Part 1:

The mark of the beginning of the authenticity of Rizal’s renouncement

of his errors to the Church, was the rumors of Rizal’s retraction formula from
different texts and articles, among these writings, at least four texts has
made good point to support the authenticity of the said retraction. The first
text to surface on this topic appeared on the very day of Rizal’s execution,
on December 30, 1896, two newspaper companies, the La Voz Española and
Diario de Manila, released the said texts as the first article to be written for
the retraction. The second text surfaced in the 14th of February 1897,
published by an anonymous writer, and published by the La Juventud
magazine, later by then the anonymous writer revealed himself as Fr.
Balaguer, the very first man who testified the retraction. The third to appear
was the article, informing the discovery of the lost original copy of the
retraction. Lastly, the fourth article surfaced and it contains the short
formula of Father Pi that believed to be used be Rizal on his retraction
formula, it was only later by then that the discovered that this text was
published by El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution, the 31 st of
December 1896
One point of argument from my research that Rizal really did made a
retraction was the account that during his exile in Dapitan he really made a
retraction there approximately at year 1995. The reason behind this
account, was the arrival of Josephine Bracken as he fell in love with her, he
wanted to marry this woman according to the cannon law. However, the
guide of Bracken and her stepfather, Manuela Orlac, objected the plan of
Rizal, the guide stated that Rizal cannot do so unless he sign a profession of
faith to the Catholic Church. So this means he would really write a retraction
formula by then which would be checked by the Archbishop of Cebu. But
according to Professor Austin Craig, his close friend father Obach, the priest
in Dapitan shared to him that Rizal realizing “late” that this retraction was
the one thing that friars has been waiting to get from him so he hurriedly
reclaim the letter as Obach was already set to send the mail to the
archbishop of Cebu. Within this argument, it can be concluded that some
way or another, Rizal did really retracted just in order to marry Bracken by
the canon law.
Aside from this untold story view of the argument, according to my
research, a lot of debates has been held in order to investigate the
authenticity of the retraction of Rizal Perhaps, one of the leading
contributors on the rise of the controversy of Rizal’s retraction was Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. Fr. Balaguer. According to some old articles, the priest
was a Jesuit missionary who guided and dealt with Rizal on his exile in
Dapitan, and during these duration of Rizal’s four year exile in Dapitan, they
engaged in various conversations. One of their common topics was a crucial
issue for them, religion, Fr. Balaguer is a Jesuit Missionary of the Catholic
Church and on the other hand, there goes Rizal a former Catholic and a
pronounced member of freemasonry. Despite of this difference, the two
were good friends that one of the conversations even led to Rizal to give
hope to Fr. Balaguer that he would pray that his faith would led him back to
the Catholic Church. Rizal probably said it after the priest told him that he
would be condemned in hell if he does not renounce his accusations to the
Catholic Church, and also probable the main reason why he said so is
because he cannot marry Josephine Bracken if he does not revert back to
the church. Aside from this, Fr. Balaguer is believed to be the man who first
proclaimed that he has the original copy of the lost Retraction formula of
Rizal. During the midafternoon of December 29, 1896, the day before Rizal’s
execution, the priest once again tried to convince Rizal to retract, as he
could still be able to marry Josephine Bracken before he dies and so he
would not be condemned in hell, almost 7 pm by then, Rizal allegedly
decided to retract by then. For the start of his retraction, he asked his
former Physics professor at Escuela Municipal, Father Jose Villaclara. for the
retraction formula as he confesses his religious errors (now Ateneo), who
was with them to here Rizal’s confession, the former teacher of Rizal then
advised his former student that a retraction formula is on its way to be
delivered directly on his prison in Fort Santiago from the archbishop himself.
Rizal by then agreed to wait for this formula to arrive in his cell at Fort
Santiago, it is believe by then, that it was almost 10 pm by then already
when the retraction formula from the archbishop arrived. However, some
articles stated that, when Rizal read the formula, he found it long to write
and the writing style of the formula was very different from his own writing
style. After this conclusion of Rizal, he then asked the priest for another
formula, which would depict, that he himself is the one writing the retraction
formula, in accordance of the request of the hero, Fr. Balaguer then gave
Rizal the a shorter retraction formula made by another senior Jesuit priest,
Father Pio Pi, which was also found by the archbishop by then also adequate
for Rizal’s confession and retraction. According to some historical debates,
when Fr. Balaguer appeared to prove the authenticity of the Rizal’s
retraction, 14 years later after the execution of Dr. Jose Rizal, the priest sent
a letter then to Padre Pio Pi containing both the original copy of the
retraction believed to be written and signed by Rizal himself, together with
the retraction formula written by Father Pi, which was used to be presented
at the first debates of the authenticity of the retraction. However, these said
copies suddenly disappeared.
Another point of about Rizal’s retraction which greatly supported the
statements of Father Balaguer, is the founding of the copies the priest sent
to Padre Pio Pi. Fr. Manuel Garcia, the archdiocesan archivist, found on May
18, 1935 the said “original copy” which was suddenly lost. Fr, Garcia’s
discovery of the retraction copy was a huge lift to determine which copy was
correct from the different copies of the retraction which has different
versions and reject the imitated copies. But most of all there is an argument
that there is really a retraction signed by Rizal and the only thing to be
debated by then was whose handwriting was the original Retraction found by
Fr. Garcia.
Part 2:
After the discovery of the lost original copy, it was later by then
discovered that there are many differences of the original compared the
imitated copies the Jesuits presented to the debates. There are six
differences analysts and critics noticed. Firstly, the word “mi cualidad” was
spelled with the letter “u” in the original, compared to the copy of the
Jesuits, it was spelled without the letter “u”. The second difference spotted is
that the copies of the Jesuits making the second word “Catolica”, which was
the third word word in their copies, after the first word “Iglesias” in which
the original’s first two words was “Iglesias Catolica”. The third is that the
copies of the Jesuits instead putting the “Catolica” as the second word, they
put the word “misma” as the second word, which was obviously not found in
the original copy. Fourth, the way the Jesuits version of the retraction was
paragraphed greatly differs from how the original was paragraphed. Fifth,
the number of commas, the original has only four while the copies of Fr,
Balaguer has 11 commas in all. Lastly, the most important difference was
that compared to the original, Fr. Balaguer’s copies does not contain the
names of the witnesses who the priest himself stated were there during the
time Rizal wrote the retraction. Looking at this argument we could doubt the
authenticity of the retraction as another argument surfaced in support to this
argument. This argument is even though Fr. Vicente Balaguer stated that
he, himself, believes that the retraction copy that he has was writtend and
signed by Rizal personally however, he and Fr. Pio Pi both fail to certify that
it was Rizal’s handwriting, additionally some accounts said that even the
archbishop checked the copy and also fail to ascertain that it was Rizal’s
handwriting. Also another point that is need to be taken note was that
during the hearings of the retraction Fr. Balaguers statements were very
doubtful. Some of which are highly doubted is the witnesses he therefore
mentioned on his letters, that the fact that the priest admitted that the
copies that they are using was made by a copyist that could imitate the
handwriting of Dr. Rizal and which he leads to his statement that he himself
does not remember well whose handwriting the original copy was, and the
most important thing that he admitted, that this copy he has dictated Rizal
the short formula, so as he has the copy for this, there should not be any
differences in his copy from the original.
 Some other minor arguments in support of the above stated “doubtful
statements” of Fr. Balaguer includes the supporting argument about the
difference of witnesses. The priest at some time by then was forced to reveal
the witnesses namely, Señor Moure and Señor Fresno, officials assigned in
the Fort Santiago. However these names were not included in the letter the
priest sent to Father Pio Pi. Also supporting Fr. Balaguer’s statement that
after Rizal finished the retraction by the eve before Rizal’s execution, he said
that the morning before Rizal was transferred by 5:30 am of the day of his
execution to Bagumbayan, Balaguer said that he wedded Rizal and Bracken
by 5:00 am by that day. Contrary to his statement, there is no dominating
proof to support his claim, as the only thing that could verify it, there is no
marriage certificate of Rizal and Bracken to be found up until now.

Also, some of those who argues that Rizal never retracted argued that
they believed so as Rizal would not benefit anything from it even he changed
his mind set by the last hours of his life. According to them, Rizal would still
be executed even though he retracted, which means if Rizal was scared to
die by that time, Rizal known to be an intelligent man knows that he would
gain nothing even if he retracted so the probability of the retraction to exist
would be impossible.