The Communist Revolution in Cuba is a sign of the kingdom of God, a Cardinal said.

In the exercise of his functions, Cardinal Evaristo Arns, former Archbishop of São Paulo, Brazil, sent a letter of congratulations to Fidel Castro on the 30th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution.

In November 1988 the letter was delivered to Castro by Friar Betto, one of the Brazilian leaders of Liberation Theology. The official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, Granma, published that letter on January 6, 1989. Some days after, the Brazilian press published it as well.

Given the surprising content of the correspondence, doubts arose whether the letter was authentic. Soon afterwards, however, Friar Leonardo Boff, also present in Havana, confirmed that he had witnessed its delivery to Castro. Boff added that the latter sent a copy of the letter to Cardinal Jaime Ortega of Havana before passing it to the Granma. Cardinal Ortega granted his approval for its publication.

The polemic on the authenticity of the document continued until Cardinal Arns himself publicly confirmed that he had written the letter (second clipping below right). He added that he had sent a copy to the Vatican as well.

The clipping of O Estado de São Paulo (Jan. 19, 1989), where the full text of the letter is reproduced

Translation from the Portuguese of the highlighted parts.

São Paulo, Christmas 1988

My dearest Fidel,
Peace and good will.

I take advantage of Friar Betto’s trip to send an embrace to you and salute the Cuban people on the occasion of this 30th anniversary of the Revolution. We all know the heroism and sacrifice of the people of your country in resisting internal aggressions and eradicating misery, illiteracy and chronic social problems. Today Cuba can feel proud to be an example of social justice on our continent, so impoverished by external debt.

In the conquest of the [Cuban] Revolution, the Christian Faith discovers the signs of the kingdom of God that manifests itself in our hearts and in the structures that allow us to make our political conviviality a work of love …

Unfortunately, favorable conditions still do not exist for a meeting to take place between us … I have you present daily in my prayers, and I ask the Father to grant you the grace always to steer the destinies of your country.

Receive my fraternal embrace at the festivities for the 30th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution …


Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns

Debunking the Pillars of “Baptism for Sale”

First of all, I want to express my appreciation concerning to a post authored by the Catholic priest Abraham Arganiosa in his own blog. A post that explains the “biblical” foundation of the Catholic practice about infant baptism. I’m very grateful because for so many years of arguing against Catholic beliefs, I never been told about how they will defend this kind of baptism by biblical views like what Mr. Arganiosa did. But I also felt a little disappointment because since he’s challenging his critics to show a specific verse stating that infants must not be baptized, he himself failed to show the specific verse stating that infants should be baptized. What he tried to show are the verses which he thinks fit to the doctrine of infant baptism. But actually, the said verses reject the traditional Catholic baptism rather than to validate it. He quoted the story of Peter’s mission to the house of Cornelius and the conversion of the house of Lydia, and later declared that “baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason”. This declaration is unbiblical and the stories he had cited never support infant baptism. The book of Acts clarified that the candidates for baptism after Peter’s preaching are those who heard the words and then speak with tongues. (Acts 10: 44,46).  Obviously they are not babies. They are people who have the capacity to understand what they heard and speak about it. In the house of Lydia, we’re not sure if there are infant members. Household means family, but not all family have babies. Meanwhile, the statement that “baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason” was truly against the Bible. The Bible itself set some requirements before being baptized and children are not qualified with these requisites, thus baptism is not for them.

 The Roman Catholic Church believes that the soul of an unbaptized child will descend into a place called limbo, the realm which said to be the suffering place of all unbaptized infants who suffered the consequences of the original sin. Hence, Catholic priests called their members to let their newly born child be baptized in order to be secured from the realm of limbo if sudden death came. All they have to do is to arrange the date of baptism with the parish priests and pay the baptism fee allotted by the local church administrator. This belief which the Catholic Church upheld for hundreds of years, has no biblical foundation. The baptism of infants, as well as the teaching about the limbo are not supported even by a single verse from the Holy Scriptures. In fact, Christ, who said that we should obey what is righteous, was never baptized during his childhood days. And nowhere in the Bible we can find a single child baptized by the Church. Much more the payment for the baptism ceremony;  it was a clear violation of the biblical command that the things which we freely received, we shall freely give.

