7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine

http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 1/6
Jose Rizal retraction, Part II
Posted on December 29, 2011 by admin
(Editor:This is Part II of the lecture delivered at the Chicagos Newberry Library on June 18,
2011. The author is a great-grand nephew of the Philippine National Hero whose 150th
birthday was marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on
Dec. 30, 1896 after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort Santiago, Manila.)
By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.
L-R: Berth Salvador, Cultural Officer, Philippine
Consulate General, Dr. Reagan F. Romali, President
of Truman College, Philippine Consul General Leo M.
Herrera-Lim and Dr. Ramon G. Lopez, direct
descendant of Dr. Jose Rizal.
How could this be? we ask. It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived. It COULD BE, for
there was no other recourse. It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings! Twenty-four years after the
garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and
intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its own
death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people. However, it
would not be completely so! The man they had just martyred was a man whose politics and faith were
unshakeable and timeless. As we know, and as History recounts, it also projects.
To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of the
University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, the document obtained under moral duress
and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history. Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of
his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal meticulously. Of this
he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, His defense before the court martial is
resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in which the fiscal
had treated him. For in mans own tribunal, the tribunal and trial that condemned Dr. Jose Rizal to die was a
sham; his execution, a foregone conclusion.
It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four
Pinoy Newsmagazine
The Filipino American Newsmagazine
7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine
http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 2/6
A portrait of Jose Rizal as a
Mason. His membership in the
fraternity had caused his
excommunication from the
Roman Catholic Church. His
retraction is a subject of
controversy.
years he was exiled in Dapitan. He truly loved her. They had desired a canonical
marriage but were presented with a pre-condition retraction of Rizals anti-
ecclesiastical writings and beliefs. As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-
Church. He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind their
pretentious cloak of religiosity. He knew there were those who practiced religion
but did not worship God. Neither the retraction nor the marriage occurred. He
and Josephine were parents to a son, though he sadly passed. We know that Dr.
Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem
which we now refer to as his Ultimo Adios: Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi
alegria As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute
quotes, To accept Rizal as having married Bracken is to accept his alleged
retraction of religious error. From Austin Coates, British author and historian:
Before God, he (Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract. And from Dr. Jose Rizal
himself, I quote: I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors
where faith does not slay where He who reigns is God.
Fraudulent Premise
From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church
attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully. A succession of visits from
Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting. He had decided to remain
ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged religious errors. Now, there seems to be a disconnect,
or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways
as claimed by the friars and the Jesuits. Since a retraction of alleged religious errors would have begotten a
marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent. Austin
Coates book entitled Rizal Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from
his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family. To wit:
1.Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 6:15 AM of
December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters. The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal
sisters were there that fateful morning. Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.
2. Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the
execution.
3. Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr.
Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal,
why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could describe a wedding? Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr.
March to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony? Or was there really even one at all?
4. In Josephine Brackens matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman
Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a Rizal by marriage, or that she was
the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.
5. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name Bracken instead of Rizal to be married
to Vicente Abad.
7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine
http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 3/6
6. In Josephine Brackens litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizals valuable
library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that she was indeed Rizals widow would
have bolstered her claim. She did not pursue this. Why not?
7. In 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage was
not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the religious. Likewise, we ask the question, Why?
Unconfessed Martyrdom
From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic
Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be performed. In
this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that the Indio always retracted,
as he walked to his execution. Austin Coates states in his book: The Spaniards publish the same thing about
everyone who is shot Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that a number
of people would want to see it. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop. I say that if there was no
marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his martyrdom un-confessed:
1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent. The
entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those
buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by
the authorities. Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to death, and another
who died by suicide persons considered un-confessed and without spiritual aid at the time of death.
2. Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the
execution site) could have ordered a Christian burial, but they did not. They must have known that no
retraction was made. Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin. This was the onus
of the un-confessed.
3. One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30,
1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage. A
message with that important information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to
Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.
4. Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of retraction
could be produced.
5. The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution, a
mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family. Though
the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown. They were
told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishops palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.
6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for his
soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body. I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against the
friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!
7. The apparent discovery of an obviously forged autobiography of Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to
Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephines and had glaring errors in
7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine
http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 4/6
syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating authors primary language was Spanish (not Josephines original
language), thus proving that the document was manufactured and disingenuous.
8. Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by the
friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.
