THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION

The question that I should like to ask is this: If Rizal had wanted to retract in Dapitan in 1895 when death
was not at hand "In order to avoid public scandal, and out of respect for the custom of the people," was
there any compelling reason why he would not do the same at Fort Santiago a few hours before his
execution? The answer is obvious!

On December 26, 1896, Rizal was accused and tried before a military tribunal for the alleged crimes of
rebellion, sedition, and illegal association. The prosecutor and the defense finished presenting their
arguments that morning, and the sentence of death was pronounced that same morning. Two days
after, on December 28, to be exact the Governor General affirmed the death sentence and set the
execution. of Rizal on December 30, at 7:00 o'clock in the morning. The death sentence was read to Rizal
early in the morning of December 29.

Now we come to the most intriguing part of Rizal's life ---- the last 24 hours of his stay at Fort Santiago.
What actually happened inside that infamous fort from December 29 to 6:30 in the morning of
December 30, 1896, is the main issue before us. I will try to prove the following:

1. That Rizal retracted his mosaic affiliation.

EYEWITNESSES

I will prove my points by the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were privy to what had happened in
Rizal's cell at Fort Santiago from early in the morning of December 29 to 6:30 in the morning of
December 30, 1896.

231

My first eyewitness is Fr. Vicente Balaguer Llacer who in the notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia,
Spain, and August 8. 1917, deposes and says in part.

That, after Rizal was condemned to death, when the chaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago, where the
convict was, offered his services for so sad circumstances, the prisoner told him that he appreciated his
offering, but that he desired rather to be visited by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus by whom he had
been educated. When he made this request, the Rev. Father Superior; Father Pi, in compliance with the
commission of His Grace, the Archbishop had already sent Father Saderra, Rector of the Ateneo, and
Father Luiz Viza to the Fort. When these Fathers entered the Fort that morning of December 29, 1896,
Rizal received them with signs of affection, and asked them whether some of those who had been his
professors were still there in Ateneo. They told him that Father Vilaclara only, who had returned to
Manila, a few days before, remained. They told him that I was also in Manila, and he asked that I go also,
since I had been... a Missionary in Dapitan, where he dealt with me as a friend. He was a very polite
gentlemen, and even friendly towards me.

Let us pause here for a moments to consider the significance of the statement: ". when the chaplain of
the Royal Fort Santiago, where the convict was, offered his services for so sad circumstances, the
prisoner told him that he appreciated his offering, but that he desired rather to be visited by the Fathers
of the Society of Jesus, by whom he had been educated."
We all know that the Jesuit fathers had been much interested in Rizal's retraction since his Dapitan days.
They had sent Father Sanchez, Rizal's favourite professor, to Dapitan to persuade him to retract. Father
Pastels had exchanged several long letters with Rizal for the same purpose. If Rizal was really against the
retraction, why did he ask for the same retraction-minded? Jesuits to visit him knowing that they would
persuade him with more vigor

232

since he had only one day to live? Viewing this objectively I am more inclined to believe that Rizal was
interested in discussing further the pro and the con of his retraction with his friends, the Jesuits.
Therefore, the probability of his retraction at Fort Santiago was indeed great when he invited the Jesuits
to visit him.

As a matter of fact, Rizal had decided to retractor on December 29. When his sister Maria visited him at
Fort Santiago on that day to bade him farewell, he told her, "Maria, I am going to marry Josephine."

Father Balaguer continues:

At about ten o'clock in the morning, Father Vilaclara, and I went to Fort Santiago, where the chapel cell
of the convict was. He received us with great affection and embraced us. I think it convenient to point
out that, when the Archbishop sent his commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of
conversion, before ministering the Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors
publicly professed by him in words and writing, and a profession of the Catholic faith. To this effect,
when the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, he brought by the way of
precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including what he thought ought to be
exacted from Dr. Rizal. The prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient. He said, however, that he
would prepare or order to be prepared a more extensive one.

Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders and instructions from the
Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of faith, composed by Rev.
Father Pio Pi. He told me to wait for the other more extensive one, and to present to the convict either
of them, according to his personal disposition. At any rate, it was enough to admit the shorter and
concise formula of Father Pi, since His Grace considered it sufficient in order to administer the Holy
Sacraments to him.

Therefore, when we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings with him and
talking

233

on the various matters. I, who knew the history and error contained in his books, in order to fulfil our
delicate mission, asked Rizal to five an explanation of his ideas on religion.

