University of Cebu Lapu-Lapu and Mandaue

A.C. Cortes Ave., Looc, Mandaue City

PERSONAL OPINION ON DR. JOSE P. RIZAL’S

RETRACTION

A Term Paper

Candace Ruth B. Dela Rita

BSA-2

Rizal (11:30 – 1:30 PM, M-F)

Respectfully submitted to:

Mr. Wilbert Simplicio

Instructor
RATIONALE

For more than three hundred years, we have been under the colonization of Spain. In this
era, we have witnessed drastic changes in the mindsets of the Filipino people with respect to our
culture and identity. We then define ourselves to be a unique mixture of both the Western and
Eastern influence and this is clearly manifested in our ways of living. Before going to talk on the
topic which is our national hero, Jose Rizal, who allegedly withdrew his so –called “malicious
accusations” before his execution, let us take a rewind on the important events that took place
during this period and of which eventually led Rizal to initiate the uprisings against the Spanish.
Of more than three centuries of Spanish rule, the Holy Catholic Church, under the Papacy, and
the government, headed by the monarchy, was considered inseparable. Every decision or move
of the King and its officials must first seek approval of the church for it to be acceptable. In
reaching Spain’s goal of expanding their territories and acquire more valuable resources, they
used religion, particularly, Christianity.

In line with their objectives, the Spanish took control of the Philippines as one of its
provinces to realize the spread of the Catholic religion thereby converting locals to adhere into
its influence. Government officials, under the guidance of different religious orders including the
Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines and Carmelites, have implemented various civil
programs and laws in our country. As what we have learned from our past history lessons, some
of these laws have resulted in slavery of our native countrymen and the oppositions of Filipinos
who were “brave” enough to attack the church.

Religion played a vital role in shaping the ideas of Filipinos and it also became the
number one enemy of radical Filipinos who are seeking to gain independence and satisfying
representation at the Spanish courts.. Religion even dictated how to manage the emerging
Filipino population. Rizal, as what we had known from our history books, was born from a
family rooted in devout Catholic beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Since his childhood days in rustic
Calamba, our national hero was taught with deep veneration to our church and respect to officials
most especially with the friars. However, with the greater scope of influence and power shown
by these church officials come the various issues surrounding the integrity of the Christian
religion propagated by our colonizers in our country. These issues include the abuse of friars to
what we are known for—as “Indios”, the spread of corruption, one of which is the easy sale of
forgiveness, sexual assaults and even barratry. These offences had stained the “pure” reputation
of the Catholic Church and enabled many unsuccessful revolts to flourish throughout the
archipelago. One of the most infamous victims of these injustices of the Catholic Church was
Rizal’s family; his mother, in particular. Being a firsthand witness of the grievance experienced
by her mother under the Spanish and the eventual execution of the three martyr priests, Rizal was
enlightened at an early age that the church was not as “holy” or “sacred” as what he knew, for it
was the one imposing great influence of how Spanish government govern our country. A genius
in his time, Rizal was educated in various schools, most of which were administered by
prestigious Catholic orders. He was engaged into the beauty of arts and sciences and excelled the
most of it. With the growing number of criminal cases occurring in the Philippines, most of
which are connected to Spanish officials, Dr. Jose Rizal realized that it is his duty to liberate his
oppressed countrymen from the abuses of the colonizers by simultaneously studying medicine in
Europe and observe the lifestyle of the Westerners to effectively formulate a plan to oust the ever
powerful and ever “intimidating” Spanish rule in the Philippines.

Rizal belonged to the principalia class and we can infer that because of the insult
experienced by his family under the grip of Spaniards, especially the friars, it is in his personal
interest to avenge bringing forth the cloak of doing it for the country. Being influenced by the
progressivist ideologies of Europeans, he joined Freemasonry, which is a clear manifestation of
his developing resentment against the church. With these liberal thoughts into his mind, Rizal
envisioned a total “overhaul” in the way the Philippines is governed by Spain through political
and social reforms using the mightiest weapon he can use which is reason—meaning, through
valuing education. As a member of the Masons, Rizal used his intellect in influencing and
gaining reputation from his fellowmen in Europe and wrote his then famous novels, Noli me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, which in turn, disappointed and even angered the Spanish
government, particularly the priests. Through his prowess in the field of literature, he used his
novels in exposing the injustices of the Catholic Church and some government officials which
has led him to be put into exile in Dapitan.

At this point, we already have the idea of why Rizal was considered by many church
officials as a “heretic” and as a nemesis of the Christian faith. Back to our main topic which is
the controversy of whether or not our national hero signed a letter of retraction to the church is
still of great mystery even up to the present Filipino generation. Several historians have put their
noses in this issue and various sources have showed up supporting both affirmation and negation.
It all started in a drama between Dr. Jose Rizal and her beloved Josephine Bracken, who wished
to be married after staying some time together when Rizal was exiled. But because of the anti-
clergy writings of our national hero, he could not find anyone who can conduct the marriage
ceremonies. Father Obach, the priest of Dapitan cannot marry Jose and Josephine for the reason
that they must ask permission from the Bishop of Cebu. Their whirlwind romance was not
officially recognized because it might be either the Bishop of Cebu did not respond to his request
or Rizal was not able to send the letter of permission because Mr. Taufer, Josephine’s stepfather,
departed early. This marriage was then “postponed” until Rizal’s day of execution on December
30, 1986; a few moments after he supposedly restored his faith in the Catholic Church.

The question of whether this letter of retraction was authentic or not was a matter of
discussion due to discrepancies of various accounts. Many historians which are on the
affirmative side believed that Rizal’s restoration of the Catholic faith was genuine for it was
acknowledged and even approved by several eyewitnesses. One source, as cited from the web,
claims that the supporters of the retraction based their justifications on the fact that Father
Balaguer, one of the Jesuits, has managed to persuade Dr. Rizal to confess his sins and
abominate Masonry in exchange of forgiveness during his last hours and to assure his eternal
salvation. The paper containing the letter of retraction and the books on the acts of faith, hope
and charity was their cream of the crop evidence of his return to the Catholic Church. According
to Father Balaguer, Rizal rejected the first suggested retraction document by the Archbishop
Nozaleda for the reason of it being too lengthy for him and it was eventually replaced by a
shorter one made by another Jesuit friar Father Pio Pi with some modifications by Rizal.

