would be known to any
member at any time.

The triangle worked as a cell called Hasik

(to sow), whose task was to recruit members
from their areas. Once their numbers increased,
they form a Balangay (chapter) with a district
council called Sangguinang Hukuman (Cruz, 1922).
To protect their identities, Katipuneros
like Masons, used symbolic names.

Andres Bonifacio was Sinukuan in Masonry

and Maypagasa in the Katipunan
(Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).
Seals of Masonic lodges
Flags of the Katipunan
Katipunan seal with Andres Bonifacio’s signature
https://philippinefolklifemuseum.org/collection/andres-bonifacio/
Katipuneros
Photo taken from philippinefolklifemuseum.org.
On June 21, 1896, Dr. Pio Valenzuela,
an emissary of the Katipunan, visited Rizal
in Dapitan to ask his support for the planned
uprising.

Rizal opposed the Katipunan plan as its was

premature and declined their offer to rescue
him (Zaide 2008, 240).
On July 2, 1896, the central government
in Madrid issued a decree condemning Masonry
as a secret organization and ordering stricter
measures against Masons.
When the 1896 anti-Masonry decree was
promulgated, the Philippines was under
Governor-General Ramon Blanco,
who administered the Philippines
from May 4, 1893 to December 13, 1896.

Governor-General Blanco was a Mason.

(Philippine Center for Masonic Studies, 2022).
Ramón Blanco (September 15, 1833 – April 4, 1906)
Ironically, under Governor-General Blanco’s
administration, many Masons were arrested
at the outbreak of the revolution, including the
13 martyrs of Cavite.

Blanco tried to extend amnesty to the rebels.

Governor-General Blanco approved the travel
of the exiled Rizal to Cuba as a volunteer doctor
for the Spanish army.

While in exile in Dapitan, months before

the Katipunan contacted him, Rizal offered
his services as military doctor to Cuba to prove
his allegiance to Spain (Zaide 2008, 240).
At midnight of July 31, 1896, Rizal left Dapitan
on board the España.

In the early morning of August 6, 1896,

the España arrived in Manila Bay.

He missed the steamer Isla de Luzon,

which sailed to Spain the day before he arrived
in Manila.
On August 19, 1896, Spanish authorities
discovered the Katipunan.

Teodoro Patiño told everything he knew about

the Katipunan through confession to Father
Mariano Gíl, following a misunderstanding
with Apolonio de la Cruz, another Katipunero
who worked with him in the Spanish-owned
Diario de Manila (Agoncillo, 1990: 170).
While Rizal was waiting on the cruiser Castilla
in Manila Bay for the next steamer that will take
him to Spain, the revolution broke out.

On August 23, 1896, as the supreme leader

of the Katipunan, Bonifacio and led the
Cry of Pugad Lawin, the beginning of the
Philippine Revolution against Spain.
Carlos “Botong” Francisco’s mural Filipino Struggles Through History (1964). WikiArt.
On August 30, 1896, Andres Bonifacio
and Emilio Jacinto led the Katipuneros
in a failed attempt to take the Spanish garrison
at San Juan del Monte.

After the Battle of San Juan, Governor-General

Blanco proclaimed a state of war in Manila,
Bulacan, Cavite, Batangas, Laguna, Pampanga,
Nueva Ecija, and Tarlac.
On September 3, 1896, Rizal left Manila
for Spain on board the Isla de Panay.

On October 3, 1896, the Isla de Panay arrived

in Barcelona, Spain.

On October 6, 1896, Rizal was arrested and

ordered to return to Manila on board the ship
Colon.
While Rizal was on trial for the charges
of sedition, rebellion, and illegal association,
Governor-General Blanco reportedly made
it known that he would not sign any execution
order should Rizal, a known Mason, be found
guilty.
On December 15, 1896, Rizal wrote a manifesto
to certain Filipinos to proclaim his innocence.
“On my return from Spain I learned that my name had been in use, among
some who were in arms, as a war-cry. The news came as a painful surprise,
but, believing it already closed, I kept silent over an incident which I
considered irremediable. Now I notice indications of the disturbances
continuing and if any still, in good or bad faith, are availing themselves of my
name, to stop this abuse and undeceive the unwary I hasten to address you
these lines that the truth may be known.

From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being planned, I
opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility. This is the
fact, and witnesses to my words are now living. I was convinced that the
scheme was utterly absurd, and, what was worse, would bring great
suffering.
I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized,
of my own accord I offered not alone my good offices, but my very life, and
even my name, to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling
the rebellion; for, convinced of the ills which it would bring, I considered
myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortunes.
This equally is of record. My countrymen, I have given proofs that I am one
most anxious for liberties for our country, and I am still desirous of them. But I
place as a prior condition the education of the people, that by means of
instruction and industry our country may have an individuality of its own
and make itself worthy of these liberties. I have recommended in my writings
the study of the civic virtues, without which there is no redemption. I have
written likewise (and I repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must
come from above, that those which come from below are irregularly
gained and uncertain.
Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn this
uprising—as absurd, savage, and plotted behind my back—which dishonors us
Filipinos and discredits those who could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal
methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the bottom of my heart the
unwary who have been deceived.

Return, then, to your homes, and may God pardon those who have worked
in bad faith!

José Rizal.
Fort Santiago, December 15, 1896.”

Quoted from Austin Craig’s ( 1913) Chapter X: “Consummatum Est”,

Lineage, Life and Labors of José Rizal: Philippine Patriot.
The friars conspired to have Governor-General
Blanco removed and by December 1896,
Madrid had replaced him with Governor-
General Camilo Polavieja.

It was Polavieja who ordered the trial and

execution of Jose Rizal.
Camilo de Polavieja (13 July 1838 – 15 January 1914)
Execution of Jose Rizal at Bagumbayan on December 30, 1896
In 1895, Emilio Aguinaldo was made
a Freemason in 1895 at Logia Pilar No. 203
in Imus, Cavite. One year later, he joined
the Katipunan.

He attributed the success of the 1896 Philippine

Revolution to Freemasonry, for it was
“Masonically inspired, Masonically led,
and Masonically executed.”
President Emilio Aguinaldo and government seals used in stamps
General Emilio Aguinaldo, first president of the
Philippine republic, was first to recognize his
fellow Mason Rizal as a national hero.