At the outset he appeared a Protestant, because of certain phrases manifesting love and respect for
Jesus Christ. Nay, he came to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the word of God
contained in the Sacred Scriptures. I tried to make him see how false and indefensible such a criterion
was, Inasmuch as without the authority of the Church he could not be sure of the authenticity of the
Holy Scriptures or of the books truly revealed by God, how absolutely impossible it is for the individual
reason to interpret at his will the word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist or
freethinker, unwilling to admit any other criterion of truth than individual reason.
I then pointed out to him the absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of the immense majority
of humankind, and for the absurd and monstrous errors professed by the greatest sages of paganism. I
tried to convince him with irrefutable arguments that there is not, nor can there be, a more rational
criterion than supernatural faith and divine revelation, warranted by the infallible authority of the
Church; that such is clear testimony reason, history and the motives of credibility offered with evidence
by the Church Constrained by these invincible arguments, he came to say to me that he was guided by
the reason of God had given him, adding with a self-possession that curdled my blood, that he was going
to appear this before the tribunal of God, with a clear conscience for having fulfilled his duty as a
rational man. When I attacked him with the arguments of Catholic doctrine, he began to expound the
objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand times refuted already.

We had to discuss the criterion or rule of faith, the authority of the Church, her infallibility and divine
teaching authority, the power of working miracles, the death penalty (a subject of so burning an interest
in those moments). The death of Ananias and Sapphira, the Holy Scriptures, the

234

Vulgate, Saint Jerome's version, that of LXX, purgatory. the variations of the Protestant Churches, the
arguments of Balmes against them, the worship of Saints, and especially the extension of Redemption,
and many other objections of apologetics, a thousand times refuted with irresistible arguments. When I
attacked him with logic and evidence of Catholic truth, I told him with energy that if he did not yield his
mind and his reason for the sake of faith, he would surely be damned. Upon hearing this threat, tears
gushed from his eyes, and he said: "No, I will not damn myself."

"Yes. "...I replied, "you will go to hell, for whether you like it or not. EXTRA ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM
NULLA DATUR SALUS. Yes, out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but
one. As such, truth is uncompromising in all orders and much more so in the religious order, which is the
most transcendental."

Affected by this approach he said: -- "Look her, father: if to please Your Reverence I would say yes to
everything and would sign everything you present to me without meaning it, I would be a hypocrite and
would offend God."

"Certainly, " - I told him - "and we don't want that. But believe me that it is a grief without equal to see a
beloved person obstinate in error, and to see that person about to be damned and to be unable to
prevent it. You take pride in being a sincere man, so, believe us that if by giving our blood and our lives,
we could achieve the salvation of your soul, right now, we would give our lives and offer ourselves to be
shot in lieu of you."

"But Father" - he replied with regret - "what would you have me do, since it seems that I cannot
dominate my reason?"

"Offer," - I answered, "offer to God the sacrifice of your self-love. Even if it be against the voice of your
reason, ask God the grace of faith, which is a gift that God bestows abundantly and is obtained infallibly
by humble and preserving prayer. Only on your part, you should not reject it."

235

"Well then, Father, "- he said - "I promise you that I will spend the time that still remains of my life,
asking God for the grace of faith.
"Take a rest then." - I told him, "and ponder over what we have talked about. Have recourse to the Lord,
trusting in the infallible efficacy of prayer. Man's heart is in the hands of God."

Then, I went to the Ateneo, and thence I went with Father Viza to the Palace. There I reported on the
condition of the convict, who offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula of
retraction. Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised, and he told me that it was
not yet finished. Soon he would send me.

It was already night when I arrived on the Fort. I found Dr. Jose Rizal impatient. He asked for the formula
of Prelate. This came at last at about ten o'clock; upon knowing it, the convict asked me for insistently.
Without letting me read it first he called and asked me to read it to him.

Both of us sat on the desk, where there was stationery. Upon hearing the first paragraph he told me,
"Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine. I cannot sign that, because it should be
understood that I am writing it myself."

I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi, I read the first paragraph and said
to me, "That style is as simple as mine. Dont bother, Father, to read it all. Dictate what I ought to profess
or express, and I shall write, making in any case some remarks.

And thus it was done, as I suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady hand and clear letters,
making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Certainly after discussion, Dr. Rizal was
yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus
he appeared to be while writing retraction.

At the beginning, the formula stated: "I declare myself a catholic and in this religion I wish to live and
die." Dr Rizal told me: "Please, add" (and he was already writing after word "religion"): "in which I was
born and educated."

236

As if he wished to make his catholic education known.

I continued reading. He continued assenting and writing with some brief indication of his own, and an
explanation on my part. He assented then, and admitted everything expressed in the formula. When we
came to the paragraph where Masonry was detested, he showed some resistance to subscribe this
sentence of the formula: "I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church." He gave me this
reason. He said that he had known Masons who were very bad, but those with whom he had been
acquainted in London were businessmen and seemed to be good persons. It seemed also that he meant
to say that the kind of Masonry in the Philippines did not require the abjuration of the Catholic faith,
although I am not quite sure of this, anyhow, it seems that Dr. Rizal was admitted, in all events, into
some of the first degrees only, in which the members are not obliged to abjure the faith explicitly. After
some observations, he himself proposed to write and to sign, as he did, this formula:

"I abominate, masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church." And in this
way he wrote it. I continued reading, and he continued assenting, with some little observations.

