John Alexander A.

Pilar
BSCE-1B

Activity: Identifying the Arguments

Identify the argument and the evidence of those who are claiming that Rizal retracted against
those who are saying otherwise.

Rizal retracted

Claimant Argument 1 Evidences/proofs

Rizal, according to De Viana, As proof, he asserted that

resigned from Masonry Rizal was a Catholic who
Dr. Augusto De Viana
rather than his literary passed away and was
works. Furthermore, he interred at the Paco cemetery.
asserts that the document
cannot be falsified because
witnesses were present when
Rizal signed it.

He further claims that Rizal's

retractions were prompted
by Rizal's desire to die
peacefully.

Your observation

He asserts so in his statement even though he believes Rizal relinquished his status as a
mason. The hero of the country is highly regarded by Dr. Augusto De Viana. He continued
by saying that Rizal's accomplishments will survive notwithstanding his retractions.
Additionally, Rizal broadens our viewpoint on nationalism.

Rizal retracted

Claimant Argument 2 Evidences/proofs

The long formula of Fr. said that Rizal declined to

retraction that had been
The Jesuits
written by the Prelate's order
was allegedly presented to
Rizal by Father Balaguer at
ten o'clock the night before
sign the initial template that
Fr. Pio rejected it because it
was too wordy and featured
ideas at odds with his
character. After making
 he was executed, but Rizal
refused to sign it because it
was too long. Father
Balaguer was instructed by
Rizal to get a pen and take
notes as he spoke. And there
was the paper of Rizal's
retraction, which is regarded
as the primary witness to the
truth of retraction.
minor adjustments, Rizal
signed the second template,
and Fr. was then sent the
retraction letter. Then Pio Pi
sent a message to the
archbishop.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer claims to

have spent the last hours of
Rizal's captivity with him
and persuaded him to
renounce his life's work and
convictions.

Your observation

Given that they were present, the Jesuits' allegations strongly imply that Rizal's retraction is
accurate. The comments and claims made, however, are viewed as being unreliable because
they might be biased and opinionated. In addition, nobody other than the law enforcement
officials saw the actual copy of the retraction document. As a result, the Jesuits' documents
are only copies and insufficient to back up their claim.

Rizal Did Not Retracted

Claimant Argument 1 Evidences/proofs

Because it does not Palma's justifications and

accurately reflect Rizal's evidence:
Rafael Palma
genuine character and
1. Nobody saw the
values, Palma referred to the
document but the law
claimed paper of his
enforcement.
retraction as a lie and
 hearsay. 2. Rizal was denied
access to the original
document and the
certificate of canonical
marriage despite his
requests.

3.Catholics did not

attend a funeral or
mass in honor of
Rizal. The
reconciliation with
the Catholics is
therefore not verified.
In addition, there are
no records of his
interment in Paco's
Catholic cemetery,
suggesting that he
was merely laid to
rest in the earth
without any markers.

The conversion was

not motivated by
moral principles.

Your observation

The account of Rizal's retraction document by Rafael Palma is in stark contrast to Fr.
Balaguer. By presenting the reasons why the retraction paper is a deception committed by the
Catholic, he confirms his claim that it does not accurately represent Rizal's traits and views.
One of the things that caught my attention was the claim that Rizal was buried in a Catholic
cemetery on the ground without a burial by Catholics. This phrase argues that Rizal should
be accepted as a Catholic if he truly repented and made amends with them.
Rizal Did Not Retracted

Claimant Argument 2 Evidences/proofs

The retraction copies, A few new words were

according to Ildefonso T. added, including misma
1. Ildefonso T. Runes and
Runes and Luciano de la iglesia and catolica.
Luciano de la Rosa
Rosa (1961), were rife with
contradictions. Hence,
credibility and biases are B. The dates varied
possible. significantly depending on
how it was written.

C. They also held the opinion

that Roman Roque, a
professional forger, was
employed by the Catholic
Church to draft a retraction
and forge Rizal's signature.
Roman Roque acknowledged
that he was employed by
friars at the beginning of
August 1901 to print several
copies of a letter of
retractions.

Your observation

By evaluating and comprehending Runes and de la Rosa's statements that Rizal "did not
retract," I can say that their analysis and research significantly add to the topic's clarification.
Since they found a number of "Inconsistencies" in the actual letter that other claimants
thought Rizal penned, it significantly altered many people's ideas, including mine. You see, a
good source must be both credible and reliable as well as consistent in order for us to obtain
it. Because of this, the contradictions (such as the date, the hired Roman Rogue, and the
additional words) had a very strong impact on the other arguments and allegations. Evidence
of this nature is sufficiently persuasive to change the subject, especially in the understandings of
many.
Rizal Did Not Retracted

Claimant Argument 3 Evidences/proofs

They asserted to have When considering the

discovered a retraction letter falsifiers during that period
Ricardo Roque Pascual
in 1935, however it is not in of Spanish colonization, the
Rizal's handwriting. legality of Rizal's retraction
letter is under question. This
Rizal's signature, the inks
demonstrates how Fr. In a
used, the font of some
letter to Pio Pi, Balaguer
sentences, the margin, and
claims that Rizal wrote and
the way individual letters
signed an exact copy of the
were formed were among the
retraction. I don't recognize
irregularities that Pascual
the author's handwriting on
noticed (Pascual 1959, 7-30).
this copy, nor do I recall their
He came to the conclusion
name, "Fr. Balagua needed a
that the recently discovered
Fr. Pi to vouch for it, but Fr.
retraction document was a
Pi had his swom articulation
fake based on all these
ready to check it.
observations.

Your observation

Along with the earlier contention made by Runes and de la Rosa, this assertion by Ricardo
Pascual has also contributed significantly to the debate. Since it reveals that Pascual found
that Rizal's handwriting when he was alive was different from that used in the Letter of
Retraction, this is significant. The possibility that Rizal did not create or write the letter is one
of the many "what ifs" that result from this. Therefore, I may say that this claim significantly
improved the argument that Rizal did not retract.