Rizal’s Retraction

Lester Jay Medel

Introduction of the controversy

Rizal’s retraction is one of intriguing issues that is all about his reversion to Catholicism. The
Roman Catholic defender claimed that the issue was true and the retraction of document is a
copy, but handwritten experts said that it is genuine or original. It has divided academic
scholars and Catholic believers until today with no resolution if this is a myth or the truth.
The letter was found by Father Garcia in 1935. The date on the letter was December 29, 1896,
was signed by Rizal himself. Rizal’s retraction stated that “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” (Santos, 2011).
The published texts were examined by various Historians and handwriting experts since its
publication. There is a long and shortened version of the text which was believed to have been
written and signed by Rizal himself. There are discrepancies in the spelling and some
differences in the wordings (Jose Rizal University, 204).
Rizal’s retraction, if it indeed happened, is very significant for the Spanish government to be
made known to the Filipinos here and abroad. After all, they uses religion to control, dominate
and hold on to their power.

Side and/or evidences of the controversy

Dr Augusto de Diviana, who heads the UST Department of History, does not believe that the
retraction was forged due to the presence of witnesses. As to the issue of whether he retracted
or not, Dr Diviana pointed that it human nature therefore the retraction is possible (Santos,
2011).
The researcher would like to point out that no one has seen the original note which was
supposedly signed and written by Rizal. What was presented and published was deemed to be
copy of the original.

Frederich Stahl, a pharmacist in manila, wrote to Ferdinand Blumentritt that the Spaniards
published an article about the execution and about Rizal’s retraction but no one has seen the
declaration as it is customary for the Spaniards to “publish the same thing about everyone who
is shot” (Makabenta, 2018).

The published analysis of Rizal’s retraction by the Jose Rizal College (2004) highlighted the
following discrepancies:

1. The words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the
Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

2. The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which
are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The Stand

The researcher believes that there is a possibility that Rizal retracted and went back to Catholic
fold. This may be due to the intention of marrying Josephine Bracken before his passing. The
Catholic Church won’t marry them if he is not a Catholic. Apparently, Rizal had already made
one retraction in Dapitan, two years before his execution, in the hope of marrying Josephine
Bracken. He however reclaim the declaration (Jose Rizal University, 2004).
The retraction could also be possible to allow his body to be buried in the Christian cemetery
for the sake of his family. Apolinario Mabini died a mason and was buried in the Chinese
cemetery (Santos, 2011).
There is a possibility that the declaration was forged by Roman Roque. This was revealed
through the story by Antonio K Abad who heard Roque’s tale about the forgery (Uckung, 2012).
The retraction was believed to be witnesses by Jesuit priests’ moments before Rizal was shot.
What is the possibility of collusion among present Spanish friars and soldiers to portray Rizal as
somebody who does not have a firm belief on what he is fighting for? What does it mean to the
revolutionaries? That the leader retracted therefore there is no point to continue fighting. This
is one message that this retraction is implying.
What does it mean to the Friars? The continuity of their relevance and their involvement in the
business of the state and their continued control of the Filipinos using religion.
Rizal is known to be a man of letters. He fought the revolution using his pen, not armaments
like Andres Bonifacio. Why wouldn’t he write his declaration and allow the Friars to write the
declaration for him? This seems to be contrary to what he is and what he is good at.
What does a man like Rizal going to gain by retracting few hours before his death?
The Rizal’s retraction has no strong proof so the issue is not yet been concluded. Perhaps the
original declaration will turn out one day which will change the belief of the researcher. Also,
even if Rizal is catholic or not on the day he died, it does not negate the fact that he is a patriot
till the end.
 References

Jose Rizal University.(2004). Analysis Rizal's Retraction. Retrieved from

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

Makabenta, Y. (2018). Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us. Retrieved from
https://www.manilatimes.net/2018/01/02/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/rizal-remains-living-
burning-issue-among-us/371727/

Santos, T. (2011). Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth. Retrieved from

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

Uckung, P.J. (2012). Rizal’s Retraction and Other cases. Retrieved from http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-
rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/