Did Rizal consider retracting while in dapitan?

Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of Jos Rizals alleged retraction of his religious errors stirs up the emotions of
historians, flaring up into fiery debates between the pros and cons, without any resolution in sight.

The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and improbable to Rizals character and vehemence
against oppression, as evidenced by a letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889: At the sight of those injustices and
crueltiesI swore to devote myself to avenge one day so many victims, and with this idea in mind I have been studying
and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will someday give me an opportunity to carry out my promise.

Of the religious orders, he writes: the friars are not what they pretend to be nor are they ministers to Christ, the
protector of the people, nor the support of the Spanish governmentDont they show cruelty? Dont they instigate the
government against the people? Dont they manifest terror? Where are sanctity, protection, and force?

Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he was unsure of his reaction: no one knows
how one should behave at that supreme instant, and perhaps I myself who preach and brag so much might manifest
more fear and less energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at that critical moment.

Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the confession Rizal purportedly signed prior to his
execution and testimonies of several witnesses who had seen the act carried out.

However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he weary of the struggle that he decided to give
in to the continuous urgings of the Jesuit fathers who were present at his death cell? Or is it possible that Rizal had
ruminated on retracting while still on exile in Dapitan?

Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcillas monumental multi-volume Jesuit Missionary Letters from Mindanao contains several
letters of the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his Mission Superior, which may shed light on this matter. Obach wrote on July 28,
1895: Rizal has just seen me and said (what has been jumping from mouth to mouth of some who heard it from him),
Father Antonio, I no longer want further battles with the friars, but live and work in peace.

What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at peace.
I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions.
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own hand and style, he wrote: Conditions I ask to
retract references to the matter of the friars, and no longer meddle with them.
Jos Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.

Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on retracting beforehand? What is intriguing is that
he had arrived at this decision, evidently, to spare his family from further suffering and maltreatment.
 Fr. Obach continues: Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials, and he asks that they be returned
or their equivalentI answered that the only thing I could do was to look into the situation and if there is no difficulty,
for I do not know how things areAs for the third, I said that I do not think they would give him such a big amount. His
planis to raise a huge cement plant which, on a small scalehas been quite successful. But this third condition is not
important, for without it, he is ready to make a retraction provided his family is provided for. Besides, if they grant him
this amount, it would be on condition that he repays it.

Obachs letter also details Rizals initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to compete with the Chinese
traders,who do nothing but cheat the Indios. In fact, Rizal had prepared the statutes and regulations of the Society of
Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate the easy buying, selling, and storage of products for export, and curtailing the
trade monopoly of the Chinese.

Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away from his errors: I am convinced that Rizal is
now tired and wants to retract, but his pride strongly holds him backI think he will immediately break away from
everything and he would be an excellent Christian.

In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: Regarding the letter I sent to Your Reverence which contains Rizals
retraction. I would ask you to send me a model retractionIn demanding that Rizal indicate what has been taken from
his family, perhaps it will be humiliating for the Dominican Fathers. Rizal refuses, because in this way they will (have) him
bound more tightly under obligation. On the other hand, retracting is acknowledging his errors, and so it is his turn to
humble himselfI await your letter which I can read to Rizal to convince him what is better to do for Gods greater
glory.

By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed account of his errors: Rizal came and
asked me if I could draw up a list of his errors. You can tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write, and tell him that I myself will
retract all errors I may have committed against the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in my writings, and that he can
make this same retraction public in the manner he wants. But with this he stands to lose everything

Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive some form of compensation for all the troubles
they endured: But on condition that they give me P50,000 since I have no means to support myself in decency, and
with that amount I could bring my parents with me anywhere. He no longer talks of machines and cement, and so on,
and he thinks that this amount is owed him because of the harm inflicted on him.

Are Father Antonio Obachs letters a reliable source about Rizals situation? Will these revelations provide new clues
to his frame of mind during the few hours before his death? The mystery of Rizals retraction deepens.

Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract as testified by his great grand
nephew

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.

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.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four 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.

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 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!
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.

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 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!