Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.

BSIT 511

The Retraction
Controversy of
Dr. Jose Rizal

Submitted by:
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
Submitted to:
Mrs. Raqel P. Oclares
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
Introduction

In about a hundred years, Dr. Jose P. Rizal is recognized as an international and national hero.

He’s an icon that Filipinos look up to as a role model. The contributions and efforts that he made

in the attainment of the Philippine independence, among others, were greatly valued. Having a

diplomatic form of resistance against the Spanish colony, using pen and paper as a weapon to

expose the abusive regime, and striving to open the eyes of his fellowmen are indeed a noble

way of fighting for a reform. His intellectual brilliance, his beliefs, and his ideologies are one of

the all-time favorite subject of researchers and historians to study. One of the topic that seemed

never ending is the controversy of Dr. Jose P. Rizal’s retraction at the remaining hours of his life.

Because of the confusing detail of it, the reputation of the nation’s hero is being questioned. Two

parties emerged as the issue continues to be unresolved. One firmly believe that with the

evidences present, it is true that Rizal indeed retracted. While the other is determined to prove

that a forgery happened, knowing Rizal as an honorable man, he couldn’t possibly retracted in

the face of death. With that, both parties have their own analysis of the significant event

particular to the remaining hours of Dr. Jose P. Rizal at Fort Santiago. The controversy persists

due to the contradicting parties’ refusal to take each other’s evidences.

Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
Sides and/or Evidences of the Controversy
The Jesuit Perspective
According to the resources, the remaining days of Rizal’s life particular on December 29, 1896
was so significant that everyone’s eye is on it. The press, domestically or internationally, closely
monitor the events prior to Rizal’s execution. On December 30, 1896 papers based in Manila,
Madrid, and some in foreign countries released a statement or testimonies about Rizal’s
retraction. The newspapers released in Manila are those of: 1. DIARIO DE MANILA, December
30, 1896, who reported “CURRENT EVENTS” about Rizal repenting the whole night assisted
by Fathers Vilaclara and March, also in the paper is the attached copy of Rizal’s handwritten
retraction; 2. LA VOZ ESPAÑOLA, December 30, 1896, reported “THE SENTENCE OF THE
TRIAL” where they stated that Rizal reconciled the last hour with the Catholic religion also
attached the copy of his own handwritten retraction sent by the Archbishop; 3. EL ESPAÑOL,
December 30, 1896, reported “WHAT IS HAPPENING” where it was written that God, in His
infinite mercy, received the soul of Rizal who showed repentance in chapel of his prison cell and
was accompanied by Father Saderra and Rosell who assisted him spiritually. On December 31,
1896 they also released a paper containing Rizal’s handwritten retraction, emphasizing Rizal’s
abjuration of errors and reentering the true religion; 4. EL COMERCIO, December 30, 1896,
reported “TODAY’S NEWS” “Execution” where they affirmed Rizal’s repentance in the
company of Ftrs. March and Vilaclara, also disclosing the copy of Rizal’s handwritten and
signed abjuration or retraction, and; 5. LA OCEANIA ESPAÑOLA, December 31, 1896,
reported “THE REBELLION” saying that with Ftrs. March and Villaclara and two other
witnesses, Rizal signed the retraction.
While the newspapers in Madrid are: 1. EL IMPARCIAL, published two long cable by direct
telegram sent by their associate correspondent in Manila, Don Manuel Alhama. They reported
“RIZAL IN CHAPEL” and “THE ABJURATION” where they narrated that two famous Jesuits
Father Faura and Vilaclara visited Rizal and persuade him to turn his eyes to heaven, even with
Rizal’s refusal to confess at first, until he eventually carry on with the repentance, he also wrote
about his retraction which is attached in the newspaper; 2. HERALDO DE MADRID, December
30, 1896, published three articles (such as, Spiritual Assistance; Last Moments, and; Written
Abjuration) copied from their Manila correspondent Don Santiago Mataix, and; 3. EL SIGLO
FUTURO, January 13, 1933, published a news that came from their Manila correspondent Don
Felix Murugarren. There’s also two Magazine in Spain that took particular attention, namely, LA
JUVENTUD, a fortnightly magazine in Barcelona, Spain that released series of article containing
the authentic “account” written by Father Vicente Balaguer, and; LA POLITICA DE ESPAÑA
EN FILIPINAS, a fortnightly review directed and managed by Don Wenceslao E. Retana
containing a publication on February 28, 1897 under the heading “ABJURACIONES” that has
the names of significant people who retracted and Rizal’s full copy of retraction under special
authograph that Retana probably obtained from private reports in the Philippines. [ CITATION
Cav61 \l 13321 ]
With those, the Jesuit party strengthen their view that the retraction really happened the night
before Rizal’s execution. Moreover, there were also official testimonies from eyewitnesses such
as Reverend Vicente Balaguer Llacer, S.J., Captain Rafael Dominguez y Garcia, Lieutenant
Mariano Martinez Gallegos, Reverend Luis Visa y Marti, S.J., Very Reverend Pio Pi y Vidal,
S.J., Lieutenant Juan Del Fresno Del Amo, Lieutenant Eloy Moure y Gomez, Most Reverend
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
Bernardino Nozaleda y Villa, Very Reverend Silvino Lopez Tuñon, Reverend Tomas Gonzales
Feijoo, His Excellency Gaspar Castaño y Gonzales-Alberu, and Reverend Antonio Rosell y
Ginestet, S.J. Each of them declared testimonies/statements and have been part of the crucial
events. [ CITATION Cav61 \l 13321 ]
The Jesuits play an important role in Rizal’s remaining 24 hours of life. Having instructed by
Manila Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to take care of Rizal’s spiritual needs. Father Pio Pi
accepted the task for the reason, Rizal is very distinguished and dear pupil in Ateneo Municipal
High School. Ftr. Pi also told the other Jesuits to persuade Rizal in retracting his anti-catholic
teachings and abomination of masonry by means of writing and following the two retraction
sample templates approved by the archbishop, this two matters are the supposed requirement
before they minister the sacrament. Fr. Saderra and Fr. Visa were the first who visited Rizal,
carrying with them the figurine of Sacred Heart of Jesus that Rizal personally carved as a
student. It was Fr. Balaguer who wrote extensively about the significant event. Being the one
personally present and who mostly assisted Rizal, he insisted that his affidavit should be
considered as the primary source [ CITATION Esc19 \l 13321 ] . He narrated in great detail the
happenings of Rizal’s retraction. (See also: Cavanna, 1961, p. 6-10; Escalante, 2019, p. 371-374,
[ CITATION RPG64 \l 13321 ]) Father Balaguer, the priest who administered the retraction to Rizal,
states:

Me declaro católico, y en esta Religión, en que nací y me eduqué,

quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazón de cuanto en mis
palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario á mi
calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña, y
me someto á cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como
enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la
misma Iglesia.
Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica,
hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía, para reparar el
escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar, y para que Dios y
los hombres me perdonen
Manila, 29 de Diciembre de 1896
José Rizal
Jefe del Piquete
Juan del Fresno
Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure (Retana 1907, 426–427)
Fig. I. A reproduction of the retraction, reduced in size.
This copy was given to the author by His Grace, the
Archbishop of Manila. (Pascual, 1935)
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live
and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct
has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess
whatever she teaches, and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the
enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church.
The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this
spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have
caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
The Chief of the Picket
Juan del Fresno
Adjutant of the Plaza
Eloy Moure (Guerrero 1971, 458–459)

The Anti-retractionist Perspective

On the other hand, the anti-retractionists, mainly members of Masonry and academicians,
refused to believe what the Jesuits insists as truth. Their arguments are the following:
1. The Jesuits basis in persuading Rizal to retract is suspicious enough. [ CITATION Pas35 \l
13321 ]
a. It has been said that the Jesuits aim to persuade Rizal to retract since he was in
Dapitan
b. Rizal was sentenced to death by December 26, 1896, but he was imprisoned in
Fort Santiago for about two months. Then, why did the Jesuits decided to visit
Rizal on the last 24 hours of his life to guide him spiritually and not earlier than
that?
2. There are obvious inconsistencies in Retraction statements of the eyewitnesses [ CITATION
Pas35 \l 13321 ]
a. According to Trinidad Rizal, she last saw Rizal in the Chapel on December 29,
1896, between seven and eight o’clock in the evening but there wasn’t a mention
about Rizal’s retraction and even marrying Josephine. At the ninth day after her
brother’s death, the Jesuits invited them to attend a mass for Rizal with the
promise of showing the secured retraction. They waited until the mass were
finished but there was nothing presented to them. From then on, that retraction
was not even seen.
b. According to Father Luis Visa, when they visited Rizal at 6am of December 29 he
declared his intentions of marrying Josephine. But this intention weren’t even
relayed to his sister Trinidad.
c. According to Father Balaguer, the family of Dr. Jose Rizal visited on December
30, but it was disproved by the family stating that they were only allowed to visit
Rizal on 29th of December. This inconsistency proves incredibility of Fr. Balaguer
as a primary source.
 Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
3. In analysis of the Retraction Document it was found that fraud and forgery existed.
[ CITATION Pas35 \l 13321 ]
a. In Dr. Jose Rizal beyond the Grave by Ricardo R Pascual, an analysis of the
document was made. This includes the form of writing, variation in letters
standardly compared to Rizal’s “Ultimo Adios” and “Defensa”.
b. Also, a textual criticism was made in the authenticity of the document. The
released copy of Archbishop Nozelada has a clear difference from that of Fr.
Balaguer’s [ CITATION Pas35 \l 13321 ]. 2 distinct forms of the text with significant
differences- the 1935 document which was claimed to be “lost and found,” and
the text published by Balaguer in 1987 which claims to be an exact copy of the
original. [ CITATION Hes16 \l 13321 ]

Fig. II. Varieties of forms of Capital Letters Fig. IV.Variations in the forms of letter “h”
found in the retraction. found in the retraction.
Fig. III. Variations in the form of letter “a”
found in the retraction.

Fig. VI. Variations in the

Fig. V. Variations in forms
forms of the initial letter
of terminal letter “o” found
"p" found in the retraction.
in the retraction.

Fig. VII. The Poem of Dr. Fig. VIII. The "Defensa"

Jose Rizal, posthumously which Dr. Rizal wrote for
entitled as “Ultimo the use of his defender.
Adios”, found in the Don Luis Taviel de
alcohol stove that the Andrade. The date of this
Martyr gave to his sister document is December
Trinidad Rizal. 12, 1896.
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511

4. Analyzing the deep meaning of Rizal’s acceptance in his written retraction is doubtful
a. He wrote, “I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic
Church” – Rizal is a noble man who stand by his beliefs until death, did he mean
in this statement that he retracts his words about the manner how the Catholic
religion was practiced as well as his opinions about the abusive friars?
b. “I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she
demands.” – does the pronoun ‘she’ in here is about God? Or did he meant about
the imperceptive submission to what the friars wanted?
c. “…repair the scandals that my acts have caused…” – what could he possibly
mean about the scandals he made? He is a rational being who is responsible for
his actions. It’s comical to even think about it.
5. Missing documents.
a. The retraction document suddenly went missing after Rizal’s death. And was just
found after 39 years. Why does this scream suspicious. Considering that the
document is very important, why is it not found?
b. Saying that Dr. Jose Rizal and Josephine married in the same time, then why is
there no such evidence of marriage certificate?
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511

The Stand

The positive stand

In consideration of the evidences provided above, I mostly agree to the perspective of the anti-

retractionists or those who are part of the masonry and academicians who took part in studying

the controversy. This is because it makes more sense to me than the other argument. The way

they presented their evidences are concise. The inconsistencies in the retraction documents as

well as the declared statements by the eyewitnesses are obvious. Also, the main motive of the

Jesuits itself, are intriguing and appears to be biased. Another matter that has been emphasized in

this hot debate is the forgery of the said documents.

The negative stand

In opposition, I believe that the perspective of the Jesuits have lots of inadequacy. Their motives

in converting Rizal is too questionable. This includes the sworn narrations of the eyewitnesses

and the lapse in showing the retraction document. They released statements in the past that are

not credible and has uncertainty. Although there’s a lot of evidence showing that the Jesuits are

the significant people in Rizal’s last 24 hours of life, their relentless pushing of retractions says a

deeper meaning.

Final stand

To sum up, my stand is that Rizal did not really retract in a way that he took back all of his

stance and writings about the malpractice of the Catholic religion and abuse of the friars at that
Rizzi, Clifford Chazz L.
BSIT 511
time. I believe that Dr. Jose Rizal, a noble man and out national hero, has unyielding values and

would not cease fighting for his beliefs even in the face of death.

References
Cavanna, J. M. (1961). Rizal's Unfading Glory: A documentary history of the conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal
(Vol. 1). California: The University of California.

Cavanna, J. M. (1961). Rizal's Unfading Glory: A documentary history of the conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal
(Vol. 1). California: The University of California.

Cavanna, J. M. (1961). Rizal's Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal.
6-10.

Escalante, R. (2019, December). Southeast Asian Studies. Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal's
Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports, 8(3), 369-386. doi:10.20495/seas.8.3_369

Garcia, R. P. (1964). The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction. California: The University of California.

Hessel, E. A. (2016). Eugene A. Hessel papers concerning José Rizal. San Marino, California.

Pascual, R. R. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of Bagumbayan.
Manila, Philippines.

https://myhomeworkwriters.com/did-jose-rizal-retract-essay/