Module 3: Lesson Two

“A person with a noble character values honor above self-interest, while a

person with a base character values self-interest above honor.”
– Emilio Jacinto

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Identify the conflicting views/accounts about the Rizal Retraction;

2. Analyze each view or source; and,
3. Use primary sources in presenting/writing about a local issue.

Rizal’s retraction is one of the intriguing issues that is all about his reversion to
Catholicism retracting his Masonic ideals. This lesson presents contrasting views of the
retraction by biographers of Rizal.

Fill in the KWL Chart. On the first column, write what you know about the life of
Rizal, on the second column write what you want to know about the Jose Rizal. On
the last column, write what you have learned, it will be filled in at the end of the lesson.
Learn
Know Want
(What did you learn?)
(What do you know (What do you want to
To be filled in at the end
about the Katipunan?) know about this topic?)
of the lesson

Do you think that Rizal’s retraction will affect the course of Philippine history?
Why?

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

RIZAL RETRACTION

Historical Context

A leader of the reformist movement in Spain,

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.
The night before his death by firing squad at the
Luneta on December 30, 1896, accounts exist that
Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and his
writings and reconverted to Catholicism following
several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests.
There was considerable doubt to this allegation by
Rizal’s family and friends until in 1935, the supposed
retraction document with Rizal’s signature was
found. Until today, the issue whether Rizal retracted
or not and whether the document is forged or real is a subject of continuous
debate between historians and Rizal scholars alike.

The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first two are the official
accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were instrumental in the alleged
retraction of Rizal. The other two are critical analyses by two Rizalist scholars
who doubted the story of the retraction.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement

Fr. Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests

who visited Rizal during his last hourse in Fort Santiago
and claimed that he managed to persude Rizal to
denounce Masonry and return to Catholic fold. In an
affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to
Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who
solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal
hours before the execution.

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
The Account

…That after Rizal was condemned to death, when the

chaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago, where the convict was
offered his services for so sad circumstances, the prisoner told him
that he appreciated his offering, but the desired rather to be
visited by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus by whom he had
been educated. When he made thus request, the Reverend
Father Superior, Father Pio Pi, in compliance with the Commission
of His Father Superior Luis Viza to the Fort. When these Fathers
entered the Fort that morning of December 29, 1896, Rizal
received them with signs of affection, and asked them whether
some of those who had been his professors were still there in
Ateneo.

They told him that Fr. Vilaclara only, who had returned to
Manila few days before remained. They told him that I (Father
Balaguer) was also in Manila and he asked that I go also, since I
have been, as already stated, a Missionary in Dapitan, where he
dealt with me as a friend. He was a very polite gentleman, and
even friendly towards me. It seems to me convenient to a mention
an incident that took place in the visit that Fathers Saderra and
Viza made him. It is following: When Dr. Rizal was a boarding
student at the Ateneo, very devout and exemplary indeed, he
carved with a penknife a little statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
about centimeters in size, not beautiful, but rather well modelled.
That statuette remained in the Ateneo. It seems that the Lord saw
it that it be preserved during twenty years, although the room
where it was kept underwent many changes. When Dr. Rizal
called for the Fathers to assist him, one of them remembered the
statuette that was still preserved.

One of this Fathers, Father Viza, took and put it in his pocket.
When he arrived at the Fort with Father Saderra, after exchanging
greetings with them, Dr. Rizal asked whether that statuette made
by him was still preserved in the Ateneo, Father Viza, taking out of
his pocket told him; “Yes, sir, here, you have; it is the Heart of Jesus,
who has been waiting for you for twenty years and he comes now
to greet you”. Dr. Rizal took it, kissed it, and placed it on the desk
and there it remained until the hour he left for the place of
execution. This happening indeed providential in such
circumstances. At about ten o’clock in the morning, Father
Villaclara and I went to Fort Santiago where the chapel cell of the
great convict was. He received us with great affection and
embraced us.

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
 I think it convenient to point out that, in case of conversion,
before ministering the Sacramento to him, Dr. Rizal should make a
retraction of errors publicity professed by him in words and writings
and a profession of Catholic faith. To this effect, when the Father
Superior of the mission went to the Archbishop’s Palace, he
brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith,
concise, but including what we thought ought to be exacted from
Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient. He
said, however, that he would prepare or order to be prepared
another more extensive more extensive one.

