Retraction of Rizal

Prepared by:
Ms. Danielle Muriel Suamen
Mr. Limuel Solomon
Ms. Ruby Causing
Mr. Carlo Navarrete
 Introduction
For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised
issues, skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth
regarding this controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statement by
significant people involved have only contributed to the complications and uncertainty
which envelope this fiery argument.
The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction
document only lies in the judgment of its reader. The proof between the two opposing
groups – the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believed that Rizal did not withdraw) and
the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted) – will be discussed in this
report.
 Argument
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.”
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.
“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.
According to the research of Federico Moreno which was cited by Prof.
Rene Escalante (2016), the documents found in Cuerpo de Vigilancia, an
archive that has the body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that
contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from
Spanish and Philippine newspapers includes the report on the last hours of
Rizal.
A statement of a handwriting expert, Dr. Jose I. del Rosario, about the
authenticity of the letter of retraction of Jose Rizal:
“I have carefully compared the handwriting of the retraction not only with
the ULTIMO ADIOS and with the letter written by Dr. Jose Rizal to his
“Defensor,” Don Luis Traviel de Andrade, as well as with the manuscript of
the farewell addressed to his mother Dona Teodora Alonso, dated the
thirtieth of December, 1896, but also with numerous letters of Dr. Jose Rizal
now in the archives of the Filipiniana Division, National Library. In honesty,
I can say that I so not find anything in Dr. Rizal’s retraction which does not
proclaim that the retraction which does not proclaim that the retraction is in
fact and in truth of the authentic and genuine handwriting of Dr. Jose Rizal.”
 Counterargument
Proof of Rizal not contracting first is that there no records of marriage
between Rizal and Josephine Bracken as a reward if Rizal did retract. The
love birds earlier sought this while Rizal was exiled in Dapitan. Another is
that, the “original” retraction document was never submitted to an
independent testing body for authentication. The blown-up picture of
Rizal’s execution, now displayed at the Manila City Hall, also shows Rizal
without a rosary in his hand like what Fr. Balaguer and biographers
Guerrero and Cavanna have written.
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.”
 CONCLUSION
 As to the evidence presented by both parties we were not convinced of the retraction
letter of Rizal.
 The said primary source Balaguer was never allowed to enter the prison to meet Rizal.
 Out of all the works and writings of Rizal he already knows the end point of it which is
death why Retracted?
 Rizal is not against the Catholic Church, but he is only against the person who runs the
church.
 Retraction letter is in favor of the priest and friars, so why it takes 35 years to produce
the said retracted letter of Rizal?
 The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing.
 Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For us, that is enough. The issue will
not invalidate his works in any way.