So, for instance, it was said at the end: "the Diocesan Prelate may"...and he wanted to add: "as the
superior ecclesiastical authority, make public this my manifestation." At the words "my manifestation"
he asked me to allow him to add "spontaneous and voluntary." And he told me then with great
asseveration: "Because, believe me, Father. I am doing this heartily, otherwise, I would not do it.
"Well the," I told him, "you may put spontaneous and it is enough." He finished the writing, and thus it
remained. It was half past eleven, it was dated December the twenty ninth.

This declaration or retraction was signed together with Dê Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and
Senor Moure, Adjutant of the Plara.

Finally, I declare and affirm that, a little before Rizal

237

came out from the chapel, I left in the company of Josephine Bracken and a sister of Rizal, from whom
by him and by the witnesses. Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to Ateneo and delivered the
aforementioned document to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palace, and handed it to
Archbishop Nozaleda. His Grace entrusted it to his Secretary, Reverend Tomas Gonzales Feijoo, who
kept it in the Secretary's Office, in the chest of reserved document. This last fact I know through the
testimony of His Grace, the Most Reverend Berbardo Nozaleda, and of his Secretary. The other things I
have declared I know as an eyewitness and because I personally took part in the said event.

My second witness is a former Lieutenant of the infantry who made the following affidavit:

DECLARATION JARUDA

"Yo, el abajo firmante, MARIANO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS Y LASALA, mayor de edad, Filipino, casado у
residente en la Ciudad Quezon, declare y hago constar los siguientes particulares:

A fines de diciembre de mil ochocientos noventa y seis, y ya desde el ocho de deciembre del ano
anterior, me encontraba yo en Manila, graduado en la "REAL ACADEMIA MILITAR" con el rango de
Proimer Tiniente, y estancionado en la Real Fuerza de Santiago, prestando servicio en uno de los
piquetes como ayudante del comandante Eloy Moure.

El dia veintinueve del expresado mes de diciembre de mil ochocientos noventa y seis cuando sele leyo al
Doctor Rizal la sentencia de muerte estabamos presents, ademas del capellan de artilleria y de los
comandantes Fresno y Moure, sus dos ayudantes, el teniente de artilleria, Martin, y el compareciente
que era teniente de infanteria, Gallegos.

Desde aquella hora ambos tenientes Martin y Gallegos estuvimos de guardia todo el tiempo que Rizal
estuve en copilla, acompanandole despues a Bagumbayan hasta que se

238

entrego su cadaver paraser Illevado al cementerio de Paco. Estaban tambien de centinelas en el Fuerte
Santiago otros tressoldados del cuerpo de artilleria, pero estos sebrelavaban de seis en seis horas. Yo,
em cambio, pudever y oir la mayor parte de los bechos que ocurrieron en la veinticuartro ultimas horas
del Doctor Rizal; y sin vacilacion afirmo que presencie su conversion a la fe catolica y las pruebas
evidentes que dio de ello.

Y la fin de evitar cualquier reparo que en lo future se pueda suscitar contra mi testimonio, deseo se haga
constar por modo autentico y fidedigmo los siguientes hechos de los que yo fui testigo de vista pore star
presente cuando tuvieron lugar:
1 "--- El Dr. Jose Rizal escribio y firmo un document de retraction y profesion de fe catolica que firmaron
tambien los oficiales Fresno y Moure como testigos.

2 "--- Rizal leyo de rodillas, en voz alta, su abjuracion y profesion de fe catolica, asi como los actos de fe,
esperanza y caridad contenidos en un devocionarion.

3 "--- Rizal se confeso varias veces, ovo dos Misas y recibio la sagrada communion con edificante piedad.

4 "--- Rizal se caso canonocamente con Josefina Bracken.

5 "--- Rizal recibio el escapulario de la Inmaculada, rezo el rosariom repetia la jaculatorias que el
sugerian, beso la imagen del Sagrado Corazon de Jesus, antes de la Fuerza de Santiago, y el crucifijo
antes de morir; de manera que no dejo lugar a dudas sobre la sinceridad de su conversion."

EN TESTIMONIO DE LA CUAL, firmo el presente document en Manila, Filipinas, hoy a 29 de Julio de 1952

(SGD.) MARIANO Y MARTINEZ GALLEGOS Y LASALA

REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

CIUDAD DE MANILA

SUSCRITO Y JURADO, ante mi hoy a 29 de Julio de

239

1952. por Don Mariano Gallegos y Lasala con Certificate de Residencia No A-4797518 expedido en
Ciudad Quezon el dia 28 de Abril de 1952 y no exhibe certificado de clase B alegando estar exento de
semejante impuesto.

(SGD) ENRIQUE RAMIREZ

Notario Publico

Hata Diciembre 31, 1952.

Doc. No. 496

Pag. No. 84

Lib. No. 22

Serie de 1952.

THE BEST EVIDENCE

FINALLY, Let us come to the best evidence of all the document of retraction itself. On how it was found,
let us give Fr: Manuel A. Garcia a hearing.

