RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

Question: DID THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO TRULY RETRACT?

For decades, the

authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues, and

heated debates among those who seek to know the truth regarding this controversy. However, thelack
of evidence and different statements by significant people involved have only contributed to
thecomplications and uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument.

"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct havebeen contrary
to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.",

this was the statement in thedocument which made the historians believed that Rizal had retracted.
However, there have beenclaims that the document, as compared to the original file which was
discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia,an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these
claims, there are several peoplewho believe that the retraction documents are authentic. These people
include eleven eyewitnesseswho were present when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer
book, recited Catholicprayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. Fr.
Marciano Guzman,a great grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5
eyewitnesses, 10qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan
bishops, Masonsand anti-clericals.

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced.

1.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s

execution, Dec. 30, 1896.2.

The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightlymagazine in La
Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteenyears later as Fr. Balaguer.3.

The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after itdisappeared for
thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.4.
The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short

formula of the retraction.We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a
copyist who could imitate

Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former 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. . ." He proceeded: "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 . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn
statement.

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 Escritosdel
Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in

the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr.
Balaguer’s"exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila

newspapers.Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La
Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal's) own hand-
written retraction

which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl

wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a

number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the

correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and
Sr.Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction. Neither Fr. Pi nor
HisGrace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed
theretraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could

imitate Rizal’s handwri

ting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I

myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At

once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of
theChancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and
wasfinally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile. On May 18, 1935, the lost "original"
document of Rizal’s retraction was d

iscovered by the archdeocean 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 Jesuit

s’ 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
exactcopies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press
inManila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION

Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction documents? What possible reasons could have pushed
JoseRizal to write his retraction document, assuming that he truly wrote the said document? The
followingfour reasons would have been worthy of his character and mentality.(1) To save his family and
town from further persecution.Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the
retraction or of having his relativespursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his death would
stop the persecution of his relatives,the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way of
achieving that purpose.(2) To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.Rizal, even though he for a time
suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to have become convinced thatshe now loved him, and he may
have desired to give her a legal status in the eyes of the church, andso provide for her future.(3) To
secure reforms from the Spanish government.(4) To help the church cut away from the disease which
harmed her.Rizal did not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove the cancer which
ruined bothchurch and state in the Philippines -- friar control of land and domination by the
government. He wasalso struggling for freedom of thought and of conscience to the individual. He may
have felt that muchof his propaganda had produced the insurrection, and have repented of that. His
letter to Paciano,written the night before his execution supports that theory. It also had been suggested
that Rizal mayhave written the word "Catholic" in the broad sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used
by allbranches of the Christian Church excepting the Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I believe in
theHoly Catholic Church," in this broad sense.

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION

The argument between the original document and the released retraction documents broughtmore
controversy because this differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits. Which is really

the “original”? Some of the significant differences between the

copies of the Archbishop and theJesuits are the following:

(1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the Archbishop’s copies,

(2) the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias”

in the Jesuits’ copies,

(3) the

word “misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s copies,(4) the second paragraph from
the archbishop’s copies started with the second sentence,however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started
until the fifth sentences,(5) the Jesuits’ co

pies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and

(6) the Jesuits’ copies did not have the names of the witnesses.

These arguments are further discuseed below.Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman
University, summarizes the major points ofargument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:1.

The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to the realityof the
retraction.2.

The testimony of the press at the time of the event,

of “eye

witnesses,” and other“qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the
head of the

Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.3.

“Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attestedby “witnesses”
and a signed Prayer Book which was amongst the documents discovered

by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.



If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachingsbut would agree to a number
of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed.

According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the

Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, readslowly those acts, accepted
them, and took the pen and sad ‘Credo’ (I believe)

he signed the acts with

his name in the book itself.”

4.

Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”

5.

His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There

could be no marriage without a retraction.

CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points against the document itself.

First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific study criticizingthe
authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of thePhilippines
shortly after the document was found

Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his “standard”,

he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the document, he further concluded
that it was a “one

man document” because of the similarities in several respects between the

body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two witnesses.

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del

Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not includeenough of Rizal’s
writings by way of comparison and concluded that the hand

-writingis genuine.

A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on theprinciples of
textual criticism. Several critics have noted differences between the text of thedocument found in 1935
and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued byFather Balaguer.To date, from the
morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerousminor variations, two distinct
forms of the text with significant differences with regards to theuse of certain phrases within the
document.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pimade errors in
preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted fromthis earliest copy to others. Some
have wondered if the Retraction Document was

fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious

authorities.

A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded,
e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and alsoRizal’s claim
that his retraction was “spontaneous.

Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Anto

nio K. Abad tells how on August 13, 1901at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a
certain Roman Roque told how hewas employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several
copies of a retractiondocument.2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim
that other acts and facts donot fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by
writers as follows:

The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did notsee

it. It was said to be “lost.”

No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this

thereligious authorities could not interfere.

Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the

record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th.

There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken

.Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in

particular does not point to a conversion.3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is
that it is out of character.


Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominentMason,
also argued that if Rizal retracted, it would have been a very drastic change of character inRizal which is
very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal was. He called

the retraction story a "pious fraud.”

CONCLUSION

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retraction
documentwas more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true
that he

retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with
suchgreatness. As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s

impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change whathe
has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Dioknoonce
stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from
hisgreatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to proveto
those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs."Sources:

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the

Debate.http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

Did Rizal Retract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html