Auditor, Jeciel – BAC Year 1

Cara-os, Richard – BSARCH Year 1

Malipang, Doreen - BSARCH – Year 1
Perez, Judi - BSARCH – Year 1
Zosa, Daryl - BAC – Year 1

THE RIZAL RETRACTION

Primary Source #1 (Perez)

1. What kind of document is it?

An analysis of the Retraction of Jose Rizal
2. Who created it? What do we know about the author?
It was created by Sir Jhuls Ortega, a professor in National Teachers
College and uses the platform YouTube to share his lessons and
insights to others.
3. When was it created?
2021
4. Where was it created?
Manila, Philippines
5. Why do think it was created?
It was created to help students understand the topic and a more
simplified version of the said topic.
6. Does the document’s author show bias at any point? In which
passage does it say?
The author only stated that he doesn’t believe Dr. Jose Rizal
retracted but still explained in the whole video both sides (Pro and
Anti), he didn’t only discuss what he believed rather he’s open to
hear which the viewers believe.
7. Who was the intended audience for this document?
 Students or people who wants to learn more about history and learn
history in a more simplified way.
8. What do we know about the audience?
I checked the comments as to what the viewers think about the
video, they were grateful that the video helped them in their exams
and research and get to know more information about the retraction
rather the history itself.
9. What are three things that you’ve learned from this document?
(1) I get to learn that even if there were witnesses of the said
retraction some people think the retraction was forged.
(2) I learned that Dr. Jose Rizal only retracted in order to marry
Josephine.
(3) I also learned Dr. Jose disliked the priests not the religion, he
was still faithful even if his execution is drawing near.
10. What are three questions that you might raise from this
document?
(1) Do the Pro and Anti Retractionists ever debated whether the said
retraction was true or false?
(2) Which side of the Retractionists have the upper hand/ who is
most likely to win?
(3) Why do some people think it’s forged and vice versa?
11. Where might you find the answers to these questions?
Another deeper analysis of the topic or debates of the said topic

What is a Retraction?
A public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels,
refutes or reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the
original statement.

What the retraction was about

The letter, dated way back in December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed
by the National hero himself. Rizal retracted because the church would not allow his
marriage to Josephine Bracken unless he retracted his masonic affiliations.

Retraction letter
 “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 of December of 1896 Jose Rizal- The Retraction letter.

The Marriage
Father Balaguer testified he married Rizal and Josephine on Dec. 30 at 6 o’clock
in the morning hours before Rizal’s death.
After his marriage, Rizal dedicated a Catholic devotion book, De la Imitacion de
Cristo, to Josephine. The dedication read as follows: “to my dear and unhappy wife
Josephine”. (Garcia, 1964)

Anti-Retractionists
After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the
retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935; forty years after Rizal’s
death (1896), was not Rizal’s Handwriting.
Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a
Prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal’s character and
mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a “pious fraud”. Others who deny the
retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and
Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.

Pro- Retractionists
A. Witnesses
 Father Vicente Balaguer – First eyewitness
 Father Sanchez visited Rizal in Dapitan and persuaded him to retract.
 Father Patells had exchanged several long letters with Rizal for the same
purpose with Father Sanchez.
 Declaration or retraction was signed together Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno,
Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, adjutant of the Plaza
  Former Lieutenant of the infantry – second eyewitness

B. The Marriage of Rizal and Josephine.

The act of retraction is established because while still in Dapitan the
condition imposed on Rizal was: “No retraction, no marriage”

Father Balaguer, the priest who had married them testified under the oath
that:
At 6 o’clock in the morning of Dec. 30, Josephine Bracken and one
of Rizal’s sisters, arrived crying bitterly. With the knowledge of the warden
of the Fort, I proceeded to the marriage of Rizal and Josephine.

C. Fr. Manuel A. Garcia: best evidence

In Fr. Manuel A. Garcia’s (an archdiocesan archivist way back in 1935)
account of events, he came across a bundle of document of retraction
which have been long gone.

Archbishop O’Doherty, despite the approval of Teodoro Kalaw (the

Director of the National Library), was not satisfied with the document so he
requested Prof. H. Otlet Beyer (Professor of Anthropology) to study and
examine the Rizal Retraction document and compared it with 150 letters
and documents that were written in Rizal’s handwriting.

-There is no slightest doubt that every word was written by Dr. Jose Rizal,
except for the signatures of other witnesses. The document was found to
be written by Jose Rizal in his normal handwriting.

Primary Source #2 (Auditor)

Document: Analysis Rizal's Retraction

Evaluation
12. What kind of document is it?
An analysis of the Retraction of Jose Rizal
13. Who created it? What do we know about the author?
It was created by Sir Jhuls Ortega, a professor in National Teachers
College and uses the platform YouTube to share his lessons and
insights to others.
14. When was it created?
 2021
15. Where was it created?
Manila, Philippines
16. Why do think it was created?
It was created to help students understand the topic and a more
simplified version of the said topic.
17. Does the document’s author show bias at any point? In which
passage does it say?
The author only stated that he doesn’t believe Dr. Jose Rizal
retracted but still explained in the whole video both sides (Pro and
Anti), he didn’t only discuss what he believed rather he’s open to
hear which the viewers believe.
18. Who was the intended audience for this document?
Students or people who wants to learn more about history and learn
history in a more simplified way.
19. What do we know about the audience?
I checked the comments as to what the viewers think about the
video, they were grateful that the video helped them in their exams
and research and get to know more information about the retraction
rather the history itself.
20. What are three things that you’ve learned from this document?
 I get to learn that even if there were witnesses of the said retraction
some people think the retraction was forged.
 I learned that Dr. Jose Rizal only retracted in order to marry
Josephine.
 I also learned Dr. Jose disliked the priests not the religion, he was
still faithful even if his execution is drawing near.
21. What are three questions that you might raise from this
document?
 Do the Pro and Anti Retractionists ever debated whether the said
retraction was true or false?
 Which side of the Retractionists have the upper hand/ who is
most likely to win?
 Why do some people think it’s forged and vice versa?
22. Where might you find the answers to these questions?
Another deeper analysis of the topic or debates of the said topic
Summary
Analysis of Rizal’s Retraction

The site where the document was created was from the school of JRU (Jose Rizal
University)
Created in 2004

Copy of Rizal’s Retraction

 December 30, 1896 – First text of Rizal’s Retraction was published in La Voz
Española and Diaro de Manila.
 February 14, 1897- Second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain in the Fortnightly
magazine in La Juventud by Fr. Balaguer.
 May 18, 1935 – The ‘original’ text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives.

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. . ."

"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 . . .."

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.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was
discovered by the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M.
 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.

Speculations for the Original

Fr. Balaguer himself 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"
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the archbishop but
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 F Actually, the difference
between that of the archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is
that the latter was "shorter" because it omitted certain phrases found in the former so
that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

Actually, the difference between that of the archbishop and that of Fr. Pi is that the latter
was "shorter" because it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi
had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince
them that Rizal had retracted.
Almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan.
 1895, Josephine bracken came to Dapitan.
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.
Secondary Source #1 (Cara os)

1. What kind of document is it?

An analysis of the Retraction of Jose Rizal
2. Who created it? What do we know about the author?
It was created by Mr. Peter Jaynul V. Uckung, A National Historical
Commission of the Philippines
3. When was it created?
September 19, 2012
4. Where was it created?
Manila, Philippines
5. Why do think it was created?
It was created to help to students and also for the next generation in
order for them to know not only for the students also to those people
whose interested about History, and to know who's really our national
hero.
6. Does the document’s author show bias at any point? In which
passage does it say?
No. There's no bias at this point of the documents but it was debated if
it's Retraction. Though Jose Rizal is a hero whether he retracted or
not.
7. Who was the intended audience for this document?
There's no bias at this point of the documents but it was debated if it's
Retraction. Though Jose Rizal is a hero whether he Retracted or Not.
8. What do we know about the audience?
Especially for the students in order to learned who's really our national
hero, and also for those people who's interested about History.
9. What are three things that you’ve learned from this document?
(1) I get to learned whether Dr. Jose Rizal is Retracted or Not.
 (2) I learned another Dr. Jose Rizal Historical Story and his
involvement in this Issue
(3) I learned that Jose Rizal Retraction was invented by the friars to
deflect the heroism of Rizal
10. What are three questions that you might raise from this document?
(1) Are there any evidence that will prove the issue?
(2) Are there any credible sources that will validate for this document?
(3) Why do people think it's forged?
11. Where might you find the answers to these questions?
Credible Historical Documents and Deeper Analysis

Summary
Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested and sentenced to death by a Spanish court martial
after being Implicated as a leader of the Philippines Revolution.
Dr. Jose Rizal Retraction from religion has very controversial. December 30,
1896 accounts exist that Rizal Allegedly Retracted his Masonic ideas and his writings
and reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of Persuasion by Jesuit Priest.
A few hours before he was shot Rizal signed a document stating that he was a
Catholic and retracted all his writings again the Church. Personally, I don't know what
side to believe if Rizal was retracted or not. It would seem that what we have fighting for
would be futile but who knows what he really did maybe he just want to have peace on
the final hours of his life so he Retracted his own words and deeds.
It doesn't mean that if you believe on Dr. Jose Rizal's work you are not a devoted
Catholic, his work only mirror what was really happening in Philippines during the
Spanish Occupation your devotion to your religion should not make you blind in front of
the truth.

Secondary Source #2 (Zosa)

1. What kind of document is it?

Retraction of Rizal
2. Who created it? What do we know about the author?
It was created and written by National University Philippines
3. When was it created?
 2021
4. Where was it created?
Manila
5. Why do think it was created?
To give information to those who are curious to know the history of
Rizal’s Retraction and to give answers those who seeks
enlightenment.
6. Does the document’s author show bias at any point? In which
passage does it say?
No, they did not show any biases, instead they stated facts and
credible sources from authentic people.
7. Who was the intended audience for this document?
Researchers, students, and the people who wants to understand the
history of Rizal’s Extraction case.
8. What do we know about the audience?
Audience that who are willing to undergo deeper understanding and
learning about the past.
9. What are three things that you’ve learned from this document?
(1) I learned the importance of people and events who are involved to
the case.
(2) I learned the true essence of our national hero.
(3) I learned a lot about Rizal’s huge responsibility to the nation and
he’s sacrifices which he made.
10. What are three questions that you might raise from this document?
(1) What is the evidence that we might know true or bluff?
(2) Are there any more credible findings?
(3) What could he be done more for the sake of our country?
11. Where might you find the answers to these questions?
Other accurate researches or findings.

Summary
 The Retraction of Rizal was created on December 29, 1896. It was when
Philippines was under the colonization of the Spaniards.
Filipinos are deprived of education and are treated as Indios. Dr. Jose Rizal
created the La liga Filipina aiming to defend the people and country against violence
and injustices, mutual protection in every want and necessity and to study and apply
reforms to the society.
Rizal advocates equal rights and education for Filipinos. In order to make effects
to the changes he returned to the Philippines. His writings (novels) helped the
movements and he became an enemy of the Spaniards. Also, the Katipunan has arises.
After his release in the Dapitan, Rizal was arrested en route because he was suspected
incorrectly, of being an ally of the Katipuneros.
In the trial Jose Rizal was convicted of rebellion, conspiracy, and sedition and
sentenced to death. A day before his execution, the death sentenced was read to him.
The morning before the execution he married Josephine Bracken because it was said
that he signed a retraction.

Secondary Source #3 (Malipang)

Document: Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us

1. What kind of document is it?

An article about Rizal’s retraction.
2. Who created it? What do we know about the author?
Yen Makabenta, a columnist of The Manila Times.
3. When was it created?
January 2, 2018
4. Where was it created?
Manila, Philippines
5. Why do think it was created?
It was created because it argues about Jose Rizal's fraudulent acts
throughout his life, as well as Jesuits vouching for him and his
Retracting Document.
6. Does the document’s author show bias at any point? In which
passage does it say?
No, he did not display any biases yet he questioned the horrible
responses that gives a so much deception and dispute after the Rizal’s
noble and glorious death. Even after he was dead and buried,
opponents had to lie about him because he was so formidable.
although it was questioned whether it can be a retraction or not.
7. Who was the intended audience for this document?
All community sectors. Including students, researchers, and to anyone
else who’s interested in learning more about Rizal's retraction case.
8. What do we know about the audience?
Since it was published on an online news site and printed in a
newspaper. I could only speculate at the reactions of people who read
on the internet. As I scroll down, I noticed that everyone has an
opinion on this type of news since it has been rehashed again. Every
audience is eager to learn more about the past and gain a better grasp
of it.
9. What are three things that you’ve learned from this document?
(1) I learned that Rizal did repudiate some of his claims, but not all of
them.
(2) I realized the significance of the persons and occurrences involved
in the case.
(3) I learned also that the works of life. death against his country's and
countrymen's oppressors Filipinos' lives and proof of his conviction
that he died in love with his homeland.
10. What are three questions that you might raise from this document?
(1) Why did he sign the retraction paper given by the friars if he knew
that it is a fraud unto him?
(2) What impact does Rizal's retraction have on his image as a hero?
(3) Is there any credible resources to prove this issue?
11. Where might you find the answers to these questions?
Historical documents that can be trusted and a more in-depth study.
Summary

Rizal has been a live and frequently flaming topic in this nation since his
execution, serving as the source of dispute between Catholics and freethinkers. He was
a thorn in the side of the tug of war between church and state for educational
governance. In most newspapers, a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was
printed in full. The government sent the announcement to Spanish consulates abroad
with the request to obtain for it the widest possible publicity. Those who knew him well
and admired him dismissed the announcement as an ecclesiastical fraud.
The announcement that Rizal retracted all his writings and deeds on the day of
his death was an ecclesiastical fraud. There was no signed letter of retraction, no
marriage with Josephine Bracken, no living together during exile. Was there a plot
among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a fraud?
Rizal 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.

An ecclesiastical fraud
The execution was a fraud, but so was the attempt by the Jesuits to make him
retract and return to the Catholic faith.

Jesuit vouches for Rizal’s retraction

One Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, laid the basis for the story that Rizal
retracted his words and deeds. Everything demolishes veracity of claims made on the
basis of the archbishop's announcement of a retraction. He claimed to have heard Dr.
Jose Rizal's final words: "Father, since faith is God's grace, I promise that the time of life
remaining to me shall spend asking God for the grace of faith". How would he have
been deprived of a coffin, as in fact happened? Josephine Bracken was also absent
from the execution.
Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain on January 19, 1851. He entered the
Society of Jesus on 30 July 1890, and came to the Philippines in 1894. Months later, he
was attesting to have heard the most important final words of Dr. Jose Rizal. The
Jesuits who visited him knew how unlikely it was that Rizal would retract. 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 occasion to tell one". 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 two attempts by the Jesuits to persuade Rizal to withdraw had distinct
motivations. The first was done for his own welfare, and probably theirs as well, as the
Jesuits honestly felt.
The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and the marriage. They knew 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. In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that Rizal
had written "Mi Último Adiós" on the eve of his execution. 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, he said he performed it in front of a sister.
But none of Rizal’s sisters went to the fort that morning.
For all these contradictions and falsehoods, the church nevertheless adopted the
lie that he had retracted his allegiance to Christianity. Some believed he had retracted
his confession that he converted to Catholicism at the last minute. I find the words of
Rafael Palma, who witnessed the execution, most persuasive. Palma's account differs
from the version circulated by ecclesiastical authorities at the time, he says.