Retraction of Rizal PDF

Retraction of Rizal INTRODUCTION Did Rizal die anti-Catholic, propagandist and mason or did he denounce his membership before his execution? Is his retraction something he willfully did or something that he was forced to do in complacency to...

Retraction of Rizal INTRODUCTION Did Rizal die anti-Catholic, propagandist and mason or did he denounce his membership before his execution? Is his retraction something he willfully did or something that he was forced to do in complacency to his old professors? Is the retraction document genuine or not? Will the image of Rizal as a hero change if he made the retraction letter? These are some of the critical questions posed by historians, clergy and other interested individuals regarding the subject of controversy which is the Retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal. The Retraction means that Rizal withdrew his membership in the masonry and all his critics against the Catholic church. This is contained in the statement, "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", which made some historians believe that Rizal retracted. For many decades, historians and religious people debated about the Retraction of Rizal making it a favorite subject matter of academicians and Catholic defenders. It is actually the most controversial and talked about issue in Philippine history and the debate still continues. This reading presents the clashing arguments regarding the retraction letter of Rizal. It presents two sides of the story from several prominent Philippine historians a rming and negating the authenticity of Rizal's retraction. Some evidence is rst-hand while others are second-hand. Some evidence may be credible, convincing and scienti c while others are biased, subjective and unempirical. It is hoped that after showing the contrasting claims that students are able to use their analytical thinking and make a stand on which argument to believe. RIZAL'S RETRACTION: A Note on the Debate Eugene A. Hessel   fi fi ffi  This is a debate in which this lecturer hesitates to take part. For one thing, I believe there are aspects in the life and thought of Dr. José Rizal which are of far greater signi cance. I have already expressed this view in my book The Religious Thought of José Rizal, and I shall have more to say about it in the concluding part of this lecture. It is most unfortunate that some people speak and write about the Retraction without really knowing what Rizal did or did not retract, i.e., not su cient attention has been given to the mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has been done rst can or e evaluate the meaningfulness of the Retraction. For some people to retract would mean little, for they have so little to retract. This was not so of Rizal, and I have tried to make this clear in my previous lectures and writing. It is the life and thought of Rizal during his mature years which are of primary interest to me, and not what happened during the last day of his life. Recently, however, I have been looking into the question of the Retraction with some interest and I intend to continue my research. I nd that there are four common attitudes toward the "Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character of Dr. Rizal: 1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the “converted” Rizal. This is the o cial Roman Catholic position. In the only “o cial” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction ("o cial” in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop Santos), Rizal's Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface: Rizal's glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may someday fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY.2 This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:...We have to imitate him (Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacri ce, "whatever in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church. 2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a “free thinker and unbeliever"; thus, the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based is not true. 3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: The Rizal that matters is the pre- Retraction Rizal; therefore, one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held by many students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction. 4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal's life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right and also an obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research continues, fancy may yet become an acknowledged fact. fi fi ffi fi ffi ffi ffi fi  Before we proceed further it would be well to say something about bibliography and method. More than twenty books and pamphlets, in addition to numerous articles have been surveyed in the course of this study. A number of writings on the Retraction merely repeat the arguments of earlier ones and add nothing new. Others are more sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening. But something of value has been gained from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two general categories: biography, and works dealing speci cally with the Retraction. Among the biographers, Guerrero, Laubach, and Palmas. What, then, are the major arguments for the Retraction? Although the arguments had been presented by others before him, Father Cavannal gives a well-organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders. The points which follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modi cations: 1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction “Document" is considered the chief witness to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.” 2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of "eye-witnesses," and other "quali ed witnesses," i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc. 3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by "witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony if true, for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case of the Retraction statement but speci cally to a number of beliefs which he had previously repudiated. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was o ered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying “Credo' (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”: What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.” The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction. 4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testi ed to by “witnesses." 5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses." There could be no marriage without a retraction. These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as "irrefutable facts.” But to call them “facts” is to prejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a Retraction Document was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document actually prepared  fi ff fi fi fi fi  and signed by Rizal is the question at issue. As we shall soon see, many opponents of the Retraction use the Document as their chief argument. So also, there is a signed Prayer Book. But a number have asked, is this really Rizal's signature? Granted, for sake of argument, that it is, what is the signi cance of a mere signature apart from the testimony of Father Balaguer as to why Rizal signed? What about the testimony of the “witnesses?” We may dismiss the newspaper reported as being less signi cant though of corroborative value. Their news was secured from others. One reporter got into the chapel during part of the twenty-four hours. He states that “studies, frolics of infancy, and boys' stories, were the subject of our chat." As for the actual eye witnesses, some eight testi ed to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government o cials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes from notarized statements in 1917 or later. Having made these remarks, it is nonetheless true that the testimony is impressive. It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with a few sarcastic comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judged only after weighing this evidence against the arguments rejecting the Retraction. What is the case against the Retraction? 