Module 3: Lesson 2 Rizal Retraction PDF

Module 3: Lesson Two “A person with a noble character values honor above self-interest, while a person with a base character values self-interest above honor.” – Emilio Jacinto At the end of this lesson, you...

Module 3: Lesson Two “A person with a noble character values honor above self-interest, while a person with a base character values self-interest above honor.” – Emilio Jacinto At the end of this lesson, you should be able to: 1. Identify the conflicting views/accounts about the Rizal Retraction; 2. Analyze each view or source; and, 3. Use primary sources in presenting/writing about a local issue. Rizal’s retraction is one of the intriguing issues that is all about his reversion to Catholicism retracting his Masonic ideals. This lesson presents contrasting views of the retraction by biographers of Rizal. Fill in the KWL Chart. On the first column, write what you know about the life of Rizal, on the second column write what you want to know about the Jose Rizal. On the last column, write what you have learned, it will be filled in at the end of the lesson. Learn Know Want (What did you learn?) (What do you know (What do you want to To be filled in at the end about the Katipunan?) know about this topic?) of the lesson Do you think that Rizal’s retraction will affect the course of Philippine history? Why? KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ RIZAL RETRACTION Historical Context A leader of the reformist movement in Spain, Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by a Spanish-court martial after being implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution. The night before his death by firing squad at the Luneta on December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and his writings and reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests. There was considerable doubt to this allegation by Rizal’s family and friends until in 1935, the supposed retraction document with Rizal’s signature was found. Until today, the issue whether Rizal retracted or not and whether the document is forged or real is a subject of continuous debate between historians and Rizal scholars alike. The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first two are the official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were instrumental in the alleged retraction of Rizal. The other two are critical analyses by two Rizalist scholars who doubted the story of the retraction. Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement Fr. Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his last hourse in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persude Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to Catholic fold. In an affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before the execution. KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN The Account …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 the 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 Superior Luis 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 Fr. Vilaclara only, who had returned to Manila few days before remained. They told him that I (Father Balaguer) was also in Manila and he asked that I go also, since I have been, as already stated, a Missionary in Dapitan, where he dealt with me as a friend. He was a very polite gentleman, and even friendly towards me. It seems to me convenient to a mention an incident that took place in the visit that Fathers Saderra and Viza made him. It is following: When Dr. Rizal was a boarding student at the Ateneo, very devout and exemplary indeed, he carved with a penknife a little statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, about centimeters in size, not beautiful, but rather well modelled. That statuette remained in the Ateneo. It seems that the Lord saw it that it be preserved during twenty years, although the room where it was kept underwent many changes. When Dr. Rizal called for the Fathers to assist him, one of them remembered the statuette that was still preserved. One of this Fathers, Father Viza, took and put it in his pocket. When he arrived at the Fort with Father Saderra, after exchanging greetings with them, Dr. Rizal asked whether that statuette made by him was still preserved in the Ateneo, Father Viza, taking out of his pocket told him; “Yes, sir, here, you have; it is the Heart of Jesus, who has been waiting for you for twenty years and he comes now to greet you”. Dr. Rizal took it, kissed it, and placed it on the desk and there it remained until the hour he left for the place of execution. This happening indeed providential in such circumstances. At about ten o’clock in the morning, Father Villaclara and I went to Fort Santiago where the chapel cell of the great convict was. He received us with great affection and embraced us. KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN  I think it convenient to point out that, in case of conversion, before ministering the Sacramento to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors publicity professed by him in words and writings and a profession of Catholic faith. To this effect, when the Father Superior of the mission went to the Archbishop’s Palace, he brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including what we 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 another more extensive more extensive one. Before going to the Fort I went to the Palace in order to receive orders from the Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of faith, composed by Reverend 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, two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings with him and talking on various matters. I, who knew the history and errors contained in his books, in order to fulfil our delicate mission, asked Rizal to give an explanation of his ideas on religion. At the outset he appeared 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 Scripture. 