CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp 1 - 6. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

In the beginning of the book, Pascual first highlighted that on the day of May 19, 1935, a
peculiar document said to be found in the vault of the Archbishop of Manila by a certain Father
Manuel Garcia. Jose Rizal was known for his works being anti-Catholic and propaganda, hence
him being infamous within the community of the Church and government in his time. However,
in this found document, it claimed his retraction against his anti-Catholicism, propaganda, and it
also stated his association with Masonry. Pascual made mention that many were conflicted and
sceptical with this discovery, as many have claimed that it was not done by pure intention of Jose
Rizal but instead it might have been forced upon him. The downside to this theory is that Rizal
was a man of dignity and honor, it would have been very difficult to persuade him into doing
things that went against his morals or have him make do things simply against his own will. No
matter how he resented being forced into doing things, it turned out inevitable in Rizal’s life, an
example of this being his own death. His death was against his own will, being forced upon by
the higher ups, Rizal had no choice but to succumb to his downfall.

Another theory or saying that Pascual had highlighted in the first chapter is that Rizal
might have also done the document in compliance with his old professors who happened to be
Fathers of the Church. Since 1892, during Rizal’s exile in Dapitan, the Church had already been
interested in his retraction against his anti-Catholic claims. This furthered on deeper in the year
of 1895 where Jose Rizal sought to be married to Josephine Bracken. A Jesuit’s words of his own
account of what Rizal’s reply to this event was quote en quote,

“Look, Father, if in order to satisfy you, I would say yes on everything and sign all that
you present me, without feeling not believing in it, I would be a hypocrite and I would offend
God.”
 Pascual then argued that if the said words of Rizal were taken in to be the official truth,
there would be no other questions left for the true intentions of the document. These, however,
cannot be done since the arguments of the ones who are discrediting the document versus on the
side of the priests with their quotation of Rizal, the claims can then only be opinions and not as
solid facts. Another reason that this document must have been forced against Rizal’s will was
that he was threatened that his family would not be able to live in peace but these claims also do
not have reputable proof.

Another important point Pascual included was that the editor of La Defensa, Mr. E. F.
Lumba stated that the acts of Rizal posed no contradiction to his martyrdom. This does not place
any dent in Jose Rizal’s rightful place as the Philippine’s National Hero. He was treasured not
only for his death but because of his works that envoked the revolution. The Director of the
National Library pronounced the document to be “authentic, definite, and final” , in which many
other writers have called that to be an exaggeration. Pascual went on to say that he had the
assurance from the Director of the National Library himself that the statement that the document
was “authentic” was merely an opinion as he claimed that upon looking at the document with his
memory of Rizal’s writing did not fail him.

In Pascual’s own attempt of examining the document himself, he left any bias at the table
as he was open to any discovery without any fear of an adverse verdict. Any verdict must be
avoided unless hard facts and evidence are to be presented instead of the aforementioned
reasoning before that only turned out to be mere opinions of the people involved.

In the investigation of Pascual, he followed the criterion which was a technical opinion of
an authority on evidence. Mr. Wigmore, the author of “Wigmore on Evidence” made an
introduction to a book made by a Mr. Albert Osborne entitled “Questioned Documents” it says
in part
“The feature of Mr. Osborn’s book which will perhaps mark its most progressive aspect is
its insistence upon the reasons of an opinion—not the bare opinion alone. If there is in truth a
science (and not merely an individual empiricism), that science must be based on reasons, and
these reasons must be capable of being stated and appreciated.”
 This follows that any opinion despite being from an individual, expert or layman must be
evaluated by the weight of the reasons and evidence for each opinion and not simply based on
the stature of the person.

CHAPTER II
THE DOCUMENT

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp 7 - 10. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

Pascual included a figure of the document itself. It is was written on a 32 centimeter long
and 22 centimeter wide double sheet of Catalan paper, also known as papel catalan, which was
folded. The paper showed a slight tint of yellow as its colaor and the folding showed irregularity
and slight crumpling and soiling which are easily effects of aging in paper. It also bears the
water-mark that says “Hijo de J. Jover y Serra” that was continuously marked across the two
leaves of Catalan paper.

