Case 3 rizal retract PDF

Preview

Summary

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by...

Description

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity. It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them 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, it bears 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”. So which is which? 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.

The Rizal Retraction and other cases Posted on September 19, 2012 THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues, skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth regarding this controversy. However, thelack of evidence and different statements by significant people involved have only contributed to thecomplications and uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument. "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have beencontrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", this was the statement in the documentwhich made the historians believed that Rizal had retracted. However, there have been claims that thedocument, as compared to the original file which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesanarchivist in 1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe thatthe retraction documents are authentic. These people include eleven eyewitnesses who were presentwhen Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, and themultitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a greatgrandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualifiedwitnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.

Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historicalmethod, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafracalled the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to"the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction documents? What possible reasons could havepushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document, assuming that he truly wrote the said document?The following four reasons would have been worthy of his character and mentality.(1)

To save his family and town from further persecution.Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of having hisrelatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his death would stop thepersecution of his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way ofachieving that purpose.(2)

To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.Rizal, even though he for a time suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to have becomeconvinced that she now loved him, and he may have desired to give her a legal status in theeyes of the church, and so provide for her future.(3) To secure reforms from the Spanish government.(4) To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her.Rizal did not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove the cancer whichruined both church and state in the Philippines -- friar control of land and domination by thegovernment. He was also struggling for freedom of thought and of conscience to theindividual. He may have felt that much of his propaganda had produced the insurrection,and have repented of that. His letter to Paciano, written the night before his execution

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retractiondocument was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be truethat he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what hehas already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Diokno oncestated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from hisgreatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove tothose who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm 

Did Rizal Retract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm 

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/ 

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm 

http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.htm...