RPH Lesson 10 - Controversy Surrounding the National Hero Jose Rizal Retraction PDF

Preview

Summary

ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTIONOne of the controversial issues about Rizal was on the question whether he died a Catholic or a Mason. The assumed retraction of our national hero continues to intrigue historians, as well as students. Some are arguing that Rizal retracted his masonic views and...

Description

ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

One of the controversial issues about Rizal was on the question whether he died a Catholic or a Mason. The assumed retraction of our national hero continues to intrigue historians, as well as students. Some are arguing that Rizal retracted his masonic views and embraced his Catholic faith before he died. On the other hand, those who believe that the retraction is a lie considering that Rizal, throughout his life was a free and rational thinker. 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. Garcia, who found the original document, also copied it verbatim. It stated:

The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, the greatest exponent of the view that Rizal died a Catholic and retracted hi Masonic views. Evidences used by the Church priove the veracity of its claim, as well as those share the same belief, are summed by Father Jesus Maria Cavanna: 1. The Retraction document is the chief witness to the reality of the retraction itself, since its discovery in 1935. The burden of proof rests upon those who questions its validity. 2. Rizal recited and signed the prayer book entitled Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity. This book was offered to Rizal after his signing of the retraction document according to Father Vicente Balaguer. 3. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of witnesses, attested that Rizal did retract and sign a retraction document. 4. Rizal performed acts of piety during his last hours, as testified by witnesses. 5. The Church, through the Jesuits, solemnized Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Bracken, as attested by witnesses. The Catholic Church will not officiate a marriage ceremony without Rizal’s retraction of his religious errors.

While Cavanna and other pro- retraction scholars pointed to the foregoing evidences to support their position, those who espouse the belief that Rizal did not retract substantiate their claim based on the following arguments:

1. The retraction document is a forgery. The handwriting in the document is questionable, as only one man prepared it, 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, as confessed by Roque to Fr. Antonio Abad on August 13, 1901. 2. Other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of retraction. Some of these are the following: a) The retraction document was not made public until 1935. Even members of Rizal’s family did not see it. b) No effort was made to save Rizal from death penalty after saying his retraction. c) Rizal’s burial was kept secret. He was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco Cemetery. d) There is no marriage certificate or public record of Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Bracken. e) Rizal’s behaviour did not point to a conversion during his last 24 hours. His Mi Ultimo Adios and the letters he wrote during his remaining hours do not indicate conversion. 3. The retraction is out of character. It is not in keeping with Rizal’s character and faith. It is incongruent with his previous assertions and declarations of religious thought. Of Proofs and Documents History books tell most people 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. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy. According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief. Jesuit vouches for Rizal’s Retraction It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the basis for the story that Rizal retracted his words and deeds. It was also he who made the claim that he married Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, just minutes before Rizal was executed.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer claims to be a primary witness of the last days of Rizal from December 29 and 30, 1896. He detailed the story of the last moments of Rizal in Fort Santiago thru a notarized statement dated August 8, 1917. He stated; “On the same date Rizal was executed I wrote a detailed account of everything original of which I have drawn in the preparation of this narrative. I finally declare and affirm that shortly before Rizal left his cell, I departed in the company with Josephine Bracken and the sister of Jose Rizal whom I separated with. I had with Rizal’s retraction. And I delivered said document to Rev Fr. Pio Pi, who that same day, brought it to the palace and handed it over to Archbishop Nozaleda, who in turn, delivered it to his secretary, Gonzales Feijoo.” However, there have been critics as to the testimony and credence of Fr. Vicente Balaguer. “Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department of the De La Salle University.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila Purchased by the Philippine government from Spain, the the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

As a spy body, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia was set up in 1895, shortly before the outbreak of the revolution against Spain in 1896, as an intelligence corps of the Spanish government. It was headed by Federico Moreno. The intelligence reports were relayed to the Governor General through Manuel Luengo, then gobernador civil de Manila. Indios as well mestizos acted as agents. Cuerpo closely monitored the activities of residents of Manila and of the nearby provinces; they were suspected of subversion. These persons included not only natives but also Spaniards born in the country and Spaniards born in the Peninsula. Chinese mestizos were also suspects. From the reports in the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, as presented in August 4, 2016 by Dr. Rene Escalante, OIC of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, it can be summarized that; a. People did visit Dr. Jose Rizal on December 29, 1896 from 6am. b. There was no visitor of Rizal by the name Fr. Vicente Balaguer Thus, the same report disputes the personal knowledge that Balaguer claims over the alleged Rizal retraction, making him only a secondary source.

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted) —agree with each other.

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted) —agree with each other.

Sources: Rizal and the Development of Filipino Nationalism, Carlito Garcia, et al., Revised Edition 2011. The Rizal Retraction and Other Cases, Peter Jaymul V. Uckung, National Historical Commission of the Philippines, September 19, 2012. Rizal’s Retraction, Truth or Myth, Tomas U. Santos, The Varsitarian, October 4, 2011....