In April, 1935, I was appointed the archdiocesan archivist, a position which I held until two years ago.
Assuredly, the archdiocesan archives are the richest in the Philippines
In 1933, these archives were piles up on a few shelves. To look for a document there was some what I
like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I know that by years of personal experience. No wonder; then,
that when the controversy on Rizal's retraction arose, it was practically and physically impossible to find
the precious document. Some attempts were made nut no results. And Freemasonry kept asking
repeatedly for the document. There was no trace of document. But the document existed as was
claimed by a thousand and one person who had seen it.

Again, back in 1935. In our new fire-proof VAULT, the muchahos and clears of the Archbishop's House
and Office made a perfect mound of papers. I began my work, the silent and patient work of an archivist.
Eight big new shelves of narra were ordered upon which the papers were to be put in order One paper
after another paper began to be caressed

240

by my hands which knew what treasures the Church of the Philippines had in them. The pity is that even
unto today there has been no Filipino interested enough to work exhaustively at the history of the
Church in this country. In my career as an archivist, I tried to train some seminarians, and they did well. I
hope that in the future these my pupils will give us at least one genuine historian of the Church in the
Philippines.

May 18, 1935. The tedious work continued, giving to me new surprises. As other papers passed one by
one through my hands, a bundle entitled "Masoneria" was in sight. I knew what that means - A BUDLE
OF JEWELS FOR FILIPINO HISTORY. The retraction and other documents of so many Filipino Freemasons
and heroes who came back to bosom Mother Church, were in my hands. I was well acquainted with all
those names, for I was a professor of History in Manila Seminary. My whole being exulted at what I saw.
I kept them carefully. I called His Grace by Long Distance. He was in Baguio at the time. He ordered me
to see him. The next day, His Grace saw all the papers and ordered me to keep the whole matter secret
until further notice.

His Grace. Monsigor O'Doherty, and the late President Quezon were close friends, M. Quezon has
retracted Masonry in 1930. His Grace called Quezon to his Palace; and handed to him the precious
bundle of papers. "Oh, my!" exclaimed Quezon on seeing them. "Your Grace, I think that these papers
should be shown to Teodoro Kalaw." And they agreed to call the Director of the Natinal Library.

But they were prudent, both of them, as leaders. They knew that Kalaw was a Freemason of the thirty-
third degree. They then called the General Carlos P. Romulo, who was at the time Editor of the Herald.
And they called me, precisely at noon, on June 15, 1935. Romulo and I prepared the atomic bomb for
that Saturday were headlines: "RIZAL'S RETRACTION FOUND."

Subsequently, General Romulo was able to confer with Kalaw on the Rizal and other documents found
by Father Garcia. He said: "See what we have found, Kalaw. What do you think of them?"

241

Kalaw studied the papers carefully and then admitted enthusiastically, "Why, they are the missing Rizal's
documents."

"Any doubt about them?"queried Romulo.

"None whatever," said Kalaw.

During the Faculty Symposium of the University of the Philippines held at Diliman, Quezon City, in 1950,
Professor Beyer delivered an extemporaneous speech on the Rizal retraction which was tape recorded
as follows:

I will say that I have to state briefly. I have no part in this controversy whatever President Palma was one
of my best friend in the University of the Philippines at the time. I may say to start with that he never
discussed this matter of Rizal's retraction with me nor he know that I had made a report of it.

I examined the document of Rizal's retraction twice. The first was shortly after the document was found
by someone looking through the marriage records in the Archbishop's file. I was asked by Father
Fletcher, the Secretary of Archbishop O'Doherty, to make an examination of the document and let the
Archbishop know whether or not I thought it was genuine for his personal information. I agreed to do
that on the understanding at that time that there was to be no publicity concerning my opinion as the
genuiness or ungenuiness of the document.

When I went to the Archbishop's Palace, I was brought by Father Fletcher to Archbishop O'Doherty. The
folder that had been found in the records contained this document. The folder was of the usual Spanish
catalan paper containing a series of documents about ½ inch thick legal documents bound together. The
binding as I examined it rather carefully, had not been disturbed for decades at least: it seemed to be
quite the original binding that had been put there at the beginning. In that folder, which contained some
40 or 50 other documents, was documents signed by Dr. Rizal. There were contained

242

as I remember, documents pertaining to the marriage file which contained three or four letters from
Rizal in addition to the retraction, requesting marriage to Josephine Bracken and other letters refusing
that marriage unless he signed a retraction. All thos documents are bound together. This retraction of
Rizal was pinned right in the folder originally as it was to the marriage document of Josephine Bracken.

Now, when I examined the document itself of which I have a photograph here, I was not satisfied
because, while in this folder were three or four other letters signed by Rizal, they did not satisfy me. So I
said that I would not give a genuine opinion on the writing until I had other letters and writings of Rizal
to compare with that document; and so this photograph was made and I took it away and examined it in
comparison with probably 150 letters and documents in Rizal's handwriting.