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 Scripture 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 of 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 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 the clear testimony of 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 KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN reason God had given him, adding with self-profession that curdled my blood, that he was going to appear thus 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 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 Vulgate, Saint Jerome’s version, that of the 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 attacked him with the logic evidence of Catholic truth, I told him energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason for the sake of he would soon appear for judgement before God and would be damn. Upon hearing this threat, tears gushed from his eyes, and he said: “No will not damn myself.” “Yes,” –I replied, --“you will go to hell, for, whether you like it or EXTRA ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM NULLA DATUR SALUS. Yes; the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one such, truth uncompromising an all orders, and much more so in the religion order, which is the most transcendental.” Affected by this reproach he said: --- Look here, Father; if to please you. Reverences I would say yes to everything and would sign everything you press to me without meaning it, I would be hypocrite and would offend God.” “Certainly,” –I told him--- “and we don’t want that. But believe me that is a grief without equal to see a beloved person obstinate in error, and told that person about to be demand and to be unable to prevent it. You take in being a sincere man; so believe us that if by giving our blood and our live we could achieve the salvation of your soul, right now, we would give our and offer ourselves to be shot lieu of you. But Father,”---he replied with regret---“what would you have me do, since it seems that I cannot dominate reason?” “Offer,”---I answered, ---“offer to God the sacrifice of your self-love. Even if be against the voice of your reason, ask God the KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN grace of faith, which is a God bestows abundantly and is obtained infallibly by humble and persevering prayer. Only on your part, you should not regret it.” “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. Father Vilaclara (now dead) and I arrived at Fort Santiago at about ten o’ clock in the morning. After greeting Dr. Rizal, I began the discussion with him, as it has been mentioned. At twelve o’ clock I went the palace to report on the matter to the Prelate, as he had- ordered me I had say to him that until then the convict remained obstinate in his error and ideas opposed to the Catholic faith. Hearing this, the Prelate in the ardent zeal for the conversion of Dr. Rizal, sent immediately a circular to the religious Communities prayers were offered for fervently, and in some of them many penances were done for this purpose. Even the Blessed Sacrament was exposed in some Communities. At three o’clock, or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Ford where Father Vilaclara had remained, and I reassumed the discussion with Dr. Rizal, that tasted until dusk, arriving at the point which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo, and then I went with Father Vilaclara to the Palace. There I reported on the condition of the convict, who offered some hope of 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 it was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to me. It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal’s impatient. He asked for the formula of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o’clock: upon knowing it, the convict asked me for it insistently. Without telling me to read it first, he called and asked me to read it for him. Both of us sat on the desk, where there was stationery and I began to read it. Upon hearing the first paragraph, he told me: “Father, do not proceed”. That says 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 he said to me: “That style is simple as mine. Don’t bother, Father, to read it all. Dictate what KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN I ought to profess or express and I shall write, making in any cause some remarks. And thus it was done. And I suggested the idea he proceeded to write with steady hand clear letters, making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Certainly, after the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus he prepared to be while writing his 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 the word religion): in which I was born and educated,” 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 asserted, 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, at all events into the 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 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, make public this manifestation.’ At the words “my manifestation” he asked me to allow him to add “spontaneous and voluntary.” And he told me then with great as-severation: “Because, believe me, Father, I am doing this heartly; otherwise I would not do it.” “Well then,” I told him, “you may put spontaneous and it I enough.” He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN past eleven: it was dated December the twenty-ninth. The text, literally copied from the original says thus: Thus declaration or retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Senor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza. That morning, Father Faura went on the prison. On seeing him, Rizal said: Father, do you remember the last time we conversed? You told me then that, by the way I was going. I would someday come to be shot. You have been a prophet. I will die on the scaffold.” Father Faura was deeply moved, and took leave of Rizal exhorting him to be docile to grace and try to save his soul. He was also invited during the day or at night by the Civil Governor, the Fiscal of His Majesty, several officers of Artillery, and by some other persons. Everybody wondered at the calmness and fortitude, he showed and preserved up to the last hour of his life. His poor seventy-year-old mother and some of his sisters went to see him he shook hands with them. (It was forbidden to embrace anyone) he asked pardon from his mother, he asked her blessing, and kissed her hand. By especial privileged, Dr. Rizal remained in the chapel cell free and without shackles against what is customary in such cases. But there was entries on watch, Spanish artillery-men and two officers. He told the Fathers about an idea he had concerning the scientific problem of continuous notion and the steering of dirigibles. He gave some commissions for certain persons. Among other things (he requested) that I ask pardon for him from Father Ubach, a former missionary in Dapitan, for whatever offense he might have given the priest. He wrote to his sister, giving her good advice and asking pardon from the whole family. His Grace the Archbishop ordered me to say to Rizal that he much interested in him, and that he was ready to help in whatever way he could, both him and his family, even with pecuniary resources, if it were convenient. With all his heart, Rizal was grateful for such an offering. He requested me to convey his gratitude to His Grace. After all these acts… … … he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the Virgin, placed in the Chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers of the Judge Advocate, of the Chief of the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked me for his retraction and profession of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and devotion. KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN  Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge have personally intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirmed it with an oath. And lest, perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after twenty-years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s death I wrote a very detailed account of everything. The original of this account I have preserved, and from it I have taken all the data of the present narration. I declare and affirm that, a little before Rizal came out from the chapel, I felt in the company of Josephine Bracken and a sister of Rizal’s own handwritten retraction signed by him and by the witnesses. Before Rizal’s reached the Bagumbayan I went to the Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palce and handed it to the Archbishop Nozaleda. His Grace entrusted it to his Secretary, Reverend Tomas Gonzales Feijo, who kept it in the Secretary’s Office in the chest reserved documents. This last fact I know through the testimony of his grace, the Most Reverend Bernardino 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 events. Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement Fr. Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was involved only in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document as will which was the one Rizal allegedly copied. The Account On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel, that is, on December the twenty-eight, I received the commission, which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers, for the spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object was to reconcile with God and with the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special esteem, and affection even after his estrangement from the Church and had rendered us a good service… KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN  Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not visit him. All the Fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who accompanied him to Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all the happenings… In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficulty was found in convincing and persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with Father Balaguer, became necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his Christian sentiments. At last, he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the proofs of religiousness and piety were such and so many that, with much less, the exacting person would have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said, wondering at the change wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some time ago, but another entirely different… When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the form of the composition presented by Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one which I had made was shorter although conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless, to make it appear more of his own and spontaneous, he wished to introduce some little modifications. He wrote it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand… Beneath Rizal’s signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of the Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as witnesses. Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure from anyone, took in his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the chapel. Aloud and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity, he read his own retraction. Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis Lawyer, writer, educator and politician Rafael Palma was the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the National Hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The publication of the book, however, was postponed because of World War II and only saw print in 1949. That same year, an English translation by Roman Ozaeta with the title Pride of the Malay Race was printed by the Prentice-Hall, Inc. in the United States. The story of KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and 33 with Palma’s analysis in the latter chapter. The Account For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the beginning because of their direct have spoken from the beginning because of their direct intervention in the act of conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak and confirm in all its parts the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That should be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein cited are those of ecclesiastics and their friends, and it is to be supposed that al, of the latter would not contradict the version given by the former. The only testimony that might be considered impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal, but his testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that is to say, what he heard the priests say, and that diminishes its value very much. We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial and interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said persons; but as Brutus said, “You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend.” Lastly, we must consider whether the coetaneous acts performed by the ecclesiastical authorities or by the government are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if they are not, they would not produce the moral evidence that is needed. Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the Catholic Church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place, the document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspapers, but, with the exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place, when the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a copy of it as well as a copy of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were denied. In the third place, Rizal’s burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been delivered to the members of a Catholic association friendly to the friars instead of being delivered to the family who had claimed it. How is Christian charity applied to one who dies within the Church if not even desire of this family to bury him on their own account is respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by the KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled with the Church, he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without any cross or stone to mark his grave. Only the diligence of the family was able to identify the spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book burials of the internment of Rizal’s body is not made on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where there as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear those buried by special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures on a page between a man who burned to death and who could not be identified and another who died by suicide; in other words, he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did not receive spiritual aid. In the seventh and last place, there was no moral motive for the conversion. The extraordinary or abnormal acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive. What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure masonry and reconcile himself to the rites of the religion which he had fought? Did he not realize that do so was to be a renegade to his own history? Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because of his former preceptors and teachers talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life? ****** In short, Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that that extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the Church which he had fought. The Archbishop was interested in his conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits lent themselves as his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in the whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with his abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and his conversion would be unbelievable? So much the better. The interest of the religion was above him. His aureole of glory had to be done away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only an indio. KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN Austin Coates’s Critical Analysis Austin Coates’ interest in Jose Rizal began when he was Assistant Colonel Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter’s year-long stay in Hong Kong (1891-1892). At that time, many of the personalities who knew Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on Rizal eventually led to the writing and publication of his book – Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press, 1956) – the first Rizal biography written by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second edition of the book was published in the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing in 1992. Coates’analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other events that happened before his execution are found in Part VII, Chapter 5 of the book. The Account The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the event, and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal had retracted his religious errors, adjured freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had been married to Josephine Bracken. In most newspapers the text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full. By the government the announcement was sent to the Spanish consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it the widest possible publicity. Those who had read Rizal’s book or who knew him closely, which at that time meant the family and his wide circle of personal friends, most of whom were abroad, took one look at the announcement and dubbed it … as ecclesiastical fraud. While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop’s announcement was issued knowingly. Or that there was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a fraud is going too far. The nature of society within the church, the society of priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things to happen. When frauds occur, they are the planned work of the church as an organization, though this may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the work of a small man with his own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud is genuine, has to protect him. Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that the prime KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who wanted his retraction. But while in the event Rizal’s intuition did not play him false, there is no evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along came a small man with what the Archbishop wanted. Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed and audacity with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a retraction, hoping for it. When news of it came he would announce it immediately, after which it would be too late for any of Balaguer’s colleagues to gainsay it. Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too well the damage such a letter would do him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to retract… Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public disbelief the Archbishop’s statement provoked, had there been a signed retraction letter it would certainly have been produced for inspection, particularly to the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and to many of whom – to Teodora Alonso in particular – it would have been a source of consolation. Once the execution was over, and Villaclara and March returned to be faced with Balaguer’s claims, the faud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to rectify matters. What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits of probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Vallaclara and March, who were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a retraction, it is inconceivable that they would have not given him Christian burial. The Jesuits had been entrusted by the Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned man; and it was their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to see he was decently buried. This the two Jesuits at the execution did not do… The Rizal Family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage. They knew their brother; they knew that if he had retracted he would certainly have so in his 6 a.m. communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given to her. Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer’s urge to elaborate and to see himself KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN  publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled down that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it to be published anonymously, he included much praise of himself, an aspect which, since he admitted the authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure… Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church’s case. Worse than this, he had unwittingly revealed his own fraud. In his account, he made no intention of the Ultimo Adios. That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told a journalist about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol burner remained to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing the truth, which was that he was not at the Fort Santiago during the middle of that last night, and had no knowledge of what was then taking place… Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem; he made his account so elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo Adios is needed to show that it would have taken several hours to write… Answer each question in a clear and organized paragraph. 1. What was the purpose of the Retraction document to the Spanish colonial government and the Catholic Church? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What good does the retraction do to Rizal himself? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Does Rizal’s retraction mar his image as a patriot and as a principled hero of the Filipino nation? Why? KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN