Introduction:

The Retraction of Rizal happened during December 29, 1986 right before his
execution in Bagumbayan. It is said that the retraction took place for the reason of to
abominate the masonic affiliation, to marry Josephine Bracken during his last few hours,
and to take back all of what he said about the Catholic Church. Many claimed that the
retraction is quite questionable with regards to its authenticity because of the sudden
retraction and the timeline of the whereabouts of the actual document.

Question:
Did Rizal retracted all of his claims that contribute to the independence of the
Philippines before his execution?
Claims:
Rizal retracted during his last few hours Rizal never signed any retraction
before his execution at Bagumbayan. document before his execution at
Bagumbayan
Arguments/Analogies:
There were witnesses namely Father An analysis of six Rizal’s major
Vicente Balaguer, Father Francisco de documents was done by Ricardo Pascual
Paula Sanchez, Fr. Pablo Pastells, Senor and concluded that the retraction was not
Fresno, and Senor Moure. his handwriting.
The Retraction letter of Rizal contained The Retraction letter of Rizal was studied
the statement “I declare myself a Catholic and analyzed and concluded that the
and in this Religion in which I was born handwriting was not his own.
and educated I wish to live and die…”
that was addressed at December 29,
1896, the day before his execution.

A. Primary Sources
 La Juventud (Barcelona-based Magazine)
 Diario De Manila
 La Voz Espanola
 The Imitation of Christ book
1. On the day of Rizal’s execution, an 1. There were several
announcement was made that Rizal Retracted in versions of the said
a newspaper La Voz Espanola and Diario de retraction document.
Manila. Then, another text by Father Balaguer Furthermore, the date of
was published in a magazine called “La Juventud” the signature was clearly
and claimed that he was with Rizal during the last stated in the original
hours before his execution. A document was Spanish paper that Rizal
 found in 1935, almost 40 years after the allegedly signed. The
controversy, the retraction document was found in year was1890, and the
the archdiocesan archives by Father Manuel date was "December 29,
Garcia that contains the statement “I abominate 1890." Later, a reportedly
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and authentic paper with the
reprobated by the same church.” Signed by the date "December 29,
National Hero himself. 189C" appeared. The
number"0" was obviously
changed to resemble the
letter C. Then, later,
another presumably
original version surfaced.
The date is "December
29, 1896."

2.) One of the Jesuits recruited by Father Pi to deal 2.) Frederico Moreno's report
with Rizal was Father Vicente Balaguer, who wrote includes information that
extensively on what happened in Rizal's prison cell the contradicts Father
day before he was executed. Balaguer's affidavit. Moreno
was a disinterested
eyewitness who had no
desire to safeguard this
case. His visit to Fort
Santiago was a matter of
duty, and the report he gave
was a requirement of his
position.
 3.) Rizal married Josephine Bracken after he 2. There was no certification
retracted. The evidence of the marriage was or documentation confirming
said to be found on his last gift for his “wife” the marriage of Josephine
with the written statements, To my dear and Bracken and Jose Rizal
unhappy wife, Dec. 30, 1896.”. when being asked to
present.

SECONDARY SOURCES

 Contested Philippine Histories Episode 5: Did Rizal Retract? ( podcast )

 De Joya, P. (2016). EXORCISING COMMUNIST SPECTERS AND WITCH
PHILOSOPHERS: The Struggle for Academic Freedom of 1961. Kritika Kultura,
(26).
 Rausch, F. (2016). Colonialism and Catholicism in Asia: A Comparison of the
Relationship between An Chunggŭn, José Rizal, and the Catholic Church. 교회
사연구, 48, 99-146.
 Nery, J. (2011). Revolutionary Spirit. ISEAS Publishing.
 Question 1:
Is Rizal’s Retraction authentic?
Claim 1:
Rizal retracted
Argument/Analogies:
1.) 9:22 - 10:09
"So agad-agad when this document
was found, he reported this to the
archbishop Micheal Dorothy who in
turn, showed it to then president
Manuel Quezon. And then Quezon
called the national library director
Teodoro Kalaw to look at the
document and ascertain its
authenticity. I think at this point it is
worth mentioning that Kalaw was also
mason, and Kalaw judged the
document to be authentic. He sought
for the second opinion of Carlos P.
Romulo who was editor of the
Philippine Herald at that time, and he
actually concord to Kalaw's evaluation.
Pero para daw sure na sure sila,
archbishop Micheal Dorothy, also
asked H. Otley Beyer to verify and
Beyer said there was not the slightest
doubt that the document was
authentic."
2.) According to De Joya (2016), Frs.
Vicente Balaguer, Jose Vilaclara,
Estanislao March, Luis Visa,
Federico Faura, and Miguel
Rizal’s retraction was forged
1.) 6:37 - 7:27
"Ang primary talaga na
pinagmumulan ng mga kritisismo na
'fake news 'yang retraction na 'yan'
was the fact that the jesuits did not
have the original retraction
document to show at that period.
So puro mga testimony lang, katulad
'nung kay Fr. Balaguer. Mga
testimony lang na nagsasabi that
'Rizal retracted' at itong mga
testimony na 'to, ang
pinanggagalingan ay kapwa nila
Jesuita. In fact may isa pa ngang
kwento that in a mass celebrated for
Rizal after his death, nangako raw
yung mga jesuit na ibibigay o
ipapakita at least sa pamilya ni Rizal
yung orginal document written by
Rizal retracting everything that he
said against the catholic church. Pero
sabi nila at the end, natapos yung
misa, nag uwian, wala namang
naipakita talagang dokumento."
2. Because Moreno was not a
member of the Catholic hierarchy
or a known Mason, his statement
 Saderra were among the Jesuits he (Primary Source, no. 2) may be
dispatched to Rizal’s incarceration considered more objective than
cell (Cavanna 1956, 11). Fr. Pi earlier ones.
directed them to convince Rizal to
recant both his anti-Catholic beliefs
and his Masonic affiliation.

3.) According to Rausch (2016), Rizal

read a blue pamphlet entitled
Aceptatcion de la Muerte that
contained the “Acts of Faith, Hope,
and Charity” after he retracted. He
then went to confession and
received the holy communion.
3.) According to Rizal’s third letter to
the pastels, he wrote the statement
“Can any other books reveal to us
more faithfully God’s work, His
goodness, His love, His providence,
His eternity, His glory, His wisdom?”
which signifies doubt in the existing
catholic teachings from books.

4.) According to varsitarian.net, De 4.)Rizal wanted to be buried in Paang

viana stated, “He (Rizal) retracted. Bundok as his dying wish that was
He died as a Catholic, and a proof given to his family as his last farewell
that he died as a Catholic was he letter.
was buried inside the sacred
grounds of Paco Cemetery,”. He
also claimed that the martyr is
comparable to Apolinario Mabini, a
revolutionary and freemason buried
in a Chinese cemetery.

5.) According to the notarized

testimony, there were witnesses 6.) There were no signatures of the
namely Father Vicente Balaguer,
Father Francisco de Paula
Sanchez, Fr. Pablo Pastells, Senor
Fresno, and Senor Moure on the
day of the retraction.
stated witnesses on the retraction.
According to an article written by
Paraiso (2012), Rizal sent a letter
to Mariano Ponce way back
before he was officially accused of
crimes of rebellion on April 18,
1889 that contained the statement
“…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?”