One of the pressing issues on the study of

the life, works and writing of our

National Hero is concerned with
historicity and veracity of certain acts,
which Rizal allegedly had performed a
few moments before his execution,
More specifically, his alleged
reconciliation with the Catholic
Church and his abjuration of masonry,
otherwise known as “RETRACTION”

-Rizal RETRACTION LETTER was

discovered by Father MANUEL
GARCIA C.M. in 1935
-become a favorite topic of dispute
among academician and Catholics
-the letter was dated December 29,
1896 and was said to have been
signed by the national hero itself.
RIZAL RETRACTION
CONTROVERSEY

Archbishop Bernardino Nazaledo

-send the first draft of retraction to Rizal’s

cell in Fort Santiago the night before his
execution in Bagumbayan.
- But Rizal’s was said to have rejected the
draft because it was lenghty.
RIZAL RETRACTION CONTROVERSEY

Father Vicente Balaguer

-Jesuit missionary, friend of Rizal during

his exile in Dapitan.
-Rizal accepted a shorter retraction
document prepared by the superior of
Jesuits Society in the Philippines, Father
Pio Pi

-Rizal then wrote his retraction after

making some modifications in the
document in his retraction. He discovered
Masonry and Religious thoughts that
opposed Catholic beliefs
Different Sources
There are at least four sources of the alleged Rizal’s retraction that have
surfaced:

1.December 30, 1896. The first text was published in La Voz Española and
Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896

2.December 31, 1896. The second text appeared in El empearcial on the day
after Rizal’s execution. It is the short formula of retraction

3.February 14, 1897. The 3rd text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February
14,1897 in the fortnightly magazine La Juventud. It came from an report an
anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Baluager.

4.May 18,1935. The alleged “ORIGINAL” text was discovered by Fr.

Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935 in the archdiocesan of the day when
Rizal was shot.
COMPSRISON OF DOCUMENT
We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila
newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr.
Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

-First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

-Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first
"Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

-Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

-Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical
reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences
while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with
the second sentences.

-Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have
only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

-Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the
witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
Fr. Balaguer have two copies of the
retraction the short formula and the “exact”
copy came from the archbishop. The exact
copy that the archbishops have was written
and signed by rizal but he did not say "written
and signed by rizal HIMSELF" somewhow fr.
Balaguer suspected that Rizal wrote it. But
he did "not know nor remember.... Whose.
Handwriting it was"
According to Fr. Pi Rizal rejected the long
formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from
the short formula. Allegedly Rizal wrote down
what was dictating to him but he insisted on
adding the phrase "in which i was born and
educated" and "masonry as the enemy of the
church"