In a decree issued on December 20, 1898,

General Aguinaldo declared December 30,
the date of Rizal’s execution, as a national day
of mourning.
On January 2, 1899, General Emilio Aguinaldo
formed his Cabinet or Council of Government.

All members were Masons.

Apolinario Mabini, Cabinet President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs

Mariano Trias, Secretary of Finance

Baldomero Aguinaldo, Secretary of War

Teodoro Sandico, Secretary of the Interior

Gracio Gonzaga, Secretary of Welfare, Public Instruction, Public Works,

Communications, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce.
Apolinario Mabini, Mariano Trias, Baldomero Aguinaldo, Teodoro Sandico,
Gracio Gonzaga
On January 21, 1899, a republican constitution
was promulgated

On January 23, 1899, the first Philippine

Republic inaugurated in Malolos, Bulacan.

Many delegates in the Malolos Congress

(September 15, 1898 – November 13, 1899)
were Masons.
Malolos Congress (September 15, 1898 – November 13, 1899)
 WHY IS JOSE RIZAL’S
RETRACTION AN ISSUE?
In his retraction letter, Jose Rizal allegedly wrote,

“I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born

and educated I wish to live and die. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy
which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church.”
During his exile in Dapitan, Zamboanga del
Norte (1892-1896), the Jesuits were determined
to persuade Rizal to return to Catholic faith.

Jose Rizal had a long and scholarly debate with

Jesuit Father Pablo Pastells on religion through
correspondence (Zaide 2008: 221).
Jesuit Father Pablo Pastells
In the four letters that Rizal wrote to Father
Pastells, Rizal revealed his anti-Catholic ideas
which he had acquired in Europe
and his bitterness about his persecution.

Father Pastells requested Rizal to give accounts

of his ideas about religion and tried his best
to persuade Rizal to return to the fold
of Catholicism.
Rizal wrote that he believed that God existed
since a supernatural power behind all creation
had to exist (Palma, 1949: 244).
Rizal believed that God was plus supra
(Palma, 1949: 244).

To him, God was being above all things,

which meant His being incomprehensible.

Mortals who were so limited could not have

possibly comprehended a limitless being.
Rizal believed that God expresses himself
through nature (Palma, 1949: 245).

That is, God reveals himself to us through

nature as his extension.
"I do not believe that Revelation is impossible; before, I believed well
in it, but not in the revelation or revelations that each religion or all
religions (Christianity again not exempted) pretend to possess. Upon
impartially examining comparing, and scrutinizing them, one cannot
less than recognize in them all the human 'finger prints' and the stamp
of the time in which they were written.

I believed in the revelation but in that living revelation of Nature that

surrounds us everywhere, in that voice, potent, eternal, incessant,
incorruptible, clear, distinct, universal, as the Being from whom it
proceeds; in that revelation that speaks to and penetrates us since we
are born till we die. What books can reveal to us better the goodness
of God, His love, His providence, His eternity, His glory, His wisdom?”
Portion of Jose Rizal’s fourth letter dated April 4, 1893, as quoted by
Ricardo Roque Pascual (1935: 112).
Father Pastells refuted Rizal’s attacks
on Catholic dogmas as misconceptions
of rationalism and naturalism and dismissed
them as errors of misguided souls.
In La Soberanía de España en Filipinas
(1897), Jesuit Francisco Foradada wrote
that Filipino filibusterism (subversion)
was not the son of righteousness, morality
or justice; but of Masonry, enemy of God
and all that was virtuous, just, and sacred.
The Square and Compasses is the single most identifiable symbol of Freemasonry.
According to Malcolm Duncan (1866),
“The square, to square our actions;
The compasses, to circumscribe and keep us
within bounds with all mankind.”
Historically, the first Grand Lodge, or association
of Masonic lodges, was established in England
in 1717.

Its origins can be traced to medieval guilds

of stonemasons who built castles and cathedrals
with secret symbols and rituals.
In medieval times, a guild was an association
of craftsmen or merchants formed for mutual
aid and protection and for the furtherance
of their professional interests.

There were guilds of painters, metal smiths,

blacksmiths, bakers, butchers, leatherworkers,
soap makers, and so on.
The guild tended to be an extremely hierarchical
body structured on the basis of the
apprenticeship system.

In this structure, the members of a guild were

divided into a hierarchy of masters,
journeymen, and apprentices.
With the decline in cathedral building,
some lodges (chapter) of these guilds accepted
honorary members, who are not necessarily
masons but free thinkers.

Some of these lodges became “speculative”

lodges, giving rise to symbolic Freemasonry
(Britannica, On Freemasonry).
Generally, Freemasonry is a fraternal society
of men, a brotherhood who share moral values
and seek self-improvement.

While Freemasons or Masons practice charity,

brotherhood, and tolerance, they also face
accusations of conspiracy, elitism,
and occultism.
During the Age of the Enlightenment in the 18th
century, Freemasons promoted the ideals
of the Enlightenment and helped diffuse
these values across Britain and France
and other places.

Freemasons advocated the ideals of “liberty,

equality, and fraternity” (Jacob, 1991: 49).
Freemasonry became a forum for new secular
culture populated by the literate and the
affluent, where vote, speak, discuss,
and debate.

Eventually, Freemasonry has attracted those

who question religious dogma or who oppose
the clergy.
Freemasons do not consider Freemasonry
to be a religion. They accept members from
various religions.

Freemasons have altars at their lodges,

where they engage in secret rituals and pray
to a generic conception of God, which they call
the “Great Architect of the Universe.”
In 1738, Pope Clement XII issued that papal bull
In eminenti apostolatus specula,
punishing those who join the Freemasons
with excommunication, which meant one
was banished from the Catholic Church
and condemned to hellfire after death.
 Pope Clement XII
(Born Lorenzo Corsini , April 7, 1652 – February 6, 1740)
In this bull, Clement XII commented
on the secrecy of Masonic lodges
and the “host of grievous punishment”
received when violating the oath of secrecy.
The bull did not delve into many specific
objections to Masonic practices but concluded
that “all prudent and upright men have passed
the same judgment on them as being depraved
and perverted.”
1884 satirical political cartoon from Puck magazine shows Pope Leo XIII
at war with Freemasonry.
After Clement XII, at least eight other popes,
from Benedict XIV (Providas Romanorum, 1751)
to Leo XIII (Annum ingressi, 1902),
and now even Francis, have repeated the
Catholic Church’s ban on joining Freemasonry.
In 1884, Pope Leo XIII issued his papal encyclical
Humanum Genus.

