The Retraction of Rizal

Title: Retraction of Rizal

A leader of the reformist movement in Spain,Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and
sentenced to death by a Spanish court- martial after being implicated as a leader of the
Philippine Revolution. The night before his death by firing squad at the Luneta on
December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly his Masonic ideals and his
writings and reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of persuasion by Jesuit
priests. There was considerable doubt to this allegation by Rizal’s family and friends
until 1935, the supposed retraction document with Rizal’s signature was found. Until
today, the issue whether Rizal retracted or not and whether the document is forged or
real is a subject of continuous debate between historians and Rizal scholars.

Father Vicente Balaguer’s Statement

Father Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his last
hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce
Masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In affidavit executed in 1917 when he had
returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who solemnized the
marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before the hero’s execution.

At about ten o'clock in the morning (December 29), Father Vilaclara

and I went to Fort Santiago, where the chapel cell of the convict was.
He received us with great affection and embraced us. I think it
convenient to point out that when the Archbishop sent his
commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of conversion, before ministering
the Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors publicly professed to
him in words and writings and a profession of the Catholic faith. To this effect, when the
Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, be brought by way of
precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including what he thought out
to be extracted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient. He said,
however, that he would prepare or order to prepare another more extensive one.

Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders and instructions
from the Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of
faith, composed by Reverend Father Pio Pi...

Therefore, when we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings
with him and talking on various matters, I, who knew the history and errors contained in
his books, in order to fulfill our delicate mission asked Rizal to give an explanation of his
ideas on religion... He came to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the
word of God contained in the Sacred Scripture. I tried to make him see how false and
indefensible Such a criterion was, inasmuch as without the authority to the Church he
could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture or of the books truly revealed
by God; how absolutely impossible it is for the individual reason to interpret at his will the
word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist freethinker, unwell to admit
any other criterion of truth than individual reason.

I then pointed out to him that absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of the
immense majority of humankind, and for the absurd monstrous errors professed by the
greatest sages of paganism...... When I attacked him with the arguments of Catholic
doctrine, he began to expound the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand
times refuted already... When I attacked him with the logic and evidence of Catholic truth,
I told him with energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason 1o the sake of faith,
he would soon appear for judgment before God and would surely be damned. Upon
hearing this threat, tears gushed from bis eyes, and he said: "No I will not damn myself”

Yes,"-I replied-"You will go to hell, for, whether you like it or not. Yes; out of the Catholic
Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one."....

At three o'clock or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Fort where Father Vilaclara
had remained, and I resumed the discussion with Dr. Rizal, that lasted until dusk, arriving
at the point which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo and thence I went
with Father Viza to the Palace. There I reported on the condition of the convict, who
offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula of retraction.
Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised, and he told me that it
was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to me.

It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal impatient. He asked for
the formula of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o'clock; upon knowing it, the
convict asked me for it insistently. Without letting me read it first, he called and asked me
to read it to him.

Both of us sat at a desk, where there was stationery and I began to read it. Upon hearing
the first paragraph, he told me: "Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine. I
cannot sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself."

I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. I read the first
paragraph and he said to me: "That style is simple as mine. Don't bother, Father, to read it
all. Dictate what I ought to profess and express, and I shall write, making in any case
some remarks.

And thus, it was done. As suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady hand and
dear letters idea, he making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Ts,
Certainly, after the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had
retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus, he appeared to be while writing
his retraction....

He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half past eleven; it was dated
December the twenty-ninth...

This declaration or retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of
the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza..

After all these acts... he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the Virgin,
placed in the chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers, of the Judge Advocate, of the
Chief of the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked me
for bis retraction and profession of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and
devotion...

Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have personally
intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirm it with an oath, And lest.
perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after
twenty years, I testify that on the very day of Rizal's death I wrote a very detailed account
of everything. The original of this account, I have preserved. and from it I have taken all
the data of the present narration.

Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to the

Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document to Fat ho that very day brought it to
the Palace and handed it to Pi, Archbishop Nozaleda.

      Father Pio Pi’s Statement

Father Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was
executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the alleged
retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was involved only in securing the
retraction document from Archbishop of Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing
another shorter retraction document as well which was one Rizal allegedly copied.
 On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel, that is, on
December the twenty-eight, I received the commission, which
Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers, for the
spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only
because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object was to
reconcile with God and with the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very
distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special
esteem and affection even after his estrangement from the Church and had rendered us
good service...

Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not visit
him. All the Fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who
accompanied him to Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request
or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all the happenings...

In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficulty was found in convincing and
persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with Father
Balaguer, became necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his
Christian sentiments. At last, he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the
proofs that, of religiousness and piety were such and so many that, with much less, the
most exacting person would have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said,
wondering at the change wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some time ago, but
another entirely different.

When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the form of
the composition presented by Father Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one
which I had made was shorter although conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless,
to make it appear more of his own and spontaneous, be wished to introduce some little
modifications. He wrote it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand...
Beneath Rizal's signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of the
Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as witnesses.

Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure from
anyone, took into his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the
chapel. Aloud and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity he read his own retraction...

 Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis

Lawyer, writer, educator and politician Rafael Palma was the author of Biography of
Rizal, a work on the life of the National Hero which won a literary contest in 1938
sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The publication of the book, however,
was postponed because of World War II and only saw print in 1949. That same year, an
English translation by Ramon Ozatea with the title Pride of the Malay Race was
published by Prentice- Hall, Inc. in the United States.

For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the
beginning because of their direct intervention in the act of conversion
and retraction of Rizal, speak and confirm in all its parts the narrative
which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That should be conclusive;
but that is not. All the declarations therein cited are those of ecclesiastics and their
friends, and it is to be supposed that all of the latter would not contradict the version
given by the former. The only testimony that might be considered impartial is that of
Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal, but his testimony to the conversion of
Rizal is mere hearsay, that is to say, what he heard the priests say, and that diminishes its
value very much.

We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial and
interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said
persons; but as Brutus said, "You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend." Lastly, we
must consider whether the coetaneous acts performed by the ecclesiastical authorities
or by the government are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if
they are not, they would not produce the moral evidence that is needed.

Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the Catholic
church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place, the
document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to
see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspapers, but, with the
exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a
way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place, when
the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a copy of it as well as a
copy of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were
denied. In the third place, Rizal's burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been
delivered to the members of a Catholic association friendly to the friars instead of being
delivered to the family, who had claimed it. How of Christian charity applied to one who
dies within the Church if not even the desire of this family to bury him on their own
account is respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and
of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by the
Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled with the
Church, be was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without any
cross or stone to mark his grave. Only the diligence of the family was able to identify the
spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book burials of the interment
of Rizal's body is not made on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where
there were as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear those buried by
special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures on a page between a man who
burned to death and who could not be identified and another who died by suicide in other
words, he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did not receive
spiritual aid. In the seventh and last place, there was no moral motive for the conversion.
The extraordinary or abnormal acts of a person are always to some reason or rational
motive. What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure masonry and
reconcile himself to the rites of the religion which he had fought? Did he not realize that
to do so was to be a renegade to history?

Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many circumstances of
his life. He was not likely yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers
talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce
his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?

In short, Rizal's conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that that
extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the Church which he had fought.
The Archbishop was interested in bis conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits
lent themselves as his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in
the whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with
bis abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and bis conversion would
be unbelievable? So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His aureole
of glory had to be done away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only an indio.

Austin Coates’ s Critical Analysis

Austin Coates’s interest in Jose Rizal began when he was Assistant Colonial Secretary
and Magistrate in Hongkong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter’s year-
long stay 9iin Hongkong (1891- 1892). At that time, many of the personalities who knew
Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on Rizal eventually led to the writing and
publication of his book- Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press,
1956) – the first Rizal biography written by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose
Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second edition of the book was published in
the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing House in 1992.

The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila and Madrid
recorded the event, and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal
had retracted his religious errors, adjured freemasonry, and in the last
hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken. In most newspapers the text of a letter
of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full. By the government the
announcement was sent to Spanish consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it
the widest possible publicity.

Those who had read Rizal's books or who knew him closely, which at that time meant the
family and his wide circle off personal friends, most of whom were abroad, took one look
at the announcement and dubbed it... an ecclesiastical fraud.

While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop's announcement

was issued knowingly or that there was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities
to perpetrate a fraud is going too far The nature of society within the church, the society
of priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things to happen. When
frauds occur, they are not the planned work of the church as an organization, though this
may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the work of a small man with his
own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud as genuine, has to protect
him. Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that the prime mover
in this would be the friar archb1shop. It was the friars who wanted his retraction. But
while in the event Rizal' intuition did not play him false, there is no evidence to implicate
Nozaleda. Along came a small man with what the Archbishop wanted.

Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed and
audacity with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a
retraction, hoping for it. When news of it came, he would announce it immediately, after
which it would be too late for any of Balaguer's colleagues to gainsay it.

Certainly, there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too well the damage such a
letter would do him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to retract...

Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public disbelief the Archbishop's
statement provoked, had there been a signed retraction letter it would certainly have been
produced for inspection, particularly to the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and to many
of whom--to Teodora Alonso in particular-it would have been a source of consolation.

Once the execution was over, and Vilaclara and March returned to be faced with
Balaguer's claims, the fraud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to
rectify matters.

What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits
of probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Vilaclara and March,
who were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a retraction, it is
inconceivable that they would not have given him Christian burial. The Jesuits had been
entrusted by the Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned man; and it was
their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to see he was
decently buried. This the two Jesuits at the execution did not do....

The Rizal family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage. They
knew their brother; they knew that if he had retracted, he would certainly have so in his 6
a.m. communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given her.

Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer's urge to
elaborate and to see himself publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled
down that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it to
be published anonymously, be included much praise of himself, an aspect which, since he
admitted the authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure...

Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church's case. Worse than this, he had unwittingly
revealed his own fraud. In his account, he made no mention of the Ultimo Adios.

That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told a
journalist about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol
burner remained to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no
poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing
the truth, which was that he was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that last
night, and had no knowledge of what was then taking place...

Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem; he made his account so
elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo
Adios is needed to show that it would have taken several at the Ultimo hours to write...

Historian says...

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center o ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute in creating Filipino nation. It is
understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote
against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his
image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed
by Rizal a few hours before his executi