The document had slightly inconsistent color as the heavy lines shows ink in the color
black while the lighter lines showed a yellowish tint which is a sign of its age. Some letters have
ink marks but they are still recognizable. Some examples of these as stated by Pascual was as
follows: the “d” of “de” in second paragraph’s first line, “a” of the word “Catolico” of the same
paragraph’s fourth line and “a” of the words “cuanto” and “eseña”. When analyzing the
document a bit further, it cannot go unnoticed that there are a few varieties of forms of capital
letters. Some samples of this is that the capital letter “D” in “Diocesano” and “Diciembre” are
quite similar with each other, they both differ from the “D” in “Dios”. While the two former
“D’s” were written by the swinging of the pen to the left and then making a small arc after the
initial downward stroke in its shaft before reversing the swing to the right while as on the “D” of
“Dios”, it was written without the tail in the arc of the shaft and it was done with neither a swing
to the right or left direction.
 The variation in form is not only visible to the capital letters but also within the small
letters inside the document. A sample of this was that of Pascual making observations based on
Figure III in the book, there are noticeable differences in the form of the terminal “a”. The “a’s”
on the left side are distinctly formed while the “a’s” on the right side are indistinctly formed,
having a close resemblance with the formation of the letter “e”. Regardless of the discrepancies,
both still have the appearance of continuos hand movement that was done without hesitation.

In Figure V, Pascual made another mention that there is another variety across the
same letter. There is a variety in the “o’s” as the last letter of the word. The first four words have
the example of the terminal “o’s”. They are done with a tail of some sort made by a horizontal
side-stroke from the top of the “o”. The last two words which end with an “o” are those that were
finished with a swing to the to the left. There were a few instances where the letter “o” is
sometimes open and also, sometimes closed.
 CHAPTER III
COMPARISON OF HANDWRITINGS

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp. 11-38. Manila, Manlapit Press. Retrieved from
http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/rpascualocrpdf.pdf

Pascual highlighted that there is another document, now in the National Library, bearing
the date of December 12, 1896. This is the "Defensa", Figure VIII, written by Rizal himself. On
December 25, the day before he faced the Council of War that condemned him to death, he wrote
a letter to D. Luis Taviel de Andrade, his defender. This ·writing is here reproduced in Figure
XIII.

"Considering the fact that Rizal was not a beginner in the art of writing, neither was he an infirm
old person at the time that he was said to have written the retraction, we can therefore presume
that he wrote at that time, if ever he wrote anything, with his habitual way. If we are to study and
analyze the genuine writings of Rizal, we shall find an almost fixed habit manifested in all of
them."

"And when the signature was forged, then the retraction as a document is a forgery, for it is now
claimed to have been written and signed by a person who never signed it, since the signature was
not his own signature, though the name was his. If this conclusion is wrong, then certainly, Rizal
in signing this retraction must have studied and copied his own name signed by another, as if he
was copying another's name. "

"As a consequence of· the immediate inclination of the stroke after 'making the "a" in "Rizal", as
above noted in the genuine signatures, the down-stroke in "l" met this upward stroke at a point
above the base line as could be verified in the five signatures. In the signature of the retraction,
however, the downward stroke crossed the horizontally wandering stroke on the base line rather
than above it (No. 9)."
"With the forged signature of Gordon to the alleged will, and the pretended signatures appended
to it as witnesses, arranged in close proximity, ... the general appearance of the writings seems to
be the same in all of them. There is manifested the same slant, ellipticity of curves, the same
measure of pen pressure; and when the habitually written parts of the signatures as to form are
dissected out and compared with each other and the writing of Henry G. Adams (the forger) in
the body of the pretended will, the likeness. becomes very strong in delineation."

"Another fact that must not here be forgotten is the slant of the supposed writings of three
different persons. In the accompanying diagram, Figure XXII, we have the graphs of their
respective slants. We here find that the slant of Maure's writing and the signature of Jose Rizal
are almost the same, and there is affinity between the slants of the signatures of Maure and
Fresno."

"In the five signatures that serve as our standards, the pen after finishing the "a'' in "Rizal" made
a little curve and curvingly inclined. upwardly to produce the staff of "l" without further delay. In
the corresponding part of the signature of the retraction, we find that the pen wandered to the
right in a horizontal plane (No. 7) and then inclined upward to produce the staff of "l" after
inaking an extended horizo.ntal connection. This only shows a wandering tendency in the case of
the retraction but was absent in the genuine signatures.’’

Pascual emphasized that qualified scientific writers on the subject recognize this
distinction between human testimony and fact evidence and practically agree that a sufficient
combination of inanimate facts or circumstances comes nearest to demonstration of any kind of
proof. It is of course, essential in this proof that the facts actually exist; that they are sufficient in
number and that they permit of but one interpretation.
 CHAPTER IV
TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp. 39-50. Manila, Manlapit Press. Retrieved from
http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/rpascualocrpdf.pdf

Pascual presented the four examples of faithful copies of the original document that are
pretty alike in textual wordings, except minor variations of punctuation and capitalization, which
are pardonable only if the texts were copied from memory but certainly not when they were
claimed to be literal copies of the same original. Nevertheless, they can make some allowance
for typographical errors, thus giving grounds for the fear of Father Pi in our earlier quotation.

"Regarding self-love, I confess candidly that for a long time I have earnestly asked God to
deprive me of it, but He who knows better what is good for us has conserved it in me. I now
understand that a man ought never to be deprived of this sentiment, although he ought never to
exaggerate it. I have for me that self-love is the greatest good that God has given to man for his
perfection and purity, saving him from many base and ignoble acts, when the precepts learned or
inculcated are not remembered.”

“Self-love, when it is not passionate, is dignified, like the sap that impels the plant towards the
top in search for the sun, the force that launches the boat in its course, which the judgment ought
to moderate. For me, man is the master-piece of creation, perfect within his conditions, that it is
not possible to deprive him of any of his components, both in the moral and the physical, without
disfiguring him and making him miserable. I do not know how you will take these perhaps very
independent ideas of mine, but I am so, I have been educated so, and I would do you an offense
if upon writing you I would lack the sincerity. I do not believe that pride dictates them to me,
neither do I know whether I am proud or not, only God who cannot err in his judgment could say
so."
 Pascual pointed that this was the manner in which Rizal was educated, the manner which
he was proud to own even to the Father with whom he was in correspondence. It was really a
shock for the Fathers to know that despite their many years of influence upon him, still Rizal
would say that as such he was educated. This independent spirit of Rizal, the manner of his
education, was really and still is in opposition to the Catholic spirit.

The author then discusses that Rizal was "educated in the Catholic religion" was factually
true, that if we are talking of and referring to Rizal, the young and adolescent student, this young
man that remained and died like a young man only, which was not true to Rizal's life. But if we
are talking of and referring to Rizal who left Catholicism fourteen years before his execution in
1896 and was educated in the free atmosphere of the civilized world, it follows that such a phrase
was not true to facts, facts that could not now be altered, unless we want to invent bedtime
stories and not record events.
 CHAPTER V
BY WAY OF DISPROOFS

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp 51 - 63. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

Pascual analyzed the case conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal to search for the truth that
shall disprove the accuser's side claims with evidence or facts regarding his death
sentence. Miss Trinidad Rizal, Jose Rizal's sister, served as a witness to testify to the facts
and events on what happened regarding the questions aimed at Jose Rizal. Even if
Trinidad is Jose's sister, she came to testify not belonging to any group or having any
biases towards her brother but is there to serve and tell the truth.

Pascual possessed the statements of Miss Trinidad Rizal, and most questions were
about her brother's retraction. Miss Trinidad truthfully answered that while her brother
was alive, no one (friars) mentioned her brother's retraction to their family, but on the day
her brother died. At the end of the interview regarding the retraction issue, she stated that
the accusation or the said retraction has no truth (in her opinion) and that it's a trick to
insult a dead person that cannot do anything anymore.

The interview, facts, and pieces of evidence unveiled made Pascual furious and
realize everything, carrying the question "why?". Pascual realized that the case of Jose
was just for complacency and to make Jose out of their sight even without evidence. No
clear records of the marriage at the said church and the retraction.

Another facts that concerns Rizal's death that disprove the church's claims were
engaged. The one was when he converted to Catholic the day before his execution. They
sent Father Balaguer, a missionary on Dapitan when Rizal was exiled in his prison to
make a confession. Pascual then said that why did they sent them the day before his
execution and at the same time not a priest from their church. Pascual then realized that
this is to avoid the suspicion of his former professors or the priest that can tarnish the
name of their church, thus they sent Father Balaguer for Jose to make a confession. It was
said that if his professors were the one who went for him, it can be seen as a
complacency, which the friars and churches do not want, so they made a missionary come
to his prison to avoid the suspicion and to make the retraction valid. They made claims
after his death that he converted into Catholic and retracted his works against the church
and the government. Pascual then wondered as to why did all of this came out when the
said person was already dead and thus doubted them. Also, when the Rizal family asked
about the retraction or the document, they said that the papers were lost.

After his death, the church claimed that he was buried Christianly and showed
that Rizal was buried canonically. But they didn't fulfill even a single wish of Jose Rizal
of making his family have his corpse and let them bury him at the place he wanted. Also
his book annotation record said that his was on the last page even though the page before
him died later than him. Pascual then said thath "If we may attempt again a hypothesis
after all the facts as to the place of burial, manner of burial, and records of burial of
Doctor Rizal are fully appreciated and at this point we could say that we have done so,
we can say that on December 30, 1896, the executed Martyr was not given ecclesiastical
burial in fact. But finding that to claim him as having been given canonical interment was
beneficial, they (I could not say who, for I do not know) thereafter that date claimed his
ecclesiastical burial, and recently a document, signed by the same parish priest who noted
his burial among those not buried in sacred ground, testifying that he (Rizal) was given
Christian burial, was even discovered with the retractions. By whom and when was this
colossal idea conceived and then claimed to have actually occurred, I do not know. "

Pascual aquired another facts from the "El Renacimiento," the footnote the
ditorial staff wrote in December 29, 1908 consists "Reliable persons inform us that they
had gone to the Archive of the Archbishop's Palace in order to look for this document
(retraction) and there they were told that it was not found. The Jesuits have failed to
demonstrate it also." Another is that Father Pio Pi, that also had a book said in his
footnote that "In the Archbishop's Palace, it seems that, although they (documents of
retraction) were looked for, they have not been found." With this, Pascual asked why it
vanished or even misplaced if the document was relevant.

Years have passed, and they said they identified the paper or document the same
place they searched it but not on the same timeline. In 1908 or 1909, the document was
missing, but in 1935 they found it in the archive of the Archbishop's Palace of Manila.
That made Pascual wonder and doubt again and again on to what happened to the
document on those twenty-six (26) years. With all this lying (no evidences to their claim),
Pascual said that "These therefore are the facts that disprove the pretext that Dr. Jose
Rizal was converted, that he retracted, that he was married canonically, that he was
buried Christianly. They must all first be explained thoroughly and satisfactorily before
we can accept the hypothesis that Dr. Jose Rizal returned to the fold of the Catholic
Church before he was executed. This is not an easy job."
 CHAPTER VI
THE QUESTION OF HISTORICITY

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of
Bagumbayan. pp 65 - 80. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

"Those Who Deny the Conversion of Rizal Deny an Unquestionable Historical Fact.” the title of
the third chapter from Father Pio's work La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal. Father Pio
reffered this to question the historicity of Rizal's conversion. Father Pio said that "since the
conversion is a historical fact, therefore to deny the conversion is to deny a historical fact." and
sadly, his answer did not meet the demand of answering the question, "How is it proved that
Rizal's conversion is a historical fact?". He justified his claim further and appealed the people
with his book wisely, but still wondered if his words prove or justify his stand.

