Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda, or known as Jose Rizal and is

acknowledged as the Philippines’ National Hero has a lot of left unanswered questions until to
this day. Studies made regarding his life, works, studies, and more have not been fully proved.
In relation to that, the controversial “Retraction of Rizal” is one of the few where until today it
seemed to not be settled. Theories and opinions are still not proven right regards with that
matter.
This certain matter started off with the letter written by him containing the statements, “
Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir.Me retracto
de todo corazon de cuanto en mis “ palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario
a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a
cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como
Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior
Eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que
mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.”

And translated to English as,” 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 a 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.” The initial text was released on
December 30, 1896, the day of Rizal's execution, in La Voz Espanola and Diario de Manila. The
second text, written by an unidentified author who later identified himself as Fr.Balaguer, first
published in the monthly magazine La Juventud in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897.
After going missing for 39 years starting in the afternoon of the day Rizal was shot, the "original"
text was finally found in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935 by Fr. Manuel Garcia.
Four sworn statements now serve as firsthand proof of the retraction: Fr. The retraction
was signed, according to Balaguer and Visa's testimony. Fr. Pio Pi vowed that Fr. had given it to
him. A Colonel of the Infantry and Balaguer at the Ateneo. On May 30, 1918, R. Dominguez
took Philippine oath, 22 years after the incident, claiming he had witnessed Rizal kneel before
the altar of the Fort Chapel and read the retraction "with voice clear and calm." Dominguez then
repeated the retraction without a single error. He duplicated this retraction for sure because he
couldn't remember it, but it's unclear how much more he copied given this fact, which Pascual
swears on. Many of his sentences are exact replicas of passages from other documents.The
retraction itself, which Father Manuel Garcia discovered on May 18, 1935, is the most crucial
piece of evidence. Retractions from other males who lived during the same time period had
been used to seal it. A prayer book with Rizal's signature and closing with "Acts of Faith, Hope,
and Charity" was included in the same bundle. These "Acts" cover the church's principles in far
greater detail than the retraction. The fact of the retraction will be established if both the
retraction and the signature are shown to be authentic, though Fr. Balaguer’s allegations will still
remain uncredible.
 We will now go over the key differences between the wording of the retraction in the
"original" and Manila newspapers, on the one hand, and the texts of Father Balaguer and Father
Pio's copies, on the other. First, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction have "mi calidad" (with "u")
instead of the words "mi cualidad," which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
Second, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica," which is located after the
first "Iglesias," which is found in the original and the newspaper texts. Third, the phrase
"misma," which is absent from both the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction, is
added before the third "Iglesias" in the Jesuit copies of the retraction. Fourth, Father Balaguer's
text does not start the second paragraph until the fifth sentences, although the original and
newspaper versions do so right away with the second sentences. This is a paragraphing issue
that instantly catches the critical reader's attention. Fifth, the text of Father Balaguer's copy
contains eleven commas, although the retraction's text only has four in the original and Manila
newspapers. Sixth, and most significantly, The names of the witnesses from the texts of the
Manila newspapers were absent from Balaguer's copy. Moreover, one fact supports the
marriage statement Rizal wrote in a copy of The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas Kempis, the
words, “ To my dear and unhappy wife, Dec. 30, 1896.”
The intriguing question, Did Rizal retract? Rests upon the genuineness, or otherwise, of
the supposed retraction. Until today it remains as a certain puzzle for researchers if the
credibility of the statements and the acquired evidence are a strong support for the said
retraction.