Document 2 16

• In a document dated December 29, 1896, Jose Rizal declared his Catholic faith and retracted any prior
statements or actions contrary to the Catholic Church. He also expressed strong disapproval of Masonry
as an enemy of the Church. This document was discovered in 1935 by Fr. Manuel Garcia.
• Fr. Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit priest, visited Rizal in his final hours, claiming to have convinced him to
leave Masonry and return to Catholicism. Balaguer also stated that he officiated Rizal's marriage to
Josephine Bracken shortly before his execution, detailing Rizal's unexpected religious activities during
that time.
• Fr. Pio Pi, the Jesuit superior in the Philippines during Rizal's execution, had a role in obtaining the
retraction document from Archbishop Bernandino Nozaleda. He also wrote a shorter retraction
document, which Rizal is said to have copied. Unlike Fr. Balaguer, Fr. Pi's involvement was primarily
focused on securing these documents.
• Freemasonry is seen as an adversary of the Catholic Church, with doctrines the Church opposes. Rizal
joined Freemasonry but remained a Catholic. He saw it as a platform to criticize the government.
• In 1935, Fr. Manuel Garcia revealed a document where Rizal declared himself a Catholic and rejected
Freemasonry, dated December 20, 1896, and signed by Rizal.
• Fr. Vicente Balaguer, a priest, testified that he spent time with Rizal during his final hours, where Rizal
woke up multiple times and apologized four times.
• On December 29th, Rizal refused to sign a prepared retraction document initially but later signed it
under different names. The marriage between Bracken and Rizal occurred on December 30th. This
account supports the retraction's existence, and Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, indicating doubts
about the retraction's authenticity.
• Rafael Palma provides a critical analysis:
1. Rizal's actions suggest he wasn't truly reconciled with the Catholic Church.
2. The retraction document was kept secret.
3. Requests for the original retraction document and a copy of Rizal's canonical marriage with Josephine
Bracken were denied.
4. Rizal's burial was concealed, with no Catholic masses or funeral services held.
5. He was buried without a cross or marker.
6. The burial entry for Rizal doesn't align with the entries for December 30, 1896.
7. Palma believes there was no genuine moral reason for Rizal's conversion to Catholicism.
• Austin Coates provides a critical analysis:
1. There was no signed letter of retraction by Rizal, and it's unlikely he would have created one given the
potential harm to his reputation.
2. If a retraction had existed, it would have been promptly submitted to the Archbishop and shown to
Rizal's family, providing them with comfort.
3. Neither Pio Pi nor the Jesuits believed Rizal had retracted and died with confession. If they had, they
would have given him a Christian burial.
4. The Rizal family had difficulty accepting both the retraction and the marriage, as they knew Jose Rizal
well and believed he would have informed his mother about these actions on the morning of his
execution, providing her with sol solace
• An unidentified eyewitness account of Rizal's last hours reveals the presence of two priests, Fr. March
and Vilaclara, and Rizal's defense counsel, Andrade.
• Rizal refused to sign the retraction document initially.
• At 3 pm, Fr. March returned with the unsigned document, which was then given to Sr. Del Tresno and
Maure. At 5 am the next morning, Josephine Bracken married Rizal, and she left afterward.
•Father Pio Pi's statement mentions that Fr. Francisco Sanchez, a friend of Rizal from their Ateneo days,
attempted to offer hope for retraction, but Rizal declined. Father Pio Pi had a shorter retraction formula
that Rizal preferred, and he wrote and signed the retraction document. This document was presented to
Sr. Maure and then handed over to Archbishop Bernardo Nozaleda on December 30, 1896.
• Rafael Palma's doubts stemmed from several factors:
- Rizal's actions didn't align with true reconciliation with the Catholic Church.
- The retraction document was kept secret.
- Rizal's family requested the original retraction and marriage documents but were denied.
- Rizal's burial was secretive, without a marked grave or religious ceremonies.
- There were no masses or a proper funeral.
- The entry in the burial book was dated December 30, 1896.
- Palma believed there was no genuine moral motive for Rizal's conversion.
• Austin Coates, who had connections with the Hongkong Embassy, also questioned the retraction:
- Rizal's prior visit to Hong Kong piqued Coates's interest.
- Coates asserted that there was no signed retraction letter.
- He criticized Fr. Balaguer's role in the alleged retraction, noting Balaguer's self-praise and the omission
of "Mi Ultimo Adios" (My Last Farewell) in his account.

Document 2 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document 2 16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Document 2 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

• In a document dated December 29, 1896, Jose Rizal declared his Catholic faith and retracted any prior

• Rafael Palma provides a critical analysis:

2. The retraction document was kept secret.

5. He was buried without a cross or marker.

• Austin Coates provides a critical analysis:

• Rizal refused to sign the retraction document initially.

• Rafael Palma's doubts stemmed from several factors:

- The retraction document was kept secret.

- Rizal's burial was secretive, without a marked grave or religious ceremonies.

- There were no masses or a proper funeral.

- Rizal's prior visit to Hong Kong piqued Coates's interest.

- Coates asserted that there was no signed retraction letter.

You might also like