I would say off hand from my experience of 30 or 40 years of examining handwriting documents, that
there is not the slightest doubt that every word on that sheet of paper was written by Jose Rizal except
the signatures of the other witnesses below. The whole document is in his original handwriting.

The signature as far as I can see is normal. Every man writes his signature in several different ways. If I
write my name in 20 times and then line them up on the board and look at them. I will be astonished at
the number of discrepancies that occur between one signature here and one there. No one can write his
name five times, unless he has a copper plate hand, which people don't have, 5 or 6 times, and write it
exactly the same. There is always a difference in form, but in examining handwriting, there are just two
things that are very important. One is that a man in writing, particularly when he uses the pen, puts into
that writing a lot of unconscious characteristics which flow out of his hand. He does not know anything
about them, but they are present there in the writing. Little tricks and curves are there but he does not
think about them at all but they represent his characteristics writing. Now, if anyone attempts to forge a
piece of writing, the one thing he cannot copy, are those little characteristics of original writing. It is
difficult to do that. Furthermore, he takes into hos forgery a lot of little characteristics he has in his own
writing. So that, I will say that, while one signature may always be questioned,

243

because it is too small, and as I say a man's signature varies a great year to year, and liable to change,
and so on, there are certain innate characteristics, but in a couple of words it is not easy to find very
many of them. If you have, however, a whole sheet written by a man like this, I would venture to say
that there is no one in the world who could forget that much writing in a way that any good handwriting
examiner cannot immediately detect. It is impossible to forge as much writing as there is in that paper
or of any other man writing in a way that cannot be detected. Because you cannot imitate 3 or 4 lines of
writing without getting a lot of your own tricks into it and you can: copy all of the original writers own
tricks accurately enough so that they cannot be detected. The more signatures and the more writings
that you have of any individual the easier it is to tell whether the writing is gemuine or not. And in the
case of anything of this sort, I believe that any person, who has had long experience in examining
handwriting, who compares this letter or this document with any of Rizal 's other documents or letters
will come to the conclusion that all of the words on this sheet except the witnesses' signatures were
writing by Dr. Jose Rizal. This is all I can say.

Now, let us hear the opinion of another handwriting expert, Dr. Jose I. del Rosario. "He studied
handwriting analysis under the late Chauncey Mc-Govern, the Los Angeles expert. He collaborated with
the late Albert S. Osborn, the international authority on Handwriting analysis by preparing the data on
certain Philippines cases submitted to him by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

I have carefully compared the handwriting of the retraction not only with the ULTIMO ADIOS and with
the letter written by Dr. Jose Rizal to his "Defensor," Don Luis Traviel de Andrade, as well as with the
manuscript of the farewell addressed to the mother Dona Teodora Alonso, dated the thirtieth of
December 1896, but also with numerous letters of Dr. Jose Rizal now in the archives of the Filipina
Division, National Library. In honesty. I can say that I do not find anything in Dr. Rizal's retraction which
does not proclaim that the retraction is in fact and truth of the authentic and genuine handwriting of Dr.
Jose Rizal.

The characteristic points of identity between the handwriting of the retraction and the undisputed
handwriting of Dr. Jose Rizal check

244

in every respect...

The Following are perhaps the most salient individual characteristics:

1. The execution and writing movement in capital letters including the different varieties used, as in the
letters "D", "J", "R" "I", "P", "V", "S", "C", "M", "D", which are all by Dr. Jose Rizal.
2. The small letters "h", "d", "r", "o", "g", "p" "j" and "a" are all of the handwriting of Dr. Jose Rizal, and
check in every respect, including the variations of form whenever they occur, with the form and
execution of similar letters in undisputed letters of Dr. Rizal.

3. What would have been very significant in point of identity is the constancy in the comparative slopes
each constituent letter with respect to one another, within given combination of words, irrespective of
variations in the degree of mean basic slant in the handwriting under examination, because as Capt.
Arthur D. Quirke states "This is the only true basis upon which statistics bearing upon slope may
legitimately be employed to determine the identity of handwriting" (See Capt. Arthur D. Quirke, Forged,
Anonymous and Suspect Documents, p.49), and these, fortunately, agree in all Dr. Rizal's writings
including that of the retraction.

4. One point which proves beyond question that the "retraction is undoubtedly an old authentic
document, is the presence of perforations caused by "fermites" in the upper left corner, and especially
the perforation occurring over the letter "C" in the "Creo" found towards the end of the sixth line of the
retraction. These perforations show that the paper is old, and also that when the paper was attacked by
"fermites" or "book worms the writing must have in the paper, or else if the writing was recently made
as some one wishes us to believe, then the ink would have run through the perforation and would thus
have soiled the

245

take reverse of the paper, which is not the case in the retraction

5. The ink shows the proper colour of old iron gallotannate ink which have been thoroughly oxidized
during the course of time by natural agents and tere are no indications whatever to suspect that the
document has been artificially aged.

6. In conclusion, in this particular case of the retraction of Dr Jose Rizal, which has been suspected in
some quarters as being forged document, all indications and symptoms show thar it is genuine,
authentic old document, written and signed by Dr. Jose Rizal, and I have found nothing in it to indicate
that it may be forged or spurious document.

Against this array of eyewitnesses and documents, the anti-retractionists have nothing to offer but:
"How could Rizal retract his word, writings, and publications to his fading glory?" they asked.

I must admit with candor that to the unsuspecting, the unwary, and the ignorant, this query is very
convincing. But to those who have read the retraction document and who understand it, the question is
absurd. Let us examine the text of the retraction, and I quote:

Me declare catolico y en estra Religion en que me naci y me eduque quero vivir y morir.

Me retracto de todo Corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido
contrario a mi calidad de hijo de la Y iglesia Catolica. Creeo y profeso cuanto ella ensena y mis someto a
cuanto ella manda Abomino de la Masoneria, como enemiga que es de la Yglesia, y como sociedad
prohibida por la Yglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica
esta manifestacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis hayan podido causar y para que
Dios y las humbres me perdonan

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896

Eloy Moure

Juan del Fresno

246

Now, where is the phrase that means Rizal retracted his words, writings, and publications to his fading
glory? I read this retraction several times, but I am sure of that Rizal retracted in this document was his
affiliation with Masonry, and his reason was that Masonry is the enemy of the Church and as such was
prohibited by the Church. Inasmuch as he was returning to his Church, he could no longer be a Mason
and a Catholic at the same time. He knew that the Church forbade it - and still forbids it. Why should the
anti-retractionists begrudge Rizal of his return to his Church? Many other great Filipinos like Quezon,
and the Luna brothers retracted their masonic affiliation and nothing is said against them. Why single
out Rizal?

What else had Rizal done that may be considered contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church?
They say that he fought against the Catholic Church - he was the bitterest enemy of the Church. This is
partly true and partly false. It is not true that he fought against the Catholic Church. What he had fought
was against Catholicism as a practiced in the Philippines - not the Catholic Church - and I quote Palma:

About May, 1889, Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Taverra arrived I Paris to see Universal Exposition and informed
Rizal, who had established residence there, that life in the Philippines was becoming impossible and
predicted that if conditions did not improves there would be a revolution within ten years. He also told
Rizal that he tried to defend him Father Faura, explaining that, in the attack upon the friars, the stone
was thrown so high and with such force that it reached religion. "This comparison is not quite exact,"
Rizal corrected him. "I wish to throw the missile against the friars, but as they made used of the rituals
and superstitions of a religion as a shield, I have to get rid of that shield in order to wound the enemy
that was hiding behind it. If the Trojans had placed the Athenian goddess Pallas on their fortress and
thence, with their arrows, had fought the Greeks, I believe the Greeks would have also attacked the

247

goddess. God should not be utilized as a shield and protector of abuses nor should religion be made of
for that purpose. What happens in the Philippines is horrible; the abuse the name of the religion to
enrich their haciendas, to seduce an innocent girl to destroy an enemy, to disturb the peace of a married
couple and rob a wife of her honour. Why should I not fought religion like that when it is the basic cause
of our miseries and tears? The responsibility falls on those who abuse its name. Christ did the same
thing with the religion of his country when the Pharisees abused it.

RIZAL'S UNFADING GLORY ATTESTED

Chapter 1

THE CONVERSION OF DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL AND HIS OWN HANDWRITTEN RETRACTION OF ERRORS AND
PROFESSION OF CATHOLIC FAITH

The reliability of the testimony of the press, in matters of opinion of doctrine, and as far as soundless of
judgement regarding public events concerned, may certainly to be open to question. Nevertheless, in
order to find out the truth of the mere occurrence of some public event of general interest, it is
reasonable to give credit to the voice the press, especially when the accounts found in different papers
of the country and abroad are substantially unanimous and mutually corroborative although differing in
some details. These may be held in doubt till further data bring more light upon them, but the substance
of the fact not contradicted nor even questioned by those papers that should have deprecated it, ought
to be admitted by fair-minded historians.

These mere omission of such news in one or another of

248

the papers does not imply anything against its truth; nay, the fact of having not been challenged gives
more weight to the testimony of the great majority.

MANILA PRESS

1. DIARIO DE MANILA, December 30, 1896, reported.

"CURRENT EVENTS"

........the convict, in the chapel, was assisted by Fathers Jose Vilaclara and Estanislao March, of the
Society of Jesus and showed during the whole night his sincere repentance.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...he wrote with the his own handwriting the following retraction.

2. LA VOZ ESPANOLA, December 30, 1896, reported:

"The Sentence of the Trial"

... ... ... ... Rizal the Protesant, the heretic Rizal has been reconciled the last hour with the Catholic
religion... Still more: we have seen and read his own handwritten retraction which he sent to our dear
and venerable Archbishop, of which the following is a literal copy.

