Module 9: Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Introduction
One of the most intriguing of all the issues about Jose Rizal was his alleged
retraction. This was all about his reversion to the Catholic Faith. “He did or he did
not?”, a question that was raised up following Jose Rizal’s execution on December
30, 1896 at Bagumbayan. That issue was claimed to be true by the Roman Catholic
defenders but asserted to be deceptive by anti-retractonists.
In this module, the lessons focus on the controversy about Rizal’s retraction. The
analysis of the different testimonies will be given emphasis.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
 Examine and analyze the different narratives about Jose Rizal’s retraction
 Discuss the details embodied in the said retraction of Jose Rizal
 Identify the effects of Rizal’s retraction or non - retraction
 Appreciate the heroism of Jose Rizal
Content
Arguments about Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Father Balaguer’s Text

Fr. Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He joined the Society of
Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in 1894. His first missionary assignment
was in Surigao, and he was transferred to Dapitan in 1896. A year later, he was assigned to
Davao. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1898, he founded the catechetical center in
Tondo. He returned to Spain in 1899 and died in Orihuela on October 1, 1922.

Me declaro católico, y en esta Religión, en que nací y me eduqué, quiero vivir

y morir. Me retracto de todo corazón de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y
conducta ha habido contrario á mi calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto
ella enseña, y me someto á cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como
enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia.
Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica, hacer
pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía, para reparar el escándalo que mis actos
hayan podido causar, y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen

Manila, 29 de Diciembre de 1896

José Rizal
Jefe del Piquete
Juan del Fresno
Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure (Retana 1907, 426–427)

Fr. Manuel Garcia’s Text

This is alleged “original” text from Fr. Manuel Garcia dated May 18, 1935.
 Me declaro catolica y en esta
Religion en que naci y me eduque
quiero vivir y morir.
Me retracto de todo corazon de
cuanto en mis palabras, escritos,
inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario
a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia
Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella
enseña y me somento a cuanto ella
manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como
enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como
Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede
el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad
Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta
manifastacion espontanea mia para
reparar el escandalo que mis actos
hayan podido causar y para que Dios y
los hombers me perdonen.
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.
I believe and I confess whatever she
teaches and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the
enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the Church. The
Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior
Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this
spontaneous manifestation of mine in
order to repair the scandal which my
acts may have caused and so that God
and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896 Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal Jose Rizal

Jefe del Piquete

Juan del Fresno

Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure

Analysis of Rizal’s 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."

On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered
by the archdiocesan 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 Fr. Pio Pi on the other hand as follows:

1. 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").

2. The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death.
There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for
public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic
hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document was never shown to the
public, only reproductions of it.
However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the
retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in
Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also copied it verbatim.
In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the
date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal
supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.”
Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date
“December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a
letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up. It has the date
“December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

So which is which?
Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported
that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the
signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind,
they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They
were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-American war to
forge Rizal’s signature.
This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman
Roque himself, them being neighbors.

Still an Issue
To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the
night.
Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the
friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.
Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured
prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had
intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.
There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine
Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document
supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married
under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a glaring difference between
the penmanship of the document, and other letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

Reflection on the Issue

It is a must to put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether
he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not,
and the documents were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a
nation.

Remember:
Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction
controversy, “…it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.”
Group Activity
Considering the materials provided, give your personal insights on whether Rizal
retracted or not? Discuss your points by citing proofs.

Assessment and Evaluation

Quiz – LMS

References
 Readings in Philippine History by Ronald Corpus and Claudio TaboTabo
 http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html
 http://hanbadilles.blogspot.com/2013/09/controversial-issue-retraction-of-
rizal.html
 https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
 https://puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/did-jose-rizal-retract/
Checked:

Prepared: Dr. AIDA A. CASAS

Approved:
Mrs. MARIA CRISTINA M. ADALIA Dr. RANDY M. BAJA
Instructor JANET COMETA Dean
Department Heads