Another important aspect of those who are in agreement of the retraction was then the
later discovery of the country’s most historical documents as compiled in Cuerpo de Vigilancia
de Manila. This group of documents about the revolution era suggested the reality that Rizal did
disowned all his oppositions to the church and was granted with pardon. He was even seen to bid
the crucifix goodbye before his death. Furthermore, the genuineness of the letter of retraction as
seen through Rizal’s handwriting was proved by prominent historians and experts such as H.
Otley Beyer. From this stand, we can hypothesize that Rizal was successfully encouraged by the
Jesuits to take on the challenge of retraction. On the contrary however, those who firmly believe
that our national hero did not actually signed the letter of retraction and that it was just a product
of forgery, stated that this retraction controversy has eventually stirred more doubts and
speculations. Now, let us narrate all these falsities in the issue. First, Rizal’s family and closest
friends, according to some, was promised to hear the hero’s official retraction at the Paco Church
and to be buried at the Paco Cemetery. To them, if this was the condition to believing Rizal’s
retraction, then it would be a nonsense of why his remains was laid on the grounds of Intramuros
rather than a catholic Paco cemetery just like what happened to Andres Bonifacio, who was
buried at the Chinese cemetery for being a revolutionary leader. In addition to this, no proper
burial certificate showed up after his execution at Luneta. Second was the discovery of an
autobiography of his beloved Josephine Bracken about his marriage to our national hero, as
witnessed by church officials, of whom, according to the anti-retractionists, was forged to copy
her handwriting and was even written into Josephine’s nonnative language. Lastly were the
obvious discrepancies between the copies of the letter as distributed to different Jesuits. Now,
this is just a warp up or tip of the iceberg and we will see in our further explanations the details
of this issue.

My goal in this research paper is to weigh both the affirmatives and negatives and pros
and cons of this century-old retraction controversy. With numerous accounts, whether authentic
or fabricated, will be put into consideration in justifying the true events which happened to our
ever venerated martyr, Dr. Jose Rizal. It may be just another historical gossip about the
frailocracy during the Spanish period but it is surely an indispensable part in our history and
heritage as Filipinos—courageous and brilliant Filipinos. This research topic is worthy of our
time because we will investigate evidences and even hearsays to satisfy our curiosity in this so-
called “plain, unadorned fact”. Throughout this term paper, we will provide concrete answers to
questions such as “what is your opinion about the retraction of Rizal”, “the proof of him making
such retraction”, and “whether there was a forgery of documents involved”.
INTRODUCTION

Before digging deeper into this historical controversy, let us first give meaning to the
word that we commonly see throughout this term paper and is of greatest interest to us which is
retraction. Retraction as defined in the Wikipedia page*, retraction is the “public statement made
about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, or reverses the original statement or
ceases and desists from publishing the original statement”. Rizal’s works and writings,
particularly the most famous ones, labeled as “anti-Catholic literature” Noli me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, that initiated the fervor of all Filipinos who were already enough of the how the
Spanish treat our precious country. (*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction)

We have somehow seen a glimpse of this controversy by having it summarized and now,
let us look into the details of this issue. During his exile period in Dapitan from 1892 to 1896, the
Catholic Church has always put on their efforts and attempts to have Rizal redirect his faith and
ask for forgiveness for all his religious errors, particularly, the “obvious anti-clergy” accusations
he have made in his famous novels. First and foremost, the evidence of the actual letter of
retraction signed by Rizal and approved by eyewitnesses. One source from the internet,
primaryreason.blogspot.com, explained that Jose Rizal’s great grand nephew that goes by the
name of, Fr. Marciano Guzman cites that the four confessions of our national hero were certified
by ten qualified witnesses, another five eyewitnesses, seven newspapers, and historians and
writers including bishops of the Philippine Independent Church, members of Freemasonry and
anti-clericals. According to a reliable reference, one of the aforementioned witnesses includes the
head of the Supreme Court of the Spanish government at the time of the production of the
retraction and who was even praised by Rizal himself.

During the “retraction moments”, there were four documents, said to contain the letter,
became apparent. The first letter of retraction came into sight in popularly published Spanish
newspapers and articles like the “La Voz Española” and “Diario de Manila” on December 30,
1896, the day of his execution. The second copy of the letter was then discovered to have
circulated in Barcelona, Spain, almost three months after Rizal died, in a magazine entitled “La
Juventud” that created much more confusion to us because this text was written by an unknown
writer of which fourteen years later came to be Father Balaguer himself. I have read this and a
thought came up to my mind: it was indeed a cover carefully made by my church to let me, as
one of their adherents, to agree with such statement. Sure, we can sense something wrong with
this mere fact of discovery alone but here is more mind-boggling: for a relatively long period of
thirty nine years after our hero’s execution at Bagumbayan then surfaced the “original” text of
the letter of retraction.—the one officially signed by Rizal and the witnesses. How come this
happened? On the day of Rizal’s execution, the transcript of the retraction was presented to and
authenticated by the Archbishop Nozaleda, the Secretary of the Chancery, the Provincial
Superior, the Vicar General and two priests of the Society of Jesus, the Fiscal of the Audencia,
one writer of a news publication, and some notorious Atenistas and in the Archbishop
Nozaleda’s residence where the letter of retraction was brought by Father Balaguer. This was
from Father Marciano Guzman’s stand on the retraction controversy.

