RETRACTION OF JOSE RIZAL:

Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He joined theSociety
of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in 1894. Moreover, he was one of the
Jesuit priests who visited Rizal’s last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to
persuade Rizal to denounce masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In 1917 when he
had returned to Spain, an affidavit was executed that proves he was who solemnized the
marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken.

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 issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences
that dividedCatholics 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. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s
palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first meeting with
Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclarareturned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and
tried until sunset to persuade him to recant. They were still not able to convince him to sign
the retraction document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night,
and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had
given them.

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 reprobate by the
Church.” Rizal wanted to emphasize that PhilippineMasonry was not hostile to Catholicism
and that Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I abominate
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobate by the same Church '' (Cavanna 1956,
9). 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. Heregarded the resurrected retraction story as a “pious fraud”. 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, nomasses 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.

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 in the
documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World '', Joel Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told
the time travellers that 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".

Why are retractions important?

Journal editors and publishers should take responsibility for everything published in their
journal. Therefore, if anything misleading, incorrect, or fraudulent is published, it is important
that the record is corrected so that readers are not misled.

Authenticity : CUERPO DE VIGILANCIA

In 1935 the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Gracia, C.M. was sorting through folders of
documents that he would later transfer to a newly acquired fireproof vault. While doing this,
he found the “original” retraction document about Rizal in a bundle titled Masoneria (Garcia
1964, 31–43).

Right away he called Manila Archbishop Michael O’Doherty, who at that time was in Baguio.
The next day Fr. Gracia gave the document to the archbishop, who in turn showed it to
President Manuel L. Quezon. That same day they asked Teodoro M. Kalaw, a Mason and
the director of the National Library at the time, to examine the document.

Kalaw declared that it was “authentic, definite and final” (Pascual 1959, ix). Then they
summoned Carlos P. Romulo, who was then the editor of the newspaper Philippines Herald,
to evaluate the veracity of the document. Romulo agreed with Kalaw’s findings, and on June
15, 1935 he published the news in the Philippines Herald under the banner headline “Rizal’s
Retraction Found.”

To give more credibility to the newly found document, Doherty requested H. Otley Beyer, a
professor of anthropology at U.P. Diliman and a known handwriting expert, to examine
whether the document was genuine or not. Beyer concluded, “there is not the slightest doubt
that every word on that sheet of paper was written by Jose Rizal” (Garcia 1964, 34).