 “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. “(Matthew 10:8)

We’re not sure how was the Catholic Church arrived into such insulting kind

St. Augustine declared that all unbaptized babies went to hell upon death. By the Middle Ages, the idea was softened to suggest a less severe fate, limbo.

of ceremony, but we are very much sure that this belief has no biblical supports; formulated just to make money out of religion.

Baptism is a manifestation of one’ s faith toward the gospel, a simple way of showing one’s acceptance of the teachings that he heard. Christ said;

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19,20)

How can a child receive teachings and have faith in it before being baptized if he don’t have the enough  ability  to understand the teachings and accept it by faith. How can he be baptized if he don’t even understand what faith is? The Bible clearly says;

“For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.” (Hebrews 5:13)

Faith is righteousness and the only requirement for baptism. Philip, when he was asked by an Ethiopian eunuch for baptism, the only thing he required is this;

“If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:36)

Can we ask the baby to believe with all his heart? Of course not! And since the Catholic Church can’t require the baby of his faith, they instead ask the parents for payments. This has been the biggest lie ever formulated in the field of religion. Little children are not part of the commandment of baptism. Baptism is a call from God to wash away sins. And we all know that a child is an innocent regarding sin or righteousness. The apostle said;

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16)

How can an innocent child wash away sins? Sin, by definition, is the transgression of the law. How can a child wash away sins if he can’t even understand what the law is? Or what is good and bad? Thus parents should not worry about the destiny of their deceased children. They should not worry about the alleged sufferings of unbaptized children in limbo because there is no such thing! In fact, the present pope of Rome, Benedict XVI, denied the existence of limbo. After so many years of believing in this kind of absurd teaching and spending money for the purpose of saving the souls of infants from limbo, the papacy finally admitted that there is no such place!



(Source: Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985, pp. 147-148)

See! How the Catholic Church burdened us for so many years with this invention, and how they fooled their own members by believing in a false hope. What was written in the words of God is that sons should not suffer the sins of their parents or parents should suffer the sins of their children.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

The words of Christ are clear, that whatsoever happen to a child, the kingdom of God belongs to them.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:14)

Following Her Footstep?

Protestants are following the same absurdity. They following the same invented track for the sake of their own purpose. Many Protestant denominations are baptizing children who don’t have enough ability to embrace the gospel. We have been told about the “goal” that these Protestant denominations required to their pastors. These ministers were assigned by their superiors with a specific number of converts showing how effective they are. Their performance and promotion are depending upon the number of converts they can win after their crusades. Hence, Protestant pastors baptized even those children who didn’t even understand what they are saying on the pulpit just to reach their “goal”. Consequently, the converted child leaves the church and the baptism ends in vain, for the child was not truly baptized to the gospel which he never understood while sitting in the indoctrination session. Their presence was due to those enjoyable activities promised by the pastor.

The Offering that God Abhors


Giving offering is an essential part of a religion. Through this mean, we have the opportunity to bring back the blessing that God has given to us. Although the Bible explains that God cannot be served by the hand or by the things of man, He recognized the importance of offering so that His blessing might also be shared with others. The offering came from a willing and clean heart has the most pleasant odor in the sight of God. The Bible declared;

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalms 51:17)

But what if the offering that we are going to offer to God comes from a sinful act? Are we glorifying Him by bringing those abominable things of His adversaries like what the Catholic Church says? Philippine’s Jaime Cardinal Sin said that he is “willing to accept money even from Satan as long as it could help his flock. ” (Maricel V. Cruz, Reporter) This statement was seconded by a news in Mexico where Bishop Ramon Godinez confirmed that the Church receives the offerings of the drug lords. He argued that the money is “purified” once it passes through the parish doors. A priest, Father Jose Raul Soto Vazquez, said Catholics should be more generous, like the drug traffickers. Church leaders fiercely deny condoning drug trafficking. But this scandal has focused attention on how some of Mexico’s most violent, ruthless men have gained public acceptance and protection–and how the Catholic Church may have contributed. In the Philippines, the national government displayed greater hostility towards illegal gambling, and in fact, a former President was ousted because of illegal gambling. Nevertheless, we have been told by the news that even the Church is receiving money from this illegal game of chance. So it is not wondering why the programs of the government against illegal gambling are so unsuccessful because the gambling lords feel like they were being sanctioned by the most “reverend” priests in the country by sharing with them their illegal income. The Bible said;

