First let
me show to you what is written on the said RETRACTION, so that my CATHOLIC VISITORS on this Blog, will not say that I have no guts to post this:
 |
| The So called Controversial Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal |
“Me declaro catolica y en
esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir.
Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y
conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo
y profeso cuanto ella enseƱa y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la
Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la
Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer
publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis
actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.
Manila
29 de Deciembre de 1896
Jose Rizal
English
Translation:
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.
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 Church. I
believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior
Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in
order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and
people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
And now let us read a thorough analysis on this issue:
(Editor: This is Part II of the lecture
delivered at the CHICAGO’S NEWBERRY LIBRARY ON JUNE 18, 2011. THE AUTHOR IS A
GREAT-GRAND NEPHEW OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO whose 150th birthday was
marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on
Dec. 30, 1896 after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort
Santiago, Manila.)
By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.
“How could this be?” we
ask. It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived. It
COULD BE, for there was no other recourse. It COULD BE, for the moth had
burned its wings! Twenty-four years after the garroting of the Filipino
clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and
intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and
frailocracy had now sensed its own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to
display its final domination of a reawakened people. However, it would
not be completely so! THE MAN THEY
HAD JUST MARTYRED WAS A MAN WHOSE POLITICS AND FAITH WERE UNSHAKEABLE AND
TIMELESS. AS WE KNOW, AND AS HISTORY RECOUNTS, IT ALSO PROJECTS.
To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine
scholar, patriot, and former President of the University of the Philippines
regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral
duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of
history.” Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of his time, was an author
on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal
meticulously. Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race
about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense before the court martial is resplendent for
its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in
which the fiscal had treated him.” FOR
IN MAN’S OWN TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIAL THAT CONDEMNED DR. JOSE RIZAL TO
DIE WAS A SHAM; HIS EXECUTION, A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken
lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four years he was exiled in
Dapitan. He truly loved her. THEY
HAD DESIRED A CANONICAL MARRIAGE BUT WERE PRESENTED WITH A PRE-CONDITION
RETRACTION OF RIZAL’S ANTI-ECCLESIASTICAL WRITINGS AND BELIEFS. As we
may know, he was never anti-God or anti-Church. He was anti-cleric to
those who abused their mission and hid behind their pretentious cloak of
religiosity. He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not
worship God. NEITHER THE
RETRACTION NOR THE MARRIAGE OCCURRED. He and Josephine were parents
to a son, though he sadly passed. We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had
immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which we now
refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi
alegria…” As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute
quotes, “TO ACCEPT RIZAL AS HAVING
MARRIED BRACKEN IS TO ACCEPT HIS ALLEGED RETRACTION OF RELIGIOUS ERROR.”
From Austin
Coates, British author and historian: “BEFORE GOD, HE (DR. RIZAL) HAD NOTHING TO RETRACT.” And from Dr.
Jose Rizal himself, I quote: “I
GO WHERE THERE ARE NO SLAVES, NO HANGMEN, NO OPPRESSORS… WHERE FAITH DOES NOT
SLAY… WHERE HE WHO REIGNS IS GOD.”
Fraudulent
Premise
From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church
attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit
unsuccessfully. A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and
Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting. He had decided to remain
ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged “religious
errors.” Now, there seems to be a
“disconnect”, or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal
had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the friars and the
Jesuits. Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have
begotten a marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that
will prove this premise fraudulent. Austin Coates’ book entitled Rizal –
Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from
his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal
family. To wit:
1.
Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.
J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of
December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters. The Rizal
family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful
morning. Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.
2.
Nobody had reported
seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of
the execution.
3.
Considering the time it
would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and
Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual
care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could
“describe” a wedding? Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March
to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony? Or was there really
even one at all?
4.
In Josephine Bracken’s
matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman
Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal”
by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.
5.
In the legal register of
Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be
married to Vicente Abad.
6.
In Josephine Bracken’s
litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizal’s
valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila
stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim.
She did not pursue this. Why not?
7.
In 1960, inquiry at the
Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage
was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the
religious. Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”
“Unconfessed”
Martyrdom”
From the dark days of exile in Dapitan,
to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic Church
had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could
be performed. In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime,
it was always proclaimed that “the Indio
always retracted”, as he walked to his execution. Austin Coates
states in his book: “THE SPANIARDS
PUBLISH THE SAME THING ABOUT EVERYONE WHO IS SHOT… Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the
fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.” I say that if
there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose
Rizal met his martyrdom “un-confessed”:
1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was
listed among those who died impenitent. The entry made in
the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the
page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six
entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the authorities. Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page
between a man who burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons
considered “un-confessed” and without spiritual aid at the time of death.
2. Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who
had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a
Christian burial, but they did not. They must have known that no
retraction was made. Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a
sack, without a coffin. This was the onus of the “un-confessed.”
3. One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and
final note to his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with
no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage. A
message with that important information would have been of great consolation to
Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected
dearly.
4. Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family
after the execution, no letter of retraction could be produced.
5. The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately
nine to eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be said,
after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family. Though
the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of
retraction was shown. They were told that the letter had been sent to the
Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.
6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former
student) did not celebrate any mass for his soul, nor did they hold any
funerary rites over his body. I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits
against the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed
pupil did not abjure!
7. The apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of
Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a
handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in
syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating author’s primary language was
Spanish (not Josephine’s original language), thus proving that the
document was manufactured and disingenuous.
8. Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that
earlier in the year, he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a
retraction letter.
9. In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in
their book Forgery of the Rizal Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made
an exposƩ of six different articles and books that purportedly presented Dr.
Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original”
testament of retraction. INTRIGUINGLY ENOUGH, EVEN TO THIS DAY, THE
CLAIMED “ORIGINAL” DOCUMENT FROM WHICH THE FACSIMILES HAVE ARISEN HAVE NOT BEEN
SEEN BY ANYBODY. BLATANT IN THESE SIX DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS WERE
DIFFERING DATES AND NOTES THAT HAD BEEN DOCTORED, TRACED-OVER, AND ALTERED,
WHEN THESE FACSIMILES WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME “ORIGINAL”
DOCUMENT! This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria
Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.
Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some
people, it is my personal opinion that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose
Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs. THE ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY MADE BY HIS
DETRACTORS ARE ALL SMOKE SCREEN AND “RETREADS” OF THE DUBIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE
SYCOPHANTIC FATHER BALAGUER AND HIS GULLIBLE MINIONS. Let us not
allow for the sands of time to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious
event. Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this
fraudulent claim. As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now,
let the document of retraction be examined by a panel of the world’s experts in
hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made. Let this hidden document
come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see,
and to judge, and to know what is truthful.
When this comes to pass… in this 21st century, in this age of an
“evidence-based” society that demands transparency and full-disclosure, it can
be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and in the
spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people
for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in
Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of
pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE BEYOND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO NOW ADMIT THE PIOUS
FRAUD IT HAD COMMITTED IN SAYING THAT DR. JOSE RIZAL HAD ABJURED HIS WRITINGS
AND BELIEFS, WHEN ALL EVIDENCES POINT TO THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT!”
Quoted as it is from: http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/
It
is up to you readers to Judge…
