The Retraction of Rizal

MAIN TOPIC

Ladies and gentlemen, ma'am Charmaine and to our respected opponents. I am ralph santi infiesto
with my team and here we are in front of you to present our stand in this issue in regard to the
retraction of jose rizal which is one of the most controversial issue up till now, and also has long been a
subject for historical debates due to how intriguing this document and its authenticity.

To provide small context rizal a filipino writer, nationalist and a revolutionary who played a
significantly huge role in the revolution against spanish colonization.

As we look over this document it contains the statement of rizal which he then stated his retraction
before his execution in 1896, this document reflects and challenged rizal’s anti friar and hispanic stance,
which claim that Jose Rizal did indeed retract from his previous beliefs. One of the substantial pieces of
evidence supporting Rizal’s retraction is the retraction document itself. The day before Rizal’s execution
he wrote and signed a document which specifically expressing his remorse about his previous writings
that were indeniably criticizing the catholic church, and also renouncing his loyalty declaring himself a
catholic, he signed this letter in manila on the 29th of december 1896 with the witness juan del fresno,
the chief of the picket and eloi moure, the adjuvant of plaza.

Second to that is the support of five local newspapers which then reported rizal’s retraction. these
newspapers are namely the la voz espanyola, el heraldo de madrid, el imparcial, diaro de manila, and la
de independencia. these were the local newspapers which disseminated the information to the public
that rizal has retracted from his previous beliefs.

Third is this notion was also highly motivated due to his desire to marry josephine bracken, which
he was romantically involved to, and this has been overlooked by historians and scholars. to be exact
and plain simple the only way that the church may approve his desire for marriage is by publicly
renouncing his previous beliefs and also disregard his previous anti clerical writings that from what
we’ve learned motivated and attack the catholic church.

According to cavanna jose on his work the rizal’s unfading glory: a documentary history of the
conversion of dr. jose rizal wherein stated the that there are three jesuit priests that visited rizal right
before the day of his execution and they were tasked by manila archbishop bernardino nozaleda and the
affidavit of the cuerpo de vigilancia which headed by federico moreno he provided context of events
that occurred in rizal’s prison cell in which the celebration of the sacred matrimony, his confession, his
attendance at the mass, his request for a prayer book, and his act venerating the blessed mother. does
these mentioned religious act do occur if jose rizal had not retracted from his previous beliefs?
 To add more authenticity this particular document was thoroughly examined by experts such as
historians and scholar, such as well-known historians such as the jesuits horacio de la costa, john
schumacher, and jose arcilla, insisted that rizal had retracted which we can accumulate that rizal on the
eve before his execution, rizal seeked reconcilation within the catholic church and disregard his previous
beliefs that wherein rizal criticized the clergy of the catholic church, overall declaring himself as catholic
and with that religion he wishes to live and die.

So chairman, and to our beloved audience, we can specifically identify that the document
presented and the disclosure of the eyewitness accounts are substantial proof and evidence that jose
rizal retracted his masonic affiliation or his critiziation in the catholic church as well with the spanish
government

PRIMARY SOURCES

We, the Government side believe that Jose Rizal abjured masonry and retracted his statements
against the Catholic Church. The document presented to the public is a strong evidence that Rizal had
truly withdraw in masonry and retracted. Let us first Adress the documents. First the letter of Rizal to his
mother received on January 5, 1893. The letter says that Rizal have been going to the church every
Sunday in Dapitan. Doesn't this show that Rizal had truly returned to the church? Next, the testimony of
the eyewitness Father Balaguer who was with Rizal and presented the retraction format prepared by Fr.
Pio Pi, the superior of Jesuit society in the Philippines before execution. He stated that on December 29,
1896, day before the execution, Rizal have accepted and signed the document. On May 13, 1935, Fr.
Manuel A. Garcia found a document of Rizal's retraction. Isn't the account of the eyewitness not enough
proof of retraction?

In the argument of the forgery of documents, it is also reasoned out in that some site that what
the archbishop and Fr. Pi saw was not the original document of retraction. And the original document,
which was almost eaten by termites, was kept by friars for preservation. Additionally the retraction is a
significant document because it established the act of marriage between Jose Rizal and Jasephine
Bracken. In Dapitan, the condition to them to be wedded was the retraction "No Retraction, No
Marriage" In other words, Rizal could never marry Josephine unless he retracted first. And the sworn
statement of the eyewitnesses, like fr. Balaguer, agreed that there was a retraction and marriage
between the two. Moreover, after his marriage, Rizal dedicated a Catholic devotional book to his two
sisters, Josefa and Trinidad, as well as his wife, Josephine , which in his dedication mentioned

To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine" Aren't these books proof of catholicism? In addition, he
said on his letter, "I abominate Masonry as an enemy of the church and a society prohibited by the
church." He used the word "abominate" which means to detest in the highest Case highest degree,
abhor. In this case he used a stronger language than "I retract masonry. Likewise, Rizal was suspected of
rebellion, sedition, and illegal association against spanish government. The retraction document isn't
related to what he was accused of and as a consequence, it does not save him from exécution.
One of the primary sources or pieces of evidence that would really convince us that Jose Rizal have
really retracted is the report of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia, because if we analyze the report of the Cuerpo
Agent of Fedirico Moreno, it is very clear that what they did was surveillance. And if we look, out of
those three persons we mentioned, which is Fr. Balaguer, Fr. Pio Pi and the Cuerpo de Vigilancia, the
Cuerpo de Vigilancia really don't have interest in the issue of retraction, because first of all, the Cuerpo
de Vigilancia is not from the Catholic Church; they are not among those who defend the Catholic faith,
but they are only there to do their job, which is to conduct surveillance on those connected to and
sympathizers of the Katipunan.It is very telling what the Cuerpo de Vigilancia mentioned here as
evidence that Dr. Jose Rizal retracted, and Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Maure, Adjutant
of the Plaza, went to sign the document, and this is also one of the things you will see after Jose Rizal
signed the document, Jose Rizal joined the prayer. Reading prayer books and participating in various
Catholic activities that Catholics do. And we can also see that the Cuerpo report says that Jose Rizal is
said to have attended mass the day before he was killed and that he received communion, what is even
more serious here is that he also married Josephine Bracken before he was executed.

SECONDARY SOURCES

The retraction of José Rizal, the Filipino nationalist and author, is a controversial topic in Philippine
history. One secondary source you might find helpful is "Rizal Without the Overcoat" by Ambeth
Ocampo. Ocampo is a respected historian who provides insights into Rizal's life and the events
surrounding his retraction in this book. Another valuable secondary source is "Rizal's Unfading Glory" by
Austin Craig, which explores Rizal's life, works, and controversies, including the retraction issue. These
sources offer differing perspectives and interpretations on Rizal's retraction, allowing readers to form
their own opinions on the matter.

"Rizal Without the Overcoat" by Ambeth Ocampo delves into various aspects of José Rizal's life,
offering a more humanized portrayal of the national hero. Ocampo's work explores Rizal's personal
experiences, relationships, and influences, providing readers with a deeper understanding of the man
behind the historical figure. Regarding the retraction, Ocampo presents historical accounts and analyses,
shedding light on the circumstances surrounding Rizal's controversial decision to retract his writings
against the Catholic Church. Ocampo's approach is often insightful and thought-provoking, encouraging
readers to reconsider their perceptions of Rizal and his actions.

On the other hand, "Rizal's Unfading Glory" by Austin Craig offers a comprehensive examination of
Rizal's life, works, and legacy. Craig provides detailed insights into Rizal's intellectual development, his
contributions to Philippine literature and nationalism, and his interactions with key figures of his time.
Regarding the retraction issue, Craig presents historical evidence and arguments from various
perspectives, allowing readers to critically assess the circumstances and implications of Rizal's decision.
Craig's thorough research and analysis contribute to a nuanced understanding of Rizal's complexities
and the controversies surrounding his life and beliefs.
 Both Ocampo and Craig offer valuable secondary sources that contribute to the ongoing discussion
and interpretation of José Rizal's retraction, providing readers with different viewpoints and analyses to
consider.

CONCLUSION

Rizal's retraction letter is one of the popular controversies about our national hero. But as we read
several books and readings, we made our corrections that Rizal's retraction is a fact based on the
following reasons.

A. Prominent Filipino historians like Nicolas Zafra, Nick Joaquin, Leon Guerero, Ambeth Ocampo, etc.
take the retraction letter as authentic since famous handwriting experts like Teodoro Kalaw, Dr. Jose I.
del Rosario, and Prof. Beyer that recognized the letter as true.

B. Historians collected 14 eyewitnesses who could testify that Rizal wrote the retraction letter and seven
qualified eyewitnesses including his brothers, sisters and wife's testimonies that could give indirect
proofs that Rizal made the retraction letter.

C. Rizal submitted himself in a confession, signed a catholic prayer, recited. Catholic prayers and many
witnesses saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. All of these strengthened the fact that Rizal
returned back to the arms of catholic Church.

D. He retracted and died as catholic and renounced from free masonry but nit from the nationalistic
books.

Evidence presented could affect and question the character of Rizal as hero but we could not deny the
fact that because of Rizal's works and writings Filipinos awakened their nationalism and eventually we
are enjoying the freedom he dreamed for his country.