RIZAL’S RETRACTION

CONTROVERSY

SUBMITTED TO: PROF. NODA

SUBMITTED BY: JOSHUA BRIX R.

GOMEZ
A. Established Facts/Historical Background
The letter of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935. The letter
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. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to
whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused
and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

However, the "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it
disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate
Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior
Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal.
The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even
suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify
whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s
execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos
del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in
the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s
"exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola.
That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction
which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl
wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a
number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the
correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr.
Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.

Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote
and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one
who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our
archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace
testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of
the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was
finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean
archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in
fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found
in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared
in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of
it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the
"original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said "This . .
.retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure,
Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the
original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the
retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no
witnesses signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself
made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the
retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr.
Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to
Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula
previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he
dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed
that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one
that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal
had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’ that
Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text
(with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the
original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very
early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of
his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal
fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession
of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had
established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not
provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by
the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who
wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the
priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps,
rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get
from him.
B. Questioned Facts (Controversy or Issue)
Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document which stated: "I
retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary
to my character as a son of the Catholic Church." However, there are doubts of its authenticity given
that there is no certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Also there is an allegation
that the retraction document was a forgery. Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are
prominent Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero
III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul
Dumol and Austin Craig. They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by
a foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting
experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both
of UP. Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer
book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution.
A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5
eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan
bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time
of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity. Because of what he sees
as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical method, in contrast with
merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a
plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and
stubbornness" of some Masons.

C. Significance and Insights

This issue implies that Rizal renounced his Catholic faith through a secret letter during the time of the
Propaganda and Reformation movement. Some historians say he became an atheist while some say he
became a Mason. Others say that the letter is not actually written by “him” and therefore died as a
Catholic. So, why is this significant in our history? This issue is really significant to our history because it
still debated if Rizal actually retracted. As seen in the history, the letter was probably not written by Rizal
and just written by a man who imitated his handwriting in order for Rizal to gain notoriety from the
Catholic Church as he is part of the Propaganda Movement. Furthermore if it was not actually Rizal, the
purpose of the letter of retraction was to solidify the rising Propaganda Movement during that time.
Moreover, it is still questionable if Rizal became a Mason too as many reformists like him joined
Freemasonry in order to oppose the Catholic Church. It is still doubted that he became a Mason or even
an atheist because he still shown faithfulness and reverence to God. As seen in El Filibusterismo, his
novel, he created Padre Florentino, a kind-hearted secular priest who provided a confession to Simoun
before his death. Moreover, he thrown the riches that Simoun left to the sea in order for these riches
not to be used for corruption and self-satisfaction. Furthermore, there are eyewitnesses that Rizal holds
a rosary when he is about to be executed. With that, it might imply that Rizal was a Catholic until the
end after all.

In my opinion, I believe that Rizal is actually a Catholic despite his dispute against the Catholic Church. I
believe that he didn’t actually hated the Catholic faith but wanted reformation on the leaders of the
Church especially on practicing what they preach. Also, through his quote, “To doubt God is to doubt
one's own conscience, and in consequence, it would be to doubt everything; and then what is life for?”
which he tells us Filipinos to not stop in having faith in God no matter how difficult our trials in life.
Furthermore regardless of Rizal’s issue, he is still our beloved national hero and a God-fearing man who
died for our country.

D. References

 http://www.biography.com/people/jos%C3%A9-rizal-39486
 http://www.joserizal.ph/rt01.html
 https://puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/did-jose-rizal-retract/
 http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html
 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jose_rizal.html