Did Rizal retract?

YES

Did Rizal re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry?

The two perspectives:

(1) Jesuits Version

Fr. Pi instructed them to persuade Rizal to retract his anti-Catholic teachings.

Newspapers:
La voz Española
I have seen and read his handwritten retraction.

El Imparcial, Heraldo de Madrid, El Siglo Futuro

—Spain-based newspapers and magazines.

Both based their narrative on the testimonies of the Jesuits and other colonial officials
who visited and talked to Rizal before he was executed.

Fr. Pi ordered that the retraction should be in writing using either of the two sample
retraction templates approved by the archbishop.

First emissaries to visit Rizal

1. Fr. Miguel Saderra (Rector of Ateneo Municipal)
2. Fr. Luis Visa (brought the figurine of the Sacred Heart of Jesus that Rizal carved
while a student of Ateneo Municipal.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s account

He wrote extensively about what happened in Rizal's detention cell the day before he
was executed. In 1906, his version of the story is narrated in a letter he sent to Fr. Pi.

Fr. Balaquer used the first-person pronoun. suggests that he was personally present and
involved in the negotiation.

He claimed that he "was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad day's hours, I
argued with him and demolished his arguments.”

He persuaded everyone to take his affidavit (Aug. 8, 1917) as a primary source because
he had personal knowledge of Rizal's retraction.

Fr. Balaguer’s affidavit

—He and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal's prison cell around 10 a.m.
—They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason.
—Persuaded Rizal not to spend too much time discussing faith-related issues and focus
instead on how to die in the state of grace so that he would enter heaven.
—Rizal softened a bit when he warned him that his soul would go to hell if he didn’t
return to the Catholic fold.

Around lunchtime, the two Jesuits left Rizal's prison.

—Around 3 p.m., Fr. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal. They tried until sunset
to persuade him to recant.
—10 o'clock, 3rd meeting with Rizal. They showed Rizal the two retraction templates
Fr. Pi had given them.
—Rizal rejected the long template; language and style were not reflective of his
personality. Then Fr. Balaguer offered the shorter version.
—The statement: “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” Which
Rizal did not sign right away. According to him, he had met Masons in London who
had nothing against the Catholic Religion.

—The Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template. His final version reads, “I
abominate Masonry as the enemy of the church and re-probated by the same Church”

—Before midnight, after making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed the
retraction letter.
—Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda.

(2) Chief Inspector Federico Moreno's account

It contains several details that could be used for and against the claim that Rizal returned
to the Catholic fold and renounced Masonry. The account may be considered more
objective than earlier ones because Moreno was neither a member of the Catholic
hierarchy nor a known Mason. He was in Fort Santiago not to serve a particular interest
group but simply to perform a function connected with his work.

Fr. Balaguer’s account contradiction.

—Moreno claimed that Fr. Balaguer was never present when Rizal signed the retraction.
Rather, it was Frs. March and Vilaclara.

FR. MARCH
—He returned at 3 p.m.
—Rizal handed him a document. Then it says that Rizal, together with Juan del Fresno
and Señor Maure, signed the document.
—But that did not prevent him from presupposing that the document was Rizal's
retraction letter. He simply wrote, "It seems this was the retraction [parece que el escrito
era la retractación]."

*Tinola as his last meal on earth.

*7:30 pm, Rizal was handcuffed by a European artilleryman.

MARRIAGE
—Josephine Bracken and Rizal got married in the early morning of the following day.
— The ceremony was done in articulo mortis (at the point of death.)
—Moreno did not mention that the couple signed a marriage contract.
—The fact that the marriage took place is a confirmation that Rizal re-embraced his
Catholic faith.

LUNETA
—Rizal was brought to Luneta, he heard Mass, confessed to Fr. March, received Holy
Communion, and kissed the image of the Blessed Mother.
—The acts suggest and may be considered evidence supporting the claim, that Rizal
died a Catholic.

NO

Historical Context

Before his death sentence:

1892-1896, Due to his political activity and affiliations to the Katipunan, Rizal was
exiled by Spanish colonial authorities to Dapitan, a small town in the province of
Zamboanga Del Norte. During his time in Dapitan, Rizal established a school where he
taught a variety of subjects, including mathematics. He also carried out scientific
research and made contributions to construction and agriculture works. Since Rizal
believed that education was key to the nation's independence, he continued to serve the
community and promote his ideas of enlightenment and education even after being
exiled in Dapitan. Last but not least, while he was there, he requested permission from
the Spanish authorities of Cuba to serve as a surgeon to help those affected by the
yellow fever epidemic, as well as prove his loyalty to Spain and influence positive
change in the Philippines.
July 31, 1896, He received permission he requested from the Spanish government,
which Ramon Blanco, the Spanish Governor-General, granted.
August 1, 1896, The day Rizal left Dapitan.
September 3-18, 1896, When Rizal traveled from Dapitan to Barcelona, Spain (he first
traveled to Barcelona, Spain, then to Cuba), he accidentally encountered a factor major
issue. The Philippine Revolution began, led by Katipunan. Rizal altered his plans as a
consequence of not wanting the Spanish government to believe he was connected to the
Katipunero PH revolution in Spain.
October 6, 1896, Spanish authorities became suspicious of Rizal's real intentions
toward them as a result of what happened. Therefore, he was unable to proceed with
his intended journey to Cuba after being arrested in Barcelona, Spain.
November 5, 1896, Rizal was brought back to Manila, the capital of the Philippines.
He was brought back to face his trial, as the Spanish wanted. Also, this marked the start
of the proceedings against him, which resulted in his trial and execution. (Fort Santiago
was where he was first detained).
November 15, 1896, The official investigation and interrogation of Rizal began.
November 20, 1896, Colonel Francisco Olive was chosen to preside over Rizal's trial.
December 6, 1896, Lieutenant Luis Taviel De Andrade, a Spanish military officer
assigned as Rizal's defense attorney, was the first to be appointed to represent Rizal
during the trial. The plea to move the trial to a civilian court was turned down during
the trial proceedings, and the proceeding continued to proceed in the military court.
December 26, 1896, Rizal faced multiple charges with different offenses, such as
conspiracy, sedition, and rebellion.
December 29, 1896, Capt. Rafael Domingo, who presided over the military court, was
the one who read the death sentence of Rizal. Rizal was sentenced to be executed by a
firing squad. The execution was set for December 30, 1896, at 7 a.m., the next morning,
in Bagumbayan, which is today known as Luneta Park. On the eve of Rizal’s execution,
he composed his last piece of poetry entitled Mi Ultimo Adios also known as My Last
Farewell. This is his farewell message to Filipinos and all of humanity. It offers an
immense memorial to his patriotic sentiment, devotion to the PH cause, and willingness
to give up everything he had for the sake of the liberty of our nation. It is a notable work
of history and literature of the Philippines.

On his last day, 29th of December 1896:

Over the years, there is one outstanding source that has been used in the account
of the last day of Rizal and the happenings during that day – Father Vincent
Balaguer’s letter to Father Pio
Pi. According to his account, it was him (Balaguer) and (Vilaclara) who attended to
Rizal’s spiritual
needs during the last day.

It was said that Rizal on that day asked for his friar teachers to come to his cell
but was told that only Jose Vilaclara was there. In exchange, he was offered to be visited
by Balaguer as the other friar could not attend and Rizal agreed to it.

In the morning, they had a lengthy conversation about faith and reason.
Balaguer addressed that they debunked the errors of Rizal which made him turn his
back on faith and was continuously rebuked by the friars. After that conversation, they
left and returned only around 3 in the afternoon. After some convincing, they had shown
Rizal a draft of retraction at 10 in the evening. Rizal was then said to have been willing
to sign the retraction paper; He chose the shorter version and had inserted some
modifications. When they were contented with the contents of the letter, the retraction
paper was then signed before midnight.

