Retraction of Jose Rizal PDF

Preview

Summary

This file or document is for Readings in Philippine History subject. Hope this will help! :)...

Description

Retraction of Rizal By Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Rafael Palma Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He joined the Society of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in 1894. Moreover, he was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal’s last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In 1917 when he had returned to Spain, an affidavit executed that proves he was who solemnized the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. Rafael Palma was born on October 24, 1874. He was a Filipino politician, lawyer, writer, educator and a famous freemason. Additionally, he became the fourth President of the University of the Philippines. He was later elected as senator under the Nacionalista Party, consistently representing the 4th District, in both the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls. Furthermore, he was the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the national hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in chapter 32 and 33 with his analysis in the latter chapter. Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by a Spanish court martial after being implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution. On December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted his masonic ideals and his writings reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests. A few hours before he was shot, Rizal signed a document stating that he was a Catholic and retracted all his writings against the church and the document were as “The Retraction”. Moreover, Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935 at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. The letter, dated December 29, 1896. According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in the morning on December 29, 1896. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion of some articles of Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences that divided Catholics and Protestants. They explained to him that they could not administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. The two Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the retraction letter or not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first meeting with Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him to recant. They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal found the first template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were not reflective of his personality. So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and offered the shorter one. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was uncomfortable with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” Rizal wanted to emphasize that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism and that Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal together with

Señor Fresno, chief of the picket, and Señor Moure, adjutant of the plaza signed the retraction letter before midnight. After which, Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda. On the other hand, Rafael Palma, a prominent Mason, disputed the veracity of the document of the alleged retraction because it did not reflect Rizal’s true character and beliefs. He regarded the resurrected retraction story as a “pious fraud”. Where, according to his analysis, the retraction of Rizal was hearsay with the following reasons: First, the documents of retraction were kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to see it that time. Secondly, when the family of Rizal ask for the original copy of the document as well as the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, bot petitions were denied. Third, Rizal’s burial was kept secret, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by Catholics. Notwithstanding 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. And, in the entry of the entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal’s body is not made on the page those buried on December 30, 1896, instead he was considered among persons died impenitent with no spiritual aid. Lastly, there was no moral motive for the conversion. To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that 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 travellers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what he has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, former Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death "to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs"....