Did Rizal consider Retracting

while in Dapitan?
Posted on September 19, 2012

DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?

by Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso
  

      Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of José Rizal’s alleged retraction of his
religious errors stirs up the emotions of historians, flaring up into fiery debates between
the pros and cons, without any resolution in sight.
 
      The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and improbable to
Rizal’s character and vehemence against oppression, as evidenced by a letter to Mariano
Ponce on April 18, 1889: “…At the sight of those injustices and cruelties…I swore to
devote myself to avenge one day so many victims, and with this idea in mind I have
been studying and this can be read in all my works and writings.  God will someday
give me an opportunity to carry out my promise.”

      Of the religious orders, he writes: “…the friars are not what they pretend to be nor
are they ministers to Christ, the protector of the people, nor the support of the Spanish
government…Don’t they show cruelty?  Don’t they instigate the government against
the people?  Don’t they manifest terror?  Where are sanctity, protection, and force?”
 
      Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he was unsure of
his reaction: “…no one knows how one should behave at that supreme instant, and
perhaps I myself who preach and brag so much might manifest more fear and less
energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at that critical moment.” 

      Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the confession Rizal
purportedly signed prior to his execution and testimonies of several witnesses who had
seen the act carried out.

      However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he weary of the
struggle that he decided to give in to the continuous urgings of the Jesuit fathers who
were present at his death cell? Or is it possible that Rizal had ruminated on retracting
while still on exile in Dapitan?
 
      Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcilla’s monumental multi-volume Jesuit Missionary
Letters from Mindanao contains several letters of the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his
Mission Superior, which may shed light on this matter. Obach wrote on July 28,
1895: “Rizal has just seen me and said (what has been jumping from mouth to mouth
of some who heard it from him), ‘Father Antonio, I no longer want further battles with
the friars, but live and work in peace.’

      ‘What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at peace.’
      ‘I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions.’
      I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own hand and
style, he wrote: ‘Conditions I ask to retract references to the matter of the friars, and
no longer meddle with them.’
      —José Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

      On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.”

      Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on retracting
beforehand? What is intriguing is that he had arrived at this decision, evidently, to spare
his family from further suffering and maltreatment.
 
      Fr. Obach continues: “…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials,
and he asks that they be returned or their equivalent…I answered that the only thing I
could do was to look into the situation and if there is no difficulty, for I do not know
how things are…As for the third, I said that I do not think they would give him such a
big amount. His plan…is to raise a huge cement plant which, on a small scale…has
been quite successful. But this third condition is not important, for without it, he is
ready to make a retraction provided his family is provided for. Besides, if they grant
him this amount, it would be on condition that he repays it.” 

      Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to
compete with the Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat the Indios.” In fact, Rizal
had prepared the statutes and regulations of the Society of Dapitan Agriculturists,
aiming to facilitate the easy buying, selling, and storage of products for export, and
curtailing the trade monopoly of the Chinese.
 
      Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away from his
errors: “I am convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but his pride
strongly holds him back…I think he will immediately break away from everything and
he would be an excellent Christian.”

      In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: “Regarding the letter I sent to Your
Reverence which contains Rizal’s retraction. I would ask you to send me a model
retraction…In demanding that Rizal indicate what has been taken from his family,
perhaps it will be humiliating for the Dominican Fathers. Rizal refuses, because in this
way they will (have) him bound more tightly under obligation. On the other hand,
retracting is acknowledging his errors, and so it is his turn to humble himself…I await
your letter which  I can read to Rizal to convince him what is better to do for God’s
greater glory.”
 
      By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed account of
his errors:  “…Rizal came and asked me if I could draw up a list of his errors. ‘You can
tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write, and tell him that I myself will retract all errors I
may have committed against the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in my
writings, and that he can make this same retraction public in the manner he wants.’
But with this he stands to lose everything…”
 
      Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive some form of
compensation for all the troubles they endured: “But on condition that they give me
P50,000 since I have no means to support myself in decency, and with that amount I
could bring my parents with me anywhere.” He no longer talks of machines and
cement, and so on, and he thinks that this amount is owed him because of the harm
inflicted on him.”

      Are Father Antonio Obach’s letters a reliable source about Rizal’s situation? Will
these revelations provide new clues to his frame of mind during the few hours before his
death? The mystery of Rizal’s retraction deepens.
v
AN ARGUMENT ON WHETHER RIZAL
RETRACTED OR NOT
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Votes

 
To begin with, Retract, as what Merriam Webster defines it, is to draw back or in; take back,
withdraw; disavow; to draw or pull back; to recant or disavow something, and synonym
for abnegate, forswear, recant, renege, renounce, repeal, repudiate, abjure, take back, unsay,
withdraw.
The “Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal”, dated December 29, 1896, said to have been signed by the
National Hero himself, 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.”
As controversial as it is ever since it was presented and until now. There were many arguments
as well as evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal retracted or not that until
now, has not been proven or justified to end this issue.

For those who does not believe that Rizal did not retract, there were testimonies that somehow
could indeed question the validity of the so-called retraction that was allegedly signed by Rizal
before he died.

First, it was the fact that the retraction paper was even kept secret and was only published in
newspapers that when Rizal’s family asked for the original copy, it was said that it was lost
under the Jesuits which was quiet unbelievable of how can they be irresponsible for such a
valuable paper or maybe if it was hidden, for what reason?

After thirty-nine years, when the alleged original retraction paper was found in the archdiocesan
archives and was permitted to be examined and later concluded in the book, “Rizal beyond the
graves” was said to be a forgery and the common rebuttal of this argument was either Father
Balaguer or Father Pi has made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.

Another thing that is questionable for non-believers was the marriage of Jose and Josephine after
the signing of retraction since there were no marriage of certificate or public record about it. For
them, why would Rizal retract when he knew the fact that even if sign the paper he would still be
executed since his case being judge under the military court where church and civilian’s
interference was not allowed.

It was argued that Rizal retracted to save his family, to give Josephine a legal status as his wife
and to assure reforms from the Spanish Government since its more likely of him, but non-
believers of this retraction believes that Rizal cannot just neglect all the writings—his poems, his
novels, that he had done and all his sacrifices and hard work, the same thing that it was the cause
and what brought him in execution. And personally, this was also what I cannot believe in the
said retraction. The second sentence was not just Rizal, it was way out of his character. I also
wonder that, if the paper was valid, then maybe there was some sort of coercion or maybe there
was something that happened that we did not know that made him signed the paper.

Also when Father Sanchez who was Rizal’s favorite’s priest in Ateneo visited him in his exile in
Dapitan and who also happened to be sent by the Jesuits Priests to convince him to retract in
regards to his allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the country, but
Rizal rejected.

Rizal’s last hours in Fort Santiago did not also point his retraction, his Mi Ultimo Adios and letter
did not indicate or mention about his religious stance by that time and also when the night he was
visited by his sister and mother, the retraction was not even mentioned. It was just Father
Balaguer who was insisting about it. All throughout, Rizal was fixated on the thought that he
would die for the love of his country and committed himself to it from a long time ago and most
specially when he decided to return to the Philippines knowing what can possibly happen to
him.. He was so consistent about it that even his friend do not believe his retraction.
As for the arguments of the believers of retraction, there were also a lot of arguments aside from
the evidence itself that were presented. And one of the believer is Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of
UST’s department of History that had somewhat presented his arguments.  He believe that Rizal
retracted and just renounced from the freemasonry and not from his Nationalistic works. He also
pointed that it is not possible to forge his retraction letter because there were said to be witnesses
during the signing of Rizal and that the evidence speaks for itself.

As for the character of Rizal, He believes that Rizal was human in character and not a perfect
person and are bound to have flaws. He also add that he believes that Rizal wanted to be at peace
when he dies and that’s why there was retraction.

History books even presented the last moments and hours of Rizal in his cell in Fort Santiago
and until his last breath. If you will follow them thoroughly, Rizal indeed died as a Catholic, On
December 30, 1896, at three o’clock in the morning, hours before his death, he heard mass,
confessed his sins and took Holy Communion, he also left Josephine a religious book, “Imitation
of Christ” by Father Thomas a Kempis which was autographed by the latter himself.  Before he
faced his death, he was blessed by a priest who also offered him a crucifix to kiss and Rizal
reverently bowed his head and kissed it.
As for myself, if I would be asked what I believe, I must say, I do not know what to believe and
who to believe. I just thought that whether Rizal retracted or not, I know the fact that what he
wrote about the Spanish Church in the Philippines at that time was the truth and there’s nothing
to be retracted about.

Aside from that, I also know that Rizal was a believer of God, the Divine Providence, from the
very start and up to his last moments, and he might have wavered on the Catholic Teachings
presented by the friars at some point in his life but he never once wavered on his faith with God.
He had always Faith in Him but he strongly disagreed of the twisted ways of the friars who ran
the Church and the Government during the Spanish Regime. And his works, his letters, his
poems, his diary entries, and during his last moments, his life as a whole, could attest to his
Strong Faith in Him. And for me, that was more important than knowing the truth about his
retraction.

From the presented Retraction paper, I like that idea of him dying as a Catholic, which at some
point I think, he does not have to retract since he never stop being a believer of God and he was
still practicing Catholicism in his own ways, and the documented life of him in Dapitan was a
witnessed to that, that despite of the many attempts of the Jesuits priest to make him retract and
him being consistent to his rejection, he himself still continued to hear mass in Catholic church
in Dapitan and celebrate Christmas and other religious Fiestas in the Catholic way.

At some point I thought, If he really did retract, then I can say that it’s his choice and he
probably had his reasons but it also does not change the fact that he died serving and honoring
his beloved country, my perception about him will not also change, it might be relevant for
others, but for me, it does not make any difference since Rizal’s life as a whole is bigger and
significant than this retraction paper of him that if it was true was just one aspect of his life
and “…it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.”

Ways to Proving that Rizal Did Not Retract

NN

Nash Nacion
Updated 13 May 2015
TRANSCRIPT

Ways to Proving that Rizal Did Not Retract

- A friend of Baron Fernandez, subsequently bought from Fernande the Intellectual Property right to the
vauable manuscripts.
Morato said in his "expose" that the friars forged the retraction letter and published in the Clerico- Fascist
newspapers at that time. Morato confirmed "No, Rizal never retracted although that fake retraction was
published by friars then and is still sadly peddled in most school, but that is not true."
Both Morato and Fernandez have documents to prove that when Rizal was in Dapitan, he was allowed to
go to Cebu with Josephine Bracken and Archbishop of Cebu, at that time, tried to dangle marriage and
coaxed him to to retract

Fernandez said:
- A Spanish orphan who worked for almost half century in two historical secret archives in Madrid and
Segovia, had an eyewitness account of the retraction which he discovered in those repertories of Spain's
dirty secrets. He found 34 documents including handwritten letters, telegrams, and military documents
including a thick sheaf of Rizal's defense. He had written himself days before he was murdered at
Bagumbayan.

The entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal's body is not made on the page with
those burials.
A statement saying that
something you said or wrote
at an earlier time is not true
or correct.

No masses were said for his soul or funeral held by Catholics

Conclusion
Baron Fernandez
Eyewitness

Manuel Morato's "Expose"

What is Retraction?
" I have documents stating that before he faced death, Rizal told his sister Narcisa to look inside his
shoes because he had left a letter. According to Fernandez, that letter could only be a denial of his
retraction because Rizal knew the friars were misleading the Filipinos and he wanted to set the record
straight".

Baron Fernandez
and Manuel Morato
If Rizal retracted, he would not have been executed. But he was executed; therefore Rizal did not retract.
He would have been an example for the cause of the friars; he would have been given a decent Christian
burial, not buried like a dead dog outside Paco Cemetery.
Mr. Palm's coetaneous acts which
undermine the belief that Rizal retracted:
1. The Documents of retracction were kept secret, only copies of it were furnished to the newspapers, but,
with the exception of one person, nobody saw the original.
2. When the family of Rizal asked for the original of the said document or a copy of the alleged retraction
letter, the petition was denied.
3. Rizal's burial was kept secret.

Not with standing the claim that Rizal was reconciled with the church, he was not buried in a
Catholic cemetery in Paco but in a ground

Who is the Two Witnesses?

R IZ AL ’S L A S T H O U R S
On Philippine History and Culture 0 Comments

On December 26, 1896, the military court tried Jose Rizal and later found him guilty of rebellion,
sedition, and conspiracy. The Spanish authorities believed that Rizal’s writings “fatally and
necessarily” incited the rebellion which, by 1896, had already become a revolution. On December 29
at 6 a.m., Capt. Rafael Dominguez read before Rizal his death sentence. His execution was
scheduled the following day.

At around 7 a.m. of December 29, Rizal was transferred to his death cell in Fort Santiago. There he
received numerous visitors, including his counsel; some Spanish officials; and several priests, his
former professors, with whom he supposedly discussed reason and religion. The Archbishop of
Manila, Rev. Bernardino Nozaleda, recalled: “During that day, although Rizal did not reject [the
Jesuits], he persisted in his errors contrary to the Catholic faith.… However, at the last hour, Rizal
abjured, in writing, his religious errors.” In other words, Rizal, a Mason, was said to have recanted
his statements against the Church and to have returned to the Catholic faith.

The controversy over Rizal’s retraction has not been settled. The “original” document of Rizal’s
“retraction” was found in the archdiocesan archives in 1935, 39 years after having disappeared the
day Rizal was shot. There was no record of anybody seeing this “original” document in 1896, except
the publishers of La Voz Española, which published its contents on the day of Rizal’s execution: “We
have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable
Archbishop….” Most experts think that the handwriting on the document is authentic. However,
scholars are baffled as to why Rizal, who courageously faced persecution for most of his life, and
who was finally sentenced to death for his beliefs, would suddenly balk at the last, futile moment.
(For more discussion on Rizal’s retraction, see Garcia, 1964; Guerrero, 1998; and Vaño, 1985).
In his last hours Rizal read the Bible and Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ, which he later
dedicated to Josephine Bracken. He also wrote the poem “Mi Ultimo Adiós,” which he concealed in
an alcohol burner. When his family came to see him, he asked pardon from his mother and talked to
his sisters as they entered his cell one by one. He also wrote letters. In his last letter, addressed to
Paciano Rizal, he asked his brother to ask their father for forgiveness for all the pain he had caused
him. To his friend Ferdinand Blumentritt, he wrote: “When you receive this letter, I shall be dead by
then…. Tomorrow at seven, I shall be shot; but I am innocent of the crime of rebellion…. I am going
to die with a tranquil conscience.”
At 7 a.m. on December 30, 1896 at Luneta, Manila, the 35-year-old patriot was shot in the back by a
firing squad. He hesitated, turned halfway around to face his executioners, and fell on his back to
face the Philippine sun.

Analysis Rizal's Retraction

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 ion 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" be
cause 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 was 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.

Examining the arguments that Rizal retracted or not

The unanswered question is: Was there any retraction? A bitter
dispute has been waged from 1896 to the present day over this
highly controversial question. Professor Padilla of the University of
the Philippines states the position of many and perhaps most
educated Filipinos in this succinct way: 
 

"Briefly then the picture presented before us is that of Dr.

Rizal, the man, the scientist, and rationalist, who wrote vigorously
against the Catholic Church, and who ridiculed the idea of hell. A
few hours before his execution, when threatened with eternal
damnation, he became suddenly 'distributed' and cried like a child,
'No, no, I would not be condemned.' Assured by Father Balaguer
that he would certainly go to hell if he did not retract and return to
the Catholic Church, the fear became greater, his reason capitulated
to faith, and he exclaimed: 'Well Father, I promise that the
remainder of my lifetime I will employ asking God for the grace of
faith'. Whereupon he signed a retraction in which he disowned all
that he ever said and wrote against the church, and abominated
Masonry. . . This picture is too much for one's credulity. Too many
of the supposed facts brought out in the way of evidence, when
pieced together, do not seem to fit psychologically into the picture."
 

Let us examine the proofs on both sides of the question.

 

As first hand evidence for the retraction we now have four

sworn statements: Fathers Balaguer and Visa swore that they saw
the retraction signed. Father Pio Pi swore that he received it from
Father Balaguer in the Ateneo, and a Colonel if the Infantry, R.
Sominguez, swore on May 30, 1918, that he had seen Rizal kneel at
the altar of the Fort Chapel and read the retraction "with voice clear
and serene." Dominguez then quoted the retraction without a single
error, twenty-two years after the event! He certainly copied this
retraction, for he could not have remembered it, which fact, as
Pascual insists, leaves one in doubt as to how much more he copied.
Many of his sentences are exact duplicates of other records.
 

Another affidavit is often presented as circumstantial evidence.

The Fiscal, Don Gaspar Castaño, visited Rizal between nine and ten
the evening before the execution, and tells us that as he departed,
Rizal "with jovial courtesy expressed his regret that he could not ask
me to come again. . ." I said, 'Rizal, you passionately love your
mother and your country, both of which are Catholic. Do not cause
them the great pain of dying outside the true religion.' He answered
in a tone of great solemnity, looking toward the altar, using this
phrase which I well remember, 'Mr. Fiscal, you may be sure I will
not close the doors of eternity.'
 

The most important evidence is the retraction itself, which was

found on May 18, 1935, by Father Manuel Garcia. It had been
wrapped up with retractions made by other men of the same period.
In the same package was a prayer book ending with "Acts of Faith,
Hope, and Charity", under which appears the signature of José
Rizal. These "Acts" cover the doctrines of the church much more
fully than does the retraction. If the retraction and the signature are
found to be genuine, then the fact of the retraction will be settled,
though Father Balaguer's story will remain incredible.
 

Let us now consider the evidence against the

retraction. Several exceedingly stupid blunders were made if the
retraction is authentic, so stupid that they seem to point to fraud.
Rizal's relatives were promised that the retraction would be read to
them in Paco church, but they never heard it. That caused
doubt. The newspapers published different versions. That
caused doubt.
  

Then came the well-nigh incredible report that it had been

lost! Nobody could believe it! After four years of effort to convert
Rizal had been crowned with success, after the orders had all
prayed with penances and mortification, the retraction, the most
precious document the church possessed in the Philippines, ought to
have been guarded as nothing else. Yet it had disappeared! Father
Balaguer swears under oath (in 1917) that he took it to the Ateneo
before Rizal was led out to be shot, and that Father Pio Pi carried it
to the Palace of Archbishop Nozaleda, entrusting it to Secretary
Gonzalez Feijoo, who deposited it in the chest for reserved papers.
There all trace of it was lost. Father Pio Pi said they looked for it and
could not find it. That caused doubt.
 

For thirty-nine years, millions of Filipinos, whether Catholic or

not, denied that such a paper existed. Then the retraction was
found in the very files where it had formerly been sought in vain.
That fact caused doubt. Why had it been missing thirty-nine years?
Asked the incredulous Filipinos.
 

The Archbishop permitted Ricardo R. Pascual, Ph.D. to

examine the retraction, and give him a good photostat of it. Pascual
wrote a devastating book called "Rizal Beyond the Grave" in which
he seems to show by minute measurements that the retraction
diverges from the style of Rizal's other writings of that period, and
he concludes that the paper was a forgery. Pascual points out that
both signatures of the "witnesses" were signed by the same man,
and they do indeed look alike. Pascual's book caused doubt. Until
world experts on handwriting give their judgment, suspicion will
continue. Perhaps even with such scientific judgment, people would
believe or doubt the document according to their prejudices, for it is
difficult to be dispassionate.
  

Unfortunately for the historian there was more blundering,

which has led many writers into uncertainty, concerning the
marriage of Rizal. Father Balaguer swears that he married José and
Josephine about fifteen minutes before the time for the execution.
But the marriage record could not be found in the Manila Cathedral
nor in the Registry of Fort Santiago where it ought to have been
place. This raised doubt. Rizal's sister Lucia, who went with
Josephine to the chapel that morning, saw a priest in vestments,
but said she did not see the ceremony. One fact supports the
marriage statement. Rizal wrote in a copy of The Imitation of Christ,
by Thomas á Kempis, these words: "To my dear and unhappy wife,
Dec. 30, 1896."
 

The obvious answer might be that Rizal had regarded

Josephine as his wife since they first held hands in Dapitan a year
and a half before, -- but in no letter now available did he call her
"wife" before this time. Or the writing may be forged.
 

The strongest circumstantial evidence for the wedding comes

from Rizal's sister Maria. When she went to say farewell the last
night, José said to her:
 

"Maria, I am going to marry Josephine. I know you all oppose

it, especially you, yourself. But I want to give Josephine a name.
Besides you know the verse in the Bible, 'The sins of the fathers
shall be visited upon the children to the third and forth generation.'
I do not want them to persecute you or her for what I have done."
 

There were three more blunders, which produced doubts. Rizal

was not buried where persons in good ecclesiastical standing are
buried in Paco Cemetery, but "in unconsecrated ground" between
the outer and inner wall where Father Burgos had been buried after
his execution. This raises doubt. Then he was not buried in a
coffin or box of any kind. This raises doubt.
 
Burial Record.  Note page number, although with a December date.
 

The record of his ecclesiastical burial is not on the page (147)

where persons who died in December, 1896, were recorded, but on
page 204, where persons buried ten months later, in September,
1897, were recorded. His name seems to have been written ten
months after he was buried. This raised doubt. Pascual's theory is
that they buried Rizal as an unrepentant criminal, and then
had to frame a case later to fit the retraction.
 

Was there ever such blundering with important circumstantial

evidence?
 

Doubt has also been raised by the fact that neither the
Archbishop nor the Jesuits asked for pardon or mitigation of the
sentence. Only his family begged for mercy.
 

The strongest argument was the character of Rizal. It

was but a few months before that he had rejected Father
Sanchez' 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.
 

That sounds like Rizal, as every one of his old friends will
testify. He was not only incorruptible, but very angry at the least
suggestion that he might be bribed. That character speaks so
loud against the retraction that all of Rizal's old friends believe
he could not have written it. They look at the writing and say, "Yes,
that is his handwriting, but then Mariano Ponce and Antonio Lopez
and many others could write exactly like Rizal. A good forgery is
meant to deceive."
 

The question, "Did Rizal retract?" rests upon the genuineness,

or otherwise, of the supposed retraction. The Archbishop should
settle this question, or at least attempt to settle it, by permitting
the document to be submitted to the greatest handwriting experts
in the world, preferably to several of them working independently.
He should permit the paper and ink to be subjected to the best tests
of modern science. Since Father Balaguer has told us an incredible
story, nothing is certain.
 

The most painstaking analysis which has thus far been made is
that of Pascual, and he pronounces the document to be a
forgery. Under these circumstances the Church must shoulder the
burden of proof that it is not. Everybody, it would seem, would like
to have this question settled convincingly.

THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its
content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The
letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero
himself.

It 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.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in
the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing
groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the
Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended

the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared
by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

READ
Thomasian designer's gowns featured in America's Next Top Model

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the
Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at
the History department of the De La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila
is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports,
transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the
controversies were true.
“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still
did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial
society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said.
“The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of
history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book
The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal
retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from
his famous nationalistic works.

READ
Gamilla, nagbitiw sa Faculty Union

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he
was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the
martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese
cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses
were present while Rizal was signing it.
He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s
character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and
personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded.
Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De
Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that
Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough.
The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”