GEC 12 - History - Lesson 5 PDF

GEC 12 - History 1st Semester — Lesson 5 Mr. Kurt Casas The Retraction Letter of Rizal What is Retraction? 1. the action of drawing something back or back in. 2. a withdrawal of a statement, accusation, or undertaking Anti-Church Statements of Rizal The Spanish colonial government...

GEC 12 - History 1st Semester — Lesson 5 Mr. Kurt Casas The Retraction Letter of Rizal What is Retraction? 1. the action of drawing something back or back in. 2. a withdrawal of a statement, accusation, or undertaking Anti-Church Statements of Rizal The Spanish colonial government charged him with sedition due to his anti-Church novels and other works. He was accused of being the leader of the Katipunan. Fr. Obach of Dapitan denied Rizal and Bracken the sacrament of marriage unless Rizal retracts his statements against the Catholic Church. [Sedition = accused of influencing people to rebel against the government] [Rizal = Reformist & Andres Bonifacio = Revolusionist] The Retraction Letter It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it. Being hotly debated by historians and scholars as to its authenticity. The Retraction Controversy Historians are still divided on the issue whether Rizal, on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry. The pro-retraction camp is represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other members of the Catholic hierarchy. Since they are all ordained priests, they are assumed to be truthful in their pronouncements. Their opponents are the members of Masonry, an organization that promotes brotherhood, integrity, decency, and professionalism. What is Freemasonry? Freemasonry is the leading fraternal organization in the world. Its origins are lost in the unrecorded history of medieval times, but it formally organized in London, England, in 1717. As a fraternal organization, Freemasonry unites men of good character who, though of different religious, ethnic, or social backgrounds, share a belief in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of mankind. The Catholic Church and the Freemasonry Freemasonry is not atheistic in nature. However, the Catholic church has been one of its persistent critics due to conflicts of ideas and teachings. The term “supreme architect of the universe” used by the masons to refer to the supreme being or God, prompted the Catholic Church to accuse them of Deism or the belief that God created the Universe but did not intervene in the world after this. The Catholic church considered deism as heresy and banned its members to be a part of the Freemasonry or else they will be excommunicated. Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports The Jesuit Version of the Retraction The Jesuits figured prominently during the last 24 hours of Rizal’s life because Manila Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda asked them to take care of Rizal’s spiritual needs while the latter awaited the hour of his death. In an affidavit that he issued in 1917, Fr. Pio Pi (the Superior of the Jesuits) declared that he had accepted the task because he considered Rizal to be Ateneo Municipal High School’s “very distinguished and dear pupil” (Cavanna 1956, 15). The Jesuits he sent to Rizal’s detention cell were Frs. Vicente Balaguer, Jose Vilaclara, Estanislao March, Luis Visa, Federico Faura, and Miguel Saderra (Cavanna 1956, 11). Fr. Pi instructed them to persuade Rizal to retract his anti-Catholic teachings as well as his affiliation with the Masons. The Jesuits were supposed to demand these two things before ministering the necessary sacraments. Fr. Pi also ordered that the retraction should be in writing using either of the two sample retraction templates approved by the archbishop. Among all the priests that was sent by Fr. Pi, it was Fr. Balaguer who wrote intensively about the last 24 hours of Rizal. He insisted that his accounts were the most reliable as he was there with Rizal during his last few hours. He even claimed that he “was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad day’s hours. I argued with him and demolished his arguments” (Cavanna 1956, 115). He also persuaded everyone to take his affidavit as a primary source because he had personal knowledge of Rizal’s retraction. According to Fr. Balaguer, together with Fr. Vilaclara, explained to Rizal that they cannot administer the sacraments unless Rizal signs a letter of retraction and professes his Catholic faith. Fr. Balaguer also mentioned that Rizal softened a bit when he warned him that his soul would go to hell if he did not return to the Catholic fold. He reminded him that outside the Catholic Church, there was no salvation. At 10 o’clock of that same day, the Jesuit priests presented to Rizal the two retraction letter templates prepared by Fr. Pi. The 1st template was rejected by Rizal as he believed that it was too long and the language and style used were not reflective of his personality. Fr. Balaguer offered the shorter version and was signed by Rizal before midnight after some minor revisions. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda (Guerrero 1971, 459). Challenges to the Jesuit Version The public and other prominent personalities did not believe the retraction because the Jesuits were not able to present the original document. In 1935 the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Gracia, C.M. was sorting through folders of documents that he would later transfer to a newly acquired fireproof vault. While doing this, he found the “original” retraction document about Rizal in a bundle titled Masoneria Was verified by Teodoro M. Kalaw, Carlos P. Romulo and H. Otley Beyer as AUTHENTIC. Rafael Palma, former UP president and a known Mason, doubted the authenticity of the 1935 letter and called it a fraud. Dr. Ricardo Pascual scrutinized the article and had observed following: The handwriting does not match with Rizal’s other handwritten documents/works Calidad (Fr. Balaguer’s version) vs. Cualidad (1935 version) Fr. Balaguer’s version does not have the word Catolica after the word Iglesia Third, in the Jesuits’ copy the third Iglesia is preceded by the wordmisma Fourth, with regard to paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer’s version does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentence Finally, the text of the 1935 retraction has 4 commas, while the text of Fr. Balaguer’s has 11 The Version of Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila Cuerpo de Vigilancia Collection A collection of documents about the Katipunan, the revolution, and Jose Rizal later renamed by NHCP as “Katipunan and Rizal documents” Bought by the Philippine government from Sr. Enrique Montero in 1995 for one hundred and forty-five thousand dollars. Originally, Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila or Security Corps of Manila was an intelligence unit organized by Spain in 1895 to launch surveillance and spy missions against the Katipuneros and other revolutionaries. The collection contained a report of the Cuerpo’s chief inspector, Frederico Moreno The account may be considered more objective than earlier ones because Moreno was neither a member of the Catholic hierarchy nor a known Mason. He was in Fort Santiago not to serve a particular interest group but simply to perform a function connected with his work. Moreover, the fact that his report was written a day after the event lessened the possibility that it was edited to please a particular group. Moreno’s report contains details that are not consistent with Fr. Balaguer’s affidavit. The most serious and obvious discrepancy is that Moreno never mentioned Fr. Balaguer in his report. All throughout the history of the retraction controversy, Fr. Balaguer consistently claimed that he was present in Rizal’s prison cell and actively involved in convincing him to retract. Moreno’s report is a big blow to the credibility of Fr. Balaguer. The fact that Moreno never mentioned him in his report casts a cloud of doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the affidavit that he executed. If we are to believe Moreno, Fr. Balaguer did not have personal knowledge of what happened to Rizal the day before he died Moreno’s report may have damaged the credibility of Fr. Balanguer, but it did not refute the claim that Rizal retracted.  It mentions that when Fr. March returned at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, Rizal handed him a document. Then it says that Rizal, together with Juan del Fresno and Señor Maure, signed the document. In the retraction document that Fr. Gracia found in 1935, one sees that the three persons Moreno identified were signatories of the document. Moreno did not provide details on the contents of the document, probably because he was witnessing the event from a distance. But that did not prevent him from presupposing that the document was Rizal’s retraction letter. He simply wrote, “It seems this was the retraction [parece que el escrito era la retractación].”