Retraction of Rizal

• Retraction - a withdrawal of a statement, accusation, or undertaking. ("he

issued a retraction of his allegations“)

Noli Me Tangere – Latin for "Touch me not", is an 1887 novel by Jose Rizal, one of
the national heroes of the Philippines during the colonization of the country by Spain, to
describe perceived inequities of the Spanish Catholic friars and the ruling government.

El Filibusterismo - a sequel to Noli Me Tangere. The second and last novel completed by José
Rizal.
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,” Fort Santiago, Intramuros

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.”
Rizal Did Not Retract
 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 favorite teacher in the Ateneo. Father

Sanchez visited Rizal in his exile in Dapitan, and
helped him start a school for the Dapitan boys
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.”
 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.
 Additional information from
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
• The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its
authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There
were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing
on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in
Manila. But the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of
Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who
found the original document, also copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date
of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly
signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.”
Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29,
189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still
later, another supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29,
1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported
that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the
signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind,
they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were
approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-American war to
forge Rizal’s signature.
• This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman
Roque himself, them being neighbors.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the
night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by
the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured
prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had
intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.
• There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of
Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged
badly. The document supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the
fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look,
there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and
other letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

• Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero,
whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-
around. If he did not, and the documents were forgeries, then somebody has
to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
- End -