qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu

iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
03 Activity 5 - ARG
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
SAN JOSE, JAZEL NICOLE

sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
[Pick the date]

BSBA 111

xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmr
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
 03 Activity 5 - ARG

 Summarize one (1) learning resource in 03 Readings: Jose Rizal's Retraction.

 State the viewpoint/s or argument/s in this resource.
 What particular viewpoint do you NOT believe in that resource? Explain why you do not believe
in this viewpoint.

Archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. discovered the “original" text containing the so-called
retraction formula in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, thirty-nine years after
Rizal’s execution. Despite the fact that the material appeared in the news after Rizal's
death, the document was not published until 1935. Between the early hours of
December 29th and December 30th, two eyewitness reports of what happened in the
cell, Fr. Former Lieutenant Mariano Martinez Gallegos reported that Rizal, along with
the main eyewitnesses Juan del Fresno and Eloy Moure, had signed a retraction
document. Both eyewitnesses corroborated Gallegos' allegations. They signed an
agreement with Rizal and joined the death row convicts. Jose Rizal's retraction has
caused controversy among historians about whether or not Rizal changed his mind
towards the Catholic Church. Some claim that the document is a forgery and that Rizal
was the sole author and signatory of the retraction paper, citing Rizal's remark. Both
claims are based on reasons, but whether or not Rizal retracts, the wisdom he imparted
to us will remain intact.

Two main arguments justify Rizal's retraction. The retraction paper discovered in 1935
was regarded as critical proof for the retraction. The events are intimately linked to the
eyewitnesses. To bolster the case, more documents with the interpretation were
produced. This may be seen in the Cuerpo de Vigilencia, Rizal's short piece in
Josephine bracken, and Rizal's many mentions of crossing in his final writing. Various
historians have offered pro-retraction as a solution to some flaws that pro-retraction has
overlooked. First the retraction letter itself being unauthentic according to some
historians. second Josephine Brackens herself remains unmarried and lastly the after of
the pro-Retraction's argument points to a different direction. For starters, some
historians believe the retraction letter is forged. Second, Josephine Brackens remains
single, and third, the pro-Retraction argument's conclusion points in an opposite way.
 03 Activity 5 - ARG

As you can see in the image, the text claims to be Jose Rizal's Retraction, but when you
look at it closely, it just talks about the church's positive teachings. Rizal claimed to be a
Catholic, but my understanding is that he disagreed with the church's teachings at the
time, and that his works like Noli me tangere deal with fathers' sin. The retraction was
written by two priests who tried to persuade Rizal to sign it, but Rizal refused. As
previously said, it is either a so-called retraction or the actual retraction. I agree with
certain historians' pro-retraction arguments because the letter is unauthentic, Josephine
Bracken is unmarried, and the pro-retraction grounds go in a different way. Finally, this
resource was created by two priests and the church since they did not want to don’t
agree with Rizal's retraction and hence did not publish it. I don't accept this resource
because there is no further evidence that the handwriting on the picture is Rizal's.