9. In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal
Retraction and Josephines Autobiography, made an expos of six different articles and books that purportedly
presented Dr. Jose Rizals document of retraction as copied from the so-called original testament of
retraction. Intriguingly enough, even to this day, the claimed original document from which the facsimiles
have arisen have not been seen by anybody. Blatant in these six different presentations were differing dates
and notes that had been doctored, traced-over, and altered, when these facsimiles were supposed to have come
from the same original document! This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria
Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.
Though the issue of Retraction remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion that there is
no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs. The arguments to
the contrary made by his detractors are all smoke screen and retreads of the dubious accounts of the
sycophantic Father Balaguer and his gullible minions. Let us not allow for the sands of time to cover the
blunder of this ignoble and impious event. Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent
claim. As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a
panel of the worlds experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made. Let this hidden document
come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see, and to judge, and to know what is
truthful.
When this comes to pass in this 21st century, in this age of an evidence-based society that demands
transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and
in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds
by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the
victims of pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, then it should not be beyond the Catholic Church
to NOW admit the pious fraud it had committed in saying that Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his writings and
beliefs, when all evidences point to the fact that he did not!
This entry was posted in Heritage: Sesquicentennial of Rizal's birthday. Bookmark the permalink.
5 Responses to Jose Rizal retraction, Part II
maximo p fabella says:
December 31, 2011 at 2:58 pm
In my book Rizal did not retract. There is no authentic document of retraction.
The Catholic church produced one done
by a forger. I am sure the guy was pad
monies to forge the document.Read Juan
Collas 2 book RIZALS UNREAD LEGACY
Am willing to answer questions as a
7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine
http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 5/6
member of the Order of the Knights of
Rizal wit the rank ogv KGOR
maximo p fabella says:
December 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The Catholics Church
have other documents with
doubtful or questionable provenance.
They had the Inquisition to enforce
compliance. 123/32/11
maximo p fabella says:
December 31, 2011 at 3:02 pm
The INQUISiTION, has a Philippine branch.
Ready to scare its members into submission. An uncle, who was my high schoo teacher, was buried in Mindoro
was not taken to sto nino church whenhe
died. reason, he was mason. We as a
Catholic priest, a nephew to bless him
in the roxas, or mindoro cemetery
bernard see says:
March 30, 2013 at 2:48 am
I fully agree with your article that our hero Dr. J. Rizal did not his being a mason for ff: reasons. 1. if he did he also retract his
belief in the Supreme Being; 2. if he did why was he not given a decent christian burial his body place in a coffin laid in the
sacred ground. He already return to the fold and yet not even a drop of holy water was used to seal his body, even bad
spirit/devil receive gallons of holy water in exorcism. He was laid to rest by masons aiding the sister on a grave under acacia
tree with coded marking; 3. He was convicted on political crime and yet no Jesuit/dominican complain, how come now you are
all present in all political crime hearing even no non believer like the commis. I guest its now time to extend public appology to
rizals family and the rest of the Filipino people for all the wrong doing committed
by all the religious/friars at the time. If you do so both Ateneo and UST can rightfully claim their worthy Student Jose Rizal as
their own.
bernard see says:
March 30, 2013 at 2:55 am
I fully agree with your article that our hero Dr. J. Rizal did not retract his being a mason for ff: reasons. 1. if he did, he also
retract his belief in the Supreme Being; 2. if he did why was he not given a decent christian burial his body place in a coffin laid
in the sacred ground. He already return to the fold and yet not even a drop of holy water was used to seal his body, even bad
spirit/devil receive gallons of holy water in exorcism. He was laid to rest by masons aiding the sister on a grave under acacia
tree with coded marking; 3. He was convicted on political crime and yet no Jesuit/dominican complain, how come now you are
all present in all political crime hearing even to non believer like the commis. I guest its now time to extend public apology to
rizals family and the rest of the Filipino people for all the wrong doing committed
by all the religious/friars at the time. If you do so both Ateneo and UST can rightfully claim their worthy Student Jose Rizal as
their own. The two past pope humble themselves on separate occasions to ask forgiveness in behalf of these priest who has
done wrong against GODs flocks.
7/7/2014 Jose Rizal retraction, Part II | Pinoy Newsmagazine
http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/ 6/6
Pinoy Newsmagazine
Proudly powered by WordPress.