Second question, "What are the possible sources of informatiion as to the historicity of this event
of Rizal's conversion?". Pascual said that first, there's an eye-witness, a crucial evidence where
two officials and priests to assist Rizal to sign, the historical documents, and now the one
circumstantial evidence which is the lone survivor of the past event - the retraction. Which can
testify Rizal's Historicity.

A discussion of the book of "Historian and Historical Evidence" enlightend where the question
the historicity is considered, it said that one must give scientific perspective as to the provative
value of proofs at our disposal. With this, the impartiality and honest assignment of value to
sources of information to the historicity of Rizal should consider each sources.

First are the two officials, Eloy Maure and Juan del Fresno, questioning the fact if have they
testified anything, but in fact they didn't. Only their signatures were found on the supposed lost
but now found document, and as shown in the previous chapter the signatures were not even
geniune. For the other witnesses, the priests, there are no necessities that they were priests and
recount their good faith and intention, etc. because they could be admitted very well, expected
from the "priest of God". It cannot be denied, except only gratuitously, that the Catholic Church -
of ,which the witnesses were priests-had a vital interest at stake.
Lastly the document, evidences showed that the document that is used against Rizal is a forged
document.

Through the previous chapter, we can see loop holes that we can question about the historicity of
Rizal. The plan to execute Rizal and the people in power to escape the suspicion is all there.
Thus, Pascual felt the need to do historical criticism. Having the evidences that seem to prove
Rizal's Historicity Pascual said this, "Now, we ask with the candid spirit of a scientific and
historical investigator, "Is the historicity of Rizal's conversion-whatever Father Pio Pi meant by
it-established, at the absence of reliable records and genuine circumstantial evidence?" I fail to
see that it is, through our strict mental discipline. The appeal to the mob is childish; it has not
even an iota of respect in Science. Can we really now grant that "Those who deny Riz.al's
conversion deny an unquestionable historical fact?" Must we not say that "all that is merely
assumed to be an unquestionable historical fact must really be denied, for its being a mere
assumption?" Then we can say, "He who can deny the supposed historical fact, for the lack of
evidence, can really deny the conversion of Dr. Rizal, and he who can deny such must deny that
the same is an unquestionable historical fact."
 CHAPTER VII
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT OF DR. RIZAL’S CONVERSION

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: The Psychological aspect of Dr. Rizal’s
conversion. pp 81 - 101. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

"Conversion applies to a marked 'change of heart', an emotional regeneration, typically sudden in

its advent or consummation, affecting radically the outlook, the inner adjustment and habits of
life of an individual,".

". . . the essential thing about conversion is just the unification of character, the achievement of a
new life . .".

"The return of the sinner to a life of virtue is also called a conversion. More commonly do we
speak of the conversion of an infidel to the true religion, and most commonly of the conversion
of a schismatic or heretic to the Catholic Church.".

"Conversion designates the more sudden, intense, and extreme emotional experience.".

"Conversion is predominantly a phenomenon of adolescence.”

" ... in one sense, indeed, the whole moral and religious process of the adolescent period may
well be called conversion.”.

"In regard to age, adolescence is the period of most conversions, but within this time there are
three points at which the phenomena of conversion take on different aspects,".

“It must also be borne in mind that the greater our range below and above the age of adolescence
the less is the susceptibility to conversion except the emotional suggestible type”.
“faith is a gift of God necessary for salvation, that it is an act of the intellect commanded by the
will, and that it is a supernatural act.”.

“That faith, so also conversion, is not a natural act but a supernatural and divine phenomenon is
just as well that it be, but it is beyond scientific investigation. That is the most essential factor
here, as the traditional theology.”.

“. . .conversion is a human phenomenon, which admits of scientific investigation.”.

"Wishing thy health ... I shall do with thee what the ancients did with their sick; expose thee on
the steps of the temple so that each devotee coming to worship the Divinity may suggest a
remedy.".

" ... I shall lift the corner of the veil which conceals thine infirmity, sacrificing everything to
Truth, even my personal feelings, because being thy son, I am necessarily afflicted with thy
malady, sharing thy shortcomings and weakness.''.

"Life is very short, and the happiest (life) is very much full of bitterness, that in truth, it is not
worth the pain of sacrificing a conviction for pieces of metal, rounded (money) or in the form of
a cross (!).".

"Their personal experience has been regarded as of superior value because it has been assumed
uncritically that their moral characters and achievements were determined by the manner of their
conversion.

“That was true martyrdom for the cause of principle, and martyrdom made more lustrous by no
retraction.”.

The author highlighted that Rizal's conversion, as recorded by the Jesuits, was therefore
improbable from a psychological standpoint. So how could it be real? Only the statements of
priests, Catholic Church priests as they are, and a Catholic Church with a fundamental interest in
the topic, remind us of this retraction. But the evidence tells quite a different story altogether!
Shall we close our eyes, throw away evidence, make the sign of the cross and prayerfully
murmur, "Jesus-Maria-Jose, nevertheless, do not believe the evidence of your senses nor reason
but only have faith?" Indeed, "unless you be like one of these little children, you shall not enter
the kingdom of heaven."
 CHAPTER VIII
(THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONTROVERSY)

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave:The Philosophical Controversy.
pp 103 - 132. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

"I believed in the revelation but in that living revelation of Nature that surrounds us everywhere,
in that voice, potent, eternal, incessant, incorruptible, clear, distinct, universal, as the Being from
whom it proceeds; in that revelation that speaks to and penetrates us since we are born till we
die. What books can reveal to us better the goodness of God, His love, His providence, His
eternity, His glory, His wisdom? Coeli enarrant gloriam Domini et opera manum ejus annunciat
firmamentum- The heavens relate the glory of God, and the firmament announces the work of his
hand. What more Bible and gospels does Humanity need? Ah! Father ... Do you not believe that
men have done wrong in looking for the Divine will in parchment and temples instead of looking
for it in the works of Nature under the magnificent vault of Heaven? Instead of interpreting
obscure passages or ambiguous phrases that provoke hatred, wars, and discussions, was it not
better to interpret the works of Nature to fashion better our life to her inviolable laws, to utilize
her forces for our perfection? When have they begun to make men brothers, besides, when have
they consulted the first page of the. work of God? Like the prodigal son, who blind before the
Happiness of his paternal home, has to look for other strangers, humanity has roamed miserably
and was full of animosity through many centuries."

"If you would know what I have lost for not declaring myself a protestant, I would not say any
similar thing. Not always to respect the religious ideas, to take for me religion as a science of
convenience or as an art of being well in this life, instead of being a poor deported, I would now
be rich, free, and you would see me heaped with honors. Rizal, a protestant! A loud laughter
dances merrily within my breast that only the respect for what you said can
Contain."

"Penetrated with that vague but irresistible sentiment before the inconceivable, the superhuman,
the infinite, I leave its study (the study about God) to clearer intelligence; I listen in suspense to
what the religions say; and incapable of judging what overcomes my forces, I content myself in
studying Him in His creatures, my brothers; and in the voice of my conscience that only can
proceed from him. I endeavor to read and guess His Will in what surrounds me and in the interior
mysterious sentiment that I feel within me, whose purity I procure above all things in order to act
according to it. Many religions (Christianity not exempted) pretend to have in their books
(example, the Sacred Scriptures) and dogmas (for instance, Church Infallibility) His Will to be
condensed and written, but apart from many contradictions, from varied interpretations regarding
the words, from many obscure and unsustainable points, my conscience, my heart cannot admit.
How could He, who has foreseen very wisely and paternally for His creatures what are necessary
in this life, go to· conceal what is necessary for eternity in the mists of a language, unknown to
all the rest of the world, obscured by metaphors and facts (pretended) contrary to His own laws?
(This last italicized clause explains the confusion there is in Christendom about this word of
God). He who makes His sun shine for all and circulates the air to all parts to substantiate the
blood; He who has given to all intelligence and reason to live in this life, could He hide from us
what are necessary for Eternity? What would we say of a father who heaped for his sons dainties
and toys but would give food only to one, educate him, and support him? And if it results
afterwards that his elected one rejects that food while the others die looking for it?"

"I imagine men in their study of truth as the students of design who copy a statue. Sitting around
it (the statue), some much nearer, others much further, who from certain height, who from below,
see it in different manner, and how much more are they polished in being faithful in their designs
as much as they are distinguished from one another."

"And do not tell me that the truth seen from all points of view always presents the same form;
that would be for Him who is in all parts. For us, only the mathematical truths are presented in
that manner which are like plane figure~. But the religious, moral, and political (truths) are
figures of extension and profundity, are complete truths and the human intelligence has to study
them through parts. And if it is very difficult to be placed in the same point of view of others in
the material world, how much more in the moral, which is complicated and hidden? From this
manner of looking, I infer that nobody can judge the beliefs of others taking for the norm his
own."
 Pascual highlighted some said that before the retraction of Dr. Rizal, many believed that
Rizal is already converted, the more fundamental question, if we are speaking of the religious
controversy, is not whether Dr. Rizal was converted, or not, to Catholicism, but whether he was
convinced, or not, during their controversy, for if Dr. Ri:t-al was convinced he was surely to be
converted but if he was converted, it is doubtful if he was convinced, unless proved so. It is
therefore logical that the difference, whatever, between convincement and conversion be drawn.
 CHAPTER IX
RETANAS “CHAIN OF DEDUCTION”

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: Retanas “Chain of Deduction”
pp 133 - 172. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

The author discusses how Retanas keep on claiming if Dr. Jose Rizal did actually convert to
catholic, he mentioned first on how they could say that Jose Rizal is not an actual catholic if he was
buried in a Catholic Cemetery of Paco. This assumption has been corrected since the cemetery of
Paco was founded and built by the Municipal Council of Manila in 1822 according to the accounts of
Montero y Vidal. It was simply assumed that it was erroneously thought or not historically true that
whoever was buried in the cemetery of Paco must be a catholic. The argument offered by Retana
was a very dangerous and unreliable procedure, since he used the "from effect to cause '', in which
this lessens the probability of conclusion. The claim of the existence of the marriage of Dr. Rizal and
Bracken are declined, since there are no proof or evidence that could be a record of their marriage.
Retana's "Chain of Deduction", in which it stated the canonical marriage and the christian burial, is
doubtful and not the strongest link.
 CHAPTER X
(RESUME)

Pascual, R.R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: Resume.
pp 173 - 176. Manlapit Press Manila. rpascualocrpdf.pdf (xeniaeditrice.it)

The truth has been proved from the peak of its research, reason, and labor of hardwork as it
reached its ground. The retraction was never been written by Dr. Jose Rizal, if it was it would be a
genuine one. It was never been a historical fact. It was recently discovered that the text of the earlier
versions and the original version are different in commission, omission, and other variations. The
difference of the retraction and the report of the original version, which is supposedly how it should
be written done by Dr. Jose Rizal, is seen as quite childish from the perspective that was never in the
original text. The lackness of legitimacy of his writings can be very degrading him as a genius. There
are facts that supported the proving that the retraction of Dr. Rizal was a logical impossibility. The
fact that Partisan cannot be relied on as this compels to deny the assumption that the conversion of
Rizal is a historical fact.

Authorities that are in this matter are biased, prejudicial, and principle one, that leads to
fanaticism and cocksureness. He was not psychologically converted, and that is why He did not
retract and was not converted. The philosophical controversy of the salvation of Dr. Rizal has been
shared and expressed. For him, He believed that a man doesn't need to be bounded by any creed or
belief to be protected. He did not unreasonably falter the belief of God, yet his own reasons makes
him truly a great man that have been appreciated and admired by his countrymen. For this, it does
makes sense that his soul has been credited.