Name: Cortez, Faith Ann BSMT 1

The Balaguer Testimony of the Retraction

Primary Source: Eyewitness: Fr. Vicente Balaguer

Retraction of Jose Rizal Historical Context Jose Rizal – Jose Protacio Rizal
Mercado y Alonso Realonda (June 19, 1861 – December 30, 1896). Reason:
Convicted of Sedition Rizal was arrest, tried, and sentenced by 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, 1986,
accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and his writings
and reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of persuasion by Jesuit
priest. There were considerable doubts to this allegation by Rizal’s family and
friends until in 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 alike. The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first
two are the official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who are instrumental in
the alleged retraction of Rizal. The other two are critical analysis by two Rizalist
Scholars who doubted the story of retraction. Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement.

A Jesuit missionary, who became friends with Rizal during his days in
Dapitan. One of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during the last hours in Fort
Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry
and return to the Catholic fold. In an 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.
Brought out the shorter and more concise formula (retraction) of Fr. Pio Pi. He
finished writing the retraction when it was half past eleven and was dated
December 29. The retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal, Señor Juan del
Fresno (Chief of the Picket), and Señor Eloy Moure (Adjutant of the Plaza).
 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.

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.

According to the account of Fr. Balaguer, there are two templates of the
retraction prepared by the superior of the Jesuit society in the Philippines, Father
Pio Pi. Rizal found the first template unacceptable because it was too long and its
language and style were not reflective of his personality. So Fr. Balaguer withdrew
it and offered the shorter one. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was
uncomfortable with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated
by the Church.” Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in
the document. “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated
by the same Church” After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed
his retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in
turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda.
 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" because it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as
Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

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.
ANALYSIS:
 Vicente Balaguer, S.J. – A Jesuit missionary, who became friends with Rizal
during his days in Dapitan.
 One of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during the last hours in Fort
Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce
Masonry and return to the Catholic fold.
 In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer declared that he talked to Rizal three times on
December 29, 1896. The first time was in the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It
was during this meeting that he presented the retraction template to Rizal
but the latter did not sign. Moreno confirmed this meeting, including the
presentation of the draft retraction. But he reported that Rizal was talking
not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March and Vilaclara.
 Moreno also confirmed that Frs. March and Vilaclara returned to Rizal
around 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Fr. Balaguer claimed in his affidavit that
he was one of Rizal’s afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued that the
third time he talked to Rizal was around 10 in the evening.
 He had another lengthy and passionate discussion with him for more than
an hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal finally signed his retraction letter.
Moreno confirmed that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but the persons he
identified were Señior Andrade, Señior Maure, and Frs. March and
Vilaclara.
 Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of the meeting was 9
o’clock and not shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report
mention that they discussed issues concerning faith and the retraction. The
narrative is short and ends with Rizal going to bed.
 He finished writing the retraction when it was half past eleven and was
dated December 29.
 The retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal, Señor Juan del Fresno
(Chief of the Picket), and Señor Eloy Moure (Adjutant of the Plaza).