03 Task Performance 1

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

In Reading in Philippine History Subject

Bachelor of Science in Tourism Management

Shiela Mae Vasquez

Instructor

Members:

Espelita, Kim

Gallo, Andrea

Hilado, Chrystelle Marie

Hilsano, Angel Dale

Limos, Trisha Mae

November 2021
Introduction

It's been well over a century since Dr. Jose P. Rizal died on 30 December 1896, raising
with his writings the flag of independence against the Spanish colonizers. And there is an arising
of a controversy in the life of the Philippine National Hero over his supposed retraction from
masonry and the reconversion to Catholicism. The withdrawal of Rizal from his writings against
the Catholic Church remains very controversial because, despite the pressure of the alleged letter
of his retraction, there is still no solid evidence that he removed his writings. If clear assumptions
about this dispute can be made, it will be considered very useful for understanding the
nationalism and patriotism of Rizal. Moreover, in evaluating how today's culture values
martyrdom, courage, and bravery, a study of the retraction controversy can be used as a
reference.
Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Jose Rizal, a Filipino nationalist, who was known because of his political writings that “inspired
the Philippine revolution”. He was accused of inciting a revolution and was found guilty of sedition
which lead to his execution by the Spanish colonizers. On the day of his execution, it was claimed that
Jose Rizal retracted from his words and publications about the Catholic Church and died a Catholic. But
other historians claim the opposite. Some argues that Rizal died defiant of the retraction.

These are the provided evidences of his retraction letter that was retrieved from archdiocesan
archives 39 years later.

According to the Ricardo P. Garcia’s “The Great Debate: The Rizal’s Retraction”, his first
eyewitness is Fr. Vicente Balaguer who testifies that when the chaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago
offered services, the prisoner told him that he desired rather to be visited by the Fathers of the Society
of Jesus. It was also written there that Rizal decided to retract on December 29 when Maria, his sister,
visited him and telling her that was going to marry Josephine.
 His second eyewitness is the former Lieutenant of the infantry, Mariano Martinez Gallegos, who
confirmed to have witnessed Rizal’s signing of the retraction. Supported by two eyewitnesses Juan del
Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Eloy Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza, who was present of the same event.

New documents released are also used to defend the argument of Rizal signing a retraction
paper.
 A small handwriting of Rizal in Josephine Bracken’s copy of "De la Imitacion de Cristo (The
Imitations of Christ)" implying that Josephine was Rizal’s wife hence indirectly suggesting that Rizal and
Josephine was married.

Negative Stand

These are the arguments proposed by some historians due to an overlooked loopholes they
found in some evidences. These are:

1. The retraction letter was not authentic.

 A duplicate of Rizal's reportedly signed retraction paper, which was even
saved. It was kept secret and only publicized in newspapers. The first copy was
imagined to be lost when Rizal's relatives requested it.
 The original copy was discovered within the archdiocesan archives 39 years
later. Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D., was granted permission by Archbishop Nozaleda
to look at the document and later concluded in his book "Rizal beyond the
Grave" that the documents presented were a forgery. The common rebuttal to
the current argument is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made mistakes
in reproducing another copy of the initial.
 It's been claimed that the Retraction Document could be a fake. There are four
issues with the document as an entire.
— First and foremost, there's the problem of handwriting. The sole
scientific study so far, Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines
questioned the document's legitimacy shortly after it absolutely was
 discovered. Using a number of Rizal's writings from the ultimate a part of
December 1896 as his "standard," he observes variety of differences within the
document's handwriting and concludes that it absolutely was a "one-man
document" because the body of the Retraction and also the writing of all three
signers are identical in several ways: Rizal and also the two witnesses.
—And it is reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the
man who forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture
Aguinaldo. This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from
Roman Roque himself, them being neighbors. In addition with these, in 1962,
two authors (Runes & Buenafe) states in their book (Forgery of Rizal Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography) that there are differing dates and notes that
had been doctored, traced-over, and altered.
— The document's authenticity is additionally called into question by a
second point. Based on literary criticism principles, several critics have
distinguished inconsistencies between the text of the paper discovered in 1935
and other versions of the Retraction, notably Father Balaguer's version. There
are two unique variants of the text with major discrepancies within the use of
particular phrases within the document since the morning of December 30,
1896, despite several minor modifications. The foremost common explanation
for these discrepancies is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made
mistakes when copying the initial, and these inaccuracies are passed down from
one copy to the following. Some have speculated that the Retraction Document
was produced from a "wrong" version of a spiritual authority's retraction
declaration.
— The third criticism is that the Retraction's content is strangely
written, like "I hope to measure and die" within the Catholic Religion, despite
the very fact that there was little time to measure, and Rizal's claim that his
retraction was "spontaneous."
— Finally, there's "the forger's" "confession," per Antonio K. Abad, who
claims that on August 13, 1901, at a celebration at his ancestral target San
Isidro, Nueva Ecija, a person named Roman Roque confessed to being hired by
the Friars to form several copies of a retraction document earlier that year.
2. Josephine Bracken remains unmarried.
 Another piece of proof that Rizal failed to retract is that when Father Balaguer
claimed to marry Jose and Josephine after Jose signed the retraction paper, but
there was no marriage certificate or official record to duplicate Father
Balaguer's claims.
3. The aftermath of the Pro-Retraction’s arguments point to a different direction.
 Why would Rizal withdraw when he knows he will still be executed whether or
not he signs the retraction paper? The judicial process involved was strictly a
military tribunal where civilian or church participation was uncommon and not
authorized, the Archbishop and Jesuits are powerless to melt his sentence. Rizal
was suspected of participating in filibusterous propaganda, which carries a
capital punishment under Spanish law. The identical thing happened to the
 three priests who had been garrotted years before, despite the actual fact that
they were still members of the church; they were still considered as rebels and
not given an honest burial.
 Also, if Rizal was a devout Catholic when he died. Why did they bury him within
the place where Fr. Burgos had been founded, which is clearly the anti-Catholic
Church's cemetery? Why hasn't Rizal been laid to rest within the Paco
Cemetery, where good Samaritans are meant to be buried? And, to form
matters worse, he was buried without a casket. If the Jesuits wanted to indicate
that Rizal had retracted, why did they bury him along with heretics and infidels?
Rizal, who died as a penitent Catholic, wasn't even given a mass at church.


In The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction, written by Garcia, a statement of Fr. Balaguer testifies
to this series of events that happened that December 29, 1896:

a) Before going to Fort, he went to the Palace and received the formula of retraction from
the archbishop, composed by Fr. Pi. And was told to present either of the formulas to
the convicted as the archbishop considered it sufficient in order to administer the Holy
Sacraments to Rizal.
b) He said about 10 o’clock in the morning, him and Fr. Vilaclara went to Fort Santiago to
inform Rizal that if he wishes to convert, he should make a retraction of errors publicly
confessed by him in words and writings.
c) They had a long discussion of religious matters which led to Rizal begging for the
retraction letter.
d) Fr. Balaguer then went to Ateneo to ask for the formula of retraction but it was not yet
finished.
e) He arrived at the Fort at night, with Rizal waiting for the formula impatiently. About 10
o’clock they sat down by a desk and he began reading it to Rizal as he requested.
f) Rizal rewrote the letter by adding some of his style and phrases and finished writing
around 11 o’clock. It was signed by Rizal together with to two eyewitnesses Fresno and
Moure.
g) And before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, he delivered to handwritten letter to Fr. Pi, in
Ateneo, in which the latter brought to the palace and handed it to Archbishop Nozaleda
then to his secretary, Reverend Feijoo.

These series of events does not match a transcript from the Cuerpo de Vigilencia which
translates to:

“At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Señor
Tavielde Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after
entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure,
asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book which
was brought to him shortly by Father March.
 “Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers,
March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with
a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until
12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and
wrote for a long time by himself.

“At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had
written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor
Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused had written. It seems this was the retraction.”

According to Fr. Balaguer’s testimonies, it was him and Fr. Vilaclara whom Rizal had spoken with
and presented the letter of retraction. The time mentioned in both sources does not match as well. In Fr.
Balaguer’s statements, Rizal finished the letter half past eleven o’clock, and he wrote it with him, not
alone. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that none of the sources are credible to be an evidence unless
another source surfaces to support a claim.

Garcia also emphasizes that the Jesuit fathers were also interested in Rizal’s retraction. If Rizal’s
has not been interested in retraction, why would he want to be visited by Jesuits whom he knows will
persuade him for the last minute. When Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, the Jesuit superiors sent Father
Sanchez, Rizal's favorite teacher from Ateneo, to undertake to influence his former student's allegations
against the Christian church and Spanish religion within the Philippines. Father Sanchez offered him a
professorship, 100 thousand pesos, and an estate in exchange for his retraction (Laubach, 1936), but
Rizal turned down the offer.

Rizal's actions during his final hours in Fort Santiago don't imply a conversion or maybe religious
instability, as evidenced by the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters. Within the evening, when his sister and
mother arrived, he never mentioned the retraction, contrary to Father Balaguer's assertion that Rizal
was ignorant and begging for the retraction formula even within the afternoon. Rizal's actions during his
final days at Fort Santiago, particularly within the last 24 hours, don't indicate a conversion.

Final stand

When it comes to history, we may never know for certain whether or not an event from the past truly
occurred. The reader must decide whether Dr. Jose P. Rizal truly retracted or not because no amount of
proof is likely to persuade the two opposing sides to agree. As the claims of the Pro-retraction been
countered by convincing claims, we stand at the argument that Rizal died defiant of the retraction. But
we cannot deny the fact that he gave us a lot of insight and knowledge about the past through his
works, whether he retracted or not. And at the same time the Retraction letter itself is not authentic
according to some historians; Josephine Bracken herself remains unmarried; and The aftermath of the
pro-Retraction's arguments point to a different direction.
References

Alatas, S. F. (2011). On Eurocentrism and Laziness: The Thought of Rizal. Retrieved from:
https://www.globalasia.org/v6no1/book/on-eurocentrism-and-laziness-the-thought-of-jose-
rizal_syed-farid-alatas#:~:text=The%20Fili%20speculates%20on%20the,Spanish%20friars%20and
%20colonial%20authorities.&text=Accused%20of%20inciting%20Filipinos%20to,He%20was%20just
%2035.

Cavanna, J. M. M. (1961). Rizal’s unfading glory: A documentary history of the conversion of Dr. Jose
Rizal, Volume 1. California: The University of California

Garcia, R. P. (1964). The great debate: The Rizal retraction. California: The University of California

Pascual, R. R. (1950). Rizal beyond the grave: A reiteration of the greatness of the martyr of
Bagumbayan. Michigan: The University of Michigan

José Rizal. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Rizal

Uckung, P. J. V. (2012).The Rizal Retraction and Other Cases. Retrieved from: https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-
rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/