“I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” (Jeremiah 23:14)

Gambling is an abominable deed in the sight of God, thus children of God are forbidden to participate in such games, more so in the selling of drugs. Since thousands of lives are being ruined every day because of drug addiction, we can’t describe how abominable are these enterprises in the sight of the Lord, and yet the Church accepts offerings from this kind of business and considered their masters as saints because of their generosity. Had these priests forgotten how God rejected the offering of Cain? The offering of Balaam and Balac? The offering of Saul? Of the sons of Eli? They were rejected by God because they are all evil. But drugs and gambling lords are more evil than them, yet the Church is very grateful to their offerings.

The notorious phrase “the end justifies the means” is the moving principle why the Catholic Church accepts the offerings of the wicked. It validates all wicked deeds if the Church would benefit in the end. Since the Medieval Age, this principle was used by the Jesuits to justify killings, conspiracy, theft and violence in order to reach the goals of the Church. They even quote stories and verses from the Bible to justify their deeds. According to them, since Christ Himself ate the foods prepared by a sinful tax collector, the Church may also accept offerings from gambling and drug lords, and as the Philippine cardinal said, even from Satan himself.

Money can paralyze the senses of man and blinds every channel of understanding. Because of money, the Church misrepresented the character and the ministry of Christ. Christ came into the house of Matthew, not to receive offerings from him, but to call them to repent. (Luke 6:31-32). And Matthew repented and gave up his own occupation. Can we compare this ministry to the relationship of the Church and those criminals of the country? No! The Catholic Church accepts the offerings of a  wicked person, and that wicked person leaves without any shadow of repentance that they will never repeat again  their sinful enterprise. For this thing, God said;

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” (Proverbs 15:8)

Yes, God loves a cheerful giver, but cheerful giver must possess in his heart the worthiness of being a bearer of offering to the Most Reverend and Holy God. He never accepts offerings from anyone, except those persons who have a pure heart and clean hands because God will never suffer to have both iniquity and offering.

“Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;” (Isaiah 1:13-16)

And Christ, during His ministry on earth, commanded;

“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. “ (Matthew 5:23-24)

The offering has a godly lesson for those who have been commanded. It was not given to cultivate corruption or to make the grace of God available with silver or gold. It was not given to sanction wickedness or to empower the hands of the wicked people to continue their vile enterprises, because if we will use it as cover to justify sin, plague and wrath of God will fall upon us.

Living the True Life

There are different interpretations given by man regarding life. Many people say that life is a field where we need to survive by overcoming pain, sufferings, hardship and emotional distress. For some, life is heaven when we achieved our goals and the dreams that we aimed. And for others, life is wonderful if we have our loved ones like family, friends, or somebody who is so special to our heart. Hence, the definition of life depends on how a person lives upon it with the help of those things surrounding him. But if we will look at  it  in biblical perspective and with our own spiritual comprehension, we cannot say that life on earth, whether rich or poor, is truly a real life. Here, we feel the pain, acquire sickness and then die. When we say life, it should be a real life, and death cannot be a part of it. Death is the opposite of life. Anything that degrades life, whether it’s physical or emotional, cannot contain its essence. Hence, the Bible said;

“By doing this they will be storing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future so that they may take hold of real life. “(I Timothy 6:19)

Yes, there is  a real life. WE cannot say that this is a white paper if this paper was stained even by a little  amount of blood or, we cannot say that this is a white board if it was spotted even by little of different color. The same if life suffers death and pain. Real life is a  kind of life free from corruption, everlasting in existence and pure in its nature. And we cannot find genuine and perfect life here on earth but only in Christ, who is  at the side of the Father.

