Analysis Rizal's Retraction

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. 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.

Did Jose Rizal Retract?

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did
not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.

The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.

First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only 

published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits 

be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden?

Thirty­nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given 

permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” 

that the documents presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi 

had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.
Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine,

after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could 

prove Father Balaguer’s statements.

Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would still be executed? Since 

the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a 

military tribunal where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in 

filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the 

three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated as 

rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.

Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez­ Rizal’s favourite teacher from Ateneo­ was 

sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student’s allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish 

religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos 

and an estate (Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer.

It was argued that Rizal retracted in order to save his family from further persecution, to give Josephine Bracken a legal 

status as his wife and to assure reforms from the Spanish government. It is more likely to be of Rizal’s mentality however, 

come to think of it, would Rizal just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that 

brought him to the point of being executed? No.

Rizal’s behaviour during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion­ the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters­ or 

indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the 

retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the 

formula of the retraction.

Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had coveted death a long time ago. 

His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do not believe that he have written a retraction.

Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man aged 33. He was mature enough to realize the consequences of the choice he had 

made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a 

behaviour showing a threat from death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him 
knows this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a behaviour consistent of what he was throughout his 

mature years.

Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction controversy, “…it detracts nothing from his 

greatness as a Filipino.”

DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?

by Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso

Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of José Rizal’s alleged retraction of his religious errors stirs up
the emotions of historians, flaring up into fiery debates between the pros and cons, without any resolution in
sight.

The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and improbable to Rizal’s character and
vehemence against oppression, as evidenced by a letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889: “…At the sight
of those injustices and cruelties…I swore to devote myself to avenge one day so many victims, and with this
idea in mind I have been studying and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will someday give
me an opportunity to carry out my promise.”

Of the religious orders, he writes: “…the friars are not what they pretend to be nor are they ministers to
Christ, the protector of the people, nor the support of the Spanish government…Don’t they show cruelty?
Don’t they instigate the government against the people? Don’t they manifest terror? Where are sanctity,
protection, and force?”

Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he was unsure of his reaction: “…no
one knows how one should behave at that supreme instant, and perhaps I myself who preach and brag so
much might manifest more fear and less energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at that critical moment.”

Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the confession Rizal purportedly signed prior
to his execution and testimonies of several witnesses who had seen the act carried out.

However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he weary of the struggle that he
decided to give in to the continuous urgings of the Jesuit fathers who were present at his death cell? Or is it
possible that Rizal had ruminated on retracting while still on exile in Dapitan?

Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcilla’s monumental multi-volume Jesuit Missionary Letters from Mindanao
contains several letters of the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his Mission Superior, which may shed light on this
matter. Obach wrote on July 28, 1895: “Rizal has just seen me and said (what has been jumping from mouth
to mouth of some who heard it from him), ‘Father Antonio, I no longer want further battles with the friars,
but live and work in peace.’

‘What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at peace.’
‘I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions.’
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own hand and style, he wrote:
‘Conditions I ask to retract references to the matter of the friars, and no longer meddle with them.’
 —José Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.”

Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on retracting beforehand? What is
intriguing is that he had arrived at this decision, evidently, to spare his family from further suffering and
maltreatment.

Fr. Obach continues: “…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials, and he asks that
they be returned or their equivalent…I answered that the only thing I could do was to look into the situation
and if there is no difficulty, for I do not know how things are…As for the third, I said that I do not think they
would give him such a big amount. His plan…is to raise a huge cement plant which, on a small scale…has
been quite successful. But this third condition is not important, for without it, he is ready to make a
retraction provided his family is provided for. Besides, if they grant him this amount, it would be on
condition that he repays it.”

Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to compete with the
Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat the Indios.” In fact, Rizal had prepared the statutes and
regulations of the Society of Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate the easy buying, selling, and storage
of products for export, and curtailing the trade monopoly of the Chinese.

Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away from his errors: “I am
convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but his pride strongly holds him back…I think he will
immediately break away from everything and he would be an excellent Christian.”

