In most newspapers the text of a letter of
retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed
Jose Rizal
Retract or
not?
THE MANILA TIMES
Rizal remains a living and burning
issue among us
By: Yen Makabenta - January 02, 2018
First word
IT was hoped by the ecclesiastical and civil
authorities that Rizal’s life would end with his
death in Bagumbayan. But from the day of his
execution to this day, Rizal has been in this country
a living issue and often a burning one – the soul of
contention between Catholics and freethinkers, a
bone for the tug of war between church and state
in the control of education, and the subject of
bitter debate over the authenticity or fraudulence
of his supposed retraction of his words and deeds.
It is sickening that so selfless and splendid a death
as Rizal’s was followed by so much falsehood and
controversy. But this has been Rizal’s peculiar fate,
and perhaps finally his triumph. He was so
formidable opponents had to lie about him, even
when he was already dead and buried.
An ecclesiastical fraud
The morning after the execution of Jose Rizal, the
newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the
event, and announced that on the eve of his death
Rizal retracted his religious errors, abjured
freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had
married Josephine Bracken.
in full. The government sent the announcement to
Spanish consulates abroad with the request to
obtain for it the widest possible publicity.
Those who had read Rizal’s books or who knew him
closely and admired him, both in the country and
abroad, took one look at the announcement and
declared it “an ecclesiastical fraud.”
In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt shortly after
the execution, Fredrich Stahl, a Manila pharmacist,
wrote: “On the day of the execution, the Spaniards
published an article in all the local papers,
according to which, Rizal, in a written declaration
made by him on the day of his death, retracted all
his writings and deeds and proclaims himself to be
a repentant sinner and a loyal Spaniard. But
nobody here believes this, as the Spaniards publish
the same thing about everyone who is shot.
Besides, nobody has ever seen his written
declaration…It is in the hands of the archbishop.”
Was there a plot among the higher ecclesiastical
authorities to perpetrate a fraud?
There was certainly no signed letter of retraction, a
contradiction in itself for a man so strong in
conviction as Rizal. There was also no marriage
with Josephine Bracken, although they did live
together during his exile in Dapitan.
Rizal himself believed that there was a strong
likelihood of fraud after his death, and that the
prime mover in this would be the friar archbishop.
It was the friars who were zealously seeking his
retraction. They even came up with several
retraction formulas for him to sign.
Rizal’s intuition of fraud was not misplaced; what
played him false was the involvement of his
mentors, the Jesuits, who took part in the effort to
make him retract and return to the Catholic faith.
Jesuit vouches for Rizal’s retraction
It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J,
who laid the basis for the story that Rizal retracted
his words and deeds. It was also he who made the
claim that he married Jose Rizal and Josephine
Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, just minutes
before Rizal was executed.
In the final chapters of his biography of Rizal,
Austin Coates totally demolishes the veracity of
Balaguer’s claims, which were made the basis of
the archbishop’s announcement of a retraction,
and which were also contained in a letter from
Balaguer to his Jesuit superior, Fr. Pio Pi.
Balaguer’s retraction claim was not corroborated
by the two Jesuits who were present at Rizal’s
execution. If Rizal had indeed retracted, they would
surely have given Rizal a Catholic burial. How would
he have been deprived of even a coffin, as in fact
happened.
Balaguer himself was not present at the execution.
Josephine Bracken was also absent during Rizal’s
final moments.
Killing Rizal’s influence on the future
The lie in Rizal’s retraction is soundly thrashed by
Austin Coates. He wrote:
“A man of whom there is no record that he ever
told a lie can scarcely be considered as having
chosen a solemn moment to tell his first one….
“The Jesuits who had visited him knew how
unlikely it was that Rizal would retract….
“While one might kill the man, his writings
remained, and these were a danger, needing to be
sterilized, lest they poison the mind of future
generations with anti-clerical views. If he could be
made to admit his errors against religion and
retract them, it would blunt the point of everything
that he had written….
“The Jesuits’ two attempts to make Rizal retract
had different motives. The first was undertaken for
what the Jesuits sincerely believed to be his own
good, and possibly their own as well. The second
was undertaken with the main purpose of
sterilizing his influence on the future.”
Could Rizal have retracted in order to receive the
sacraments of the faith. It is part of Balaguer’s
elaborate fraud to suggest that Rizal feared for his
soul during his final hours.
He reported Rizal as saying to him: “Father, since
faith is God’s grace, I promise that thetime of life
remaining to me1 shall spend asking God for the
grace of faith.”
The Jesuit declared: “I can certify with an oath that,
loving God, Rizal died a devout, holy, Christian
death blessed by God. With His grace I hope to see
him in heaven.”
Balaguer was born in Alcoy, Alicante, Spain on
January 19, 1851. He entered the Society of Jesus
on 30 July 1890, and came to the Philippines in
1894. In 1896, he was transferred to Dapitan,
where he met Rizal. Months later, he was attesting
to have heard the most important final words of
Dr. Jose Rizal.
Holes in the Jesuit’s story
The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and
the marriage. They knew that that if he had
retracted, he would certainly have said so in his
6a.m. communication to his mother on the fateful
day of his execution.
Balaguer’s account exposed itself through major
discrepancies in his story. His claim of marrying
Rizal and Josephine was totally belied by the facts.
In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that
Rizal had written “Mi Último Adiós” on the eve of
his execution. Balaguer allowed no time for Rizal to
write the poem. The poem in its third stanza carries
the exact date and time when it was written.
In his claim of having performed the canonical
marriage of Rizal and Josephine, Balaguer said he
performed it in front of one of Rizal’s sisters
between 6 and 6:25 a.m. on December 30. But
none of Rizal’s sisters went to the fort that
morning.
For all these contradictions and falsehoods in
Balaguer’s story, the church nevertheless adopted
the lie. And some Filipinos, including Rizal’s
biographer Leon Maria Guerrero, believed that
Rizal had retracted.
I find the words of Rafael Palma, who witnessed
the execution and saw Rizal turn away from the
Jesuit holding out a crucifix to him, most
persuasive:
Palma wrote:
“Of the version circulated by ecclesiastical
authorities of that time, the part which refers to
Rizal’s abjuration of masonry and to his conversion
to Catholicism at the last hour was not considered
satisfactory and truthful by Filipino public opinion.”
Reference:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2018/01/02/opinion/col
umnists/topanalysis/rizal-remains-living-burning-issue-
among-us/371727/
THE VARSITARIAN
Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth
By Tomas U. Santos -October 4, 2011
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.
“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.”
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?

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’
De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our
knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough.
The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”
Reference:
https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retractio
n_truth_vs_myth

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.

“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.