Before going to the Fort I went to the Palace in order to

receive orders from the Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the
formula of retraction and profession of faith, composed by
Reverend Father Pio Pi. He told me to wait for the other more
extensive one, and to present to the convict either of them,
according to his personal disposition. At any rate, it was enough
to admit the shorter and concise formula of Father Pi, since His
grace considered it sufficient in order to administer the Holy
Sacraments to him.

Therefore, when we, two Fathers, met him in the chapel,

after exchanging greetings with him and talking on various
matters. I, who knew the history and errors contained in his books,
in order to fulfil our delicate mission, asked Rizal to give an
explanation of his ideas on religion. At the outset he appeared
Protestant, because of certain phrases manifesting love and
respect for Jesus Christ. Nay, he came to say more or less explicitly
that his rule of faith was the word of God contained in the Sacred
Scripture. I tried to make him see how false and indefensible such
a criterion was, inasmuch as without the authority of the church
he could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture or of
the books truly revealed by God; how absolutely impossible it is for
the individual reason to interpret at his will the word of God. Then
he declared himself openly a rationalist of freethinker, unwilling to
admit any other criterion of truth than individual reason.

I, then pointed out to him the absurdity of rationalism for the

lack of instruction of the immense majority of humankind, and for
the absurd and monstrous errors professed by the greatest sages
paganism. I tried to convince him with irrefutable arguments that
there is not, nor can there be, a more rational criterion than
supernatural faith and divine revelation, warranted by the
infallible authority of the Church; that such is the clear testimony
of reason, history and the motives of credibility offered with
evidence by the Church. Constrained by these invincible
arguments, he came to say to me that he was guided by the

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
reason God had given him, adding with self-profession that
curdled my blood, that he was going to appear thus before the
tribunal of God, with a clear conscience for having fulfilled his duty
as a rational man. When I attacked him with the arguments of
Catholic doctrine, he began to expound the objections of the
heretics and rationalists, a thousand times refuted already.

We had discuss the criterion or rule of faith, the authority of

the Church, her infallibility and divine teaching authority, the
power of working miracles, the death penalty (a subject of so
burning an interest in those moments), the death of Ananias and
Sapphira, the Holy Scriptures, the Vulgate, Saint Jerome’s version,
that of the LXX, Purgatory, the variations of the Protestant
Churches, the arguments of Balmes against them, the worship of
Saints, and especially the extension of redemption, and many
other objections of apologetics, a thousand times refuted with
irresistible arguments. When attacked him with the logic evidence
of Catholic truth, I told him energy that if he did not yield his mind
and his reason for the sake of he would soon appear for
judgement before God and would be damn. Upon hearing this
threat, tears gushed from his eyes, and he said: “No will not damn
myself.”

“Yes,” –I replied, --“you will go to hell, for, whether you like it

or EXTRA ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM NULLA DATUR SALUS. Yes; the
Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but
one such, truth uncompromising an all orders, and much more so
in the religion order, which is the most transcendental.”

Affected by this reproach he said: --- Look here, Father; if to

please you. Reverences I would say yes to everything and would
sign everything you press to me without meaning it, I would be
hypocrite and would offend God.”

“Certainly,” –I told him--- “and we don’t want that. But

believe me that is a grief without equal to see a beloved person
obstinate in error, and told that person about to be demand and
to be unable to prevent it. You take in being a sincere man; so
believe us that if by giving our blood and our live we could
achieve the salvation of your soul, right now, we would give our
and offer ourselves to be shot lieu of you.

But Father,”---he replied with regret---“what would you have

me do, since it seems that I cannot dominate reason?”

“Offer,”---I answered, ---“offer to God the sacrifice of your

self-love. Even if be against the voice of your reason, ask God the

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
grace of faith, which is a God bestows abundantly and is
obtained infallibly by humble and persevering prayer. Only on
your part, you should not regret it.”

“Well then, Father”---he said---“I promise you that I will

spend the time that still remains of my life, asking God for the
grace of faith.

“Take a rest, then,” –I told him, -- and ponder over what we

have talked about. Father Vilaclara (now dead) and I arrived at
Fort Santiago at about ten o’ clock in the morning. After greeting
Dr. Rizal, I began the discussion with him, as it has been mentioned.
At twelve o’ clock I went the palace to report on the matter to the
Prelate, as he had- ordered me I had say to him that until then the
convict remained obstinate in his error and ideas opposed to the
Catholic faith. Hearing this, the Prelate in the ardent zeal for the
conversion of Dr. Rizal, sent immediately a circular to the religious
Communities prayers were offered for fervently, and in some of
them many penances were done for this purpose. Even the
Blessed Sacrament was exposed in some Communities.

