THE RIZAL RETRACTION

I. A friend of Baron Fernandez, subsequently bought from Fernandez the Intellectual

Property right to the vauable manuscripts.

II. Morato said in his "expose" that the friars forged the retraction letter and published
in the Clerico- Fascist newspapers at that time. Morato confirmed "No, Rizal never
retracted although that fake retraction was published by friars then and is still sadly
peddled in most school, but that is not true."

III. Both Morato and Fernandez have documents to prove that when Rizal was in
Dapitan, he was allowed to go to Cebu with Josephine Bracken and Archbishop of Cebu, at
that time, tried to dangle marriage and coaxed him to to retract.

IV. Fernandez said: A Spanish orphan who worked for almost half century in two
historical secret archives in Madrid and Segovia, had an eyewitness account of the
retraction which he discovered in those repertories of Spain's dirty secrets. He found 34
documents including handwritten letters, telegrams, and military documents including a
thick sheaf of Rizal's defense. He had written himself days before he was murdered at
Bagumbayan.

V. The entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal's body is not made on the
page with those burials.

VI. A statement saying that something you said or wrote at an earlier time is not true or
correct.

VII. No masses were said for his soul or funeral held by Catholics

VIII. Conclusion Baron Fernandez Eyewitness

IX. Manuel Morato's "Expose" What is Retraction?" I have documents stating that
before he faced death, Rizal told his sister Narcisa to look inside his shoes because he had
left a letter. According to Fernandez, that letter could only be a denial of his retraction
because Rizal knew the friars were misleading the Filipinos and he wanted to set the
record straight".
X. Baron Fernandez and Manuel Morat - If Rizal retracted, he would not have been
executed. But he was executed; therefore Rizal did not retract. He would have been an
example for the cause of the friars; he would have been given a decent Christian burial, not
buried like a dead dog outside Paco Cemetery.

XI. Mr. Palm's coetaneous acts which undermine the belief that Rizal retracted:
1. The Documents of retracction were kept secret, only copies of it were furnished to the
newspapers, but, with the exception of one person, nobody saw the original.
2. When the family of Rizal asked for the original of the said document or a copy of the
alleged retraction letter, the petition was denied.
3. Rizal's burial was kept secret.

XII. Not with standing the claim that Rizal was reconciled with the church, he was not
buried in a Catholic cemetery in Paco but in a ground.
https://prezi.com/zuchf8t_mfjj/ways-to-proving-that-rizal-did-not-retract/

XIII. “Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased
by the Philippine government from Spainin the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila,” showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres,
professor at the History department of the De La Salle University.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1n3de7/According-to-a-testimony-by-Father-Vicente-
Balaguer-a-Jesuit-missionary-who/

XIV. “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.

XV. Dr, Rafael Palma also said “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.”

XVI. 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.
XVII. 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, here’s the
evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent (According to Austin Coates; book entitled
Rizal-Philippine Nationalist And martyr-gives many compelling facts from his own
invertigation):

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 Bracken’s 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 Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose
Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that
she was indeed Rizal’s 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?”
http://exposing-catholicism.blogspot.com/2013/03/dr-jose-rizal-did-not-
retract-as.html