The encyclical detailed why Freemasonry

is irreconcilable with Catholicism and accused
the Freemasons of “planning the destruction
of the holy Church publicly and openly”
and holding to doctrines that contradict
Church teaching.
Pope Leo XIII
(Born Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci, March 2, 1810 – July 20, 1903)
According to Pope Leo XIII, Freemasonry
adhered to naturalism, the idea that
“human nature and human reason ought
in all things to be mistress and guide.”

He warned, “they deny that anything has been

taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion
or truth which cannot be understood by the
human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought
to be believed by reason of his authority.”
Pope Leo XIII said that Freemasons desire
to secularize marriage as simply civil contracts,
desire that children be left to choose their own
religion when they come of age instead
of receiving proper religious instruction,
and desire that governments refuse
to recognize God.
In 1983, Cardinal Prefect Joseph Ratzinger,
who later became Pope Benedict XVI,
issued the Declaration of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith on Masonic
Associations reaffirming the Church’s decision
in regard to Masonic associations.
“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.”

Portion of 1983 Declaration on Masonic Associations

Pope Benedict XVI
(born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger , 16 April 1927 – 31 December 2022)
Dumaguete Bishop Julito Cortes reported to the
Vatican the increase in members of Freemasonry
in the Philippines.

On November 13, 2023 in response to Bishop

Cortes, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,
with the approval of Pope Francis, reaffirmed
the incompatibility between the Catholic Faith
and joining Masonic lodges (Vatican News, 2023).
Pope Francis
(Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on 17 December 1936)
What originally was a guild of stonemasons,
organized to discuss their trade in their lodges,
evolved into an international organization
linked to conspiracy theories alleging undue
influence on world affairs.
 HOW SHOULD WE RESOLVE
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
CONTROVERSY?
On May 18, 1935, Father Manuel Garcia
reported that he found the lost original
of Rizal’s retraction letter in the archdiocesan
archives.

But the text of the retraction letter differed

significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’
and the Archbishop’s copies.
Several texts of Rizal’s retraction letter surfaced.

The first text was published in La Voz Española

and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s
execution on December 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
Father Balaguer (Jose Rizal University, 2004).
In Rizal's Unfading Glory (1961),
Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso provided
a documentary history of the conversion
of Dr. Jose Rizal, including sworn statements
made by the Jesuits and interviews of his
mother Doña Teodora, his brother Don Paciano,
and his sister Doña Trinidad affirming the truth
of his conversion to the Catholic faith and his
Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken.
Cavanna y Manso (1961: 46) documented
how the retraction letter “disappeared”.

“From the testimony of Father Balaguer, Father Pi, Father Rosell, Most
Reverend Bernardo Nozaleda, Very Reverend Silvino Lopez Tñon, Reverend
Tomas Gonzalez Feijoo, Hon. Castaño, and of the Manila Daily La Voz
Española, we know that the document of Rizal’s own handwritten retraction
and profession of faith was brought from Fort Santiago to Ateneo by Father
Balaguer.”
“There it was shown to the Fathers, transcribed in a copy for the Jesuit
archives, brought to the Archbishop by Father Pi, shown to the ecclesiastical
authorities and some other prominent men of the Government and of the
Press, and carefully kept in the archdiocesan files by the secretary of the
Chancery, Father Feijoo, until 1899. When this Father returned to Spain, he
left all the archives entrusted to the new secretary, Reverend Ignacio
Ampuero.

In the beginning, no one dreamed of the exceptional importance that this

historical document would have in the course of time. Accordingly, without
much ado about it, the document was simply kept in the archdiocesan
archives, without any especial care for its easy finding at anytime might be
needed.”
Cavanna y Manso (1961: 47-48) documented
how the retraction letter was found by Father
Manuael A. Garcia.

“In April, 1935, I was appointed the archdiocesan archivist, a position which I
held until two years ago. Assuredly, the archdiocesan archives are the richest
in the Philippines.”
“In 1933, these archive s were piled up on a few selves. To look for a
document there was somewhat like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I
know that by years of personal experience. No wonder, then, that when the
controversy on Rizal’s retraction arose, it was practically and physically
impossible to find the precious document. Some attempts were made but
with no results. And freemasonry kept asking repeatedly for the document.
There was no trace of the document. But the document existed as was
claimed by a thousand and one person had seen it.

Again, back in 1935. In our new fire-proof VAULT, the muchachos and the
clerks of the Archbishop’s House and Office made a perfect mound of papers.
I began my work, the silent and patient work of an archivist. Eight big new
shelves of narra were ordered upon which the papers were to be put in order.
One paper after another began to be caressed by my hands which knew what
treasures the Church of the Philippines had in them. The pity is that even
unto today there has been no Filipino interested enough to work exhaustively
At the history of the Church in this country. In my career as an archivist,
I tried to train some seminarians, and they did well. I hope that in the future
these my pupils will give us at least one genuine historian of the Church
in the Philippines.
May 18, 1935. The tedious work continued, giving me new surprises. As other
papers passed one by one through my hands, a bundle entitled “Masoneria”
was in sight. I knew what that means – A BUNDLE OF JEWELS FOR FILIPINO
HISTORY. The retraction and other documents of so many Filipino Freemasons
and heroes who came back to the bosom of Mother church, were in my
hands. I was well acquainted with all those names; for I was a professor of
History in Manila Seminary. My whole being exulted at what I saw. I kept
them carefully. I called His Grace by Long Distance. He was in Baguio at the
time. He ordered me to see him. The next day, His Grace saw all the papers
and ordered me to keep the whole matter secret until further notice.
His Grace, Monsignor O’Doherty, and the late President Quezon were close
friends. M. Quezon had retracted Masonry in 1930. His Grace called Quezon
to his Palace; and handed to him the precious bundle of papers. “Oh, my!”
exclaimed Quezon on seeing them. “Your Grace, I think that these papers
should be should to Teodoro Kalaw.” And they agreed to call the Director
of the National Library.