3. EL ESPANOL, December 30, 1896, reported:

"What is Happening"

... God, in His infinite Mercy, we believe has received the soul of the convict who has shown his
repentance.... When entering the chapel (of his prison cell) he requested to be allowed to call on Father
Saderra of the Society of Jesus, who, accompanied by Father Rossell, assisted him spiritually....

249

The same paper in its issue of December 31, 1896 (the day of following Rizal's execution) reported:

Here is the retraction made by Rizal when he was already in the chapel (of his prison cell) which we did
not publish yesterday for obvious reasons. (The text of the retraction is inserted here). Before making tis
retraction, he explained that he was initiated into Masonry while in England where, he said, the society
has only mercantile character, as could be proved by examining the documents he possessed, and
nothing has cover been discussed about politics or religion in any of the meetings he attended in Great
Bretain.
But realizing, nevertheless, that the aforementioned sect is contrary to the Catholic Church and is
condemned by the Supreme Pontill, he solemnly abjured his errors, reentering the true religion after the
lapse of sixteen years from the time he departed from it.

4. EL COMERCIO, December 30, 1896, published the following:

"Today's News"

"Execution"

... ... ... The convict arrived in the company of Reverend Fathers Estanislao March and Jose Vilaclara, of
the Society of Jesus, who at his request have remained with him in the chapel (of his prison cell) since
yesterday.

Accomplished by this religious, Rizal has shown his repentance for his errors and has written and signed
the following abjuration.

5. LA OCEANA ESPANOLA, December 31, 1896, published in the following:

"THE REBELLION”

... ... ... The Jesuit Fathers Estanislao March and Jose Vilaclara

250

assisted the convict in the chapel (of his prison cell) and before them and two witnesses officers of the
Army, he wrote and signed the night before last the following retraction.

MADRID PAPERS

6. EL IMPARCIAL, December 31, 1896, published the long cable sent to Madrid by its Manila
correspondent, Don Manuel Alhama.

"RIZAL IN CHAPEL"

By cable

Direct Telegram-From our associated correspondents.

Manila 29-6:50 afternoon. Received the 30, 15 morning.

... ... Soon after Rizal entered the Chapel, two famous Jesuits went to visit him, Fr. Vilaclara, and Fr.
Federico Faura. The first is the Director of the higher studies of the Society of Jesus, and second an
illustrious man of Science who directs the Astronomical Observatory of Manila. Both Jesuits had been
Rizal's professors. When Rizal saw Father Faura, he ran into his arms crying. Then he convesed for a long
time with Father Vilaclara. The two priests tried to persuade Rizal to put down his rancors into turn and
to turn his eyes to heaven. They brought an image of the Virgin which is in the College of Society and
into which Rizal had great devotion on his boy-hood. The image remained exposed in the chapel. The
convict refuse to say anything about the conspiracy and about Masonry. He made a testament,
holograph, giving his Defense Counsel as a gift a pin he had with him. The news that Rizal will be
executed within some hours has been spread everywhere, causing a great impression. The police got
some Indication that the family of Rizal is trying to stir up the rabbles of the districts of Tondo and Trozo
in order to produce an uproar that may hinder the execution. The authority has taken precautions to
prevent any commotion. Rizal's relatives have asked that his corpse be delivered to them. The request
has been denied so as to prevent the body of the

251

agitator from becoming the object of public demonstration......

On the following day, El Imparcial published another telegraph from the same Manila correspondent,
Don Manuel Alhama, as follow

"THE ABJURATION”

"Protests of Catholicismº

By cable.

Direct Telegram-From our associated correspondents.

Manila 30.-6:45 afternoon. Received the 30, 10 night.

Notwithstanding the conversations of the famous Jesuits Fathers Faura and Vilaclara with Rizal in the
chapel (of the prison) the convict continue to refuse to confess and remained obstinate in his
philosophical and political theories. Afterwards, Father Faura talked again with him, and said to him "Be
sure Rizal, that we, who have been your teachers, we alone have not deceive you. Repent while there is
time. We shall console you. Remember when you were in your house you were wont pray before that
image of the Sacred Heart which you yourself had carved. Ask Him, He will save you". Rizalilled with
emotion vacillated, and after remaining some moments in silence, told Father Faura that wished to
confess.... Afterwards, a strange reaction was wrought in Rizal. He asked for paper and pen and wrote
down some verses. Then conversing with those around him, he said: "My talks with learned Spaniards
have made me a filibuster, because they had made me desire the independence of my country. When I
was in Madrid, the Republicans were telling me that liberties are sought with bullets, and not by
kneeling down. Truly, these ideas aroused in my soul, are the authors of my work. My only sin is that of
pride. I believe I was to do something great without having the fitness for it. "Until the moment of his
execution, he repeated again and again and fixed idea that his pride was the cause of his prediction .....
he signed with several military witness retraction of hi religious errors that says:

(Here follows the text of the retraction)

252

7. HERALDO DE MADRID, December 30, 1896 published the following which we copy from the telegran
sent by its Manila correspondent, Don Santiago Mataix:

“Spiritual Assistance"

The Jesuits and the Dean of the Cathedral rendered him spiritual assistance. Rizal appears contrite
although relatively serene.

