Did Jose Rizal Retract?

No, 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.

The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.

First was 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.

Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married
Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage
certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements.

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.

Rizal’s behaviour 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 behaviour 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 behaviour consistent of what he was throughout his mature years.

Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction controversy, “…it
detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.”

The question above is the center of debate between two Rizalist groups. The Masonic Rizalists believe
that Rizal did not retract all the things he wrote and did against the Spaniards. Meanwhile, Catholic
Rizalists believe that Rizal did retract his life’s work and principles against the Spaniards.

My opinion about Rizal has changed as I turned out to be developed. In spite of this, despite everything I
accept that Jose P. Rizal is my national legend and he has the right to be one. He may have believed that
nothing will be lost.

Explanation:
The first report was never appeared to the general population, just generations of it. Be that as it may, Fr.
Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, announced that as right on time as 1907, the withdrawal of Rizal was duplicated
verbatim and distributed in Spain, and republished in Manila.

DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?

by Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso

Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of José Rizal’s alleged

retraction of his religious errors stirs up the emotions of historians, flaring
up into fiery debates between the pros and cons, without any resolution in
sight.

The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and

improbable to Rizal’s character and vehemence against oppression, as
evidenced by a letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889: “…At the sight of
those injustices and cruelties…I swore to devote myself to avenge one day
so many victims, and with this idea in mind I have been studying and this
can be read in all my works and writings. God will someday give me an
opportunity to carry out my promise.”

Of the religious orders, he writes: “…the friars are not what they
pretend to be nor are they ministers to Christ, the protector of the people,
nor the support of the Spanish government…Don’t they show cruelty?
Don’t they instigate the government against the people? Don’t they
manifest terror? Where are sanctity, protection, and force?”

Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he
was unsure of his reaction: “…no one knows how one should behave at that
supreme instant, and perhaps I myself who preach and brag so much might
manifest more fear and less energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at that critical
moment.”

Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the

confession Rizal purportedly signed prior to his execution and testimonies
of several witnesses who had seen the act carried out.

However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he
weary of the struggle that he decided to give in to the continuous urgings of
the Jesuit fathers who were present at his death cell? Or is it possible that
Rizal had ruminated on retracting while still on exile in Dapitan?
 Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcilla’s monumental multi-volume Jesuit
Missionary Letters from Mindanao contains several letters of the Jesuit
Antonio Obach to his Mission Superior, which may shed light on this matter.
Obach wrote on July 28, 1895: “Rizal has just seen me and said (what has
been jumping from mouth to mouth of some who heard it from him), ‘Father
Antonio, I no longer want further battles with the friars, but live and work
in peace.’

‘What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at
peace.’
‘I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain
conditions.’
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own
hand and style, he wrote: ‘Conditions I ask to retract references to the
matter of the friars, and no longer meddle with them.’
—José Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.”

Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on
retracting beforehand? What is intriguing is that he had arrived at this
decision, evidently, to spare his family from further suffering and
maltreatment.

Fr. Obach continues: “…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy
materials, and he asks that they be returned or their equivalent…I
answered that the only thing I could do was to look into the situation and if
there is no difficulty, for I do not know how things are…As for the third, I
said that I do not think they would give him such a big amount. His plan…is
to raise a huge cement plant which, on a small scale…has been quite
successful. But this third condition is not important, for without it, he is
ready to make a retraction provided his family is provided for. Besides, if
they grant him this amount, it would be on condition that he repays it.”

Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store

in Dapitan to compete with the Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat
the Indios.” In fact, Rizal had prepared the statutes and regulations of the
Society of Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate the easy buying,
selling, and storage of products for export, and curtailing the trade
monopoly of the Chinese.
 Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away
from his errors: “I am convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to
retract, but his pride strongly holds him back…I think he will immediately
break away from everything and he would be an excellent Christian.”

In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: “Regarding the letter I

sent to Your Reverence which contains Rizal’s retraction. I would ask you to
send me a model retraction…In demanding that Rizal indicate what has
been taken from his family, perhaps it will be humiliating for the Dominican
Fathers. Rizal refuses, because in this way they will (have) him bound more
tightly under obligation. On the other hand, retracting is acknowledging his
errors, and so it is his turn to humble himself…I await your letter which I
can read to Rizal to convince him what is better to do for God’s greater
glory.”

By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed
account of his errors: “…Rizal came and asked me if I could draw up a list
of his errors. ‘You can tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write, and tell him that I
myself will retract all errors I may have committed against the Roman
Catholic and Apostolic Church in my writings, and that he can make this
same retraction public in the manner he wants.’ But with this he stands to
lose everything…”

Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive
some form of compensation for all the troubles they endured: “But on
condition that they give me P50,000 since I have no means to support
myself in decency, and with that amount I could bring my parents with me
anywhere.” He no longer talks of machines and cement, and so on, and he
thinks that this amount is owed him because of the harm inflicted on him.”

Are Father Antonio Obach’s letters a reliable source about Rizal’s

situation? Will these revelations provide new clues to his frame of mind
during the few hours before his death? The mystery of Rizal’s retraction
deepens.
PROCUREMENT

FEATURED PHOTOS
THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES
by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean.

But ever so often in our collective recollection, it is remembered that
sometimes the skilful use of forgery can redirect the flow of history itself.

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow

of money from the rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible
people.

That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all
over the world, but forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a
redirection of events and undoing of history. It has the power to obscure or
beliee an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire. It
also has the power to enslave and destroy.

In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led
by Austrians, with Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were
battling it out for territory called Kanizsa. The Ottoman army was
outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan
Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy
to be allied with the Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be
captured by the Austrians. The letters contained Hungarian alliance with
Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters signed by a
reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.

The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from

within. Thus, did the Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged
communication.

During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan
to invade Sicily in 1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This was a
deception campaign to mislead German Intelligence about the real target of
the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.
 A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures,
were attached to a British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to
float somewhere in a beach in Spain, where plenty of German agents were
sure to get hold of it.

The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its
documents seen by German agents. The documents identified Sardinia and
Corsica as the targets of the Allied invasion. The Germans believed it, and
was caught with their pants down when allied forces hit the beaches of the
real target, which was Sicily.

This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans
in North Africa. They placed a map of British minefields, then attached them
to a corpse. The minefields were non-existent but the Germans saw the map
and considered it true. Thus, they rerouted their tanks to areas with soft
sand where they bogged down.

In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to

Japanese military officials who were captured, and later released, they were
accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined
Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino fisherman
recovered some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US
Intelligence. The documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a
result, the Americans shifted their invasion target to Leyte instead of
Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.

On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was
lightly defended as the Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the
invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy launched their last offensive
strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once and for
all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers
were considered by some military strategists as spurious and could have
been manufactured by the Japanese to mislead the American navy into
thinking that Leyte was a defenceless island. That Leyte was a trap. And the
Americans nearly fell into it.

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of

documents served to negate the existence of an independent Philippines.

In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio

Segismundo who carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The
American then faked some documents complete with forged signature,
telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him guerrillas
with American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia,
the Americans assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers, the
Macabebe scouts. These were the soldiers who penetrated the camp of
Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They managed
to capture Aguinaldo. With the president captured, his generals began to
surrender, and the Republic began to fall.

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated
as to its authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his
death. There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only
surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A.
Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original
document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907,
the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and
reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also
copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to

this the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document
which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date

“December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look
like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up.
It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document,
reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man
who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture
Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature
forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during
the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from
Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest
of the night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was
invented by the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on
the friar abuses.
 Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also
figured prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio
reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in
exchange of pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of
Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged
badly. The document supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the
fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look,
there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and
other letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a

hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a
turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were forgeries, then
somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
PROCUREMENT

FEATURED PHOTOS
THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in
1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians
and Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been
signed by the National Hero himself.

It stated: “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.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document
only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make
the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did
not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—
agree with each other.

Proofs, documents
History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by
Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before
his execution in Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft
because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who

befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter
retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the
Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the
document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that
opposed Catholic belief.

READ

Gloria Coronel marks 50 years as glorious coloratura

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was
purchased by the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the
Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some interesting points about the
retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department of the De
La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de

Vigilancia de Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that
contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from
Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change
even if the controversies were true.
“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the
Church, it still did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of
change in Philippine colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that
led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just one aspect of the
life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he
said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned

fact of history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and
reality” in his book The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that
Rizal retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry
and not from his famous nationalistic works.