On this, I will be more convinced if some other documents will surface proving this
“assumptions” to be on genuine nature. The question here is why Fathers, Fr. Pio Pi and
Archbishop Nozaleda, did not even claim to have seen the “exact” copy of which Father
Balaguer “discovered”. The lost retraction document was eventually turned to Father Manuel
Garcia. Was it just another discrepancy of the friars? Or have they made this to further
strengthen their reason on Rizal’s actual revocation of sins? Another connection to the letter of
retraction was the supposed canonical marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken after the
confession. However, there are obvious differences in the “original” document and the texts that
appeared on various news publications through the use of “mi calidad” on Father Balaguer’s text
instead of having “mi cualidad” in the original text, the number of punctuation marks, the
omission of the word “Catolica” in the priests’ copy while appearing on the newspaper copies,
the pattern of the paragraphs and the lack of the list of the signing witnesses in Father Balaguer’s
copy.

Amidst these inconsistencies, the Jesuits were able to provide formidable proofs of our
national hero’s retraction like enabling Rizal to receive the sacrament of the Holy Communion
and Penance before his death. In addition, the handwriting in the document was proved authentic
by experts and it is without doubt that Rizal himself read and signed the letter. The Catholic
Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines in a statement made by one of its representatives on
January 6, 1950, cited on cbcponline.net, the church is “profoundly saddened by statements
made by those who proclaim themselves loyal children of the Catholic Church because the insist
that our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal has produced a “maneuver cleverly conducted by anti-
Catholic elements” and that they are saddened also that some Catholics even supported Rizal in
his choice of the Masonic life.

In this point of view, I can now come up with a thought in my mind that even the church
itself does not know to properly influence their followers because in their statement, they
somehow condemn those adherents who are not faithful to their religion when in fact by this
statement alone, we can infer that the church has a weak leadership. I am truly sorry to say that
even though I come from a devout Catholic family, there are still things that we need to consult
and learn for ourselves without religion interfering our thoughts, ideas and feelings. But the said
group of priests was “thankful” that Rizal reconciled with his forefathers in the Roman Catholic
Church. According to the bishops, the letter of retraction did not necessarily mean to disclaim his
political or social ideas about how the Spanish government rules the country like implementing
civil rights and laws but it is of his errors in giving his attack to the church like making certain
“false accusations” to the said abuses of the friars. This reason of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines seems illogical to us knowing that during the colonization of the
“Kastila”, the church and the government are considered inseparable. Each step the civil
department takes, the church’s stand must be considered. Another implication of the bishops
concerned is that Catholics who support the idea of letting publishers continue printing Rizal’s
famous anti-clergy novels Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo and distributing it to the
greater population will be labeled as the enemies of the freedom of expression.

I was somewhat sad in this statement because freedom of expression itself, the one
actively promoted by the church, is denied to publishers. It is so ironic that they propagate liberty
of speech and expression but yet is also the one who prohibit others to do such. As quoted from
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines: “We cannot tolerate seeing our Government
unwittingly become the pawn of a small prejudiced minority, at the expense of and against the
spiritual interest of the great majority of our religious people. In this stand, we merely testify
again to the fact, admitted by all objective observers the world over, that the Catholic Church is
today in the forefront in the colossal struggle to save the basic human rights and freedoms,
furthermore to cast serious and unfounded accusations against the Jesuit Fathers, who are as high
a class of religious, intellectual, honest, hard-working men as any Filipino or group striving for
the best interest and cultural progress of the country.” The priests did every imaginable thing
they can have against anti-retractionists.

All in all, as to pro-retractionists, Rizal is still our greatest hero and it cannot be denied
that his withdrawal of Masonic beliefs did not demerit his valuable contributions in giving our
country the sweetest gift which is independence. He was then given praise by the Catholic
Church by owning to his errors and for returning his faith to the God Almighty. For the anti-
retractionists, the falsity of the document and the assumptions of the bishops, particularly with
Father Balaguer were clearly not in light of Rizal’s personality as a brave man with strong
principles in life. Given the reason that the letter of retraction, one of the Catholic Church’s most
valued possessions, was lost for thirty-nine years without even disclosing it publicly and most
especially to Rizal’s family, who did not have a single clue whether their son or brother has
actually renounced his mistakes. The loss of the retraction document surfaced doubts on
Filipinos on the bishops’ integrity. Being not in the possession of the Jesuits for thirty nine long
years kind of gives us a hint that there is something fishy going on with them.

The obvious differences found on the copies of the letter of retraction created numerous
theories on the minds of Rizal’s family and supporters and this include that the document was
actually forged by the bishops themselves. The forgery was the most famous gossip on this
retraction controversy. Another source cited on the internet, johnbar06.blogspot.com stated that
even the archbishop himself permitted an expert, Dr. Ricardo Pascual, to examine the lost and
ultimately found document in its every detail. Dr. Pascual concluded that in his inspection of the
found “original” document, the handwriting of Dr. Jose Rizal was unambiguously forged and
that it is a false representation. It is either Rizal was forced to sign the letter of retraction or have
someone to copy his exact handwriting to suggest an authentic copy. Another reason that anti-
retractionists hold on to was the event of our national hero’s burial in Intramuros rather than a
Christian Paco cemetery.

With my understanding in their stand, if Rizal did actually retract his mistakes and was
forgiven by the Church on the day of his execution, why was he not given the proper burial rites
of a Catholic man? And if moments before he was shot dead at Bagumbayan, Rizal and his
beloved Josephine Bracken were offered a privilege of a proper Catholic wedding, why are there
no formidable proofs of this event taking place like an officially recognized marriage statement?
These questions surely impose confusions in our minds. Later on, I will explain my opinion on
believing that our national hero did not retract and that this was a perspicuous case on forgery. In
addition to the assumptions stated earlier, those who firmly convinced themselves that Rizal did
not sign the letter of retraction also believe that the witnesses who made their “signatures” on the
document were by the same person, as what I stated. As a crucial part of any legal document, an
authentic signature will prove the validity of the statements in that document. And the mere fact
that this signature alone was actually forged or imitated was a proof of the carelessness of the
church in dealing with laws. Another evidence of anti-retractions include the factor that none of
the archbishops and the Jesuit friars raised concern on Rizal’s forgiveness in the legal courts.

