Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

CRUZ, JUSTIN EIVAN

MAMANGUN, FAITH DANIELLE


MANALOTO, ALICIA DANE
MERCADO JASMINE ERICA
MURO, TIMMY

BSA – 1A
RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
Question: DID THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO TRULY RETRACT?

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues, 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.

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced.


1. The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s
execution, Dec. 30, 1896.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short
formula of the retraction.

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.

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.
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 Archbishop’s 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 Jesuit’s copies,
(4) the second paragraph from the archbishop’s 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.
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 Rizal’s 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. José I. Del
Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include
enough of Rizal’s 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.

o 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
Rizal’s 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 Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the
religious authorities could not interfere.
Rizal’s 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.
Rizal’s 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.
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 Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such
greatness. As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s
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-retraction-controversy.html

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen