Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Philippine history

argument of Rizal's retraction to catholic

1. Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Analyzing Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using two versions of primary sources

2. References Primary Sources The retraction document (Jesuit Version) Spy report (Cuerpo de Vigilancia Collection) Secondary Source - Escalante, Rene. Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal's Last 24Hours Using Spy Reports. Southeast Asian Studies 2019, 8(3): 369-386

3. Controversy? There is one issue in Jose Rizal’s life that historians have debated on several occasions but remains unsettled. That issue is whether Rizal, on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry (Escalante, 2019).

4. Interesting facts The matter i s controversial because parties on both sides are affiliated with an organization that promotes moral values and the pursuit of truth. The pro-retraction camp is represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other members of the Catholic hierarchy - Their opponents are the members of Masonry, an organization that promotes brotherhood, integrity, decency, and professionalism (Escalante, 2019)

5. The Jesuit Version Position/claim: Rizal retracted and denounced his masonic belief Jesuit priests and colonial officials witnessed his retraction Rizal’s execution: December 30, 1896 Affidavit in 1917, Fr Pio Pi (SJ Superior) accepted the tasked given by Manila Archbishop Nozaleda to take care of Rizal’s spiritual needs because he considered Rizal to be Ateneo’s “very distinguished and dear pupil.” The Jesuits sent to Rizal’s cell: Balaguer, Vilaclara , March, Visa, Faura Saderra (Cavanna, 1956)

6. The Jesuit Version - 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.

7. The Jesuit Version Fr. Miguel Saderra (rector of Ateneo Municipal) and Fr. Luis Visa were the first emissaries to visit Rizal. Fr. Visa brought with him the figurine of the Sacred Heart of Jesus that Rizal had carved while a student of Ateneo Municipal. Fr. Vicente Balaguer who wrote extensively about what happened in Rizal’s detention cell the day before he was executed. Fr. Balaguer used the first person pronoun, which suggests that he was personally present and involved in the negotiation. He even claimed that he “was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad day’s hours.

8. The Jesuit Version He also persuaded everyone to take his affidavit as a primary source because he had personal knowledge of Rizal’s retraction. In his sworn affidavit he wrote: Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have personally intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribed 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. (Cavanna 1956, 10)

9. The Jesuit Version According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in the morning. They explained to him that they could not administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him to recant. They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal found the first template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were not reflective of his personality (Arcilla 1994, 114).

10. The Jesuit Version Fr. Balaguer provided Rizal the shorter version of the retraction. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was uncomfortable with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed his retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda (Guerrero 1971, 459).

11. The Jesuit Version The text of the retraction states: Me declaro católico, y en esta Religión, en que nací y me eduqué, quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazón de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario á mi calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña, y me someto á cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria , como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia. Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica , hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía, para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar, y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen Manila, 29 de Diciembre de 1896 José Rizal

12. The Jesuit Version Jefe del Piquete Juan del Fresno Ayudante de Plaza Eloy Moure ( Retana 1907, 426–427) I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches, and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me. The Chief of the Picket Juan del Fresno Adjutant of the Plaza Eloy Moure (Guerrero 1971, 458–459)

13. Challenges to the Jesuit Version Friedrich Stahl – “nobody seen this written declaration The Jesuits did not give the original copy of the retraction to Rizal’s family in spite of the promise (attested by Rizal’s sister, Trinidad) On December 29, 1908, Manuel Artigas declared Rizal’s retraction as apocryphal – It does not exist (while documents about Rizal during all the time he had been in the Ateneo, are preserved, only the one of some twelve years ago cannot be found. (Cavanna 1956, 150).

14. Counter to the Challenges to the Jesuit Version In 1935 the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Gracia, C.M found the “original” retraction document about Rizal in a bundle titled Masoneria (Garcia 1964, 31–43). Showed it to President M. Quezon Verified and proven authentic by: T. Kalaw (Mason & National Library Director) C. Romulo (Editor of Philippines Herald) H. Otley Beyer (Prof of anthropology, UP Diliman and a writing expert)

15. More Challenges to the Jesuit Version Rafael Palma (former UP President) – disputed the retraction document because it did not reflect Rizal’s true character and beliefs Dr Ricadro Pascual – concluded that the retraction document was a forgery because the handwriting is inconsistent compared to the other documents written by Rizal before his execution. Another objection raised against the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction was the differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version of the retraction that Fr. Balaguer had presented. 1) In the 1935 document cualidad is spelled with a “u,” while in Fr. Balaguer’s version the spelling is calidad (without the “u”). 2) Fr. Balaguer’s version does not have the word Catolica after the word Iglesia . In the 1935 and the newspaper versions, the word Catolica is present. 3) in the Jesuits’ copy the third I glesias is preceded by the word misma . This word cannot be found in the 1935 document. 4) Fourth, with regard to paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer’s version does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentence while the 1935 version starts the second paragraph immediately after the second sentence. 5) The text of the 1935 retraction has 4 commas, while the text of Fr. Balaguer’s has 11 (Retana 1907, 426–427).

16. The discovery about the Jesuit Version - It was Ildelfonso Runes who would do so in a book that he published in 1962. Runes wrote that on August 13, 1901, Antonio Abad celebrated his 15th birthday in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Roman Roque, a close neighbor of the Abads , was among the celebrant’s well-wishers. On this occasion, Roque disclosed that he had been fetched by Lazaro Segovia in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and later taken to Manila. He had stayed in the Hotel Quatro Naciones in Intramuros and been employed by the friars for 10 days. He was given the equivalent of his salary for two months in the government. For several days he studied Rizal’s handwriting. According to him, he made about five copies of the retraction letter based on a draft prepared by the friars. He thought of keeping one for himself, but when he was searched upon departure, his copy was taken from him (Runes and Buenafe 1962, 107–128).

17. The Cuerpo de Vigilancia Collection

18. . Senor Enrique Montero – offered to sale his Cuerpo de Vigilancia collection (meaning in next slide) Octavio Espiritu, executive of Far East Bank, was the first Filipino to express interest in buying the collection Original selling price was 160,000 USD Isabel Caro Wilson, Philippine Ambassador to Spain, brought the collection to the attention of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts December 12, 1995, through Resolution No 95-285, the NCAA purchased the Cuerpo documents for 145,000 USD (Escalante, 2017)

19. . - The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila (Security Corps of Manila) was the intelligence service that the Spanish colonial government created in 1895. It was organized primarily to gather information on the activities of Katipunan members and supporters. Cuerpo agents were tasked to monitor the activities of suspected Katipunan members. They were supposed to report all sorts of rumors, collect news reports, identify the financiers of the Katipunan, compile revolutionary papers, gather photographs, and intercept mail. The agents were also instructed to monitor foreigners who were sympathetic to the Katipuneros . In a span of three years, they were able to collect almost 3,000 documents containing eyewitness accounts of the activities of individuals fighting for Philippine independence.

20. . The bulk of the documents about Rizal focus on his trial and what transpired in his prison cell the day before he was executed. After the court convicted Rizal, colonial officials posted Cuerpo agents who watched him closely and monitored the individuals who visited him. There are at least eight Cuerpo documents that may be considered of great importance because they may be used as primary sources in clarifying certain controversies connected with Rizal’s alleged “retraction” and other interrelated issues. These documents include a surveillance report written by Federico Moreno. He was in Fort Santiago not to serve a particular interest group but simply to perform a function connected with his work. Moreno’s report was written a day after the event

21. . People who went to Rizal’s cell the day before of his execution- CDV document - 7:50AM- Andrade (Counsel) & Fr Vilaclara 9AM- Maure (Adjutant of the Garrison), followed by Fr March March and Vilaclara appear to have presented Rizal a prepared retraction paper, but he refused to sign, they argued about the matter till 12:30NN. 3PM- Fr March entered the chapel and handed him what he had written. Del Fresno(chief of the firing squad) & Maure were informed. They entered the death row and together with Rizal signed the document. It seems it was the retraction. 3-5:30PM- Rizal prayed kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fr Vilaclara & Fr March 6PM- Rizal’s family members arrived: Teodora Alonzo, Lucia, Maria, Olimpia, Josefa, Trinidad, & Dolores. Rizal bade farewell with great strength of character and without shedding tears

22. . People who went to Rizal’s cell the day before of his execution- CDV document 8PM- the last meal was served 9PM- he was visited again by Fr March & Fr Vilaclara with Maure He rested until 4AM in the morning 5AM, Dec 30, 1896 – the lover of Rizal, Josephine arrived at the prison accompanied by his sister, Pilar The Nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death He heard mass and confessed to Fr March. Afterwards he heard another mass where he received communion. 7:30AM- European artilleryman handcuffed him and he left for the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, Andrade, and Mauri. Fr March gave him holy picture of the Virgin Mary I noticed that Rizal was very pale but I am very certain that all the time he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and composure (Chief Inspector Federico Moreno, Manila: December 30, 1896).

23. NOTABLE observations Moreno never mentioned Fr. Balaguer in his report. In Moreno’s account only two Jesuits are identified: Fr. Jose Vilaclara and Fr. Estanislao March. Rizal was talking NOT to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March and Vilaclara . Moreno also confirmed that Frs. March and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon contrary to Balaguer’s claimed that he was one of the Rizal’s afternoon visitors Moreno confirmed that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but the persons he identified were Señor Andrade, Señor Maure, and Frs. March and Vilaclara . Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned.

24. . After reading the two versions of retraction, can you now decide which claim you think is more accurate?