Good day, everyone.
Today, I will be presenting a balanced and in-depth discussion on one of
the most controversial questions in Philippine history:
Did Dr. José Rizal retract his anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish writings before his execution
on December 30, 1896?
The issue has long divided historians, scholars, and the Filipino people. On one side are those
who believe Rizal retracted, based on accounts from Jesuit priests. On the other side are those
who argue that he remained firm in his beliefs until death, supported by critical analyses from
credible historians.
Let us examine both sides of this historical controversy.
Side A: Rizal Retracted – Sources: Father Vicente Balaguer and Father Pio Pi
According to Jesuit priests Father Vicente Balaguer and Father Pio Pi, Dr. José
Rizal retracted his writings and beliefs against the Catholic Church and returned to the faith
hours before his execution.
1. Father Vicente Balaguer’s Account
Father Balaguer claimed that he had several spiritual conversations with Rizal during his
final days in Fort Santiago.
He said that on the night of December 29 and early morning of December 30,
Rizal signed a written retraction, confessed, received Holy Communion, and was
married to Josephine Bracken in a Catholic ceremony.
According to Balaguer, Rizal acknowledged that his writings, particularly Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, had “errors” and were harmful to the Church.
A copy of the supposed retraction letter was later published and shown by church
authorities.
2. Father Pio Pi’s Confirmation
Father Pio Pi, the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines at that time, supported Balaguer’s
claim.
He asserted that Rizal sincerely repented, received the sacraments, and died a Catholic.
These accounts form the basis of the Church’s claim that Rizal reconciled with Catholicism
before his death.
Side B: Rizal Did Not Retract – Critical Analysis by Rafael Palma and Father
Austin Coates
However, many historians strongly dispute the retraction, pointing out the lack of credible
evidence and inconsistencies in the Church’s narrative. Two of the most respected scholars
who reject the retraction claim are Rafael Palma and Father Austin Coates.
1. Rafael Palma's Analysis
In his biography “The Pride of the Malay Race,” Rafael Palma, a Filipino historian and
former President of the University of the Philippines, argued that Rizal never retracted.
Palma believed that Rizal’s commitment to reason, truth, and reform made a sudden
return to the Church highly unlikely.
He questioned the authenticity of the retraction letter, noting that:
o The original document was never made public immediately after Rizal’s
death.
o It was only "discovered" decades later under suspicious circumstances.
o No reliable eyewitnesses, including family members, ever confirmed that the
retraction occurred.
Palma believed that the alleged retraction was a fabrication by the Church to protect its
reputation after Rizal’s martyrdom.
2. Father Austin Coates’ Perspective
Father Austin Coates, a British historian and diplomat, also dismissed the retraction
story in his book “Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr.”
Coates emphasized that Rizal’s final acts, including the writing of Mi Último Adiós,
showed no sign of religious repentance or spiritual conversion.
He noted that:
o There was no official record or eyewitness confirmation of the supposed
marriage between Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
o Rizal’s last letters to his family made no mention of any retraction or religious
confession.
o The signature on the alleged retraction letter did not match Rizal’s known
handwriting and may have been forged.
Coates concluded that Rizal died a man of principle, loyal to his ideals and beliefs to the very
end.
Conclusion:
The question of whether José Rizal retracted remains one of the most debated topics in
Philippine history.
On one hand, Father Balaguer and Father Pio Pi insist that Rizal returned to the
Catholic Church before his death, signing a retraction and receiving the sacraments.
On the other hand, historians like Rafael Palma and Father Austin Coates present
strong arguments that discredit the retraction, citing a lack of
evidence, inconsistencies, and Rizal’s known values and writings.
Ultimately, it is up to us as critical thinkers and students of history to examine the sources,
question the motives, and seek the truth.
Today, I stand before you to present the position that Dr. José Rizal did not retract his
beliefs against the Spanish colonial government and the abuses of the Catholic Church. While
there are claims that he signed a retraction letter hours before his execution, credible historical
analyses from secondary sources cast serious doubt on the authenticity of this retraction.
Notable scholars such as Rafael Palma and Fr. Austin Coates have critically examined the
issue and argue strongly against the idea that Rizal retracted.
Main Points:
1. Rizal's Strong Convictions
Let us first remember who Rizal was. He was a man of reason, education, and deep moral
conviction. In his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, he openly criticized the
corruption and hypocrisy of the Spanish friars and colonial authorities. His works were not
written out of hate but out of love for the Filipino people — to awaken their consciousness.