But they were prudent, both of them, as leaders. They knew that Kalaw
was a Freemason of the thirty-third degree. They then called the now General
Carlos P. Romulo, who was at the time Editor of the Herald. And they called
me, precisely at noon, on June 15, 1935. Romulo and I prepared the atomic
bomb for that Saturday afternoon paper, The Herald. In two-inch letters were
the headlines: “RIZAL’S RETRACTION FOUND.”
According to Cavanna y Manso (1961),
the said documents were examined carefully
by Teodoro Kalaw, Director of the National
Library, who confirmed that they were the
missing Rizal’s documents without a doubt.
In spite of the expert opinion of Kalaw,
Archbishop O’Doherty was not satisfied.

He requested Professor H. Otley Beyer,

Professor of Anthropology at the University
of the Philippines, curator of the U.P. museum
of archeology, and a recognized handwriting
expert, to study and examine the Rizal retraction
document to decide whether or not it was
genuine.
During the Faculty Symposium of the University
of the Philippines at Diliman, Quezon City,
in 1950, Professor Beyer shared his findings.

Professor Beyer delivered an extemporaneous

speech on the Rizal retraction which was tape
recorded, a portion of which are as follows:
“It is impossible to forge as much writing as there is in that paper or of any
other man’s writing in the way that cannot be detected. Because you cannot
imitate 3 or 4 lines in writing without getting a lot of your own tricks into it an
d you can’t copy all of the original writer’s own tricks accurately enough so
that they cannot be detected. The more signatures and the more writings
that you have of any individual the easier it is to tell whether the writing is
genuine or not. And in this case of anything of this sort, I believe that any
person, who has had long experience in examining handwriting, who
compares this letter or this document with any of Rizal’s other documents or
letters will come to the conclusion that all the words on this sheet except the
witnesses’ signatures were written by dr. Jose Rizal. That is all I say.”
In Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr
(1968: 346-347), Austin Coates believed
that the retraction letter was forged.

“Of the forgeries, two must be mentioned. In 1935, thirty-nine years after
the event, what appeared to be the original letter of retraction was found
accidentally among a bundle of retraction letters by former freemasons
in the archives of the Archbishopric. The archivist who found it was
completely convinced it was genuine. So, for a brief instant, was everyone
from President Quezon downwards. The handwriting was Rizal’s, the paper
was old, and it was signed. It certainly looked, and still does, very convincing.
There are two possibilities, and only two, about this document, still
kept at the Archbishopric. Either it is entirely forged, or else it is the
draft formula submitted to the Bishop of Cebu in 1895, with forged
place, date and signature added. In either case the most probable
originator of it is Roman Roque, who forged the signature of the
revolutionary general Lacuna on the document which led to
Aguinaldo’s capture by the Americans in 1901. In August 1901 Roque
disclosed that earlier in the year he was employed by the friars to
make several copies of a retraction letter. If this is one of them, this
would date it early 1901.Whichever it is, forged complete or in part,
the place, date and signature cannot be accepted as authentic.”
In Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave (1935),
Ricardo Roque Pascual pointed out the
psychological and philosophical aspects
of Rizal’s conversion.
Pascual (1935: 86-87) lamented that Rizal’s
conversion was not similar to the conversion
to Christianity of Augustine and Paul,
who found a life-ideal.

St. Paul was a pagan persecutor of Christ

and was suddenly converted to Christianity
by an improbable miracle, so say the Christians.
Pascual (1935: 88) pointed out that Rizal found
his life-ideal long before.

Unlike Augustine and St. Paul, at that time

Rizal was no longer seeking for the goal
of his life.
Pascual (1935: 87) quoted Rizal’s letter
to Father Pastells on November 11, 1892,
from Dapitan:

“Life is very short, and the happiest (life) is very much full of bitterness, that
in truth, it is not worth the pain of sacrificing a conviction for pieces of metal,
rounded (money) or in the form of a cross (!).”
Pascual (1935: 87-88) quoted Rizal’s farewell
address to his countrymen he wrote in 1892:

“Besides, I wish to show those that deny us patriotism that we know

how to die for duty and principle.

What matters death, if one dies for what one loves, for native land and those
dear to one?

. . . Always have I loved our unhappy land, and I am sure I shall continue
loving it until my last moment, in case men prove unjust to me. Life, career,
happiness I am ready to sacrifice for it (country).”
Pascual (1935: 96) argued that Rizal’s conversion
was analogous to the “conversion” of Galileo,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Ingersoll who were
forced to recant their anti-Catholic beliefs.

Like them, it was a retraction without

a genuine conversion.
“We shall now unfold before us the often mentioned examples that were
perfectly analogous to Rizal's conversion. The "conversions" of Galileo,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Ingersoll are in point, because like these people,
except Galileo, Dr. Rizal was a strong enemy of hypocritical pretension. Like
these people Rizal was a free-thinker, philosopher, and scholar. Moreover, Dr.
Rizal was audacious. And like these people who were the lone champions
during their time, Rizal was the single star that rationalism had for its
champion in this country then.”
Pascual (1935: 88) argued that Rizal’s retraction
from Masonry was not a conversion to
Catholicism.

Rizal did not die for such life principle and ideal.
Pascual (1935: 101) concluded that Rizal’s
conversion was improbable.
“Considered psychologically, therefore, Rizal's conversion as reported by the
Jesuits was beyond probability. How could it be actual then? Only the words
of the priests, priests of the Catholic Church as they are, and Catholic Church
that has a vital interest at stake in the matter, tell us of this retraction. But the
evidence tells quite a different story altogether! Shall we close our eyes,
throw away evidence, make the sign of the cross and prayerfully murmur,
"Jesus-Maria-Jose, nevertheless, do not believe the evidence of your senses
nor reason but only have faith?" Indeed, "unless you be like one of these little
children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." All childishness leads to
heaven!”
To Pascual (1935: 104), the retraction was
not a genuine conversion.

