POSITION PAPER

THE RETRACTION OF DR. JOSE RIZAL

Negative Side

ERIC DE LA VEGA

CORAZON PAMA

STEVE LASTER

MARY ANTONETTE BAYLOSIS

 Debate on the Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal

(Negative Side)

I. Introduction

On the year 1896, 30TH of December a history began. A man who has been a writer, a painter,
a musician, a doctor, an artist, a genius, a lover, and a martyr was killed . He was a man who willingly
risked his life to fight against the Spanish tyranny and emancipate his beloved fellow countryman from
the abyss of Spanish cruelty. His work of art, his two famous novels the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, did not only made his people realize the havoc of reality at that time but it also paved the
way for nationalism. A man who has been the epitome of nationalistic patriotism, a man named Dr. Jose
Protacio Mercado Rizal Y Alonzo Realonda.

Jose Rizal’s life, with his sayings, his perspective, and his intellect has been a great inspiration to
his countrymen. On the contrary there are controversies about Rizal’s life that left us hanging and
confused, and until now it is still debated by great historians. The issue that we are referring to is about
Jose Rizal’s so called “retraction”. Did he retract? Or did he not?

According to Father Balaguer’s “Act of Faith, Hope and Charity”, on the night before Rizal’s
execution at ten in the evening, Jesuits hoped to finally wear down his resistance. They exerted much
effort into bringing back Rizal to the Catholic Church. They even told him that God would condemn him
if he won’t retract which made Rizal weep and came into the realization. He was given by Father
Balaguer the long formula of retraction which had been written by order of the Prelate but Rizal did not
sign it for it was too long. Rizal asked Father Balaguer to get a pen and jot down what he will dictate.
And that was Rizal’s retraction document which is considered the chief witness to the reality of the
Retraction.

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine historians such as
Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP, León María Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera,
Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin Craig. They take the
retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost expert on the writings of
Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting experts...known and recognized in our
courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer
book, and recited Catholic prayers, and, the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his
execution. A great grandnephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's confessions were
certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers
including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the Spanish
Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his
integrity.
 But wouldn’t it be absurd, ladies and gentlemen, that the original copy of the retraction letter
went missing and was found by Father Manuel Garcia in the archdiocesan archives 39 years later? Are
Jesuits that irresponsible? Furthermore when the Jesuits reproduced a copy of the retraction document,
Dr. Ricardo Pascual (Ph.D) who was granted the opportunity to inspect and study the document by the
archbishop became sceptical when he compared Rizal’s manner of writing against the retraction paper
that was given to him. He then came to the conclusion which he wrote through his book “Rizal beyond
the grave” that the existing document was a forgery.

Moreover, as what Father Vicente Balaguer has stated as an additional evidence to prove that
Rizal really retracted, his retraction was prelude to his marriage with Josephine Bracken. But Rizal’s
alleged marriage to Josephine Bracken had caused more confusion than clarity because when Fr.
Balaguer was asked to show the Certificate of Marriage of Rizal and Josephine, he showed nothing.

If Rizal really died as a catholic, why did they bury him in an unmarked grave inside what is now
Paco cemetery, and not in a Catholic cemetery where he should belong. They buried him in the place
where Fr. Burgos had been positioned, which is evidently the cemetery for anti-Catholic Church. And
the worst part is, Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin. This was
undeniably, the onus of the “un-confessed.” Indeed, if the Jesuits want to prove that Rizal himself had
retracted why did they bury him collectively where heretics and infidels are laid? They didn’t even offer
a mass in church for Rizal who died as a penitent Catholic. Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose
Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a Christian
burial, but they did not.

If Rizal retracted, he would not have been executed. Or, he would have been an example for the
cause of the friars; he would have been given a decent Christian burial, not buried like a dead dog
outside Paco Cemetery. Did Rizal retract or did he not. May I now give way to my colleague who is
going to deliver, point by point, the circumstantial evidences to prove that no retraction of Rizal was
ever made.