"Last Moments”

Having made a solemn abjuration of his errors Rizal has been reconciled with the Church.
"Written Abjuration"

He has signed a solemn retraction of Masonry, professing his faith in the true religion.

8. EL SIGLO FUTURO, on January 13, 1933, published the following interesting news:

Our Manila correspondent, Don Felix Murugarren, who at the time of Dr. Jose Rizal's execution made
detailed informative account of those events and who at the present is residing in Madrid, has reminded
us, concerning what has been written on these days about those incidents, how El Siglo Futuro was then
the Spanish paper that published an extensive able sent by him, which contained the text of the
retraction formula made by the unfortunate Rizal.

And thus it was indeed. And the relation of the fervent act of Doctor Rizal, on the eve of his death, which
he faced with as much resignation as courage, came to the hands of Senor Murugarren through Rizal's
sister and at the request of the convict himself.

El Siglo Futuro published the full text of Rizal's retraction in its issue. February 6, 1897.

9. OTHER MADRID DAILIES, such as La EpocaNacional El Resumen, El Correo Espanol, El Paris, La

253

execution, but as most of these papers did not have their own especial correspondents in Manila, their
news was probably taken in whole or in part in El Imparcial, Heraldo de Madrid, and El Siglo Futuro;
hence, we do not credit them with having done more than merely to relay to wider audience the news
of Rizal's last moments. And in view of this great publicity given to the conversation of the Filipino hero
the argument becomes stronger when we consider that no one in those days, not even among the
Masons and anti-friars who were so many and occupied such influential positions in Spain, raised his
voice in protest against the news of Rizal's conversion and retraction. Silence implies consent.

10. AMONG SPANISH MAGAZINES that gave accounts of the death of Rizal, which references to the fact
of his conversation to the Catholic faith, Ano Policio (of the year 1896), and La Ilustacion Espanola y
Americana (of January 8, 1897) may be mentioned. But as their reports might have been influenced by
the news appearing in Heraldo de Madrid and El Imparcial, (cited above) we do not consider them as a
different testimony. But there are two magazines hat deserve particular attention.

The first is La Juvended, a fortnightly magazine of Barcelona, Spain, which published a series of articles
(January 15, 31, and February 4, 1897) entitled "Rizal y suobra" wherein the authentic "account" written
by Father Vicente Balaguer, SJ., and sent to the Editor Don Manuel García Barzanallana was included.

The other La Polilica de Espana en Filipinas, a fortnightly review directed and managed by Don
Wenceslao E. Retana, and exclusively devoted to the affairs of Spain th the Philippines. The issue No.
156, year VII, corresponding to February 28, 1897, on pages 84, 85, and 86, published under the heading
"ABJURACIONES," the retractions of Francisco L. Roxas, Ramon A. Padilla, Luis Enciso Villareal, Faustino
Villaruel y Zapanta, Moises E. Salvador, Jose Dizon, Antonio Salazar, Jeronimo Cristobal Medina, and
Antonio Luna Y Novicio. And before all these, the full texts of Rizal's retraction is placed with this special
remark not found in the other abjuration: “ This is an autograph from the date of his issue of La Polilica
de Espana en Filipinas, we take for granted that the copies of these abjurations were obtained nor

254
from the Manila papers, but most probably from the private reports of the especial correspondents
Retana had in the Philippines.

FOREIGN PAPERS

There was news about Rizal's death in the foreign press, but as those papers had no direct
correspondents in the Philippines, their reports were probably taken from the sources already
mentioned. There is, nevertheless, a case worthy of especial mention.

11. O EXTREMO ORIENTE. A Portuguese periodical in Hongkong, were Rizal had many friends and
acquaintances and admirers, in its issue of January 9, 1897, published the following:

(2)

The testimony of Eyewitnesses

1. Reverend VICENTE BALAGUER LLACER, S. J., the priest who became God's instrument in the
conversion and retraction of Rizal.

In the NOTARIAL ACT, sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain, August 8, 1917, before Don Jose Soriano Cano,
Licentiate in Canon and Civil Law, with Don Manuel Martinez Roca, and Don Diego AlmansaCarillo as
witness (Notarial Act, No. 863, duly legalized by Reginaldo S. Castleman, Vice-Consul of the United
States of America, in Madrid, Spain) he declared, on the faith of an oath, what he witnessed and learned
from eyewitnesses worthy of all credit, namely:

... That after Rizal was condemned to death, when the chaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago, where the
convict was offered his services for so sad circumstances, the prisoner told him that he appreciated his
offering, but that desired rather to be visited by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus by whom he had
been educated. When he made thus request, the Reverend Father Superior, Father Pio Pi, in compliance
with the commission of His Father Luis Viza, to the Fort. When these Fathers entered the Fort that
morning of December 29, 1896, Rizal

255