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (I John 1:2)

But God brought us in this world that we ourselves will look for the life He promised through His Son. By His words and commandments, we can able to learn how to attain such perfect life, and by the freedom that God vested upon us, we can choose it or forsake it. God said;

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Life in this world is so short. We are lucky enough if we reached 50. So we should not devote this very little time in seeking our own pleasures, money, lust, enjoyment, and anything that satisfies us temporarily. God gave us a short but enough time to seek that genuine life which He wants for us. He sent His Beloved Son to make our search easier and fruitful. Following the footsteps of Christ is the most comfortable path to eternal life. All we have to do is choose. Which one; life or death?


The Veneration of Mary; What the Bible Says


He whom Thou wast meet to bear. Alleluia!
As He promised hath arisen. Alleluia!
Pour for us to God thy prayer. Alleluia!

V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
R. For the Lord is risen indeed, alleluia.

(Regina Coeli)

Written above was an old Marian hymn entitled Regina Coeli, one of the four seasonal Marian antiphons of the so called “Blessed Virgin Mary”, sung or recited in place of the Angelus during the Easter season, from Holy Saturday through Pentecost Sunday. The Latin word coelum means “heaven” (whence the English word celestial), and Regina means “queen”. Yes! Regina Coeli, which is a song for Mary, literally means “Queen of Heaven” because the Catholic Church, by the encyclical letter Ad Caeli Reginam of Pius XII,  defined Mary to be the Queen of Heaven. The Catholic Saint Germanus praised her by saying, “Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels.” But no matter how high they uplift her name, no matter how majestic are the titles they have attributed to her or how solemn is their devotion to honor her, there is no single biblical statement that supports the Catholics veneration of Mary, neither she was called “queen”. The only biblical account that specifies the state of Mary aside from being the mother of Christ in the flesh was the statement uttered by Mary herself.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:38)

Mary never claimed any dignified or honorable position during Christ ministry, but with meekness, she admitted her humble state in the sight of God – a slave, a bondmaid. She was never called a queen, much more “the queen of heaven”, a title that provokes the wrath of God since the time of the Old Covenant, when pagan nations and the apostatized Israel are gathering woods to make offerings for her.

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jer 7:18)

Today, millions of people who professed to serve God and calling themselves “Christians” are following that same kind of abomination by elevating Mary into a majestic worshipful position as she is a deity. Biblical passages are being twisted, tales and forged stories are being used to support the so-called Veneration of the Blessed Virgin. The Catholic Church is the foremost of Marian worshipers and the Protestant world is gradually following her footsteps. The Muslim world, because of several Koranic passages that teach the same Catholic Marian doctrines, is also joining hand in hand with their Catholic counterparts in propagating the alleged sinlessness of Mary. A solid image of a tamed faced woman has been erected to describe her appearance, and over a billion bowed down before this graven image, calling her “Mama”.

Saying to a stock, Thou [art] my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: (Jer. 2:27)

“Saying to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth.”

We have to realize that Mary, like us, is also a sinful person and she herself needs a Savior. Mary said; “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46,47) Mary needs a Saviour, this implies that she is also sinful like. She can not save her own soul or the other’s?  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the belief that Mary saves sinners is a blasphemous lie that even Mary would detest it if she only knows how her name linked to this abominable teachings. The Catholic Church believes that Mary was taken to heaven and assumed a great honor and dignity at the court of the Most High. Hence, they regarded her as the “Mediatrix”,  an advocate, a lady intercessor, a priestess for the sins of the people, which is a very terrible denial of the gospel.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (I Timothy 2:5)

A woman lifted up her voice and told Christ; “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked”, but Jesus said, “More than that, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke 11:28) Christ is the sole channel of God’s grace, the sole authority of our souls and the only Mediator that propitiates the Father for our sins, neither Mary nor anyone among the saints. The Holy Scriptures says;

 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

(I John 2:1-2; Luke 4:12)

Myth of Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Dr. Jose Rizal is an ideal man of intellect; a man of fascinating records not just in his own country but even in foreign lands. His literary contributions stirred up the spirit of nationalism which aim is to liberate a nation, not by force, but by means of intellectual revolution. His writings, his sayings, his peaceful approach to national problem, and his contributions in the field of science opened the way to win the respect and admiration of the world including those citizens of the very country that conquered his mother land. But when the man of knowledge blown his criticisms against the hypocrites of the Church, the ideal records of a hero was sealed with a shameful fate.

Some of Rizal’s writings contained expositions and direct attacks to the Catholic Church’s cruelties and hypocrisy in spite of the claim that the friars were given the authority to forgive sins.  He boldly exposed the intense corruption and the selling of God’s grace by these friars as part of the gospel  they preached among the unlearned subjects of their Spanish King. Since Rizal was a distinctive man, and not just a man among slaves, it would be a great shame for the Church if such talent will die living before us a bunch of writings exposing the corruptions of the Catholic Church.  Hence, they formulated a myth that made our hero less credible in front of his admirers – the Myth of Rizal’s Retraction.


At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. (READ). The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The “original” text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received “an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . .” He proceeded: “I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . .” Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This “exact” copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the “original” text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: “Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…” On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: “besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. “For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.

Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery.” After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

On May 18, 1935, the lost “original” document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the “original” but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the “original” while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the “original” and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words “mi cualidad” (with “u”) which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” (with “u”).

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word “Catolica” after the first “Iglesias” which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third “Iglesias” the word “misma” which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said “This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza.” However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the “exact” copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the “exact” copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

“…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself.”

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained “the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made”; the other, which is “that of the Archbishop” was “the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal” (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the “exact copy” was “written and signed by Rizal” but he did not say “written and signed by Rizal and himself” (the absence of the reflexive pronoun “himself” could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only “suspected” that “Rizal himself” much as Fr. Balaguer did “not know nor … remember” whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the “exact copy” came from the Archbishop! He called it “exact” because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which “changes” (that is, where deviated from the “exact” copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the Archbishop (the “exact” copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with “changes”) is that the latter was “shorter” be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the phrases “in which I was born and educated” and “[Masonary]” as the enemy that is of the Church” – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The “exact” copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his “Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with “u”) and omits the word “Catolica” as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only “heard”.

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. “Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines,” Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right…”

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; “The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it.” Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting. (SOURCE)

Ninoy’s Death: The Plotters and the Reason


Benigno Aquino Jr. or popularly called by his countrymen as “Ninoy” is one of the most famous Filipino politicians of the 21st century. When dictatorship shot the mouth of criticisms and breaks the hand of resistance against its policies, this brave Filipino senator played the role of an arch adversary  to the Marcos government.  Although exiled, Mr. Aquino continued of prosecuting the so-called Marcos tyranny. But when victory was almost at hand of the Filipino people as their modern hero returned to the country, Mr. Aquino was shot by a mysterious gunman. Allegations raised against the  Marcoses, particularly the First Lady who named as the orchestrator of the plot.  But the Marcoses denied the accusation, saying that Ninoy is certainly not a threat to the dictatorship. In fact, before the assassination, one of the President’s closest associates, Juan Ponce Enrile, delayed the arrival of Ninoy to prove that the alleged eagerness of the government to destroy the prime opposition is false. The First Lady recalled that in May 1983 she warned Ninoy about the plot and told that the assassins are waiting for his return to the country but the Senator ignored it until the plot was realized. Furthermore, intelligence report says that the Senator’s passport was taken by the First Lady in order to prevent him from returning to the country. So if the Marcoses denied the allegation of murder, who then orchestrated the crime? If the government has nothing to do with it, then who and for what reason they killed the “liberator” of his people?

Filipino people considered the death of Ninoy as a legendary part of the nation’s history, but as I discovered the fact behind his assassination, I learned that Mr. Aquino’s death is a “peace of legend in much greater story”. And this legend was happened many years before the rise of the Marcoses, at the time of the Japanese imperialism in Asia.

“Everything started in gold”, as the writer declared. During the Second World War in Asia, the Japanese imperialists exploited almost all of the gold reserve in the South East region. Fearing that their force will soon lost in war, the Japanese princes rushed to bring the looted valuable Asian treasures into Japan. But when they learned that the Allied forces was about to enter into the Far East, the Japanese princes ordered that the treasures be buried for the meantime in some part of their conquered land. When the Americans arrived and destroyed the Japanese forces, the Allied forces in Asia learned the whereabouts of gold and started to dig tunnels where it was said to be buried. Great amount of Asian gold has been shipped to the United States, but still great amount were left in the region, particularly in the Philippines. Concerning to this great amount of gold in the Philippines, the Japanese general, Tomoyuki Yamashita, and his personal driver, Maj. Koshima Kashii, are the only person in Earth who knows the location of the remaining treasures. Tomoyuki was sentenced to death, but Kashii has been handed to a mysterious man named Severino Garcia Diaz Santa Romana. Who is Santa Romana? Well, Santa Romana, accordingly, was an officer of intelligence,but later proven as a Vatican envoy and member of the Opus Dei in charged to the Asia’s looted gold. (The Inquirer, October 29, 1999). While Europe’s gold are being looted by the Nazis, Asian valuables are being looted by the Japanese, and Santa Romana is here to recover them. To supervise Santa Romana, the Allied forces charged Capt. Edward Lansdale, America’s well-known Cold War soldier. Because of the pain of torture, Kashii opened the secrets of gold’s chambers and made his captors exceedingly astonished. The President of the United States, after discussing about the looted treasures, made this information as high-confidential state secret. The Citibank CEO John Reed was a well-informed personality concerning to Santa Romana-Lansdale Black Gold Operation. Reed and Citibank systematically sold those alleged gold bullion to buyers and converting the sales proceeds to their own use.

The gold bullion that Santa Romana and Lansdale looted from the Philippines was stored in 176 accounts in 42 countries. So many countries had linked their currencies to the US dollar, and the dollar linked to gold, that currency values throughout the world would plummet, causing financial disaster. Hence, Santa Romana was given the title as the “gatekeeper” of the Japanese plundered treasures. And because he was a titleholder of bullion accounts in banks all over the world, one company was not adequate. He was the owner of those companies such as Nanette Enterprise, Poirotte Enterprise, and Diaz-Poirotte Enterprise. They are shell companies, set up to hide the movement of the gold bullion from Manila to world banking centers.

The corporate logo for Santy’s (Santa Romana) flagship DNP Enterprises was an open umbrella, signifying ‘umbrella organization’. But it was not just a logo. The umbrella was also a codename for the group where Santy relied on to move the gold from the Philippines to foreign banks. The Umbrella grew rapidly in the late 1970s into a powerful network mingling with CIA agents, Mafia godfathers, Filipino secret police, and Marcos hitmen. One part of the Umbrella organization was an American ex-convict millionaire Wallace Groves, owner of the Grand Bahama Island, whose casinos there and in Nassau were operated by the mobster Meyer Lansky. One of Groves’ partners in the ownership of the Grand Bahama Island was the Wall Street firm, Allen and Co. run by Herbert and Charlie Allen. The Allen’s owned a big part of the Benguet Mines in the Philippines, while Herbert was a golfing crony of Marcos. In a complex deal, Groves and the Allens swapped a piece of Grand Bahama to Marcos in return for nearly complete control of Benguet. This allowed the Umbrella to move-war gold out of the Philippines, masquerading as gold from Benguet Mines. Once the gold reached certain banks in Nassau, it serves as part of an elaborate money-laundering scheme that included washing drug profits through the Groves casinos, then converting them into gold bars. At the start, Santa Romana’s gold valued to the estimation of $50 trillion dollars.
Ferdinand Marcos began his connection to the legendary treasures when he was employed as attorney to Mr. Santa Romana. In his

Ferdinand Marcos and wife, Imelda

capacity as lawyer and chief trustee of Sta. Romana, Marcos “succeeded in isolating the nominees or trustees of the gold certificates from the physical assets – so much so, that it is almost impossible to recover them without piecing the various pieces like a mosaic.” By abusing his position as trustee, Marcos effectively gained control of Sta. Romana’s gold and later, when he had became President, used the “Central Bank to transact the gold.” Really obsessed of the gold issue, Marcos focused his mind to gold mining activity, which the main reason is to continue the quest for the Japanese gold. To Marcos, the natural resources of Sabah were the ultimate gold mine, thus he caused the so called Project Jabida which aim is to sabotage and make insurgency in Sabah. The recruits were Filipino Muslims and the target was a Malaysian Muslim state. The recruits rebelled and then massacred.On March 1968, Walter Fessler, an official of Credit Suisse Bank in Zurich, came to Manila. He was brought to Malacanang. Forms were filled out and signatures appended. In his signature verification form, Marcos wrote out “William Saunders (pseudonym),” an alias he used in his WWII days, and underneath that name he wrote “Ferdinand Marcos (real name).” Imelda did the same, choosing Jane Ryan as her pseudonym. Four bank accounts were opened. Four checks, totalling US$950,000.00 were given for the deposit. In February 13, 1970, the Saunders and Ryan accounts were closed and the money transferred to the Xandy Foundation account at Credit Suisse. This would be the first of many foundations set up in this manner with Swiss bankers and lawyers as directors to hide the identities of Marcos and Imelda.
In 1971, the controversial Golden Bhudda which a locksmith discovered in Baguio clashed within the atmosphere. Marcos, who was very obsessed of the Yamashita Treasures, heard of the news of the Buddha. Immediately, the President’s uncle, Judge Pio Marcos, authorized the search of Roger Roxas’ house by an allegation that the man violated a Central Bank regulation. The search became messy and violent. At the end of the day, the Buddha was gone. Roger was picked up, blindfolded and driven to a secret location outside Manila. He thought it was a military camp in Pampanga. They tortured him until he signed a confession stating Marcos was not involved in the theft of the Buddha.

In August 21 of the same year, Roger Roxas was fetched by the opposition to be their main exhibit in the anti-Marcos campaign to dramatize the gold-greed and tyrannical methods of the President. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus followed a month later – one of the elements forming the yearlong prelude to martial law, which in the first stage, was supported by the Catholic Church in the Philippines and the government of the United States. Cardinal Santos and other bishops endorsed the martial law proclamation of Marcos in 1972 and called for giving the latter a chance to undertake “reforms”.

In July 1978, after a trip to Russia, Imelda arrived in New York and immediately warmed up for a shopping spree. She started with paying $193,320 for antiques, including $12,000 for a Ming Period side table; $24,000 for a pair of Georgian mahogany Gainsborough armchairs; $6,240 for a Sheraton double-sided writing desk; $11,600 for a George II wood side table with marble top – all in the name of the Philippine consulate to dodge New York sales tax.

A week later she spent $2,181,000.00 in one day! This included $1,150,000 for a platinum and emerald bracelet with diamonds from Bulgari; $330,000 for a necklace with a ruby, diamonds, and emeralds; $300,000 for a ring with heart-shaped emeralds; $78,000 for 18-carat gold ear clips with diamonds; $300,000 for a pendant with canary diamonds, rubies and emeralds on a gold chain.

After New York, she dropped by Hong Kong where a Cartier representative admitted it was this Filipina, Imelda, who had put together the world’s largest collection of gems – in 1978.
The money just kept pouring in.

Lucio Tan paid Marcos Php100 million a year. According to Gapud, Tan “belongs to the group that could get presidential decrees and letters of instruction from Mr. Marcos for their joint benefit.” Marcos demanded 60 percent of the shares of Lucio Tan’s holding company, Shareholdings Inc. which owned Fortune Tobacco, Asia Brewery, Allied bank, and Foremost Farms.

Meanwhile, the Trilateral Commission entered into the Marcoses scenes. The Commission is an international private financial organization run by the personalities linked to the Vatican through the Pilgrims Society and the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta. Believing that they were conned by the Marcoses on how they used the treasures, the Commission, through the President of the United States assigned the US Ambassador-at-Large Philip Habib to persuade Marcos about the demand that his gold bars and other precious metals deposited at Fort Knox and other depositories of the world should be under the guardianship of the Trilateral Commission, and a certain percentage would be given to the Philippine Government in the form of an investment loan from the World Bank. But Marcos refused saying that the treasures belong to the Filipino people. Insulted by the answers of Marcos, Mr. Habib, joined by U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, Stephen Bosworth, Richard Armitage, Michael Armacost, Rep. Stephen Solarz, Norbert Garrett (CIA Station Chief in Manila), and Joseph Mussomelli (Anti-Fraud Section, U.S. Embassy), planned to destroy the name of the Philippine dictator. They launched bulk of negative information through Newsweek, Time and other publications including the illicit love affairs of both Marcos and the First Lady (e.g., George Hamilton), the incurable ailment of the President, and the public confidence in Namfrel and distrust in the Comelec. Then came the walk-out of the computer workers at the PICC. These are all part of the U.S. scenario during the snap election. Most of the computer workers were promised visas and immigrant status to the U.S.

Along the scandals that destroyed the President’s reputation was the growing popularity of the opposition, particularly the name of Benigno Aquino Jr. Mr. Aquino captured the sympathy of his countrymen who were at that time were bewildered by the dark result of the Martial law and the accusations of the Trilaterals against the Marcoses. Unexplainable bravery persuaded Mr. Aquino to return to the Philippines and gambled for his life. In August 21, 1983, Senator Aquino returned to the Philippines. Those military officers and  police scattered all over the airport are ignorant about the airplane where Aquino was boarded. While the Senator descends from the plain with a company of four military officers, a horrible gun-shot rang around the space and in a very short while, Ninoy found dead on the ground. When the news came in Malacanang, Marcos, who was suffering an illness on that time, suddenly enraged and thrown an object in his wrath. Suddenly, Imelda’s name appeared as the primary suspect of the plot, but the First Lady denied the accusation. Imelda reasoned out that Mr. Marcos would never act in such awkward and foolish project since obviously the atmosphere in the Philippines was already very  much unfavorable to the First Family. The world stopped as the death of the famous opposition leader broadcast on air. All blames fell upon the Marcoses, and the streets suddenly ripened for a revolution. The Red Cardinal Jaime Sin and the globalist Stephen Solarz intensified the accusation in order to empty the Marcoses with support, either from the Philippines or America. More so, Senator Edward Kennedy is loudly telling  before the Opposition forces in Manila that Marcos was actually behind the murder, while not offering any proof to support such assertion. As the imperialist elements from the States were busy of their propaganda against Mr. Marcos, the Catholic Church in the Philippines is doing her own work to crush the weakening regime. Rev. Jose Blanco, a militant Jesuit, tried to destabilize the regime of President Marcos by means of violent acts, including series of bombings. The Jesuit  Romeo Intengan is also doing the same procedures. Ninety-six people have been accused in the  destabilization conspiracy, with the opposition politicians Jovito Salonga as their leader. Meanwhile, Cory Aquino was instructed by Cardinal Sin to seek refuge in a convent in Cebu. As the fireworks are about to start, Cory installed her revolutionary government in Davao with the assistance of the RAM forces and her NFIA sympathizers. This alternate plan was likewise designed by the CIA, with Col. Voltaire Gazmin as in-charge of securing the revolutionary president. Until finally, Marcos peacefully left the Philippines due to the insistence of Cardinal Sin, who was backed up all the way by the Vatican and the U.S. State Department. Cory ended up as the sole titular head of the state.Marcos was forced from office and went to Hawaii with his family where they held effectively under house arrest. Marcos and his wife told before the people—including the reporters from The Spotlight—that they had never expected to be taken to Hawaii, that they had, instead, expected to be flown to safety from Manila to Marco’s hometown in  Ilocos Norte. Billions of dollars worth of gold certificates that the Marcos [couple] had taken with them were confiscated by the U.S. government. But when the Marcoses demanded the return of the certificates, U.S. said  that the certificates were “fake”. The Reagan Administration, while confiscating the treasures of Marcos, spread out the allegation that Marcos actually stolen the wealth of his own nation.Until the Cory Aquino administration, the mastermind behind the assassination of her husband remained unresolved and  and the case mysterious. Marcos’ Agrava Report suggested that the Communists were the shadows behind the murder, and that some of the military were hired by the insurgents. However, by the help of some evidences and by elaborating of how various elements settled the downfall of Marcos, probabilities that a military conspiracy was actually planned, not by the communist or Muslim renegade, but by the powers who supplied all what they needed and designed what has been done prior to the dictator’s downfall. I think it’s important to emphasize that the White House warned Marcos by saying that he must “avoid an attack against other elements of the Philippine armed forces.”, noting that the United States was providing military assistance to the Philippine army.