1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a signi cant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against: the document itself. a. First of all, there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scienti c study leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking a; his "standard” some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most signi cant ones according to the present lecturer: i. the slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction Document, and perhaps more signi cantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the Document; ii. there are signi cant variations in the way individual letters are formed; iii. with reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven di erences, one of the most signi cant being indications of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; iv. there are marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual's conclusion that this is a “one-man document." The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to speci cally prepare. 8 Dr. del Rosario's main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal's writings by way of comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge a number of Pascual's statements although this lecturer has ffi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi ff fi  noted mistakes in del Rosario's own data. Dr. del Rosario's conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine. a. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted di erences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer." Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies, I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which consists rst of all in gathering together all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with signi cant di erences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6 there is the single word “Iglesia''and in place of “la Iglesia” there are place “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent di erences between the two types of the text in the use of capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the original. The usual explanation of these di erences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in the "formula” which he supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn't accurately note them all. On the (ther hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the original” disappeared. It is not surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the "wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities. b. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g., in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal's claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.” c. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has this story. He and his co- author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter (lated November 10, 1936 from  ff ff fi  ff fi fi ff  Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told his story and con rms it. On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document. 1. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other act; and facts do not t well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermenegildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows: a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.” b. No e ort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction. The usual rebuttal is that Rizal's death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere. c. Rizal's burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is con icting). It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal's “Christian Burial Certi cate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same le with the Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question. d. There is no marriage certi cate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing. e. Finally, Rizal's behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal's Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal's thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal's mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal's attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.  ff fi fl fi fi fi fi  2. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with the anonymous lea et of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every signi cant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought. First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted with the facts of his life knows this is so. Thirty- ve is not exactly young and Rizal was far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature years. I worked closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the sca old. Their behavior was restrained and consistent. I would have expected Rizal's to be the same. Furthermore, in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a "believer.” In my book and elsewhere I have argued strongly that Rizal was not a “free-thinker” in the usual sense of the word. History is full of the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most signi cant meaning of true conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas. Rizal's conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not as though Rizal had been bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of Europe (and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who worked hand-in- hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought through his religious convictions. As I have written elsewhere: “The fact that similar views are found from writing to writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such theology as he had was fully his own....921 Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly ex changing it for another. So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is perhaps evident on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that the question is settled. What, then, remains to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for further investigation? a. Let a new e ort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future discussion. It is time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the “Protestant,” the “Masonic,” or the “Roman Catholic” view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves. b. Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scienti c analysis. This suggestion is not new, but in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year since its discovery it would be tting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in either case the cause of Truth will gain. I would suggest for this analysis a government bureau of investigation in some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden. Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself would not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study. c. As a third step, then, to be undertaken only after a new evaluation of the Retraction Document, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other "documents” pertaining to Rizal's case to be investigated, i.e. “the burial certi cate.” the signature of the fi ff ff fi fl fi fi fi fi Prayer Book, and perhaps also certain other retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of Dr. Rizal's. d. The story concerning the “forger” should be investigated further. e. If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a moratorium on further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal's lif: and thought, in particular to his mature religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José Diokno: Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal: the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs”...