READ

Buhay na regalo

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a

Catholic was he was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said
De Viana, who compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and
free mason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.
 De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged
because witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on
Rizal’s character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s
mature beliefs and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-
minded. Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a
perfect person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He
believes that Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace
when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that
is enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”

 TAGS

 No. 6

 October 4, 2011

 Vol. LXXXIII

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

News
14 Thomasians in top 10 of psychometrician board exam; UST is 3rd top-performing school

-----

The debate still continues if Dr. Jose Rizal, our national hero, really retracted? This has been the
greatest controversy which is most talked about Rizal. He is recognized for the novels he had
written during the Spanish period. Because of these courageous acts of rebellion against the said
colonizers, he became our National Hero. But what if our national hero, at the last moments of
his life retracted everything he had ever said and written? In 1935, a letter was found by Father
Manuel Garcia.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay onJose Rizal’s
Retraction Controversy
GET CUSTOM PAPER

The said letter contains that Jose Rizal declared himself as a Catholic and that he retracts
everything he had said, written, published and did against the Catholic Church.

Opinions regarding this issue would not be the same because some may agree and some may not.
There so many questions speculating his retraction if in the first place, all of this is what he really
fought for. From Fr. Balaguer’s version, Rizal, on the 29th day of December 1896, wrote and
signed the retraction papers in front of him and with the other Jesuit priest present at the death
cell.

Rizal asked for a confession twice and for a rosary from the priest between the two confessions.

In Balaguer’s memorandum-record, Rizal asked for a mass and a request for Holy Communion,
this was readily approved by the Jesuits and assigned Fr. Villaclara as the officiating priest of the
mass inside the cell. He also mentioned that Rizal asked for the image of the Sagrado Corazon de
Jesus which he carved when he was just 14. Balaguer described the scene as heart-warming
because Rizal kissed the image that he had requested from the Jesuits. While kneeling and
surrounded by the religious authorities in the death cell, Rizal read the retraction document.
Balaguer also claimed that there was a servant-messenger for Josephine Bracken to prepare for
the marriage at the San Ignacio Church where Fr.

Simo will conduct the confession and other things needed for the ceremonies, which will be
materialized on the morning of the 30th. Lastly, before the execution and in the presence of the
Archbishop and the Jesuit superior Reverend Fr. Pio Pi, Rizal kissed the image of the cross
presented to him and has a rosary entwined in his hand. But how did Father Balaguer convinced
Rizal to be converted into Cathloic before his execution?
This is one of the big unanswered questions of today. In addition to this, Rizal wrote a poem
entitled “My Last Farewell” which was written on the eve of his execution, there was a line there
saying, “I’ll go where there are no slaves, tyrants or hangmen where faith does not kill and where
God alone does reign (Rizal, 1896).”

With this, he mentioned God in this poem. Before he was executed, he wrote an undated letter to
his family when he was in Fort Santiago: “Bury me in the ground, place a stone and a cross over
it. My name, the date of my brith and of my death. Nothing more. If you later wish to surround
my grave with a fence, you may do so. No anniversaries. I prefer Paang Bundok.“ Now, what do
he mean by this? He wanted a cross over it. He died as a Catholic and was buried inside the
sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery.

Unfortunately, his instructions were not granted. It was also 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. Speaking of Josephine as his wife, there
was an article from Jose Rizal University that one day of early March 1896; Rizal played a
practical joke on Josephine, which frightened her terribly. As a result, she prematurely gave birth
to an eight-month baby boy. The baby was very weak and can hardly breathe. With this, Rizal
immediately baptized him Francisco in honor of his father. He tried to save the life of his son but
all his knowledge and skill as a physician could not save little Francisco.

Sorrowfully, Rizal saw his child die three hours after birth then he drew a sketch of his dead son
and he buried him under a shady tree near his home. He prayed”: “Oh, God, I give you another
tiny angel. Please bless his soul.” Again, this is one proof that even before the exile in Dapitan,
he practiced being a Catholic.

On the other hand, the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was
even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. It was said that the paper was lost when
Rizal’s family requested for the original copy. Are the Jesuits too irresponsible for not knowing
the importance of the document? Or was it just hidden? But 39 years later, the original copy was
found in the archdiocesan archives.

Ricardo Pascual Ph. D, who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to test the
document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the papers shown was
a falsification. The common contradiction of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father
Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original. The manuscript was also
allegedly misplaced from 1922 – 1935.

Trinidad challenged the Jesuits to show to her the manuscripts so that she could validate that it
was Rizal’s handwriting and signature. With this, finding out that there were several copies of it,
some may imitate Rizal’s handwriting and signature. Another proof that Rizal did not retract is
that when Father Balaguer claimed that Jose and Josephine, however, there were no marriage
certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s accounts.

In addition, he performed the ceremony between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 with the
presence of one of the Rizal’s sisters but Rizal family denied that none of them were there and
Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM. Also, nobody had reported that Bracken was in the area
of Fort Santiago in the morning of the execution.
Consider also the three priests (Fr. Jose Villaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente
Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose
Rizal, why is it that, only Fr. Balaguer stated that there was a wedding? Furthermore, where were
Fr. Villaclara and Fr. March to verify the manifestation of a marriage ceremony? Or was there
really even one at all?

Showing the two sides, where do you stand? Do you believe that Rizal really abjured or not? It’s
up to you but this controversy should not eradicate Rizal’s works for our country. He awakened
our knowledge of nationalism and patriotism. Jose Rizal’s writings helped in motivating the
Filipinos to fight for our freedom against the Spanish colonizers and inspired a lot of Filipino
revolutionaries to stand up for a cost. In my opinion, I still believe that his contributions to our
country are far greater than the issue brought by this letter. I stick to his advocacy that war is not
the solution for independence.

If you’re going to ask me if he really retract, I would say yes, because he really wanted to have
peace and to stop the chaos during that time, he abjured everything due to the pressure to his
family and became a Catholic.

I stated earlier that he has some requests to his family for his burial that there should be a cross
over his grave, with this, he died as a Catholic and his family, on the 11th day after his death, was
informed that early of the next day, a mass was to be celebrated for the eternal rest of his soul.
Adding to this, he experienced hardships in writing his third novel entitled “Makamisa” because
he is not fluent in Filipino language. How could he state: “A man who doesn’t love his native
language, is worse than all animals and a smelly fish.”, if he, himself, can’t apply it.

And let’s understand that he retracted for the sake of his family’s persecution and wanted a
reform for our country against the Spanish government. I’m sure all of us really love our family
and will do such extraordinary things just to save them and would love to have peace on earth.
But all this and more will retract nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.

You may also be interested in the following: rizal did not retract, did rizal retract?, did rizal
retract
Cite this page
APA MLA Harvard Chicago ASA IEEE AMA
Jose Rizal’s Retraction Controversy. (2016, Apr 09). Retrieved
fromhttps://studymoose.com/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy-essay
COPY

Read less
Remember

This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper from our expert writers
GET YOUR CUSTOM ESSAY
 This essay is written by:
Prof JimmyVerified writer
Finished papers: 527
4.75

Proficient in:
English, Healthcare, Nursing, History, Business and Entrepreneurship,
Psychology
You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

HIRE THIS WRITER

Related Essays
 Did Jose Rizal Retract?Pages: 4 (1051 words)
 Dr. Jose RizalPages: 7 (1876 words)
 Life, works, and political ideas of Dr. Jose RizalPages: 14 (4119 words)
 Jose Rizal: Reaction PaperPages: 2 (509 words)
 Importance of Ignatius of LoyolaPages: 5 (1291 words)
 Jose RizalPages: 2 (319 words)
 Noli Me Tangere by Jose RizalPages: 6 (1787 words)
 Noli Me Tangere, El Filibusterismo Pages: 1 (270 words)
 How to Avoid Plagiarism
 Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
 Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay

 Get help from professional writers when not sure you can do it
yourself
 Do not copy and paste free to download essays
GET PLAGIARISM FREE ESSAY

Not Finding What You Need?

Search for essay samples now

Your Deadline is Too Short? Let a Professional Writer

Help YouGET HELP FROM WRITER

© 2016 - 2019 StudyMoose.com

COMPANY

 About StudyMoose
 Contact
 Careers
 FAQ
 Donate a paper
 Read my essay
 Conclusion generator
 Thesis statement generator
 Research paper writing service

LEGAL

 Terms & Conditions

 Privacy Policy
 Complaints

PAYMENT
 info@studymoose.com(415) 230-5300

THIS SERVICE WILL BE USEFUL FOR:

Students looking for free, top-notch essay and term paper samples on various topics. Additional
materials, such as the best quotations, synonyms and word definitions to make your writing easier are
also offered here.

Hi, my name is Jenn �

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your
own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order
Check Out the Form
Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose.
Would you like to earn money writing? We can offer you writing jobs for real money – see our
requirements. goo.gl