In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: “Regarding the letter I sent to Your Reverence which
contains Rizal’s retraction. I would ask you to send me a model retraction…In demanding that Rizal indicate
what has been taken from his family, perhaps it will be humiliating for the Dominican Fathers. Rizal refuses,
because in this way they will (have) him bound more tightly under obligation. On the other hand, retracting
is acknowledging his errors, and so it is his turn to humble himself…I await your letter which I can read to
Rizal to convince him what is better to do for God’s greater glory.”

By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed account of his errors: “…Rizal
came and asked me if I could draw up a list of his errors. ‘You can tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write, and
tell him that I myself will retract all errors I may have committed against the Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church in my writings, and that he can make this same retraction public in the manner he wants.’ But with
this he stands to lose everything…”

Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive some form of compensation for all
the troubles they endured: “But on condition that they give me P50,000 since I have no means to support
myself in decency, and with that amount I could bring my parents with me anywhere.” He no longer talks of
machines and cement, and so on, and he thinks that this amount is owed him because of the harm inflicted
on him.”
 Are Father Antonio Obach’s letters a reliable source about Rizal’s situation? Will these revelations
provide new clues to his frame of mind during the few hours before his death? The mystery of Rizal’s
retraction deepens.
Rizal's retraction: Truth vs Myth
By ERIKA DENISE L. DIZON
THE DEBATE continues.
Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content has become a favorite
subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed
by the National Hero himself.
It stated: “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.”
The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no
amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not
withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.
Proofs, documents
History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell
in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was
lengthy.
According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in
Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines,
Father Pio Pi.
Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and
religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the Philippine government from Spain
in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor
Torres, professor at the History department of the De La Salle University.
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of documents on the
Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine
newspapers.
Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the controversies were true.
“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still did not change the fact that his
writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our
independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”
But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.
“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.
‘Unadorned fact’
Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of history, having all the marks and
indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.
Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal retracted and said the National Hero
just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous nationalistic works.
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he was buried inside the sacred
grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason
who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.
De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were present while Rizal was
signing it.
He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as some argue that the
retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.
“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well, that may be true, but that is
human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.
He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal retracted because the national
hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.
But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?
De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The issue will not invalidate his
works in any way.”
Jose Rizal retraction, Part II

Posted on December 29, 2011 by admin

(Editor:This is Part II of the lecture delivered at the Chicago’s Newberry Library on June 18,

2011. The author is a great-grand nephew of the Philippine National Hero whose 150th birthday

was marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on Dec. 30, 1896

after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort Santiago, Manila.)

By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.

L-R: Berth Salvador, Cultural Officer, Philippine Consulate General, Dr. Reagan F. Romali, President of Truman College,
Philippine Consul General Leo M. Herrera-Lim and Dr. Ramon G. Lopez, direct descendant of Dr. Jose Rizal.

“How could this be?” we ask. It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived. It COULD BE,

for there was no other recourse. It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings! Twenty-four years after

the garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom

and intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its

own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people.

However, it would not be completely so! The man they had just martyred was a man whose politics and

faith were unshakeable and timeless. As we know, and as History recounts, it also projects.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of

the University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral

duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history.” Dr. Rafael Palma, a

respected jurist of his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal
meticulously. Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense

before the court martial is resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious

manner in which the fiscal had treated him.” For in man’s own tribunal, the tribunal and trial that

condemned Dr. Jose Rizal to die was a sham; his execution, a foregone conclusion.

A portrait of Jose Rizal as a Mason. His membership in the fraternity had caused his excommunication from the Roman
Catholic Church. His retraction is a subject of controversy.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four

years he was exiled in Dapitan. He truly loved her. They had desired a canonical marriage but were

presented with a pre-condition retraction of Rizal’s anti-ecclesiastical writings and beliefs. As we may know,

he was never anti-God or anti-Church. He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind

their pretentious cloak of religiosity. He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not worship

God. Neither the retraction nor the marriage occurred. He and Josephine were parents to a son, though he

sadly passed. We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled

poem which we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…” As

Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute quotes, “To accept Rizal as having

married Bracken is to accept his alleged retraction of religious error.” From Austin Coates, British author

and historian: “Before God, he (Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract.” And from Dr. Jose Rizal himself, I quote:

“I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors… where faith does not slay… where He who

reigns is God.”

Fraudulent Premise

From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church attempted to redirect his

beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully. A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara,

and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting. He had decided to remain ecclesiastically unwed, rather

than recant his alleged “religious errors.” Now, there seems to be a “disconnect”, or even a divide among

historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the

friars and the Jesuits. Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have begotten a marriage to

Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent. Austin Coates’ book

entitled Rizal – Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from his own

personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family. To wit:
1.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. The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal

sisters were there that fateful morning. Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.

2. Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the

execution.

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be

married to Vicente Abad.

6. 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?

7. 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?”

“Unconfessed” Martyrdom”

From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the

Catholic Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be

performed. In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that “the Indio

always retracted”, as he walked to his execution. Austin Coates states in his book: “The Spaniards publish
the same thing about everyone who is shot… Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite

of the fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.” I

say that if there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his

martyrdom “un-confessed”:

1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent.

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.

2. 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, without a sack, without a coffin. This was the

onus of the “un-confessed.”

3. 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.

4. Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of

retraction could be produced.

5. The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution,

a mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family.

Though the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown.

They were told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be

able to see it.

6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for

his soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body. I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against

the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!

7. 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 disingenuous.

8. Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by

the friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.

9. In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal

Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made an exposé of six different articles and books that

purportedly presented Dr. Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original”

testament of retraction. Intriguingly enough, even to this day, the claimed “original” document from which

the facsimiles have arisen have not been seen by anybody. Blatant in these six different presentations were

differing dates and notes that had been doctored, traced-over, and altered, when these facsimiles were

supposed to have come from the same “original” document! This book of Runes and Buenafe was published

by the Pro-Patria Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.

Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion 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 smoke screen and “retreads” of the dubious

accounts of the sycophantic Father Balaguer and his gullible minions. Let us not allow for the sands of time

to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious event. 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.

When this comes to pass… 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!

The Dr. Jose P. Rizal retraction issue revisited

Posted on December 29, 2011 by admin

(Editor: This lecture was given June 18, 2011 at the Newberry Library in Chicago by Ramon G.

Lopez, M.D., a great-grand nephew of Dr. Jose Rizal through the Paciano and Narcisa branches of

the Rizal family tree. His father is Edmundo Rizal Lopez, grandson of General Paciano and

Severina Decena, and of Narcisa Rizal and Antonino Lopez. Two separate branches of the Rizal

tree bore his father’s parents: Emiliana Rizal from General Paciano, and Antonio Lopez from

Narcisa Rizal. His father’s parents were first cousins. He is a fourth generation Rizal kin.)
The official poster of the sesquicentennial birthday of the Philippine national hero. He was born on June 19, 1861
and was shot by musketry on Dec. 30, 1896.

In this sesquicentennial birthday commemoration of our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, I have decided to

revisit with you my personal viewpoint regarding the controversial issue of the alleged retraction of his

political and religious beliefs as he neared his death and martyrdom. This is a topic that always seems to

come up whenever I am honored with an invitation to speak.

It has been 150 years since the birth of our national hero. It is almost 115 years since he was executed by

firing squad. Still, the alleged recantation of his life’s work and beliefs as espoused by his accusers and

detractors festers like an open wound, challenging and holding hostage the purity of his legacy. The

question for us of course is, “Why the continued interest?” Is it perhaps because history gives us a

“clouded” answer regarding this matter? Is it perhaps because when we read the works of the so-called

“authoritative” sources on our martyred hero, a third of them passionately declare that he did not recant his

moral, political, and ecclesiastical beliefs? That the next third vigorously say he did, and the remaining

third have not an opinion, or are still searching for facts to bolster a belief?
“Lolo Jose”

There are those who would be “fence-sitters”, for they themselves are unsure on the true facts of history.

And then there are also those who would parse their words and had said that if Dr. Jose Rizal did abjure, “it

was not a surrender of intellect, only a renewal of the heart.” As the venerable late Philippine Senator

Camilo Osias had declared:

“This mooted question should be calmly analyzed and weighed in the light of the character of Dr. Jose Rizal.

Either Rizal did or did not retract. The burden of proof is upon those who insist that he did. And they must

come forward with a documentary or other evidence that is irrefutable and convincing. Until that evidence

that is incontrovertible and overwhelming is produced, free men and thinking men cannot accept Rizal’s

retraction as a fact…. Now, if he retracted and yet was executed on that fatal December 30th, the crime of

his murderers becomes doubly heinous!”

For now, even my 98-year old esteemed and endeared Tita Soni Lopez-Bantug who wrote the book, Lolo Jose

– An Intimate Portrait of Rizal and Indio Bravo had admitted to the family, “At the time I wrote the books, I

decided to leave the issue of the ‘Retraction’ to the judgment of the readers, but afterwards regretted doing

so.” She said, “Personally, I never at all believed that he had made a retraction.”

Likewise, is it not ironic that during the 377 years in which the Philippines was under Spanish colonization,

the pervasive regime was then that of an intimately conjugal administration by the religious and secular?

And not too long ago in 1956 when a fist fight broke out in the halls of the Philippine Congress as they

debated the passage of Senator Claro M. Recto’s “Rizal Bill”, with the protagonists being the State (i.e. the

Philippine government) versus essentially, the Philippine Catholic Church, which then had declared that 170

passages in the Noli Me Tangere and 50 passages in the El Filibusterismo were offensive to the Catholic

faith? Thus, it was declared then by the Philippine Catholic Church that the faithful were banned from

reading, retaining, or distributing these works which were considered heretical, and that doing so would

bring the wrath of the pain of sin and bring forth canonical sanctions, meaning that of excommunication!

Finally however, after much painful wrangling, Republic Act 1425—“The Rizal Bill”—was finally passed for

the Filipino people on June 12, 1956.

If this controversy now puts some of us in a state of “suspended animation”, I would like to say that

negativity in the form of disinterest and nonchalance on an important issue that is part of our heritage is to

disinherit ourselves, our children, and our children’s children from our Filipino identity. For as British
writer and philosopher, G.K. Chesterton, had said, “Education is the soul of a society as it passes from one

generation to another.”

“Biased Opinion”

On this 115th year anniversary of Dr. Jose Rizal’s supreme sacrifice, I would like to revisit with you the issue

of whether he had indeed made a retraction of his political and religious beliefs prior to his execution. I

would then like to share with you my personal and biased opinions. However, let me first give you a

microcosm of the historiographic, religious, and geopolitical world the Philippines was on in that epoch.

At first light in the morning of March 17, 1521, at the time when a Portuguese sailor by the name of Fernao

de Megalhes (whom we know as Ferdinand Magellan) saw the shores and mountains of what is now known

as Samar, there was not a “Filipinas” as we now know it to be. There was not a “Filipino” as we can see and

describe now. There was only the diversity of people such as the Ivatans of Batanes, the Itnegs of Apayao,

the Ilokanos, Tagalogs, and Pampanggos, the Hiligaynons of Negros, the Maranaws of Lanao, the Tibolis of

Cotabato, and many other indigenous and disparate groups who lived in proximity or in distance with one

another.

Roughly, there were around 500,000 inhabitants in the conglomerate of those 7,000 islands. They were

docile and hard-working. They were already making trade with the Chinese, Japanese, and their Muslim

Sumatran neighbors long before the arrival of their European colonizers in 1521. Theirs was an evolving

culture, though already established were societal functions such as the different social classes, customary

and written laws, a code of conduct, tribal, judicial, and trial processes, and a system of punishment and

retribution.

In this pre-Spanish native society, the Tagalogs had already held belief in one supreme-being they called

Bathala. There were other deities too, such as Apolaki, the Pangasinan god of war, Lalahon, the Visayan

goddess of harvest, and Kidur, the Ifugao god of thunder. Women’s position in society was respected. They

could own and inherit property. To show respect, men walked behind them when in their company. There

existed the arts, a system of writing, oral and written literature, and a thriving economic life. From the

canon-making of Panday Pira, to the artistry of the Pintados of the Visayas, there was hunting, fishing, and

agriculture (which was the main industry). The country as a whole was abundant in untapped natural

resources. Dr. Jose Rizal had recognized these attributes and assets of his people in its pre-colonial past.
With his admiration and belief in the scholarship of Antonio de Morga who wrote “Sucesos de las Islas

Filipinas” in 1609, and at the same time comparing that work with the early Spanish chronicles of Pigafetta,

Placencia, Chirino, and a few others, he found that de Morga’s treatise was more sympathetic to the Indios.

Dr. Jose Rizal wanted annotations to de Morga’s work to be made by an Indio, and from the viewpoint of an

Indio. He wanted to present the story of a thriving and vibrant pre-Hispanic Philippines through the eyes of

an Indio, and from the heart of an Indio! For Dr. Jose Rizal believed that pride and knowledge in one’s past

is crucial in the formation of a united and singular national identity. He was proud to be a Filipino, and

wanted to be identified as a Filipino.

“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!”

Rizal was a man fatefully made for and unique for his time. A true Filipino by heart and sentiment, he was

cognizant of the socio-political and religious upheavals that were of Europe at that time. He had intimately

shared his vision for his “Filipinas” with his friend and confidante, Professor Ferdinand Blumentritt. As a

man of deep intellect and of many accomplishments, he appreciated the works of Voltaire and Hugo, was

enlightened by the philosophy of Kant, the Humanism of Erasmus, the Reformation of Luther, and the

forthrightness of Freemasonry. He had had lively dialogues with del Pilar and Pastells, his life illuminated

by the piety of Thomas a’Kempis’ “Imitatio Christi”, and above all, he dreamt the dreams of a free

Philippines as enunciated by the tenets of the French Revolution, that of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!”

As we peer through the pages of history, there were events that stood out. In the 377 years of Spanish

colonization, cleric and civil governance of the Philippines was done by peninsular Spain through Mexico by

way of the galleon trade route. This went on for 222 years with Mexico acting as the administrative

appendage of Madrid. The Philippines then was a colony of a colony, managed and mismanaged in a

second-hand fashion as a Spanish possession, through the galleons which made no more than one to two

stops in the Islands per year. The Filipino people were isolated, ministered only by the medieval practices

of the cabal of an increasingly abusive and renitent segment of the Catholic clergy and a subservient civil

government. There was no concept of separation of Church and State, a problem writ extreme.

As we recognize the many contributions then of the Spanish and secular government to the developing

maturity of a stagnant Filipino society, European life and culture was also undergoing an evolution. The

monastics were invaluable in preserving Classical ideals, literature, and art during that period when Europe

had slid into the early Middle Ages, or the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church too had entered its “Dark Ages”,

a religious revolt that had been simmering since the early days of the Papacy… a Papacy that had absolute
theocratic power over all aspects of the Catholic Church. With the use of threats of excommunication, of

interdiction, and anathema, it could dethrone and enthrone emperors and kings, and the Papacy did so!

As history tells us, theirs were grievous offences and impieties such as those of debauchery, persecutions,

and concupiscence, those of bribery, simony, and selling of indulgences and benefices, and those of

forgeries… forgery, such as the allegedly-forged documents of the “Donation of Constantine I, the Great”,

which made the Catholic Church accumulate immense wealth and lands throughout the western world.

Theirs were the onus of schisms, papacies against papacies of the East and West, and the ignoble series of

Papal Inquisitions that tormented and exterminated countless lives from Europe and up to the colonies of

the Imperial nation.

“Holy Office of the Inquisition”

Unique to the penumbra of Philippine history was the start of the Spanish Roman Catholic Inquisition in

1478, as approved by Pope Sixtus IV, and vigorously carried out by the ruling Ferdinand II of Aragon, and

Isabella I of Castille. This Inquisition was under the control and directives of the favored Dominican and

Franciscan religious Orders, with Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada as the first Inquisitor General.

His was a reign of terror, especially so against the Jews and the Moors. The still existing and functional

“Holy Office of the Inquisition” is now known with a new sanitized name as the “Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith”, which is based in Rome. This was the backdrop against which Philippine history was

then set. This was the stage in which the oeuvre and life of Dr. Jose Rizal passionately drifted. He was a

man whose will and heart were steeled in the pursuit of an emancipated Filipinas. He was indeed a moth to

his flame!

With sacrifices from his family he had gone to Europe to enlighten, be enlightened, and to wake up the

dormant patriotic passions of his countrymen. Though given many opportunities in his short lifetime to turn

a blind eye to his country’s travails, he did not. He could have chosen to not write the Noli and Fili, but he

did. He could have given up his faith and become a Protestant, living a comfortable life with Nelly Boustead

in Europe, but he did not. He could have disappeared from the confines of Dapitan, of Hong Kong, and

Singapore, but he did not! He could have recanted all of his writings, teachings, and beliefs, but he did

not… not even to save his own life!

As we see this dignified, composed man dressed in a black suit, walking to face his martyrdom, as we hear

the drum roll bleat out its cadence of death, and as we see from afar the sunrise just beyond the mountains
of Cavite and Bataan, the moment of sublime sacrifice is at hand…

“Consummatum est!” A volley of fire!

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL2supports that theory. It also had been suggested that Rizal may
have written the word"Catholic" in the broad sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used by all branches of
theChristian Church excepting the Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I believe in the HolyCatholic
Church," in this broad sense.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION
The argument between the original document and the released retraction documents broughtmore
controversy because this differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits. Which is really the
“original”? Some of the significant differences between the copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits arethe
following: (1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the Archbishop’scopies, (2)
the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias in the Jesuits’ copies, (3) the word“misma” was added
before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s copies, (4) the second paragraph from the
arc
hbishop’s copies started with the second sentence, however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started untilthe fifth
sentences, (5) the Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and (6) the Jesuits’
copies did not have the names of the witnesses. These arguments are further discuseed below.Dr. Eugene A.
Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman University, summarizes the major points ofargument for the Retraction
of Rizal as follows:1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to
the reality ofthe retraction.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye
-
witnesses,” and other “qualifiedwitnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of
the Jes
uit order,the archbishop, etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by“witnesses” and
a signed Prayer Book which was amongst the documents discovered by
Father Garcia along with the Retraction.


If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachings butwould agree to a number
of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed.


According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the

Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer
book, readslowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen and sad
‘Credo’ (I believe) hesigned the acts with his name in the book itself.”
4.
Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”
5.
His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There
could be no marriage without a retraction.
CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL31. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four
points against the documentitself.

First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific studycriticizing the authenticity of
the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual ofthe University of the Philippines shortly after the
document was found.Having some o
f Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his“standard”, he notes a number of
variations with the handwriting of the document,he further concluded that it was a “one
-
man document” because of the similarities
in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all threesigners: Rizal and the two
witnesses.
o

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del
Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not

include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that

the hand-writing is genuine.


A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself isbased on the principles of
textual criticism. Several critics have noted differencesbetween the text of the document found in 1935 and
other versions of theRetraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer.To date, from the morning of
December 30, 1896 there have been, discountingnumerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the
text with significantdifferences with regards to the use of certain phrases within the document.
o

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer orFather Pi made errors in preparing
a copy of the original and these have beentransmitted from this earliest copy to others. Some have wondered
if the
Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction
statement issued by the religious authorities.


A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part
strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet therewas little time to live, and
also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.

Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” An

tonio K. Abad tells how onAugust 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a
certainRoman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year tomake several copies of
a retraction document.2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts
andfacts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to bywriters as follows:


The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the
family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL4


No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of theRetraction.
o
The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this
the religious authorities could not interfere.


Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco
cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries ofDec. 30th.


There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal withJosephine Bracken.

Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last
24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion.3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction
is that it is out of character.

Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and aprominent Mason, also
argued that if Rizal retracted, it would have been a verydrastic change of character in Rizal which is very hard
to believe knowing howmature and strong in his beliefs Rizal was. He called the retraction story a "pious
fraud.”
CONCLUSION
To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retractiondocument was
more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be truethat he retracted and
reverted to his faith, but this does
not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with
such greatness.
As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s
impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what hehas
already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Diokno oncestated,
"Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from hisgreatness as a
Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our
patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs."