SU

BM
ITT
ED
BY
AL
OJ
AD
O,
RA
NE
LIE
KA
Y
BA
RE
NA,
NIK
KI

R
E
T
R
A
C
TI

CIN
CO,
KA
TH
LE
EN
CL
AIR
E
DE
LA
VE
GA,
JOF
RE
D
DA
PIT
AN
ON,
MA

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizals retraction documents have raised
issues, skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth
regarding this controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statements
by significant people involved have only contributed to the complications and
uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument.
"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. These people
include eleven eyewitnesses who were present when Rizal wrote his retraction,
signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw
him kiss the crucifix before his execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a great
grandnephew of Rizal, 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.
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." Guzmn attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief
and stubbornness" of some Masons.
REASONS FOR RETRACTION
Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction documents? What possible reasons
could have pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document, assuming that he
truly wrote the said document? The following four reasons would have been worthy
of his character and mentality.
(1) To save his family and town from further persecution.
Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the
retraction or of having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since
he hoped his death would stop the persecution of his relatives, the
retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way of achieving that
purpose.
(2) To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.
Rizal, even though he for a time suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to
have become convinced that she now loved him, and he may have desired
to give her a legal status in the eyes of the church, and so provide for her
future.
(3) To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
(4)
To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her.
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

Rizal did not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove
the cancer which ruined both church and state in the Philippines -- friar
control of land and domination by the government. He was also struggling
for freedom of thought and of conscience to the individual. He may have
felt that much of his propaganda had produced the insurrection, and have
repented of that. His letter to Paciano, written the night before his
execution, supports that theory. It also had been suggested that Rizal may
have written the word "Catholic" in the broad sense of the "Church
Universal" as it is used by all branches of the Christian Church excepting
the Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I believe in the Holy Catholic
Church," in this broad sense.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION
The argument between the original document and the released retraction
documents brought more controversy because this differs significantly from the text
found in the Jesuits. Which is really the original? Some of the significant
differences between the copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following:
(1) the Jesuits copies have mi calidad instead of mi cualidad from the
Archbishops copies, (2) the word Catolica was omitted after the first Iglesias in
the Jesuits copies, (3) the word misma was added before the third Iglesias in
the Jesuits copies, (4) the second paragraph from the archbishops copies started
with the second sentence, however, from the Jesuits copies it started until the fifth
sentences, (5) the Jesuits copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and (6) the
Jesuits copies did not have the names of the witnesses. These arguments are
further discuseed below.
Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman University, summarizes
the major points of argument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:
1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief
witness to the reality of the retraction.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of eye-witnesses,
and other qualified witnesses, i.e. those closely associated with the
events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.
3. Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity reportedly recited and signed by Dr.
Rizal as attested by witnesses and a signed Prayer Book which was
amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the
Retraction.

If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic
teachings but would agree to a number of beliefs which he had
previously disclaimed.
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the

signing of the Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. He
took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and
took the pen and sad Credo (I believe) he signed the acts with his
name in the book itself.

4.

Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by

witnesses.

5.

His Roman Catholic Marriage to Josephine Bracken as attested to by

witnesses. There could be no marriage without a retraction.

CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points
against the document itself.

First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only
scientific study criticizing the authenticity of the document was
made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines
shortly after the document was found.
Having some of Rizals writings dating from the last half of
December 1896 as his standard, he notes a number of variations
with the handwriting of the document, he further concluded that it
was a one-man document because of the similarities in several
respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all
three signers: Rizal and the two witnesses.
o

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given

by Dr. Jos I. Del Rosario. Rosarios main criticism may be said
to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizals writings
by way of comparison and concluded that the hand-writing is
genuine.

A second argument directed against the authenticity of the

document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism.
Several critics have noted differences between the text of the
document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction
including the one issued by Father Balaguer.
To date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been,
discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the
text with significant differences with regards to the use of certain
phrases within the document.

HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father

Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the
original and these have been transmitted from this earliest
copy to others. Some have wondered if the Retraction
Document was fabricated from the wrong version of a
retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.

A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content

is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion I wish to
live and die, yet there was little time to live, and also Rizals claim
that his retraction was spontaneous.

Finally, there is the confession of the forger. Antonio K. Abad

tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he was
employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several
copies of a retraction document.

2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim
that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction.
Those most often referred to by writers as follows:

The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even
members of the family did not see it. It was said to be lost.

No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his
signing of the Retraction.
o

The usual rebuttal is that Rizals death was due to political

factors and with this the religious authorities could not
interfere.

Rizals burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall
of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed
on the page for entries of Dec. 30th.

There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of

Rizal with Josephine Bracken.

Rizals behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago

and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a
conversion.

3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of
character.
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the

Philippines and a prominent Mason, also argued that if Rizal
retracted, it would have been a very drastic change of character in
Rizal which is very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong
in his beliefs Rizal was. He called the retraction story a "pious
fraud.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that
the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his
mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this
does not diminish Rizals stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned
the documentary entitled Ang Bayaning Third World, Joel Torres impersonation of
Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what
he has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore,
Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an
apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or
Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny
our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs."
Sources:

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
Did
Rizal
Retract?
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retractioncontroversy.html

HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL