cÊ
A.Ê The Church was interested in his retraction ever since he was in Dapitan in 1982 (Pascual, 1950). B.Ê The friars never mentioned about the retraction until after Rizal͛s death (Pascual, 1950). C.Ê The death verdict was affirmed by the court on Dec. 26. Why did the friars arrive to ͞Save his soul͟ on the 29th, the eve of his execution? 1.Ê They want him dead and retracted. If Rizal retracted earlier, he could have used this as a defence to save him from the verdict. 2.Ê Does a man only need spiritual assistance before he dies? Rizal was in prison in Fort Santiago for almost 2 months. Why did the friars not visit him during this period? Why only on the last day?
cc Ê
A.Ê Trinidad Rizal͛s statements in a cross examination: 1.Ê She visited between 7-8 pm. Rizal never mentioned to her about his plans to retract and to be married (Pascual, 1950). 2.Ê The family never saw the Retraction document despite being promised to see it (Pascual, 1950). 3.Ê ͞The retraction has no truth; it is only a trick and an insult to a dead man.͟ B.Ê Fr. Luis Viza͛s statements: 1.Ê At 6 am, he and Fr. Saderra Mata (Rector of Ateneo Municipal) visited Rizal because Rizal told his intentions to be married. Why did he not mention these intentions to Trinidad? 2.Ê No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction (Hessel, 1965). C.Ê According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal͛s family visited on Dec. 30; however, according to the family, they were only allowed to visit on the 29th. This proves Balaguer͛s inconsistencies.
III.Ê
A.Ê A comparison of the document with Rizal͛s other writings by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual (UP) show many differences in the manner of handwriting: 1.Ê Differences in the slant of letters 2.Ê Several differences in the way the letters were formed. a.Ê Capital C in Creo and Catolica b.Ê Capital D in Diocesano and Diciembre c.Ê Capital A d.Ê a, h & o 3.Ê No less than 7 differences in the signature of Rizal in the Retraction paper, one of the most significant are the ͞stops͟ which are explained by the fact that the forger might stop at certain points to determine what forms to make next 4.Ê There are marked similarities between the handwriting of all three signers (Rizal and the 2 witnesses). This serves to point to Pascual͛s conclusion that this is a one-man document. B.Ê Textual criticism challenges the authenticity of the document 1.Ê 2 distinct forms of the text with significant differences- the À document which was claimed to be ͞lost and found,͟ and the text published by Balaguer in À which claims to be an exact copy of the original (Hessel, 1965) a.Ê Line 6: ͞Iglesia Catolica͟ in 1935 while ͞Iglesia͟ only in 1987 b.Ê Line 10: ͞la Iglesia͟ in 1935 while ͞la misma Iglesia͟ in 1987
c.Ê Difference in paragraph division d.Ê Differences in the use of capital letters 2.Ê ͙͞in which I was born and educated͙͟ Did Rizal forget his life story? a.Ê Rizal never went to mass in Dapitan (Retana, 1907) b.Ê Rizal left Catholicism 14 years before his execution (1882). 3.Ê ͙͞ I wish to live and die͙͟ a.Ê This statement is dubious. How could he ͞live͟ if he was about to be executed. 4.Ê Fr. Balaguer states that Rizal wanted to change the phrase ͞as a society disapproved by the Church͟ to ͞as an enemy of the Church and prohibited by the same͟ a.Ê The latter phrase is a graver description to freemasonry. How could Rizal develop such an anti-Masonry attitude after just a few hours? 5.Ê Fr. Balaguer states that Rizal wanted to add ͞as the highest ecclesiastical authority͟ after ͞Diocesan Prelate͟ a.Ê Why would he want to do this? How could the friars forget this fact? C.Ê There is a confession of the forger (Runes & de la Roza, 1961). 1.Ê Antonio K. Abad͛s statements in an interview with the authors: a.Ê In a party on August 13, 1901 at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a retraction document. The same Roque was employed by Col. Funston to forge the signature of General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. b.Ê A letter dated November 10, 1936 was also discovered by Runes. Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present in the party when Roque told the story and confirms it.
c Ê
Ê
Ê Rizal was very mature at his age of 35. It is not likely that he would have been shocked into abnormal behaviour by the threat of death (Hessel, 1965). Hessel states that he had accompanied two prisoners to the scaffold, and their behaviours was restrained and consistent. B.Ê Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought as seen in his writings, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly changing it to another. Almost half of Rizal͛s writings were about religion (Pascual, 1950). If he did retract, this is not in keeping with his ideas. C.Ê Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam nulla datur salus (Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation). I find it hard to believe that this statement by Fr. Balaguer passed Rizal in their conversation. ! ! Ê ͞I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church͟ À Ê Why would he do this if almost half of his writings contain topics about religion? 2.Ê We must admit that the abusive friars are still part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, is Rizal retracting too everything he said against them? B.Ê ͞ I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands.͟ 1.Ê Whatever she demands? Is Rizal saying that he is submitting to blind obedience and that he is ready to kiss the hands of the friars? C.Ê ͙͞ repair the scandals that my acts have caused͙͟
1.Ê Would Rizal say that his acts are scandalous? This is a big joke. c Ê
cc Ê
ccc Ê
" #$ # Ê Met Rizal in Dapitan during the Holy Week of 1984. He sought Rizal to paint for him a backdrop. Fr. Balaguer was never a teacher of Rizal in Ateneo or in UST. " Ê Fr. Sanchez was also sent to Dapitan to no avail (Garcia, 1964). % ! & &" ' & ( " & '
Ê Retraction document À Ê Disappeared on the afternoon when Rizal was shot, only to be found 39 years after. The evidence of the retraction which they sought for 4 years was lost! ) Ê Fr. Pio Pi:
Ê The document was not found in the Archbishop͛s palace. How could that be when it is of great importance? Ê It was found only in 1935. Why was it not found in a search in 1908/1909? What happened in the 24 years lapse? " Ê Burial Records and Christian Burial Certificate À Ê Burials in Paco Cemetery on Dec 1986 were found in p 147 of the Records ) Ê P. 203 contains records of Feb. 1887 Ê Rizal͛s burial was recorded in p 204, the last page of the book! * Ê A Christian Burial Certificate was also found in 1935 together with the Retraction document! Is this just a coincidence? ' Ê Autobiography of Josephine Bracken À Ê Written on Dec. 30 1986, the day Rizal was executed. ) Ê Obvious difference in handwriting. Ê It states that they were married. This could have been forged to support the idea that Rizal did really retract. D.Ê Marriage certificate 1.Ê There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken. E.Ê ͞Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity͟ 1.Ê It was said that Rizal signed this to profess that he believes. It is doubtful that Rizal will believe to a statement such as ͙͞ the infallibility of the Church͙͟ 2.Ê Again, Rizal͛s signature is said to be forged (Pascual, 1950). 3.Ê Found in 1935 with the Retraction paper. The Retraction paper was said to be found in a stack of other retraction papers. How could a prayer book be misplaced in such a place?
+ , A.Ê ͞I go where faith does not kill͙͟ >> clearly indicates Rizal͛s stand against the Roman Catholic Church B.Ê The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. Fr. Balaguer claims that Rizal was beginning to change in attitude even in the afternoon. Again, why di Rizal not mention anything to his mother or to Trinidad?
c- Ê
' A.Ê In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest͛s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him. B.Ê As for the actual eye witnesses, some eight testified to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government officials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes from notarized statements in 1917 or later.
u The great debate; the Rizal retraction, ! "#$ % The Siliman Journal12 & '( ') *Rizal beyond the grave a reiteration of the greatness of the martyr of Bagumbayan + ,% - *.Vida y escritos del Dr. JoseÌ ,% /2 3
Rizal / / 01 % / /+ //
