09 RIZAL CONFESSION?

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
🞂 The execution of Rizal ignited the flame of the desire to be
independent from the Spanish colonizers. It is considered as a
significant turning point in the history of Philippine revolution.
🞂 Due to Rizal’s writings and because of his prohibited
organizations, Rizal was accused as the principal planner of
revolution.
🞂 He underwent trial under martial court with Lt. Luis Taviel de
Andrade as his lawyer. He pleaded not guilty .Nevertheless, on
December 26, 1896, he was sentenced to death by firing squad.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
🞂 On December 28, 1896, Governor-General Camilo de
Polovieja signed a court decision that Jose Rizal be
executed by firing squad on December 30, 1896, at 7:00
in the morning.
🞂 The last days of Rizal in Fort Santiago revealed that he
is an affectionate son, a supportive brother, a devoted
lover , a prolific writer who is worthy of emulation.
“Withdrawal of a statement”
RETRACTION
•“Withdrawal of a statement”
🞂 Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic claims about
Catholicism
🞂 His retraction letter was “discovered” and the date was
December 29, 1896,it was said to have been signed by
Rizal himself.
Rizal’s Retraction
❑I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born
and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart
whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been
contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe
and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the
Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan
Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the
scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people
may pardon me..
ISSUES
ISSUE
🞂 On May 18, 1935, a document was discovered in the
vault of the Archbishop of Manila by Father Manuel
Gracial.
🞂 his document, among others, is the much debated
"original" of Dr. Jose Rizal's retraction of his anti-
Catholic writings and propaganda as well as his
affiliation to Masonry.
ISSUE
🞂 Upon this discovery also, many of the opposite
opinions suggest some attending circumstances that
may discredit the execution "in good faith" of this
priceless document.
🞂 Some say it was forced upon Rizal, and there are
examples of forced retraction which are cited as proof.
The usual answer is that force is not fitting in the
character of Rizal as a means to make him do
something against his will.
Last Part of the Letter of Fr. Vicente Balaguer
S.J. to Rev. Pio Pi

🞂 Yes, my dear Father, I can affirm with full certainty and Your
Reverence tell all the Manila Christians and that entire country, that
Rizal was never irreligious or bigoted, never an enemy of the Church;
that he was a young man waylaid for some time by factors around him;
that he was a good patriot, and desired in good faith the welfare and the
independence of his country; that he confessed to me in the chapel that
he had never approved armed revolution; that he had hoped to win
autonomy and later independence through legal means. But deep in his
heart, he was in the beginning and at the end of his life a good
Christian. Let them honor the memory of Rizal, a good Christian at
heart, the first hero of the Philippines.
An Excerpt of Cuerpo de Vigilancia Version

🞂 In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer declared that he talked to Rizal three times on December 29,
1896. The first time was in the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It was during this meeting that he
presented the retraction template to Rizal but the latter did not sign. Moreno Jose Rizal, Phil.
Revolution, Cuerpo de Vigilancia 381 confirmed this meeting, including the presentation of the
draft retraction. But he reported that Rizal was talking not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March
and Vilaclara. Moreno also confirmed that Frs. March and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around
3 o’clock in the afternoon. Fr. Balaguer claimed in his affidavit that he was one of Rizal’s
afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued that the third time he talked to Rizal was around 10
in the evening. He had another lengthy and passionate discussion with him for more than an
hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal finally signed his retraction letter. Moreno confirmed
that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but the persons he identified were Señor Andrade, Señor
Maure, and Frs. March and Vilaclara. Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of
the meeting was 9 o’clock and not shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report
mention that they discussed issues concerning faith and the retraction. The narrative is short
and ends with Rizal going to bed.
Peter Jaynul V. Uckung (2012) discussed
the authenticity of Rizal’s Retraction.
🞂 It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his
death. There were many witnesses, most of them are Jesuits. The document
only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr.
Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
🞂 However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the
retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and
reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also
copied it verbatim.
🞂 In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add
to this the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish
document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29,
1890.”
🞂 Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, bearing the date
“December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look
like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up.
It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.
🞂 Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction
document reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman
Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which
was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both
Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were
approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-
American war to forge Rizal’s signature.
🞂 This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale
from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours.
🞂 To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the
forest of the night.
🞂 Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal
was invented by the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was
centered on the friar abuses.
🞂
🞂 Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s
retraction, also figured prominently during the revolution. It was him,
Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the
cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.
🞂 There are also not a few people who believe that the
autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is
also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by
Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the
Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a glaring difference
between the penmanship of the document, and other letters written by
Josephine to Rizal.
🞂 Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though
Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he
really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.