MODULE 12

HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
Jose Rizal’s Retraction
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
One of the issues that hounds Philippine History is whether or not Jose Rizal, in his final days,
retracted all of his previous works and statements that were contrary to the dogma and teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church. It was also a renunciation of his membership to the Masonic
Brotherhood. .
"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.",
This was the statement in the document which made the historians believed that Rizal had
retracted. However, there have been claims that the document, as compared to the original file
which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery.
Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe that the retraction documents
are authentic.
If and when Rizal wrote the retraction, what are the possible reasons for this?
The following four reasons are oftentimes cited by historians:
1. Rizal love his family so much that if he signs the retraction, he could save them from
persecution including other Filipinos.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed its organization.
Below is an analysis of Rizal”s Retraction (from the website www. joserizal.ph)
At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El
Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction. 

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of
Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on
February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an
anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. 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.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the
Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of
Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first
"Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word
"misma" which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical
reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences
while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with
the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers
have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the
witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

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 in his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to
answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this
question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas
of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and
the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the 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, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal
himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the
retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi)
made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact
copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal
and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another
person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr.
Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it
"exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was
the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which
"changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the
difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with
"changes") is that the latter was "shorter" because it omitted certain phrases found in the
former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate
from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but
he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]"
as the enemy that is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as
unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually
would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition
of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been
omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

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.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they saw
a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten
by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently
because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s
handwriting.

ONLINE VIDEO LINK: XiaoChua, “Xiao Time: Retraction ni Jose Rizal, totoo kaya? “at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzG6tbcYxk

REFERENCES:

Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction (pp 9-19;31-43)
Jesus Ma. Cavanna , Rizal’s Unfading Glory, (pp. 7-36)