The supporters of Rizal, including myself, infer that this was a bad inconsistency of the
church’s assumptions. Had Rizal retracted and returned to the church he must have been granted
clemency or pardon or even the reduction of Rizal’s death sentence. But none of this happened.
Our national hero was not offered the privilege to be defended by the church of which he has
given his “retraction”. The sad fact is that only Dr. Jose Rizal’s family asked for pity to prevent
him from being sentenced to death. No shadow from the Catholic Church was seen. The most
solid argument of Rizal’s denial of retraction was his character alone. Throughout our years of
schooling, teachers have embedded a fixed description of our national hero—brave, intelligent
and family-loving. In seeking for the in depth background of this personality,

I have researched some statements from various historians and experts. Cited from
johnbar06.blogspot.com, “Few months before his sentence he had rejected Father Sanchez’ offer;
an offer of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate if he would retract; and he
had declared that he could not be bought for half the Philippines.” With this, we can then assure
ourselves that Rizal was a man of principle not blinded by material things that can ruin his
reputation. He exuded the formidable values of integrity and pride to our fellow countrymen. We
then go through the man who made us believe that he was indeed Rizal. The man who allegedly
forged Rizal’s and the witnesses’ handwriting was Roman Roque, under the directions of Lazaro
Segovia. One source I have found said this statement: “During conversations with the
community elders, Roque disclosed that he was fetched by Lazaro Segovia from San Isidro not
long after the news of Aguinaldo's capture. He was taken to Manila, and made to stay at Hotel
Quatro Naciones in Intramuros, where he worked on the forging of Rizal's penmanship. He made
about five copies of the forgery letter as prepared by the priests he said. He thought of keeping
one for himself; but when searched upon departure, his copy was taken from him, as the priests
would need an additional copy, he was told. He worked on the forging task for about ten days, he
recalled. When asked how much he was paid for the job, he revealed that he was given the
equivalent of his salary for two months in the government service. San Isidro residents
remembered that Roque was away from their town for about two weeks.” From this, the case of
forgery has a stronger foothold and that this was not a rumor or gossip at all! Lastly, his last
poem “Mi Ultimo Adios” never implied any idea of Rizal’s letter of retraction. A line from the
poem “Farewell, sweet stranger, my friend, who brightened my way; Farewell, to all I love. To
die is to rest.” If he did returned to being a Catholic granted with a Christian marriage to his love
Josephine Bracken, he would not logically write stranger, instead of wife, or loved one. Simple
case as it may seem but it reflects Rizal’s true aspirations during his last hours.

Because I was inspired by his last work, I have come up into a valuable analysis that
none—not even a single word of a hint—was given by our national hero implying his agreement
on the letter of retraction. In addition to that, a line that reads “There I leave all: my parents,
loves of mine, I’ll go where there are no slaves, tyrants or hangmen where faith does not kill and
where God alone does reign.” This line alone does not suggest any reconciliation between our
national hero and the Catholic Church. It is pretty clear that he did not actually have the desire to
revoke his accusations against the friars and that there is still a dark and blunt boundary between
the two parties. Those were the arguments of the two sides: those who believe Rizal retracted, or
more simply the Catholic Church itself, and those who deny his reunion with the Christian
religion.

I will now answer the questions imposed at the earlier part of this term paper. The first
question that I need to answer is about my personal opinion about this retraction of our national
hero Dr. Jose Rizal. For me, this issue has long been casting more and more confusions into our
minds and is also one of the most talked about hearsay not only of the history of the Philippines
but also of other countries that somehow paid their appreciation and support to Rizal. With the
evidences presented a while ago, I think that Rizal’s retraction was a well-played act not only of
the friars and the religion concerned in particular but also for other people who aimed to
“outshine” our national hero’s contributions into gaining our independence from Spain. These
include the competitors and enemies of Dr. Jose Rizal and those that felt remorse on the
expositions illustrated by our national hero in his controversial works and writings. Knowing
Rizal as exuding those formidable values of a great man like integrity and courage, I don’t
believe that Rizal consented into accepting this challenge of revoking all his hard work, effort
and patience in such a hateful waste. He struggled to come up with this long idea of liberating his
oppressed people in his Motherland and managed to let himself immerse into intense hardship to
the point of controlling his daily activities like enjoying sumptuous food or buying luxurious
clothes in turn to make this idea of freedom come into reality. For many years of trying to
balance the difficulty of giving himself a good reputation through excellent educational
attainment and unquestionable skills and the urge to complete his great contribution to our
beloved but enslaved nation, it is hard to imagine Rizal doing such retraction as if it was just like
a snap of the finger and a mystic wonder and magic.

I personally believe that it was impossible for our national hero to easily give up the
sweetest product of his long, sleepless nights in Europe in exchange of a bitter and harsh reality
that he was still convicted of this so called “heinous crime against the State” and the fact that he
was still bound to the inevitable execution and shame to the public masses. There is no reliable
and free-of-doubt justification to end this great “mystery” in Philippine history. Despite of all the
proofs and arguments stated by pro-retractionists, especially the highly venerated and respected
Catholic Church and its devout adherents, there are still no strong explications and illustrations
that will satisfy our curious selves in putting this controversy into the legal status such as being
“case closed”. Let us tackle the foremost evidence again—the loss of the letter of retraction for
thirty nine long years and the ultimate “discovery” of the Jesuits of this supposedly original and
notarized document. I am truly convinced that the Jesuit friars have something to do with this
issue.

Based on my own hypothesis on this, the bishops and the Catholic Church in the
Philippines have kept this document in their hands and then disclosed it as if it was lost. Surely,
they knew of all the reasons of this controversy but made it as a secret to the public. The reason
for this confidentiality of the “lost document” was obviously the sad truth that they were one of
the accomplices in the forgery of the document. Based on my readings on different internet blogs
and articles on our national hero’s retraction, it is within the realms of possibility that the
Catholic friars, in the name of Fr. Balaguer, Archbishop Nozaleda and Father Pio Pi to alter the
statement of Dr. Jose Rizal and made others, particularly the general public to believe that this
return of Rizal to the Catholic faith was authentic in all aspects. The certainty of the evident
discrepancies in the copies distributed to these friars is a sure display of their collaboration in
committing this act. It revolves around two possible scenarios: one is that Rizal’s letter of
retraction was written by notable maker of believable forgeries in the name of Roman Roque or
the Jesuits have made us all to think that there are witnesses in the actual retraction of Rizal.
However, it was only after the discovery of the said “original document” that Father Balaguer
had publicly mentioned the witness like “Chief of the Picket, Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza
and Señor Fresno”. How irresponsible it is for them to not take care of the letter of retraction and
then suddenly calling it the true copy just because one friar has exposed the witness after the
discovery.

In my humble opinion, even if I am a member of the Catholic Church, I feel somewhat

miserable to these bishops who did not stick to their previous arguments and illustrations on this
issue because the more they had defended themselves that Rizal really returned his faith, the
more that I discredit their integrity for these inconsistencies. We all know that forgery was a
rampant case not only in today’s day and age but more especially during the Spanish
colonization in the Philippines where the church officials were given the power to show their
influence to the Filipinos in general. The forgery case was then reflected in the obvious
differences of Rizal’s handwriting with this past works and articles. Even the signatures of the
witnesses of the retraction was also said to be forged by Roman Roque. It was truly a crime but
for the bishops, it was the most right thing to do to save Dr. Jose Rizal from being burned in hell.
As a humorous quote from Ethan Allen that says: “While we are under the tyranny of Priests, it
will ever be their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems
incompatible therewith.” This happening in the history of the Philippine Catholic Church has
made a huge impact in our faiths. These Jesuit friars have made a horrible mistake of either
faking the letter of retraction of Rizal or they were just unable to reproduce such “original”
copies effectively to leave an important and lasting impression that it was indeed of genuine
nature.
 I also put my confidence in another evidence of this fake retraction which is the assumed
marriage of Dr. Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken hours before his death march. Since there was
no undeniable type of document or evidence to prove that this really happened, I don’t think our
national hero was able to marry his loved one, as what the priests, particularly Father Balaguer,
has said. In line with this, inasmuch as I am concerned with this marriage to not come about, I
think it is irrational for our national hero to agree with this condition of the Catholic Bishops
when in the first place there is not actual retraction that occurred! Later on, I will state the
arguments to support that this wedding ceremony as narrated by Father Balaguer was fake. Even
if Dr. Jose Rizal signs the letter of retraction, it would still be useless because he will be executed
anyways and the church had nothing to do with it since it was under the control of the military
tribunal. His penalty and ultimate execution at the Bagumbayan was not diminished or
eventually abandoned. I think that he did not consider signing the letter of retraction because it is
of no use, as practically saying.

I firmly presume that Rizal’s personality and actions during the last moments of his life
did not suggest any odd behavior leading us to think that this retraction was real and
unquestionable in all means. He had never mentioned anything about his agreement to return to
his faith to assure his eternal salvation to his family and friends and even his last great work of
literature “Mi Ultimo Adios” did not have any line that neither indicates that he disavowed his
mistakes in bashing the abuses of the friars nor that he was married to Josephine Bracken in a
canonical ceremony following this retraction. Having been inculcated in our minds the great
thought that Dr. Jose Rizal would sacrifice anything to set his fellow countrymen free from all
the abuses and slavery of the Spanish oppressors, he had always told us that he was ready to
embrace death and damnation for the liberty of Filipinos. It is in his strong disposition to stay
firm with this principles and beliefs and to stick with his “vulgar but moving” allegations in his
literary pieces. Second question on whether he made such retraction—for me, Dr. Jose Rizal did
not retract. Why can I say this? Simply because of the lack of substantiation to the part of the
Catholic Church of which played a huge part in putting our national hero into detention! It is too
impractical to be considered as a bona fide happening in the course of our long history with the
Spanish tyranny.
 With all the experiences he had went throughout his thirty three years of existence, I
suppose that he was in his own prime to be consistent with his conduct to realize his personal
ambition to avenge his family’s sufferings under the rude persecutors and to provide
independence to the Philippines. My opinion on this retraction controversy is that it will not
change the fact that he made those valuable contributions in initiating the spark of change in our
system and I think that his retraction will not in any way demean what he has done to his
countrymen. Surely enough, forgery was the only way that the desperate Catholic Church has
turned into to claim back its finest glory during those tough colonization era plagued with
rampant abuses and slavery. It was the medium they have utilized to get away with all those
allegations, whether it was real or not, though there conscience might be moved, to somewhat
brain wash us all that their spiritual power was still in its prime not shocked by the brilliant
minds of those brave, revolutionary Filipinos. Denying to actually agree to the terms and
statements written in this controversial letter of retraction did not ruined or damaged our national
hero’s reputation and honor for he was able to do those courageous uprisings with peace and
might and not what these anti-retractionists attack against him like being weak or being
submissive to the demands of the church.

The retraction document which contained the words "I retract with all my heart whatever
in my words, writings, publications and conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son
of the Catholic Church" was a clear manifestation of Dr. Jose Rizal’s respect for the people
whom he fought for independence for many years of struggles in his life. All of those
circumstances surrounding this mystery of recovery of faith only proved to be effective in
bringing the general Filipino’s concerns on the slowly declining empire and tyranny of the
Spanish in the Philippines and the shame and indignity of the frailocracy. It was a good fight
between the intelligent mind of our national hero and the stake of the condition of both the
church and the government.

For me, the brilliance of a genius like Dr. Jose Rizal inspired not only the majority of the
crying Filipino population but also to all people in the world having the same gruesome
experience as that of the Philippines and this move was a good shot to show that we are tired of
all those injustices we are suffering. Let me cite some of the known personalities during the time
of Rizal’s alleged signing of the letter of retraction and let us see whether this was in line with
my agreement to the fact that he did not made the retraction letter. According to the famous
British author and historian, civil servant, writer and traveller Austin Coates: “Before god, he
(Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract.” Our national hero remained clam despite the unavoidable
punishment of the ruling men to shoot him to death. As what I have stated earlier in this term
paper, the church, even though he was “forgiven” for retracting his sins, had still nothing to do in
saving him from the execution. Even the Jesuits clergy did not offered a burial mass to our
national hero after his death in Bagumbayan. They were not able to hold this really simple
dedication of spiritual guidance to his soul or made mention of his confession of his sins for the
last minutes of his life. Even his burial was not solemnly done in a Christian cemetery. It was
never held and no letter of retraction was surfaced. Dr. Jose Rizal’s family were told that the
letter of retraction had been given to Archbishop Nozaleda’s palace and that they were faced
with the harsh truth that it would be impossible for them to see that document.

In my opinion, it was a good move of the fraudulous church to keep their forgery secret
to avoid exposing any attack against them. With this, I am certain that this pious deception made
by the Jesuit friars was just to threaten Rizal to come back to his religion or else he will
experience damnation. We all know that long before, these bishops and priests had already been
making their greatest efforts to visit our national hero in his exile in trying to convince him to
admit his mistakes against them in all means. Ironically though, they were the ones who did not
recognize Rizal’s firmness and respect to them by not responding to their suggestions on the
letter of retraction. They must know from the beginning that when these religious efforts were
started, they already have this conception in their minds that it is impossible to change Rizal’s
stand on his so called “damaged” to the church’s good and honorable reputation.

I suppose that he still holds on to his beliefs and values about the Christian religion for
his only aim was not to destroy the church itself, but of the corrupt and malicious officials
controlling its operations. I don’t think that our national hero would be properly labeled or
claimed as a heretic due to the fact that his attack was only focused to those friars with immense
power that damaged their own reputation by reasons of maltreatment and numerous wrong
doings. I also believe that it is not proper in all circumstances to charge him with a crime like
treason. Treason, as defined is the “crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to
kill the sovereign or overthrow the government”. His life, works and writings revolved around
his passion, will and fervor to encourage the Spanish government to change their system of
ruling in our country and not in any way betray the colony itself. Rebellion was not in our
national hero’s mind. All he wanted was to spark the burning hearts of the Filipinos to ask the
Spanish government to recognize their rights and capacities and not merely treating them like
slaves or calling us “indios” enjoyingly.

I personally have this thought in my mind that Dr. Jose Rizal did not hoped us to initiate
a bloody revolution to the tyranny as he only pointed out that we Filipinos should be given the
appropriate representation in all aspects of our society which includes the church, the seats in the
government and even the agricultural sector, to provide a better life to the Filipinos and liberate
them from restricting and unfair laws of the authorities. This event of the Jesuit friars not letting
the then dead and helpless Dr. Jose Rizal enjoy a proper funeral mass and burial only goes to
give us a good clue that our national hero did not solemnly renounced his faith. Another quote
which inspired me to really be convinced that Rizal did not sign the letter of retraction was from
the honorable Filipino academic, author, historian and journalist and the Director of the
Philippine Historical Institute, Ambeth R. Ocampo that states: “To accept Rizal as having
married Bracken is to accept his alleged retraction of religious error.” Going back to another
lack of evidence the pro-retractionists claimed was the marriage of Dr. Jose Rizal and his
beloved “wife” Josephine Bracken. The morning after our national hero’s execution in
Bagumbayan, particularly within the area of Fort Santiago, nobody has seen Josephine Bracken
anywhere. Her presence during the actual day of Rizal’s death was also disputed.

In my opinion, if the church really accepted the asking of forgiveness of Dr. Jose Rizal,
they would have conducted their marriage canonically in front of all people, be it the witnesses
of the retraction or Rizal’s family but sadly though, it did not happen. Why? Simply because
there was no solid proof that it actually happened! Since there was no marriage involved in this
aspect, then it would be logical to assume that Rizal did not consent himself to sign the letter of
retraction. I also refuse to have confidence in the remarks that the priests, going by the names of
Fr. Jose Villaclara, one of Rizal’s favorite Jesuit professor during his schooling days, Fr. Vicente
Balaguer, the most controversial one, and lastly, Fr. Estanislao March to get around the very vast
stretch within Intramuros to offer the sacrament of confession to the doomed Dr. Jose Rizal.
Considering this situation of having a difficulty to roam around the area, I certainly presume that
it would be impossible for Fr. Vicente Balaguer to give exact descriptions about the alleged
wedding ceremony of Dr. Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken in the morning of our national
hero’s execution at Bagumbayan. Fr. Jose Villaclara and Fr. Estanislao March were nowhere to
be seen during that time where Fr. Balaguer officiated the marriage. I think it was only a made
up argument of Fr. Balaguer because even his co-priests were not present to agree with his
statements. Simply speaking, there was no actual ceremony at all. In addition, when Josephine
Bracken went to Hong Kong to eventually marry another Filipino man Vicente Abad, the local
legal records have showed that Josephine used his maiden surname Bracken, instead of Rizal,
which is a clear indication of the nonoccurrence of the marriage, in contrary to what Fr. Balaguer
claims to have witnessed. This wedding ceremony, coupled with the letter of retraction was just a
hoax; well that is my opinion on this aspect of the story. As Catholics, these two are important
sacraments and being not privileged to be granted those is a sad implication of our national
hero’s denial to revoke his religious errors which affected his honor and reputation. One source
from the internet torchofsalvation.blogspot.com in one of its posted articles stated that “One
must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated
December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction
and/or marriage. A message with that important information would have been of great
consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and
respected dearly.” The argument of the forgery of Rizal’s penmanship and the witnesses’
signatures in the document by Roman Roque was also strengthened by his actual confession way
back in 1901.

Based on what I have found out with this event, he confessed that it were the friars, under
the direction of Lazaro Segovia, who instructed him to make several copies of the letter of
retraction. The furnished, zoomed photograph of our national hero’s execution at Bagumbayan,
now displayed at the City Hall of Manila, had showed that Dr. Jose Rizal without holding rosary
in his hand like what Fr. Balaguer had stated and biographers Cavanna and Guerrero have
written in their own interpretations of our national hero’s biography. If Dr. Jose Rizal had
recanted from his criticisms and oppositions against the lessons, teachings and principles of the
Catholic Church, and if, according to his biographer Leon M. Guerrero, Rizal had confessed his
sins for four times, heard and experienced the holy mass in his death room in Luneta, and was
given the privileged to have the holy communion during his last minutes before he was shot
dead, then our national hero should be labeled as a criminal of treason and dishonesty to all who
advocate independence, especially the revolutionary forces, of whom really believed in his
advocacy to obtain freedom. Then it is either that he was not actually worthy to be entitled to be
our national hero. He should instead be recognized a good devout follower of the Catholic
Church or even be venerated as a holy saint, ridiculously. I don’t believe that he was capable of
betraying his loyal supporters to achieve his aim of saving his soul from burning in hell. If he
signed the letter of retraction, it would be unnecessary for the friars of the Catholic Church to be
proud of themselves in being successful in changing Dr. Jose Rizal’s image and character which
would have made all his hard work and perseverance go to waste. The Church did all it can to
brainwash the intelligent scientific mind of our national hero and to hold on to his devout beliefs
in the teachings and morals as implicated by these friars.

With regards to the third question on my opinion about who wrote the letter of retraction,
then I would say that it was obviously not Rizal. It was clearly forged to protect the prestige and
power of the Spanish propaganda on spreading Catholicism. The absence of the sufficient
assurance of Father Balaguer that it was really the “original on”, then it would be best for me to
assume that it was indeed fake. Was there someone who made it for him? Of course. With all the
expositions by master forgerer Roman Roque himself, it is of no doubt that Rizal did not consent
to having the letter of retraction. As to his own confessions, I think that he was told by the priests
to make five copies of the forged letter of retraction with the templates prepared by the bishops
beforehand. As what he said that he would like to keep one copy for himself in case others would
be lost in the hands of the publishers and the priest.

I personally believe that he was denied to have one because of the fear of the Catholic
clergy that Roman Roque might reveal other disputations about the friars in which they try to
hide from the general masses. Well, this is only my wild guess on what actually happened but I
have this strong feeling that this was really what occurred back then. Roman Roque was told that
the priests needed an additional copy of the document thereby limiting his chances of securing
one for future references of facts. As Dr. Jose Rizal was one of those many Filipinos who were
given excommunication by the church because of his adherence to the beliefs and aspirations of
the Masonry, he was not allowed to have the Blessed Catholic Sacraments. I am sure that this
was the reason why I firmly believe that it is impossible for him to sign the “forged” letter of
retraction because the basic sacrament of confession was denied from him. It was a bad defense
of the Catholic friars, especially to Father Balaguer to confidently assure the Filipino people that
Rizal’s return to the church and his abomination of Masonry was real. It made us cast more
doubts about their true motive in forcing Rizal to sign such document. The mere fact that the
opportunity to face a priest or friar to confess and admit to all you “mistakes” is the strongest
evidence that Dr. Jose Rizal had lived with this words against the church. I do not understand
how these friars were able to convince the Filipinos to believe that the letter of retraction was
indeed lost for a long time. Maybe it was just that they have the supreme power and scope of
influence to let people have this impression that Rizal died as proud Catholic and that we should
follow his faithful return to the Catholic Church. However, we don’t have the concrete evidence
to calling Father Balaguer and other priests involved with various terms which can insult or
demerit them. Nevertheless, this conversion of our national hero will surely have a long lasting
bad perception on the officials managing a church with adherents of about the majority of the
great Filipino population.

Lastly, what made me to really suppose this Dr. Jose Rizal’s alleged forged letter of
retraction was the statement he left himself-- “I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no
oppressors… where faith does not slay… where he who reigns is god.” With this quoted remark
from our national hero, he died with the belief of the existence of a one, true God who governs
our lives and made us the brilliant persons we are today. The only thing he was frustrated about
in holding this faith was the officials themselves who are not only killing it’s the reputation of
the church but also oppresses the people by taking their freedom to choose and live happily
away. In my opinion, this statement alone will now release all the restrictions felt by those who
firmly believe that our national hero had actually been sorry for being a member of the Masons
and attacked the wrong actions of the Catholic clergy. The actions made by Dr. Jose Rizal speaks
strongly in his principle of defending his work to inspire the Filipino people to also have their
contributions in their own little way to help their fellow countrymen and to let the Spanish
government to have this valuable impression on us that we are not just the stupid “indios” and
that we have our own initiatives to improve our lives and we have the courage to let our voices
be heard all over the world, especially to those nations that also experienced struggles and
uprisings on the colonial empires.
 I always try to convince myself that Dr. Jose Rizal was worthy of the status of being the
national hero for he was firm with his principles in life and he did not abandoned all the products
of his blood and sweat living in a lonely and isolated place like Europe just to inspire all of us
Filipinos---brave Filipinos to have our contributions in our every little way to have ourselves
defended against the maltreatment of the Spanish colonizers. Though there are some personal
issues and motives involved in Rizal’s search for freedom and adequate representation such as
revenge and discontentment, I can never deny the fact that he pursued on telling his fellow
countrymen to fight for what we believe and to oftentimes object to the power and influence
showed by the Catholic officials if we knew in our hearts and minds that it is not the right thing
to do. I also believe that despite of all the evidences and a variety of opinions presented by many
historians and authors, some of whom labeled themselves as “pro-Rizals”, the bottom line of this
century old controversy is that he did not signed such forged document. This clever move of the
Catholic Church was played very well to deceive us all that it was actually the clear
manifestation of our national hero’s humility to concede to the demands of his beloved church
leaders.

I assume that this was a good form of document manipulation to divert the attention of
the Filipino people against the exposed discrepancies and conflicts among the Catholic friars. Dr.
Jose Rizal had accepted this challenge imposed by the church and took it as one of his strengths
in putting his ambitions on achieving the true Filipino glory through important social, political
and religious reforms. His belief in the sense of patriotism and nationalism was a great and
hateful slap into the corrupt clergy’s faces and this was the cause for all their desperate means to
convince him to return to his “good and faithful forefathers of the church”. He could have the
choice of asking for pardon for his religious errors and discrepancies but he made the tough
decision in the dilemma to continue his fight and this had made be to be fixated with my stand
that he lived up with his words. The ultimate finding of the forged letter of retraction in the
archdiocesan archives had left a mark on me on how guilty the friars were on those allegations
written by our national hero in his two great novels Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. The
charges of treason, conspiracy and rebellion did not stop him from sticking in his firm principles
and belief on the power of reason and intelligence.
CONCLUSION

To sum all the explanations I have made earlier, Dr. Jose Rizal, is one of the mightiest
and courageous men ever known not only of the Filipino history but to the whole world because
of his bravery and brilliant mind with an ever burning fervor to inculcate the virtues of patriotism
and nationalism in the hearts and minds of the Filipino race, particularly the youth like myself,
which is considered as the “only hope of our nation”. Marching his death on the Bagumbayan
grounds and waiting to be shot by the military firing squad was already enough to have him
enjoy the honorary title of a national hero.

I cannot imagine that Rizal, who fought for the welfare of us Filipinos with a lion heart
bravely faced his punishment and damnation in front of the Spanish government officials, the
Catholic friars, colleagues, family and close friends, to change all his perseverance and patience
into works and writings in one single blink of an eye. He walked his final moments in exile with
pride and courage to show to all that he was honest to his arguments and he was not afraid to
face death. This controversy about our national hero’s letter of retraction was just a test to all
Filipinos, including myself, to know more about his life and all his sacrifices and hardships to
provide us with sufficient inspiration in giving value to education in helping our beloved country
the Philippines to come up with fresher, more brilliant and feasible ideas in realizing genuine
changes.

I truly believe that he died with a clean conscience and respect for the Roman Catholic
Church, not including the corrupt and abusive officials of course. This so called “historical
gossip” has sparked my inner hero to dare to be bold and hold on to the mighty power of
intelligence, reason and science in fighting for my personal thoughts and feelings. This was a
sign left by Dr. Jose Rizal to let us use our bright minds to hone our skills, and not just to be
blinded by some sort of a pre-embedded religious filter to dictate our ideas and actions. Even
though he was considered a hero full of mysteries, it did not change my opinion on accepting this
controversy as a clever hoax by the Catholic Church and that he did not sign the letter of
retraction which would eventually lead him to be called a flip flop or hypocrite by his avid
supporters. And even though he was raised in a highly devoted Christian family, he did not gave
his consent to let the friars control what he has to say during his last days. Rizal did not
exchanged his ambitious visions for a price half the Philippines that time and his honor and
dignity was not in any way besmirched by his denial of the retraction. Those evidences and
proofs acknowledged by the clergy in claiming that “he died as a Catholic” were in conflict or in
contrary to all the subsequent events that occurred after his execution at the Bagumbayan.

I stand firm and unshooked on my personal opinion that Dr. Jose Rizal died as a faithful
son of the nation with a fearless endeavor to criticize the inappropriate behavior exhibited by
some of the friars such as indecency and self-indulgence. On all the falsificated documents
surrounding this retraction controversy, it gave me light onto holding on with the truth that he
did not abjure his “unjustified accusations”. It was a conspicuous interplay of the church’s great
scope of power and the taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the “ignorant and
submissive indios”. This gloriously entertaining “unadorned fact” was indeed a remarkable part
of the history of the Philippines. I hope that this argumentation of mine will enlighten the minds
of my beloved countrymen, especially my fellow youth to end this old historical hearsay-gossip-
scandal cycle of our national hero’s life.

We must always remember that a martyr like Dr. Jose Rizal has played a very important
role in ending the disruptive Spanish colonization period in our nation and even though he
advocated the peaceful and bloodless way of revolution, his works and writings had obviously
made a deep and lasting impact to the Filipino people in urging them to raise their concerns
about their lives under the tyranny that lasted for three hundred long years. The equal rights
before the law were effectively catapulted by Dr. Jose Rizal’s sad death under the hands of the
shameless, corrupt religious and civil leaders. A very insightful and professional doctor, a very
influential literary genius, a talented artist, a good father to those helpless boys in Dapitan, a wise
business investor, a responsible child, an excellent student, a loving brother and son, and a
mighty man. These descriptions are not enough to appreciate our national hero’s great
personality that launched a million contributions to our country. Until the end of this term paper,
my opinion on the mighty life of Dr. Jose Rizal, especially in his most talked retraction
controversy, will be the same. We must wake up to a harsh reality that the Catholic Church has
been fooling us all along even up to this day but we are lucky enough to have a great national
hero like Dr. Jose Rizal which encouraged us to stand for truth and integrity. He remained as a
loyal friend to the Philippines up to the last moments of his life and we should cherish and look
over his martyrdom in Bagumbayan in enabling us to become the country we are today—a free,
developed and educated Philippines that we are proud to show to the next generations. I hope
that this retraction controversy will come into a fruitful end bearing all the lessons, inspirations
and visions Dr. Jose Rizal has been trying to tell us that helped us propel ourselves to unleash
our potentials as faithful Filipinos.