Would a man who dedicated his entire life to defending truth and justice suddenly abandon his
principles a few hours before death?
2. Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
Rafael Palma, a respected Filipino historian and former President of the University of the
Philippines, was one of the earliest scholars to challenge the retraction story. In his book The
Pride of the Malay Race, Palma writes that it was highly improbable for Rizal to retract his
beliefs.
He emphasized that if the retraction were true, why wasn’t it made public immediately after
Rizal’s death? Why did it take decades before the supposed document was "discovered"? Palma
suspected that the Church fabricated the retraction to protect its image and reclaim moral
authority over the Filipino people.
3. Fr. Austin Coates’ Historical Perspective
British historian Fr. Austin Coates, in his biography Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr,
also rejected the idea of a retraction. Coates argued that Rizal’s actions during his final hours
were not consistent with a man who suddenly changed his beliefs. Rizal wrote his final
poem, Mi Último Adiós, in secret and gave no indication of any spiritual turnaround or change of
heart.
Coates also questioned the authenticity of the alleged marriage between Rizal and Josephine
Bracken, which supposedly took place after the retraction. He argued that no reliable
eyewitness or official record could confirm that the wedding actually happened. If the retraction
and the marriage were true, why were they not publicly recorded?
4. Issues with the Retraction Document
There are many suspicious details surrounding the so-called retraction letter:
The original document was mysteriously lost, only to be "found" decades later.
Some scholars who analyzed the handwriting claim that the signature on the document
did not match Rizal’s usual signature.
No family members, friends, or other witnesses independently verified that Rizal took
part in any religious rites, confession, or communion.
Even Rizal’s last letters to his family made no mention of any retraction or return to the
Church, which would have been a significant event if true.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, based on the historical analysis of Rafael Palma and Fr. Austin Coates, the claim
that José Rizal retracted his beliefs remains highly questionable and lacks solid evidence.
Rizal’s life was a testimony to courage, truth, and national dignity. His writings and final actions
reflect a man who stood firm in his convictions — a man who chose to die for the truth he
believed in.
To believe in the alleged retraction without clear, credible, and timely evidence is to do a
disservice to Rizal’s legacy. He remains, not just our national hero, but a symbol of integrity and
unshaken principle.
Thank you.
PPT
Authors background
Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J.
A Dominican friar and missionary in the Philippines. He served as a
confessor to Governor-General Diego de Salcedo and is known for
defending the Catholic Church’s interests during Spanish colonial
rule.
He was one of the priests assigned to accompany Rizal in his final hours at Fort Santiago.
Balaguer is one of the primary sources claiming that Rizal retracted his writings
against the Catholic Church.
He stated that he witnessed Rizal’s confession, communion, and marriage to Josephine
Bracken.
Balaguer also claimed to have obtained Rizal’s signature on the retraction
document on the morning of December 30, 1896.
His account forms the basis of the Catholic Church's claim that Rizal returned to the
faith before his death.
Padre Pio
a Capuchin friar and Catholic priest renowned for his piety, stigmata
(wounds resembling those of Christ), and spiritual guidance. He was
canonized as a saint in 2002.
Father Pio Pi was the Jesuit provincial superior who managed the order’s response to
Rizal’s imprisonment and execution.
He confirmed Father Balaguer’s statements and supported the Church’s position that Rizal
retracted.
He did not claim to witness the retraction directly, but endorsed Balaguer’s version and
communicated it to church authorities in Spain.
Rafael Palma
A Filipino politician, writer, and educator. He was a senator, the 4th
President of the University of the Philippines, and a key figure in the
Philippine nationalist movement.
Author of “The Pride of the Malay Race,” a well-respected biography of Rizal.
Palma was a liberal thinker and a staunch nationalist who rejected the claim that Rizal
retracted.
He believed the retraction was inconsistent with Rizal’s beliefs and life’s work.
He questioned the authenticity and timing of the document, asserting that it was likely
fabricated or forged.
His analysis remains a cornerstone in the argument that Rizal stayed true to his
principles until death.
Austin Coates
British diplomat, writer, and historian known for his works on East
and Southeast Asia, especially during and after British colonial rule.
British scholar deeply interested in Asian history, especially the Philippines.
He authored one of the most detailed and accessible English-language biographies of Rizal.
In his analysis, he firmly rejected the retraction, stating that Rizal’s actions and writings did
not reflect any religious change of heart.
Coates viewed the retraction story as weak, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated.
He portrayed Rizal as a man of unwavering convictions, whose martyrdom cemented his
role in Philippine independence.