At three o’clock, or a little past three, I returned to the Royal

Ford where Father Vilaclara had remained, and I reassumed the
discussion with Dr. Rizal, that tasted until dusk, arriving at the point
which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo, and
then I went with Father Vilaclara to the Palace. There I reported
on the condition of the convict, who offered some hope of
conversion, since he had asked for the formula of retraction.
Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised,
and he told me it was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to
me.

It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr.

Rizal’s impatient. He asked for the formula of the Prelate. This
came at last, at about ten o’clock: upon knowing it, the convict
asked me for it insistently. Without telling me to read it first, he
called and asked me to read it for him.

Both of us sat on the desk, where there was stationery and I

began to read it. Upon hearing the first paragraph, he told me:
“Father, do not proceed”. That says different from mine. I cannot
sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it
myself.

I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of

Father Pi. I read the first paragraph and he said to me: “That style
is simple as mine. Don’t bother, Father, to read it all. Dictate what

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
I ought to profess or express and I shall write, making in any cause
some remarks.

And thus it was done. And I suggested the idea he

proceeded to write with steady hand clear letters, making at
times some observation or adding some phrase. Certainly, after
the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since
he had retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus
he prepared to be while writing his retraction.

At the beginning the formula stated: “I declare myself a

Catholic and in this religion I wish to live and die.” Dr. Rizal told me:
“Please, add” (and he was already writing, after the word
religion): in which I was born and educated,” as if he wished to
make his Catholic education known.

I continued reading. He continued assenting and writing

with some brief indication of his own, and an explanation on my
part. He asserted, then, and admitted everything expressed in the
formula. When we came to the paragraph where Masonry was
detested, he showed some resistance to subscribe this sentence
of the formula: “I abominate Masonry as a society-reprobated by
the Church.” He gave me this reason. He said that he had known
Masons who were very bad; but those with whom he had been
acquainted in London were businessmen and seemed to be
good persons. It seemed also that he meant to say that the kind
of Masonry in the Philippines did not require the abjuration of the
Catholic faith, although I am not quite sure of this.

Anyhow, it seems that Dr. Rizal was admitted, at all events

into the some of the first degrees only in which the members are
not obliged to abjure the faith explicitly. After some observations,
he himself proposed to write and sign, as he did, this formula: “I
abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated
by the same Church.” And in this way he wrote it. I continued
reading, and he continued assenting with some little observations.

So, for instance, it was said at the end; “The Diocesan

Prelate may” …and he wanted to add: “as the superior
ecclesiastical, make public this manifestation.’ At the words “my
manifestation” he asked me to allow him to add “spontaneous
and voluntary.” And he told me then with great as-severation:
“Because, believe me, Father, I am doing this heartly; otherwise I
would not do it.”

“Well then,” I told him, “you may put spontaneous and it I

enough.” He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
past eleven: it was dated December the twenty-ninth. The text,
literally copied from the original says thus:

Thus declaration or retraction was signed together with Dr.

Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Senor Moure,
Adjutant of the Plaza.

That morning, Father Faura went on the prison. On seeing

him, Rizal said: Father, do you remember the last time we
conversed? You told me then that, by the way I was going. I would
someday come to be shot. You have been a prophet. I will die on
the scaffold.” Father Faura was deeply moved, and took leave of
Rizal exhorting him to be docile to grace and try to save his soul.
He was also invited during the day or at night by the Civil
Governor, the Fiscal of His Majesty, several officers of Artillery, and
by some other persons. Everybody wondered at the calmness and
fortitude, he showed and preserved up to the last hour of his life.

His poor seventy-year-old mother and some of his sisters

went to see him he shook hands with them. (It was forbidden to
embrace anyone) he asked pardon from his mother, he asked her
blessing, and kissed her hand. By especial privileged, Dr. Rizal
remained in the chapel cell free and without shackles against
what is customary in such cases. But there was entries on watch,
Spanish artillery-men and two officers. He told the Fathers about
an idea he had concerning the scientific problem of continuous
notion and the steering of dirigibles.

He gave some commissions for certain persons. Among

other things (he requested) that I ask pardon for him from Father
Ubach, a former missionary in Dapitan, for whatever offense he
might have given the priest. He wrote to his sister, giving her good
advice and asking pardon from the whole family. His Grace the
Archbishop ordered me to say to Rizal that he much interested in
him, and that he was ready to help in whatever way he could,
both him and his family, even with pecuniary resources, if it were
convenient. With all his heart, Rizal was grateful for such an
offering. He requested me to convey his gratitude to His Grace.

After all these acts… … … he knelt down of his own accord

before the altar of the Virgin, placed in the Chapel cell. In the
presence of the Fathers of the Judge Advocate, of the Chief of
the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers,
Rizal asked me for his retraction and profession of faith. He
proceeded to read it with pause and devotion.

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
 Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal
knowledge have personally intervened and witnessed it myself;
and I subscribe and confirmed it with an oath. And lest, perhaps,
someone may think that I could not remember it with so many
details, after twenty-years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s
death I wrote a very detailed account of everything. The original
of this account I have preserved, and from it I have taken all the
data of the present narration.

I declare and affirm that, a little before Rizal came out from
the chapel, I felt in the company of Josephine Bracken and a sister
of Rizal’s own handwritten retraction signed by him and by the
witnesses. Before Rizal’s reached the Bagumbayan I went to the
Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document to Father
Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palce and handed it to
the Archbishop Nozaleda. His Grace entrusted it to his Secretary,
Reverend Tomas Gonzales Feijo, who kept it in the Secretary’s
Office in the chest reserved documents. This last fact I know
through the testimony of his grace, the Most Reverend Bernardino
Nozaleda, and of his Secretary. The other things I have declared I
know as an eyewitness and because I personally took part in the
said events.

Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement

Fr. Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when
Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement
in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was
involved only in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of
Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document
as will which was the one Rizal allegedly copied.

The Account

On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel,
that is, on December the twenty-eight, I received the commission,
which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers, for the
spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only
because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially
because of its object was to reconcile with God and with the
Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very
distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us,
the Jesuits, a special esteem, and affection even after his
estrangement from the Church and had rendered us a good
service…

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
 Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted
personally with Rizal, did not visit him. All the Fathers who remained
with him during his stay in the chapel or who accompanied him to
Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my
request or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all
the happenings…

In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficulty

was found in convincing and persuading him. A long discussion,
to which he maintained principally with Father Balaguer, became
necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his
Christian sentiments. At last, he surrendered so willingly and so
completely, and the proofs of religiousness and piety were such
and so many that, with much less, the exacting person would
have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said, wondering
at the change wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some
time ago, but another entirely different…

When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found

certain objections in the form of the composition presented by
Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one which I had
made was shorter although conclusive, and this pleased him.
Nevertheless, to make it appear more of his own and
spontaneous, he wished to introduce some little modifications. He
wrote it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand…
Beneath Rizal’s signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno,
and the Adjutant of the Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as
witnesses.

Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal

himself, without pressure from anyone, took in his hands his own
document and knelt down before the altar of the chapel. Aloud
and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity, he read his own
retraction.

Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis

Lawyer, writer, educator and politician

Rafael Palma 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 publication of
the book, however, was postponed because of
World War II and only saw print in 1949. That same
year, an English translation by Roman Ozaeta with
the title Pride of the Malay Race was printed by the
Prentice-Hall, Inc. in the United States. The story of

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and 33 with Palma’s analysis
in the latter chapter.

The Account

For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken
from the beginning because of their direct have spoken from the
beginning because of their direct intervention in the act of
conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak and confirm in all its parts
the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That
should be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein
cited are those of ecclesiastics and their friends, and it is to be
supposed that al, of the latter would not contradict the version
given by the former. The only testimony that might be considered
impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal,
but his testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that is
to say, what he heard the priests say, and that diminishes its value
very much.

We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies

which to be partial and interested. We do not ignore the respect
that is due to the sacred character of said persons; but as Brutus
said, “You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend.” Lastly, we must
consider whether the coetaneous acts performed by the
ecclesiastical authorities or by the government are in accord with
the belief that Rizal had been converted for if they are not, they
would not produce the moral evidence that is needed.

Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was

not reconciled with the Catholic Church, judging from the way
they treated him after his death. In the first place, the document
of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities
was able to see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the
newspapers, but, with the exception of one person, nobody saw
the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a way that it was
not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second
place, when the family of Rizal asked for the original of said
document or a copy of it as well as a copy of the certificate of
canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were
denied. In the third place, Rizal’s burial was kept secret, the
cadaver having been delivered to the members of a Catholic
association friendly to the friars instead of being delivered to the
family who had claimed it. How is Christian charity applied to one
who dies within the Church if not even desire of this family to bury
him on their own account is respected? In the fourth place, 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 the

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) 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. Only the diligence of the family was able to
identify the spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry
in the book burials of the internment of Rizal’s body is not made
on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where there
as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear
those buried by special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures
on a page between a man who burned to death and who could
not be identified and another who died by suicide; in other words,
he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did
not receive spiritual aid. In the seventh and last place, there was
no moral motive for the conversion. The extraordinary or abnormal
acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive.
What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure
masonry and reconcile himself to the rites of the religion which he
had fought? Did he not realize that do so was to be a renegade
to his own history?

Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it

in his many circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his
ideas because of his former preceptors and teachers talked to
him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why
would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?

******

In short, Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the

people believe that that extraordinary man broke down and
succumbed before the Church which he had fought. The
Archbishop was interested in his conversion for political motives,
and the Jesuits lent themselves as his instrument. The example of
Rizal would have great resonance in the whole country and it was
necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with his
abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and
his conversion would be unbelievable? So much the better. The
interest of the religion was above him. His aureole of glory had to
be done away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only
an indio.

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Austin Coates’s Critical Analysis

Austin Coates’ interest in Jose Rizal

began when he was Assistant Colonel
Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in
1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter’s
year-long stay in Hong Kong (1891-1892). At
that time, many of the personalities who knew
Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on
Rizal eventually led to the writing and
publication of his book – Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford
University Press, 1956) – the first Rizal biography written by a European since
Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second
edition of the book was published in the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing
in 1992.

Coates’analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other events that happened

before his execution are found in Part VII, Chapter 5 of the book.

The Account

The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila

and Madrid recorded the event, and announced that on the eve
of his death, Rizal had retracted his religious errors, adjured
freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had been married to
Josephine Bracken. In most newspapers the text of a letter of
retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full. By the
government the announcement was sent to the Spanish
consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it the widest
possible publicity.

Those who had read Rizal’s book or who knew him closely,
which at that time meant the family and his wide circle of personal
friends, most of whom were abroad, took one look at the
announcement and dubbed it … as ecclesiastical fraud.

While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the

Archbishop’s announcement was issued knowingly. Or that there
was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to
perpetrate a fraud is going too far. The nature of society within the
church, the society of priests, is such as to render it virtually
impossible for such things to happen. When frauds occur, they are
the planned work of the church as an organization, though this
may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the work of
a small man with his own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it
accepts the fraud is genuine, has to protect him. Rizal believed
that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that the prime

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who
wanted his retraction. But while in the event Rizal’s intuition did not
play him false, there is no evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along
came a small man with what the Archbishop wanted.

Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything

depended on the speed and audacity with which he declared
his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a retraction, hoping
for it. When news of it came he would announce it immediately,
after which it would be too late for any of Balaguer’s colleagues
to gainsay it.

Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew

too well the damage such a letter would do him, besides which
he believed before God he had nothing to retract…

Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public

disbelief the Archbishop’s statement provoked, had there been a
signed retraction letter it would certainly have been produced for
inspection, particularly to the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and
to many of whom – to Teodora Alonso in particular – it would have
been a source of consolation.

Once the execution was over, and Villaclara and March

returned to be faced with Balaguer’s claims, the faud was
apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to rectify
matters.

What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi

y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits of probity believed that Rizal had
retracted and died confessed. Had Vallaclara and March, who
were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had
been a retraction, it is inconceivable that they would have not
given him Christian burial. The Jesuits had been entrusted by the
Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned man; and it
was their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died
confessed, to see he was decently buried. This the two Jesuits at
the execution did not do…

The Rizal Family found it difficult to accept either the

retraction or the marriage. They knew their brother; they knew that
if he had retracted he would certainly have so in his 6 a.m.
communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would
have given to her.

Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were

deepened by Balaguer’s urge to elaborate and to see himself

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
 publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled down
that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since
he intended it to be published anonymously, he included much
praise of himself, an aspect which, since he admitted the
authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure…

Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church’s case. Worse

than this, he had unwittingly revealed his own fraud. In his
account, he made no intention of the Ultimo Adios.

That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses

Balaguer knew; he told a journalist about it. But when the following
morning only letters, books and an alcohol burner remained to be
disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no
poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his
account, thereby revealing the truth, which was that he was not
at the Fort Santiago during the middle of that last night, and had
no knowledge of what was then taking place…

Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem;
he made his account so elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in
which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo Adios is needed to
show that it would have taken several hours to write…

Answer each question in a clear and organized paragraph.

1. What was the purpose of the Retraction document to the Spanish colonial
government and the Catholic Church?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

2. What good does the retraction do to Rizal himself?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

3. Does Rizal’s retraction mar his image as a patriot and as a principled hero of
the Filipino nation? Why?

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN