INTRODUCTION

Overview:
The Philippines is recognized throughout history as having led the first anti-
colonial uprising in Asia from 1896 to 1898. The Philippine Revolution was a
long process, and its success can be ascribed to many people who bravely
battled against the Spaniards, not just one person, like other Asian countries
did before or after World War II. Jose Rizal was a hero of the Philippine
Revolution. He is recognized as the "pride of the Malay race" and the national
hero of the Philippines.His writings awoke his fellow people and motivated
them to lead Southeast Asia's first anti-colonial movement. Several decades
after the Philippines overthrew Spain, similar uprisings in nearby nations led
to the freedom of Southeast Asia from European dominion. Rizal is well-liked
by both Filipinos and non-Filipinos; a number of statues and monuments
honoring him have been erected outside the Philippines at the initiative of
his non-Filipino admirers. The states of California, Hawaii, Illinois, Florida,
New Jersey, New York, Alaska, and Washington State all have statues
honoring Rizal. Additionally, Rizal memorials can be seen in Switzerland,
China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium, China, Argentina, Spain, and
Argentina.

As a global and national hero, Rizal's life has been written about and
studied by Filipino and foreign academics for more than a century. Even if
they occasionally agreed on their story, there have also been times when
they greatly disagreed. The research' focus has been one source of
contention. Rizal was a multifaceted individual with many commitments.
As a result, his biographers were unable to limit their narrative and
analysis to a single area of his life. Additionally, there have been cases
where researchers couldn't agree because they had different viewpoints
on Rizal. Finally, the main sources that the researchers built their
narrative on may potentially be responsible for their variances. The
academic world accepts all the variations because they provide students
with a range of viewpoints from which to interpret Rizal. In some cases,
they actively promote them.
INTRODUCTION
One topic from Rizal's life has been disputed by historians numerous times
and is still a contentious one today. That is, if Rizal renounced Masonry and
reaffirmed his Catholic faith on the eve of his death in 1896. Due to the fact
that the main players were part of two groups that both supported moral
principles and the search for the truth, scholars accepted this as reality, and
it sparked controversy. On the one side, the Jesuits, the Manila archbishop,
and other Catholic authorities stood in for the pro-retraction faction. They
were all ordained priests, therefore their statements should have been
accurate and sincere.A subject from Rizal's life has been debated by
historians on multiple occasions and continues to be a hot button issue
today. That is, if on the eve of his passing in 1896, Rizal rejected Masonry and
confirmed his Catholic beliefs. Scholars regarded this as true and it caused
debate because the major characters were a part of two groups that both
advocated moral standards and the pursuit of the truth. The pro-retraction
group was represented on one side by the Jesuits, the Manila archbishop,
and other Catholic authorities. They should have been truthful and sincere
because they were all ordained priests.
CONTENT
Body of the Paper
José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda is known as the National
hero of the Philippines due to his courageous acts of rebellion and his key
role in inspiring the Philippine Revolution against the colonial Spain. It was
a known fact that the government is kin on exiling Jose Rizal which led
them to throw him out to Dapitan wherein he fell in love with Josephine
Bracken. However, they cannot unite through a marriage since the priest
rejected them and would only grant them marriage if the Bishop of Cebu
permits due to his excommunicated status. The issue of Jose Rizal’s
retraction arose on the night of his execution and is being debated until
now with regards to its authenticity.
On year 1935 Fr. Manuel Garcia discovered the alleged retraction letter of
Jose Rizal, which was dated back on December 29, 1896, the day before
his execution. The letter’s content translated in English is as follows:
“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. I
believe and I confess whatever she teaches, and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy, which is of the Church, and as
a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the
Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous
manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may
have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.”
CONTENT
On the night before Rizal’s execution, Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda
visited Rizal in his cell at Fort Santiago and brought with him the first draft
of the retraction letter. However, Jose Rizal didn’t accept this because
it was too long. Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary which Rizal
met during his exile in Dapitan, claims that Jose Rizal accepted the second
draft of a retraction letter which was prepared by Fr. Pio P, the superior of
Jesuit Society. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, after the
signing of the retraction a prayer book was handed to Rizal, “He took the
prayer book, read slowly those acts accepted them, and took the pen and
said ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book
itself,”. Acts of piety was also performed by Rizal during his last hours
as testified by witnesses and his “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine
Bracken as attested by witnesses.
VIEWS OF AUTHOR
Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He
joined the Society of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in
1894. Moreover, he was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal’s last hours
in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce
masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In 1917 when he had returned to
Spain, an affidavit executed that proves he was who solemnized the
marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
Rafael Palma was born on October 24, 1874. He was a Filipino politician,
lawyer, writer, educator and a famous freemason. Additionally, he became
the fourth President of the University of the Philippines. He was later
elected as senator under the Nacionalista Party, consistently representing
the 4th District, in both the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls. Furthermore,
he was the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the national
hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth
Government. The story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in chapter 32
and 33 with his analysis in the latter chapter.
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. On December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly
retracted his masonic ideals and his writings reconverted to Catholicism
following several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests. A few hours
before he was shot, Rizal
signed a document stating that he was a Catholic and retracted all his
writings against the church and the document were as “The Retraction”.
Moreover, Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel
Garcia,
C.M. in 1935 at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. The letter dated
December 29, 1896.
VIEWS OF AUTHOR
According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell
around 10 o’clock in the morning on December 29, 1896. He mentioned in his
letter and affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion
of some articles of Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the
supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences that divided
Catholics and Protestants. They explained to him that they could not
administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction
letter and making a profession of faith. The two Jesuits left Rizal’s prison
around lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the
retraction letter or not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s
palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their
first meeting with Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around
3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him to recant.
They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction
document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that
night, and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two
retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer,
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 wanted to emphasize that
Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism and that Masonry in
London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read,
“I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the
same Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to
the draft, Rizal together with Señor Fresno, chief of the picket, and Señor
Moure, adjutant of the plaza signed the retraction letter before midnight.
After which, Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it
to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda.
VIEWS OF AUTHOR
On the other hand, Rafael Palma, a prominent Mason, disputed the
veracity of the document of the alleged retraction because it did not
reflect Rizal’s true character and beliefs. He regarded the resurrected
retraction story as a “pious fraud”. Were, according to his analysis, the
retraction of Rizal was hearsay with the following reasons: First, the
documents of retraction were kept secret so that no one except the
authorities was able to see it that time. Secondly, when the family of Rizal ask
for the original copy of the document as well as the certificate of
canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, bot petitions were denied. Third,
Rizal’s burial was kept secret, 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 Catholics. Notwithstanding that Rizal was reconciled with the
church, he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the
ground, without any cross or stone to mark his grave. And, in the entry of the
entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal’s body is not made on
the page those buried on December 30, 1896, instead he was considered
among persons died impenitent with no spiritual aid. Lastly, there was no
moral motive for the conversion
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Similarities and Differences
The accounts and analyses done by Fr. Balaguer, Fr. Pi, Palma and Coates
stated different affirming and negating ideas between each statement
which helped in understanding Rizal's retraction. Pointing out the
similarities among these statements, the first two accounts made by Fr.
Balaguer & Fr. Pi both stated out their confirming declarations about Rizal's
Retraction. Also, they just stated the happenings during the time Rizal is
said to retract from his freemasonry. Furthermore, the two accounts seem
to be just the affirmation of another, consistent of the facts that each
authors utilized which pertains to the date and the persons involved in the
said retraction. Another is that they both claim that Rizal, hours before his
death, withdrawn his masonry beliefs willingly by signing and modifying
the retraction formula that was made by Fr. Pio and even read it in front
of Fr. Balaguer, Senor Fresno and Senor Maure and other witnesses. At
this point, these two accounts both showed bias because they only
showed their own viewpoints on the event and we can say that the story
seemed to be one-sided, basing mainly with their own expressed sides
and opinions.
However, the first two accounts differ in the analyses made by Palma and
Coates in a sense that, these two contradicts with the belief that Rizal
actually retracted. They both have made good points and supporting
arguments which backed up their disbelief about Rizal's retraction. Also,
they made analyses, basing on the happenings during Rizal's
imprisonment and supposed retraction and happenings after Rizal's
execution. They both stated different viewpoints and different facts
surrounding the happenings which supported their claim. In addition, thy
also pointed out how these retraction claims are contradicting to what
happened after Rizal's death at these Jesuit's expenses, clearly
contradicting to the practices done by the Catholic Church. In Addition,
they also claimed that the document was ecclesiastical fraud and the
persons behind it were after some more motive such as political.
Similarities and differences among these accounts also include their
involvement in the event. Fr. Pi and Fr. Balaguer exhibits firsthand
encounters with Rizal while Palma and Coates used second-hand accounts
and information to base their analyses
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Stand
Multi-perspectivity is taken into account when interpreting historical
information in such a way that the historian's perception of the facts will
influence how they are judged. Let's be clear that historians choose which
sources to utilize and which interpretations to highlight based on their
goals or objectives. The public audience was perplexed over whether or
not Rizal actually retracted the National Hero based on the narratives
given by Masonic Rizalists and Catholic Rizalists. The opposing parties'
conflicting assertions concerning the retraction had nearly plausible
events, but the veracity of each claim could be evaluated by the facts
supplied and cause- and-effect analyses. Rafael Palma's analysis is the
most convincing and persuasive of all the versions of the National Hero's
retractions (at least from our standpoint and circumstance).
Palma stressed that Rizal didn't retract or take any actions that were
connected to it. He gave a lot of evidence to back up his allegation, and
those arguments were sufficient to prove that Rizal didn't withdraw. The
treatment of Rizal by the friars after his death—he was buried in the
ground without a crucifix or other markers, and in the book of funerals, he
was listed on a unique page with special permission from the authorities—
was one of the strongest pieces of evidence he had offered. He was
regarded as one of those who passed away without receiving spiritual
support and was impenitent. In fact, the original copy of the retraction
was stored in a way that it wasn't discovered for thirty years. And lastly,
Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many
circumstances of his life. He was not likely the man that would change his
ideas and standing because of some pep talks with his former teachers
and would reconcile with the Church hours before the execution. Friars
had already enforced works of persuasion in Dapitan and did not obtain
result. And Rizal knew too well to himself what damage the retraction
would totally do to his image as a Filipino revolutionist.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
On the other hand, the opposing party mainly focused on the events that
only they could know, like Fr. Balaguer and other friars were with Rizal during
the said retraction, it was or may have already been filtered by their personal
lenses, thus, there is nothing to be assured about their claim. The Catholic
Rizalists which with of distinct accounts about the presumed retraction
just confirmed each other’s claim, and that the only difference is that
Fr.Balaguer is the firsthand source while Fr. Pi plays the second and was
only involved in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of
Manila. They firmly claim that Rizal did retract, provided with the idea that
the National Hero himself had sign the retraction and letter and even
modified the formula of retraction to suit his writings. But, since this had
happened along the four corners of the chapel where only friars are
around, it’s questionable to rely on this claim

Loopholes or Inconsistencies

In the first account made by Fr. Balaguer, the loopholes that were evident
were the time he professed his account true in relevance to the time it
takes for the public to witness the actual document. Clearly, if the
retraction was true, the public especially Rizal’s family, should have known
about the retraction and the signed formula hours after the latter’s death.
It was also stated in his account that he has made an original copy of the
account hours after the execution. Is it really needed to make another
account years after the supposed retraction formula was signed when he
has written the original file hours after Rizal’s death? Another is that the
account only stated the happenings during the retraction but not after it,
when in fact he witnessed all those. Also, the claimed that he was the one
who also make the wedding of Rizal and Bracken happen hours before his
death which is after the retraction, but it is not stated in his account and
at least, Josephine Bracken was not mentioned in his statements, not
even as a witness
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
On the other hand, Fr. Pi’s account was only a compiled hearsay of what
the priests are reporting to him. He was not even at the happening
firsthand to tell if the supposed retraction was true. Yes, the information
from his account and Fr. Balaguer’s was tally but then again, he was not a
firsthand witness of the retraction, therefore his knowledge about it was
totally limited to what Fr. Balaguer claimed and to the retraction paper he
was told to formulate. He also stated the facts in his account like he was
there at the actual scene when in fact he’s not. Also, the first pro Rizal
retraction accounts lack some supporting evidence that was pointed out
from the negating sides, making their claim weaker in our humble
perspective. On Rafael Palma’s and Austin Coates’s analyses they used
historical facts and materials to disprove Rizal’s retraction, which may have
been a disadvantage since it just means that they do not have a firsthand
basis of what really happened. Although sufficient and almost confirming,
their ideas and points just based mainly on the side after which the
retraction is said to be signed, but not during it. Also, they also used other
people’s point of views, such as Rizal’s colleagues, to synthesize the truth
about Rizal’s retraction. In this very case, each person has their own biases,
which may have or may have been a disadvantage at their expense.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Contributions
These contradicting yet enlightening accounts paved the way for a more
understanding of the National Hero’s presumed retraction. The accounts
presented believable occurrences of retraction but were completely
contradicting with one another. Although these contradictions would
totally confuse the public audience, we’d be able to imply our own stand
on the subject by analyzing the accounts based on the how they were
written, the background of the writer, his purpose and what most likely to
occur at the that time. The different claims on accounts became an
avenue or more investigations and research to be conducted about the
retraction and the demand to dig deeper about the case would provide the
public audience an understanding about the retraction.
GENERALIZATIONS
Conclusions and Judgments
Honestly, I do not have a firm stand on this controversy as of now, I believe
that I need to conduct further and more thorough research on the issue and
even prove the validity of the sources. However, I can say that I am more
favorable on the Anti-retractionists perspective because I think that the Pro-
Retractionists need to provide more evidence. I believe that saying a specific
information and then followed by according to a witness” isn’t reliable and
valid enough. I am open to the possibility of Rizal’s retraction but with the
evidence that the pro-retractionists are presenting I am not convinced
enough that is why I am still skeptic about its authenticity. I believe that Jose
Rizal is firm on what he is fighting for, therefore the sudden shift in his
behavior on the night of his execution if he did retract is quite
questionable. Father Balaguer along with other witnesses says that after
the signing of the retraction, Rizal performed acts of piety and showed
respect to the prayer book and such, but how will these acts show the full
conversion of Jose Rizal? Can we actually use this as basis of his retraction
when it was just a short period of time? Another point that I am questioning
is the content of his document “Mi Ultimo Adios” which he had also left
before his execution. This document was a poem as his ‘last farewell’ and did
not show in any way the shift or change in Rizal’s beliefs with regards to the
Catholic Church. If he really did retract, why is it not even mentioned in his
last farewell? The pro-retractionists claims that a part of his reason to
retract was to save his family and be wedded to Josephine Bracken, but why
is there no certificate of marriage or even a public record of it that is present
which could be used as evidence for his retraction?
GENERALIZATIONS
Aside from this, if Rizal really did retract why was there no action from the
church to steer him away from his execution? Given the fact that his
execution is due to his propagandas against the government,
however one would expect that the retraction would at least encourage the
religious authorities to try and save the hero. With regards to his remains,
the information that I got all points out that he was buried first in Paco
cemetery. His burial was kept a secret and was not even proper as he was
buried outside the inner wall of the said cemetery and no record was placed
on the page for the entries of the day. This yet again makes me wonder, if he
really did retract why didn’t the Catholic church gave him a proper catholic
burial to acknowledge his alleged retraction? I am also skeptic with the
authenticity of the retraction document itself, because when Rizal’s
family asked for the retraction letter it was said to be lost. Important
document such as the retraction letter could not just be simply
loss, I would encourage researchers to dwell on this information further,
such as where the letter went to and what happened to it during the time
that it was nowhere to be found, could some people actually be forging or
changing its content back then? Fr. Pio Pi reported that as early
as 1907 the retraction letter was copied verbatim or word by word and was
published in Spain and was reprinted in Manila in which Fr. Garcia also copied
verbatim. If the reproductions were copied with exact words, why were
there some conflicts and errors regarding the alleged content of the
retraction letter? One copy shows the date that Jose Rizal signed was
December 29, 1890, another shows the date December 29, 198c, and another
with the date of December 29, 1986. I would like to know which is the
supposed original one among these three. There was also a story revealed by
Antonio K. Abad who claims that the letter was forged by Roman Roque, who
were Abad’s neighbor and source of the information itself.
GENERALIZATIONS
Overall as I have said earlier, I am open with the possibility of Rizal’s
retraction but as of now, I am not convinced with the evidence that the pro-
retractionists are presenting since there are many questions left that are
unanswered. In my opinion, Rizal did not retract before his execution. After
reading some of the articles, I was convinced that he did not retract. If he
retracted before his execution, then why was he not buried properly? He was
buried in the place for those who are against the Catholic Church. He did not
even get a proper burial. If he died as a catholic, they should have given him
the burial that deserves. Why would he marry Josephine Bracken if he was to
die? It was said earlier that the retraction was made for Rizal to be able to
marry the love of his life, which is Josephine Bracken, then why was there no
marriage certificate presented. For me to have present my view on the
retraction of Rizal which I have talked of in the previous paragraph, I
analyzed the information that the alleged “primary sources” have
presented. Such as the retraction letter itself which I find
questionable due to the variety of the date signed plus the story of Abad
which claims the letter a fraud. Other than that, my opinions were all just a
result of the inquiries in my head that was not given answer to by the pro-
retractionists’ evidence and the secondary sources that I have read such as
articles and research about the retraction of Rizal which I know is not reliable
enough because unlike primary sources which are actual accounts of the
eyewitness of an event it was only hand down information, however it did
provide me various perspectives about the controversy which led me to my
belief right now that Rizal did not retract.
REFERENCES
Jose Rizal [The Retraction]

Vol. 8, No. 3, Rene ESCALANTE | CSEAS Journal, Southeast Asian Studies

(englishkyoto-seas.org)

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-st-la-
salle/accountancy/retraction-of-jose-rizal/16522715

https://www.ipl.org/essay/Summary-Of-Jose-Rizals-Retraction-
Controversy-F37Y6WH4SCFR

https://www.academia.edu/50114979/The_Retraction_of_Jose_Rizal

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62855660/POSITION-PAPER-
RETRACTION-OF-RIZALdocx/

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