Retraction of Rizal

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
mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only
"suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not
know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the
Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen the
original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that
faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in
which "changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy)
had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the
Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes")
is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain
phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently
hoped, Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr.
Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi.
Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he
insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and
educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of the Church"
– the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary
and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what
actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious
account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the
retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been
omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort
Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone
read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in
his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy
of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u")
and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which
are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed
to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had
written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine

Retraction of Rizal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retraction of Rizal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retraction of Rizal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retraction of Rizal

Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Rafael Palma

Rizal and Josephine Bracken.

in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The story of Rizal’s alleged

found in chapter 32 and 33 with his analysis in the latter chapter.

dated December 29, 1896.

Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” Rizal wanted to emphasize that

know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.

Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen the

faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in

had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the

Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes")

is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain

phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently

hoped, Rizal would sign it.

Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi.

Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he

insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and

educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of the Church"

– the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary

and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what

actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious

account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the

retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been

omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone

read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in

to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".

written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine

You might also like