II. Number 1 Argument:

As a group we question this authenticity of Rizal’s retraction on the following grounds:

a. that Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage
between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters.
However, the Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful
morning. Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.

b. Secondly, Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort
Santiago in the morning of the execution.

c. Thirdly, Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr.
Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give
spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could
 “describe” a wedding? Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March to corroborate
the occurrence of a marriage ceremony? Or was there really even one at all?

d. Fourth, in Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of

Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that
Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.

e. Fifth, in the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken”
instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.

f. Sixth, in Josephine Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of
Dr. Jose Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila
stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim. She did not
pursue this. Why not?

g. Seventh, the apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of

Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a handwriting that bore no
resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in syntax, which revealed that the
perpetrating author’s primary language was Spanish (not Josephine’s original language),
thus proving that the document was manufactured and disingenuo

h. Eighth, one must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to
his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an
occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage. A message with that important
information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don
Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.

i. Finally, in 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a

Rizal-Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the
religious. Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”

III. Number 2 Argument:

As a group, we decided that after analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Dr. Ricardo
Pascual of U.P. we concluded that the retraction document, said to have been discovered in
1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the
University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in
keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious
fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin
Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.

IV. Number 3 Argument:

Assuming Rizal retracted he could have died a penitent. Hence, he should have been
buried in the catholic cemetery. But he was actually buried in the Paco cemetery. A
 cemetery for those who are not Catholics. The entry made in the book of burials at the
cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those buried on December
30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the
authorities. Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to
death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered “un-confessed” and without
spiritual aid at the time of death. Further, Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose
Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have
ordered a Christian burial, but they did not. They must have known that no retraction was
made. Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare.

In this 21st century, in this age of an “evidence -based” society that demands
transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and
reformed Catholicism, and in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the
Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in
Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of pedophilia and
other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, then it should not be beyond the Catholic Church to
NOW admit the pious fraud it had committed in saying that Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his
writings and beliefs, when all evidences point to the fact that he did not!

V. Conclusion:

In conclusion, we, in the negative side, submit that indeed, contrary to the assertion of
the affirmative side, no retraction ever took place. Our worthy opponents, by diligent
effort, tried to build a tight case to prove the retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal using voluminous
pieces of testimonial and documentary evidence, as well as, a long list of respected
historians supporting their belief, However, the sum of circumstantial evidence, narrated,
cited and logically presented by our colleagues in the negative side cast serious doubt on
the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction. To reiterate, the negative side established the
following: 1) That Dr. Jose Rizal never married Josephine Bracken under Catholic rites,
contrary to the claim of Father Balaguer; 2) That the retraction document was a clear
forgery as pointed out by Dr. Ricardo Pascual; 3) that Dr. Jose Rizal was not given a Catholic
burial befitting a penitent Catholic, nor was he buried in a Catholic cemetery. All these
evidences clearly point to the fact that Dr. Rizal never retracted, notwithstanding the
severe pressure exerted on him by the mighty Catholic church to do so.

As a group, we share the personal opinion of Rizal’s great grandnephew, Dr. Ramon
Lopez, that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his
writings and beliefs. The arguments to the contrary made by his detractors are all mere
fabrications and retreads of the dubious accounts of the sycophantic Father Balaguer and
his gullible minions. We join him in his appeal not to allow for the sands of time to cover
the blunder of this ignoble and impious event. We raise our voices with him when he says,
“Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent claim. As had been
 vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a
panel of the world’s experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made. Let this
hidden document come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see,
and to judge, and to know what is truthful.”

The great Dr. Jose Rizal, our National Hero, had lived in pursuit of the truth, and gladly
offered his life to defend that truth. For this, we owe him this much – that we leave no
stone unturned in our search for truth on the matter of his retraction.

References:

Cavanna, Jesus Ma. M., C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr.
José Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n. 1956).

Garcia, Ricardo P. The Great Debate, The Rizal Retraction (Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Col,
1964).

Hessel, Eugene A. Rizal’s Retraction: A Note on the Debate. Retrieved from

http://ningaskugonbaga.blogspot.com/2011/10/rizals-retraction-note-on-debate.html

Hessel, Eugene A. The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961).

Laubach, Frank C. Rizal: Man and Martyr (Manila: Community Publishers, 1936).

Lopez, Ramon. Rizal Did Not Retract As Testified By His Great Grandnephew. Retrieved from
http://exposing-catholicism.blogspot.com/2013/03/dr-jose-rizal-did-not-retract-as.html

Palma, Rafael. The Pride of the Malay Race.T ranslated Roman Ozaeta. (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1949).

Pascual, Ricardo R. Rizal Beyond the Grave, Revised Edition (Manila: Luzon Publishing Corp., 1950).

Rizal’s Retraction: Did He or Did He Not? Retrieved from:

http://grezille.blogspot.com/2013/10/rizals-retraction-did-he-or-did-he-not.html

Runes, Ildefonso T. and Mameto R. Buenafe. The Forgery of the Rizal “Retraction” and Josephine’s
“Autobiography” (Manila: BR Book Col, 1962).