RIZAL RETRACTED
CLAIMANT
ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE/PROOF
Father Pio Pi in his declaration said:
Fr. Pio Pi
On his return to our house from
He said that he had received “an
Fort Santiago, and while Rizal was
exact copy of the retraction written
being led to the place of execution,
and signed by Rizal.
Father Balaguer handed over to me
said document, and after making a
copy thereof for our archives, that
same morning I brought it myself to
the Archbishop whom I visited in his
Palace.
In this statement, Father Balaguer
among other things said: On the
same day that Rizal was executed he
wrote a detailed account of
everything the original of which he
Fr. Vicente Balaguer
He claimed that he managed to
has drawn in the preparation of this
narrative he finally declares and
persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry
and return to the Catholic fold.
affirms that shortly before Rizal
left his cell, he departed in company
with Josefina Bracken and a sister
of Rizal, from who he separated
later. He had with him the Rizal's
retraction. And he delivered the
said document to Reverend Father
Pio Pi, who that same day, brought it
to the palace and handed it over to
Archbishop Nozaleda, who, in turn,
delivered it to
Gonzales Feijoo.
his
secretary,
Gaspar Castano's testimony is also a
notarized declaration formally made
on April 25, 1917. Castano then was
a magistrate of the Supreme Court
in Madrid, holding the position and
honors of President of that
Tribunal. In his declaration, Justice
Gaspar Castrano
He claimed that he had held it in his
hands, read it, and can affirm that
the document that he read contain
the retraction of Rizal.
Castano, among other things, said: A
few days after the execution of
Rizal, just how many I cannot now
exactly tell, I saw in the
Archbishop's Palace in Manila that
retraction, read it and had it in my
hands, and, although I do not
remember the terms in which it was
conceived, I can affirm that in that
(document) Rizal, declaring himself a
Catholic, retracted all that he had
said, written, or done against the
Church and that in a special and
express manner he abjured Masonry.
Silvino Lopez Tunon's testimony is
also a public document, being a
Silvino Lopez Tunon
He says that this profession of faith
and retraction was shown to him at
that moment, that he had it for a
while in his hands and read it in its
entirety, returning it immediately
thereafter to the Archbishop.
notarized statement made on April
23, 1917. The portion of the
testimony that is pertinent for our
purpose is the following: That on the
same day, December 30th, at about
ten
o'clock
in
the
morning,
Archbishop Nozaleda was with some
Jesuit Fathers whose names he (the
affiant) could not recall; that he
learned from one of the Jesuit
Fathers that Rizal had asked and
received the Sacraments of Penance
and Communion and contracted
canonical marriage with Josefina
Bracken, after having written and
signed
a
religious
profession,
declaring himself a child of the
Catholic
Church.
That
this
profession of faith and retraction
was shown to him at that moment,
that he had it for a while in his
hands and read it in its entirety,
returning it immediately thereafter
to the Archbishop.
Father Rosell's testimony is also a
Father Rosell
He said that on the day that Rizal
was executed, he saw the retraction
of Rizal in Ateneo.
notarized declaration formally made
on April 27, 1917. In his declaration,
Father Rosell among other things,
said: I recall that on the same day
that Rizal was executed, I saw in
the Ateneo his retraction.
OBSERVATION:
We can observe that most of the claimants who believed that Rizal retracted are members of the
Catholic hierarchy and the documents presented are from the statements of people who have
eyewitness account, however, it cannot be deemed credible and it is not enough to prove that Rizal
did retract.
RIZAL DID NOT RETRACT
CLAIMANT
ARGUMENT
Fernandez said: “I have documents
Baron Fernandez
EVIDENCE/PROOF
He
is
a
Spanish
orphan
who
stating that before he faced death,
Rizal told his sister Narcisa to look
discovered
the
eyewitnesses
accounts of the retraction from
inside his shoes because he had left a
letter.” According to Fernandez, the
the repertories or collections of
Spain’s dirty secrets. He found 34
letter could only be a denial of his
retraction because Rizal knew the
documents including handwritten
letters, telegrams, and military
friars were misleading the Filipinos
and he wanted to set the records
documents
documents
straight.
manuscript that Rizal had written
before the day of his execution.
He subsequently brought from
alongside
are
the
these
thick
Morato said in his "expose" that the
friars forged the retraction letter
Manuel Morato
Fernandez
the
Intellectual
Property right to the valuable
and published in the Clerico- Fascist manuscripts.
newspapers at that time. Morato
Also, he and Fernandez have
confirmed that Rizal never retracted
documents to prove that when
although that fake retraction was
Rizal was in Dapitan, he was allowed
published by friars and is still sadly
to go to Cebu with Josephine
peddled in most school
Bracken, and the Archbishop of
Cebu, at that time, tried to dangle
marriage and coaxed him to do the
retract.
He said that the retraction document
was “apocryphal.”
Manuel Artigas y
Cuerva
He said in his that it does not
appear in the trial nor can anyone
give an account of it in the
Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila.
Even in the Ateneo itself of the
Fathers of the Society of Jesus, it
could not be found, although it was
positively affirmed that it was
there.
OBSERVATION:
We can observe that the claimants based their arguments on the eyewitnesses account.
They look for the discrepancy on these accounts and analyze it to confirm whether the
claims of those who believed that Rizal retracted is credible.
Prepared by:
[FOXTROT]
Boholst, Levielyn O.
Santurias, Jinky