Position Paper on the

Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal (He did not Retract)

This is a Alternate Requirement

Submitted to:
Mr. Edvin Protacio Eryle,
Professor of the subject of Hist 101

Submitted By:
Jimenez, Jianne
Julkanain Sitti Daisa
Labado, Cristine
Lapu-Lapu, Julicel
Trocio, Fil Maori
BEED- 1A

November 17, 2022

José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda was a Filipino nationalist, writer and polymath
active at the end of the Spanish colonial period of the Philippines. He is considered the national
hero (pambansang bayani) of the Philippines. In the heart of the Filipinos, he had immortalized
himself through his works and sacrifices for freedom and independence. Yet, his life was not
always grand and perfect. Rizal’s greatness is secluded by the many controversies surrounding
his life. Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction is a hot debate by scholars and historians even until now as to
the matter that if he did really retract before his execution. There were accounts proving that Dr.
Rizal did retract and accounts that he did not retract at all. Several historians report that Rizal
retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document, However many doubt the authenticity of
this said document for there was an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.
So, did Rizal retract or did he not?
The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his
execution
In the analyzation from the book of “Readings in Philippine History ,” on page 219, we can
actually see the tally of the proportion of which Rizal signed within the documents he sent to
Bracken, his Mother, Andrade, his average proportion he has always been writing with, and from
the alleged retraction. There we can see that there was a more significant change from the
documents of Bracken and the retraction, as the document to his Mother, Andrade, and his
average proportion he has always been writing with has a consistent ratio of proportion in the
context of his signature. This correlates the book’s analysation of the writing that was seen in
the retraction document and the other documents Dr. Rizal has written, Dr. Ricardo Pascual
sought permission from the archbishop to examine the document, he identified inconsistencies in
the handwriting and the format of the document that it was not of Dr. Rizal’s own way of writing
and he concluded that the document is but a forgery. In the case of the authenticity of the
document alone, it is already doubtable whether it was really legitimate or more if it really
existed.
Another evidence shows that Dr. Rizal did not retract is that when he allegedly signed the
document, one of his terms was to be wed with Josephine Bracken which the Catholic Church
says that they were wed a day before Rizal was executed, however, there were no evidences of
public records or a marriage certificate of Dr. Rizal and Bracken to prove that he was wed and
did retract. If Dr. Rizal did so, his family would have known of it immediately because he would
have told them the truth in his communication letter to them and when they saw him before he
was executed but there were no mentions of his retraction and that is why the family was seeking
the original document because they do not believe that Dr. Rizal did retract all of his life’s
works.
The copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and
was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was
said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or
was it just hidden?
Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual
Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later
concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery.
The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors
in reproducing another copy of the original.
Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he
would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his
penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or
church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in
filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same
of what happened to the three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were
still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper
burial.
Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal’s favourite
teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student’s
allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez
told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate
(Laubach, 1936). However, Rizal rejected the offer.
It was argued that Rizal retracted In order to save his family from further persecution, to give
Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife and to assure reforms from the Spanish government.
It is more likely to be of Rizal’s mentality however, come to think of it, would Rizal just simply
neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that brought him to
the point of being executed? No.
Going into the eyewitness, the book states that the first witness to what happened in Rizal’s cell
was Fr. Vicente Balaguer Llacer. 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.m. 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.”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.
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”. Where, 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.
Rizal’s behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion- the Mi
Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister
and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father
Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula
of the retraction.
Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had
coveted death a long time ago. His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do not
believe that he have written a retraction.
Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man aged 33. He was mature enough to realize the
consequences of the choice he had made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been
anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a behavior showing a threat from
death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him knows
this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a behavior consistent of what he was
throughout his mature years.
In general , it can be said that Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and
evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless,
until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.
To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retraction
document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be
true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great
hero with such greatness. As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”,
Joel Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers lthat whether he retracted or not, it
does change what he has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore,
former Senator Jose Diokno once stated, “Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate
adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal –
the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die
for our duty and our beliefs”.
Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction controversy, it
detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. For you, as a Filipino Youth, with all of the
evidences laid above, did Dr. Jose Rizal retracted his statements or did he not?

\
REFERENCES
Nacion, N. (2015). Ways to Proving that Rizal Did Not Retract.
https://prezi.com/zuchf8t_mfjj/ways-to-proving-that-rizal-did-not-retract/

Did Rizal really retract?. (2021).

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/far-eastern-university/rizals-life-works-and-writings/did-
rizal-really-retract/18355540

Did Jose Rizal retract? (1946- ). https://www.quora.com/Did-Jose-Rizal-retract

FIBBOYS. (2012). Did Jose Rizal Retract?.

https://puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/did-jose-rizal-retract/

 Paraiso, B.( nd). DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?.

File:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/2.docx.pdf

Balaguer, V., Palma, R. (n.d). Retraction of Jose Rizal.

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

Boycillo, A. (2017). Rizal’s Retraction. https://www.scribd.com/document/364528956/Rizal-s-

Retraction