“The more fundamental question, if we are speaking of the religious

controversy, is not whether Dr. R1zal was converted, or not, to Catholicism,
but whether he was convinced, or not, during their controversy,
for if Dr. Rizal was convinced he was surely to be converted but if he was
converted, it is doubtful if he was convinced, unless proved so. “
In an article in El Renacimiento on December 30,
1909, and the same in El Dia Filipino on
December 30, 1925, Wenceslao Retana wrote:
"The conversion of Rizal has two aspects, historical and psychological.

. . . The fact of conversion of Rizal is from every (historical) point

unquestionable. Rizal confessed, Rizal heard mass, Rizal received sacrament,
and Rizal was married canonically. If Rizal would not have been converted,
the sacrament would not have been administered to him, nor would he be
married canonically inasmuch as to be married by the Catholic Church it is
an absolutely necessary condition to belong in fact to the Church. Therefore,
Rizal, at six o'clock in the morning of December 30, 1896, had been
converted, for if he was not converted, they would not have married him. “

Portion of Wenceslao Retana’s article, as quoted by Ricardo Roque Pascual

(1935: 134).
"That he heard mass, confessed, received sacrament, and was married
canonically, numerous persons, the great majority of whom still live (in 1909)
and there is no person even for casualty who would deny what he saw
with his own eyes during the night of the 29 to the early hours of the next
morning of December (1896). (Here we omit a destructive admission on the
part of Retana as to his reasoning). It could be added that if Rizal did not die
a Catholic, he would not have been buried, as they buried him, in the Catholic
cemetery of Paco.“

Portion of Wenceslao Retana’s article, as quoted by Ricardo Roque Pascual

(1935: 134).
 IS JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
LETTER AUTHENTIC?
In 1913, Hermenegildo Cruz and other Masons
questioned the fact of Jose Rizal’s conversion
at a time when Jesuit Father Pio Pi could not
produce the document when the suspicion
about Rizal’s conversion began to spread
in some Filipino circles.
Some Masons keep repeating the old song,
“No document hence no retraction therefore
no conversion.”

They refused to believe that Rizal had abjured

Masonry and they were convinced that the
abjuration was fictitious.
The Jesuits had been much interested
in Rizal’s retraction since the Dapitan days.

They sent Father Francisco de Paula Sanchez,

Rizal’s favorite teacher at Ateneo Municipal,
to persuade him to retract.

Father Pastells had exchanged long letters with

Rizal for the same purpose.
In 1912, Father Antonio Obach revealed to his
friend Professor Austin Craig that Rizal wrote
a retraction letter while in exile in Dapitan
in 1894.

With the help of a priest, the retraction

was supposed to be submitted for approval
by the Bishop of Cebu in order to marry
Josephine Bracken.
Father Obach lamented, “The document
(the retraction), enclosed with the priest's letter,
was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying
to reclaim it.”

Rizal took back the retraction letter and never

returned it.
Textbook accounts say 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.

Rizal was said to have rejected the draft

because it was lengthy.
Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary
who befriended Rizal during his exile in Dapitan,
claimed that Rizal accepted a shorter version
of retraction prepared by Father Pio Pi,
the superior of the Jesuit Society in the
Philippines.
Father Vicente Balaguer testified that Rizal
wrote his retraction after making some
modifications in the draft.

In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and

religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
In The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction
(1964), Ricardo Garcia argued that Rizal had
finally decided to retract on December 29, 1896.

According to Garcia, Rizal would not have invited

the Jesuits to his cell in Fort Santiago if he was
really against the retraction.
Garcia (1964) added that when Rizal’s sister
Maria came to visit him at Fort Santiago,
Rizal told her that he is going to marry
Josephine Bracken.
Hours before Rizal's execution on December 30,
1896, Jesuit Father Vicente Balaguer claimed
that he allegedly officiated the marriage
of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken
at Fort Santiago following Rizal's reconciliation
with the Catholic Church.
Josephine Bracken (August 9, 1876 – March 14, 1902)
Photo taken from Austin Craig (1913) Lineage, Life and Labors of José Rizal:
Philippine Patriot.
In “Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic?” (2019),
Rene Escalate used the Cuerpo de Vigilancia
collection to dispute the affidavit of Father
Balaguer.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia collection consisted

of almost 3000 documents containing
eyewitness accounts of the activities of
individuals fighting for Philippine independence.
Escalante (2019) argued that spy reports
are primary sources as they are written
immediately after the event was heard
or witnessed.

Therefore, their narratives are objective,

unadulterated, timely, and not tailored
to serve a specific interest group.
Escalante (2019) underscored the
historiographical value and importance
of spy reports nontraditional sources of history.

Since spy reports are contemporaneous

accounts, they promise a higher degree
of accuracy and objectivity.
Escalante (2019) admitted that spy reports
should be used cautiously and critically as they
could be historically inaccurate if they are not
validated and subjected to further verification.
According to Escalante (2019), the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)
officials labeled the Cuerpo collection as
“Katipunan and Rizal Documents.”

The original title of the collection is

El Movimiento de Independencia de Filipinas,
or “The Movement for Independence in the
Philippines.”
The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila
(Security Corps of Manila) was the intelligence
service that the Spanish colonial government
created in 1895.

It was organized primarily to gather information

on the activities of Katipunan members
and supporters.
Only about 30 documents are about Jose Rizal.

The bulk of the documents about Rizal focused

on his trial and what transpired in his prison cell
the day before he was executed.
Escalante (2019) cited eight Cuerpo documents
as primary sources in clarifying certain
controversies connected to Rizal’s alleged
retraction.

These documents include a surveillance report

written by Federico Moreno, two documents
allegedly written by Rizal, and five newspaper
clippings from Diario de Manila and La Voz
Española.
Moreno’s report cast doubt to the credibility
of Father Balaguer’s affidavit.

In his reports, Moreno did not mention Father

Balaguer. Instead, he reported that only two
Jesuits, Father Estanislao March and Father Jose
Vilaclara visited Rizal three times on December
29, 1896.
Moreno reported that the first visit of Father
March and Father Vilaclara was in the morning,
from 10 to 12:30.

It was during this meeting that they presented

the retraction template to Rizal but the latter
did not sign.
The second meeting was at 3 o’clock in the
afternoon. Father March and Father Vilaclara
returned to Rizal.

Moreno reported that Rizal handed Father

March a document. Then it says that Rizal,
together with Juan del Fresno and Señor
Maure, signed the document.
In the retraction document that Father Gracia
found in 1935, it showed the names of the three
persons Moreno identified were signatories
of the document.

Moreno did not provide details on the contents

of the document, probably because he was
witnessing the event from a distance.
The third visit was at 9 o’clock in the evening.

Moreno confirmed that Rizal had visitors

after dinner, but the persons he identified
were Señor Andrade, Señor Maure,
and Father March and Father Vilaclara.
Moreno reported that right after Rizal signed
the alleged retraction letter, he read the
Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity as well as the
Prayers for the Departing Soul.

While kneeling in front of the altar, he also read

his prayer book in the company of Father March
and Father Vilaclara.
Moreno also reported that in the early morning
of the following day, Rizal and Josephine
Bracken got married. The ceremony was done
in articulo mortis (at the point of death), and
there were no sponsors or witnesses present.

Moreover, Moreno did not mention that

the couple signed a marriage contract.
Escalante (2019) claimed, “All these details in
Moreno’s report are indirect forms of proof that
Rizal retracted. Archbishop Nozaleda and Fr. Pio
Pi’s instructions were clear that Rizal should not
be given the sacraments unless he retracted his
anti-Catholic beliefs. The fact that the marriage
took place is a confirmation that Rizal
re-embraced his Catholic faith.”
Escalante (2019) concluded, “Lastly, Moreno
also reported that minutes before Rizal was
brought to Luneta, he heard Mass, confessed
to Father March, received Holy Communion, and
kissed the image of the Blessed Mother.
All these acts suggest, and may be considered
evidence supporting the claim, that Rizal died
a Catholic.”
Rizal's remains laid at the Paco cemetery
for two years until his sister Narcisa had them
exhumed at the onset of the American
occupation of Manila in August, 1898.

Rizal's bones were kept in an ivory urn

in Narcisa's house in Binondo for 14 years
(See Philippine Center for Masonic Studies,
2022).
In 1912, Rizal’s family denied the Jesuits' request
to reinter Rizal's remains.

Instead, the family gave the honor to the

Masons (Philippine Center for Masonic Studies,
2022).
Rizal's reinternment, December 30, 1912.
Photo taken from philippinemasonry.org.
 MUST WE DISMISS DOUBTS
ABOUT JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION?
Masons questioned the authenticity of Rizal’s
alleged retraction.

They argued that the retraction was not in line

with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.
Masons insisted:

“How could Rizal retract his words, writings,

and publications to his fading glory?”
Mi patria idolatrada, dolor de mis dolores,
Querida Filipinas, oye el postrer adiós.
Ahí te dejo todo, mis padres, mis amores.
Voy donde no hay esclavos, verdugos ni opresores,
Donde la fe no mata, donde el que reina es Dios.

My idolized Country, for whom I most gravely pine,

Dear Philippines, to my last goodbye, oh, harken
There I leave all: my parents, loves of mine,
I'll go where there are no slaves, tyrants or hangmen
Where faith does not kill and where God alone does reign.

A stanza of Jose Rizal’s last poem.

To Ricardo Garcia (1964), the question is absurd.

Upon examination of the text of the retraction,

there is no phrase that means Rizal retracted
his words, writings, and publications
to his fading glory.
Garcia (1964) retorted, “The only thing that I am
sure of that Rizal retracted in this document
was his affiliation with Masonry, and his reason
was that Masonry is the enemy of the church
and as such was prohibited by the Church.
Inasmuch as he was returning to his Church,
he could no longer be a Mason and a Catholic
at the same time.”
Garcia (1964) concluded, “In other words, Rizal
did not fight the Catholic religion; he fought
those who abused that religion. Rizal was not
against the Catholic religion, but against the
manner the Catholic religion was practiced by
the friars in the Philippines during his time.”
In The Pride of the Malay race (1949: 115-116),
Rafael Palma narrated a conversation between
Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Jose Rizal
in Paris , France in about May 1889.

Rizal corrected Pardo de Tavera. He clarified

that he fought against Catholicism
as practiced in the Philippines.
“I wish to throw the missile against the friars; but as they made use of the
rituals and superstitions of a religion as a shield, I had to get rid of that shield
in order to wound the enemy that was hiding behind it. If the Trojans had
placed the Athenian goddess Pallas on their fortress and thence, with their
arrows, had fought the Greeks, I believe the Greeks would have also attacked
the goddess. God should not be utilized as a shield and protector of abuses,
nor should religion be made use of for that purpose. What happens in the
Philippines is horrible; they abuse the name of religion to enrich their
haciendas, to seduce an innocent girl, to destroy an enemy, to disturb the
peace of a married couple and rob a wife if her honor. Why should I not fight
religion like that when it is the basic cause of our miseries and tears? Christ
did the same thing with the religion of his country when Pharisees abused it.”
In his letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889,
Rizal confessed:
“Without 1872 there would be now neither a Plaridel or Jaena or Sanciangco,
nor would there exist brave and generous Filipino colonies in Europe.
Without 1872, Rizal would be a Jesuit now and, instead of writing the
Noli Me Tangere, would have written the opposite. At the sight of those
injustices and cruelties while still a child, my imagination was awakened
and I swore to devote myself to avenge one day so many victims and with
this idea in mind I have been studying, and this can be read in all my works
and writings. God will someday give me an opportunity to carry out my promise.”

National Heroes Commission. 1963. Rizal's Correspondence with Fellow

Reformists, 321.
In Vida y Escritos del Dr. José Rizal (1907),
a biography of Jose Rizal, Wenceslao Retana
wrote that Rizal retracted to honor Josephine
and protect his family from persecution.
“I do not know if Rizal retracted; I do not know if he did not retract;
I only know that if he did, he was not sincere…

Rizal knew that death was now inevitable and accepted it as the destiny he
was born to fulfill. Knowing he would die, his only concern was to safeguard
those he was leaving behind: his family and the woman he loved. He was a
deeply religious man, as well as a supremely rational one, and his
religiousness is patent in all his writings and acts. Rizal was not only scientist
and rationalist, he was equally —if not above these two things— poet and
mystic. Moreover, he was consistent: he retracted to the Jesuits, whom he
loved and whose moral rectitude he believed in. By retracting, he would
protect his family from further persecution from the religious establishment,
and by marrying Josephine he would raise her status in the eyes of his family
and assure that they would all open their arms to her and protect her after
his death.”
“Finally, as a man facing death, the Jesuits were his only palpable source of
support and comfort in those last hours, since his family could not accompany
him. His self-perceptions of smallness and insignificance were ontologically
correct as well. He would die, but he was only one among over six million,
and what he had done, he knew, the rest of his countrymen were perfectly
able to replicate, each in his or her own way — this was his final legacy and
message. If one insignificant man could achieve what he had done, then what
were we incapable of achieving? Nothing would be beyond our powers to
change.”
Wenceslao Emilio Retana y Gamboa (September 28, 1862 – January 21, 1924)
In “Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.J. and Rizal's
Conversion” (1994), Jesuit Father Jose S. Arcilla
quoted Father Vicente Balaguer’s letter to
Father Pio Pi narrating how he persuaded
Jose Rizal to sign the retraction letter to
denounce his masonic affiliation and return to
the Catholic Church.
“For some month previously I had been in contact with Dr. Rizal since
I was the missionary pastor in Dapitan where he had been exiled. Following
instructions I had received from Superiors, I tried to treat him with the
greatest respect and affection, to which he reciprocated with affection
and confidence in me. He boarded the boat for Manila in September 1896
to proceed to Cuba as a medical officer. I went to Manila in December
when Rizal, back from Spain, was in prison and sentenced to death. When he
summoned the Jesuit Fathers (this is clear and cannot be denied), he received
them with affability. He asked if any of his former teachers were around.
Only Fr. [Jose] Vilaclara, they told him, and that providentially I had arrived.
Since he had known me as his pastor and friend, he had me summoned.
This is why I went there and was involved in these incidents. Neither Retana
nor his co-religionists can deny this.
He received me with open arms. Since I liked him very much, I was ready
to do whatever I could with divine grace to save his soul. I was aware of his
story, but not exactly where he had erred. I can affirm that in the few
moments before we started discussing his ideas, he asked to make his
confession. I understand that if I had acceded to his request, he would have
confessed just as he had often done many times in his youth. But I had to
remind him that I believed he was not properly disposed to receive
the sacraments of the Church; that we had to talk first about his ideas
and errors which, if he held on to them, he ought to retract.”
In the letter, Father Balaguer noted that Rizal
was a apparently a Protestant.
“He then began to talk respectfully of God, of the Sacred Heart, of Holy
Scripture; that he was praying and asking God to let him know His will
in order to carry it out. But since any Protestant could say this, I urged him,
despite his desire to confess, to tell me his rule of Faith. Only Holy Scripture,
he told me. In this, he was apparently a Protestant.

I then told him I was surprised that a man as talented as he was should
appeal to a norm so false and so baseless. With a simple observation,
I made him admit the inconsistency of the Protestant rule of Faith.”
Father Balaguer confirmed that Rizal was indeed
a rationalist.
“I pressed him further to tell me his basis for religion and philosophy.
As though forced by the power of logical thinking, he admitted to me his only
criterion was reason which God had given as his all-embracing guide.
He was indeed a rationalist.

By reminding him of the stupid absurdities of the wisest of men outside

of Christianity, it was not hard to make him realize the lack of logic in the
rationalist criterion. Here he found himself as though caught in a conflict.
He could not maintain the rationalist norm, whose absurdity universal history
and everyone's experience show. He was forced to admit the Catholic rule
of revelation and the authority of the Church.”
Father Balaguer narrated how Rizal struggled
to bring himself to believe.

"We are not talking of abdicating rational norms," I told him, "but of
cauterizing reason, since it is very weak and deficient in service of the Faith
which is divine and infallible. Reason is not lessened but exalted, raised to
the supernatural order." He kept telling me he could not [bring himself to]
believe. I answered faith is a divine grace, obtained through prayer. Moved,
he then answered, "I promise, Father, that I will ask God to enlighten me
and give me the grace of faith.”
Father Balaguer reminded Rizal that he could
not longer receive the sacraments without
signing a retraction.

“He backed off and there was no longer any discussion ... for he clearly
saw he no longer professed the Catholic faith. We agreed he could not receive
the sacraments without signing a retraction and making a profession of the
orthodox faith. He stopped, awaited the formula offered by the Prelate.”
Father Balaguer reported that Rizal declined
to sign the formula offered by the Prelate.

“This did not arrive until ten o'clock at night. Since he was impatient,
I had no time even to read it before showing it to him. I read it,
he agreed with it, but noting its length, said he could not sign it,
for from its language arid style no one would believe it was his.
He had already said during the height of our discussion, "Look, Father,
I speak on good faith. If I were to consent to what Your Reverence suggests,
I would be a hypocrite and offend God."
Father Balaguer offered Rizal a shorter second
formula.

“In the face of the difficulty blocking his signing the formula, I said, “I have
brought with me another, briefer and more simple.” I began to read it to him,
and he said, “You wrote it, please continue to read.”

It must be noted that while awaiting the arrival of the first formula, Rizal was
already set on signing a retraction and make a profession of faith, which he
began to write. But I had to ask him to wait, since he had to accept the
proposal from Church authority. He followed spontaneously without in any
was suggesting it while I was reading the second formula, and he even added
a few phrases which made it more precise and explicit.”
Father Balaguer underscored how Rizal pushed
back when asked to abhor Masonry.

“Only on reaching [the part on] abhorring Masonry which that morning
he in no way had admitted did he object against signing these words:
‘I abhor Masonry as a society condemned by the Church.’ He gave as his
reason that the Masons in London with whom he had had contact and whom
he had joined, were good persons, and had said nothing against religion,
unlike other Masons whom he had known and were very bad; that he did not
think it good to affirm that of all in general, lest those gentlemen in London
take offense.”
Father Balaguer mentioned that Rizal requested
to state it differently.

“I answered we were not sending his retraction to London, that if they

were not bad, they would have no reason for offense. It seemed Rizal
wanted to say that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism
and that the Masons in London did not require him to abjure his faith.
This must be true, for Rizal belonged to one of the first degrees.

He asked that it be stated differently. I then explained the purposes

of Masonry and the ecclesiastical condemnations, and I suggested adding
‘I abhor Masonry as an enemy of the Church and condemned by her,’
and he said, ‘That I now sign.’”
Father Balaguer summed up that Rizal signed
retraction letter with the variants he freely
and spontaneously inserted.
“The retraction then was expressed as it is worded in your Reverence's work,
with the variants Rizal freely and spontaneously inserted, and without
any further discussion on the subject of Masonry other than the above.

This is the pure truth, the entire truth of what happened to Rizal. He rested
afterwards, sleeping peacefully, as though nothing unusual had happened,
to everyone's surprise.”
Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of the Department
of History at the University of Santo Tomas,
believed that Rizal retracted (Varsitarian,
4 October 2011).

“The National Hero just renounced Free Masonry and not his famous
nationalistic works.”
Historian Ambeth Ocampo dismissed
the retraction controversy as a non-issue
(Facebook post, 30 December 2020).
“Rizal retracted religious errors, the document does not, in any way, erase
the impact of his life, his novels, essays, and poetry on our history. …

While handwriting analysis is best left to experts, my familiarity with Rizal's

writings comes from over 30 years handling original Rizal manuscripts,
and in my opinion the document is authentic.”
Ocampo added:
“Now that we know that the document exists and is authentic, our next
question will be why did he write it? Only Rizal can answer that and he left
no other clues except for the papers he left in his clothes and shoes all
deteriorated when his corpse was exhumed years later.
Even if the document were made available, it will not convince those
who insist on the counterfactual and conspiracy theories.”
Following the reasoning of Ricardo Pascual
and Wenceslao Retana, I believe that
Rizal’s retraction was pragmatic,
not a genuine conversion.

Reading between the lines, Rizal wrote the

retraction to honor Josephine Bracken and
protect his family from persecution, but he did
not abjure his faith and his ideals.
Jose Rizal was not anti-clerical.

He admired his Jesuit teachers at the

Ateneo Municipal.

Rather, he was against the friars who committed

certain abuses under the cloak of religion
(Zaide, 2008: 221).
Jose Rizal was not anti-Hispanic.

He admired Spanish liberals like Professor

Miguel Morayta, Governor-General Ramon
Blanco (1893-1896), and others like them
who could help bring reforms from above.
Rizal reaffirmed his belief in the existence
of a God as a great architect of the universe,
not an anthropomorphic God who ordains some
and condemns others.
 REFERENCES
Agoncillo, Teodoro C. (1990) [1960]. History
of the Filipino People (8th ed.). Quezon City:
Garotech Publishing.

Arcilla, Jose S. 1994. Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.J.

and Rizal's Conversion. Philippine Studies,
110-123.
Arnold, Tyler. Nov 17, 2023 . Explainer:
Why can’t a Catholic join the Freemasons?
Catholic News Agency.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/25
6045/explainer-why-can-t-a-catholic-join-the-
freemasons.
Coates, Austin. 1968. Rizal: Philippine
Nationalist and Martyr. Oxford University Press.

Cavanna, Jesus Ma. 1961. Rizal's Unfading Glory:

A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose
Rizal, 1-52.
Craig, Austin. 1913. Lineage, Life and Labors
of José Rizal, Philippine Patriot.

Cruz, Hermenegildo. 1922. Kartilyang

Makabayan: Mga Tanong at Sagot Ukol Kay
Andrés Bonifacio at sa KKK.
Fajardo, Reynold S. 1996. Dimasalang:
The Masonic Life of Dr. Jose Rizal. Revised
Edition. Supreme Council of Sovereign
Grand Inspectors General of the 33rd and
Last Degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Duncan, Malcolm C. 1866. Duncan's Masonic
Ritual and Monitor.

Escalante, Rene. 2019. Did Jose Rizal Die

a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours
Using Spy Reports. Southeast Asian Studies,
8(3): 369-386.
Garcia, Ricardo. 1964. The Great Debate:
The Rizal Retraction, 9-19, 31-43.

Jose Rizal University. 2004. Analysis Rizal’s

Retraction. http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html.
Ocampo, Ambeth. 30 December 2020.
The Rizal Retraction is a Non-Issue. Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/TheAmbethOcampo
/posts/10158157884577635/
Palma, Rafael. 1949. The Pride of the Malay
Race: Jose Rizal. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Pascual, Ricardo Roque. 1935. Dr. Jose Rizal

Beyond the Grave: A vindication of the Martyr
of Bagumbayan. Manlapit Press.
Philippine Center for Masonic Studies. 2022.
Masons in Philippine History. Emilio Aguinaldo
March 22, 1869 - February 6, 1964
https://www.philippinemasonry.org/jose-
rizal.html.
Philippine Center for Masonic Studies. 2022.
Masons in Philippine History. Jose Rizal:
June 19,1861 - December 30, 1896
https://www.philippinemasonry.org/jose-
rizal.html.
Philippine Center for Masonic Studies. 2022.
Masons in Philippine History:
Founders of the Katipunan.
https://www.philippinemasonry.org/founders-
of-the-katipunan.html.
Santos, Tomas U. 4 October 2011. Rizal’s
Retraction: Truth vs Myth. The Varsitarian:
Official Student Publication of the Unversity
of Santo Tomas.
https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_re
traction_truth_vs_myth.
Vatican News. 15 November 2023. Vatican
confirms Catholics still forbidden to join Masonic
lodges. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-
city/news/2023-11/vatican-catholics-still-
forbidden-masonic-lodge.html.

View publication stats