This letter was written to Father Pio Pi only in July 1910, almost 14 years after
the death of Rizal. On the other hand, this account was then debunked by the recently
discovered Cuerpo de Vigilancia reports which are a compilation of reports of officers
tasked to watch the Katipunan. A certain report from that compilation written by Chief
Inspector Federico Moreno on 12/30/1896 about the last day of Rizal disproved the
claim of Balaguer that he was there with Rizal on his last day.

In his report, it was said that Estanislao March and Jose Vilaclara were the
priests present at the prison cell with Rizal on his last day. This then diminishes the
accuracy of Balaguer’s account of the happenings together with the fact that it was
written 14 years after the event while the report was written a day after. It was also
noticed that on the report, Rizal was said to have signed what seems to be a retraction
paper around 3 in the afternoon while on Balaguer’s it was before midnight.

Due to these discrepancies, questions regarding the accuracy and truthfulness

of the accounts and the retraction arise.
 Imagine being in Jose Rizal's shoes during his time in the Philippines. The
country was ruled by the Spanish, and they didn't tolerate any opposition. We firmly
believe that Rizal didn't change his mind, and We'll tell you why.

Rizal, who called for reforms and criticized the Church, was a big problem for
the authorities. He was arrested and put in Fort Santiago, a prison in Manila. He knew
he could be executed at any moment, and it happened at Bagumbayan, which is now
called Luneta Park, in Manila.

Now, think about how strong his beliefs must have been in those places. He
faced execution without giving in to the pressure. In this context, We're here to argue
that Rizal's actions and beliefs stayed the same, and there's no good proof that he
changed them. We need to consider the historical backdrop in these important places,
which makes the case even stronger that he didn't change his mind. The evidence
supports the idea that Rizal didn't retract, and that's an important perspective to keep
in mind today.

RIZAL’S CHARACTER

Jose Rizal's personal qualities and his dedication to the Philippine cause
strongly suggest that he would be unlikely to change his beliefs willingly. He was a
man of great integrity, known for exposing the wrongdoings of Spanish authorities
through his writings.

Rizal's books, 'Noli Me Tangere' and 'El Filibusterismo,' were bold critiques of Spanish
colonial oppression, highlighting the injustices and corruption of the Spanish regime.
Rizal's work wasn't just about words, it was about making a change in the Philippines.

WRITINGS OF RIZAL;

Jose Rizal, the Filipino national hero, wrote extensively during his lifetime, and
his writings played a significant role in the Philippine nationalist movement. Some of
his most notable writings include:

Noli Me Tangere (Touch me not): Published in 1887, this novel is a scathing

critique of the Spanish colonial regime in the Philippines. It exposed the abuses of the
friars and the injustices faced by the Filipino people. The title, "Noli Me Tangere," is
Latin for "Touch Me Not."

El Filibusterismo (The Reign of greed): This novel, published in 1891, is a

sequel to "Noli Me Tangere." It delves even deeper into the issues of social injustice,
oppression, and the abuse of power in the Philippines under Spanish rule.

Mi Último Adiós (My Last Farewell): This is a poem written by Rizal on the
eve of his execution on December 29, 1896. It expresses his love for the Philippines
and his acceptance of his impending death in the service of his country.

La Solidaridad: Rizal was a contributor to this propaganda newspaper

published in Spain from 1889 to 1895. It aimed to rally support for Philippine reforms
in Spain and among the Filipino expatriate community in Europe. His writings here
called for political and social reforms in the Philippines.

Filipinas Dentro de Cien Años (The Philippines Within a Century): This

essay, published in La Solidaridad in 1889, offers Rizal's vision for the future of the
Philippines. He believed that the Philippines would eventually achieve independence
and that education was a crucial tool for the nation's progress.

Letter to the Young Women of Malolos: This letter, written in 1889, is Rizal's
response to the brave women of Malolos who sought his advice on education and
women's rights. In this letter, he encouraged their pursuit of education and their role in
societal reform.

These writings, among others, are foundational to understanding Rizal's beliefs

and contributions to the Philippine nationalist movement. They continue to be studied
and celebrated for their influence on the fight for Philippine independence.)

He had a deep love for his country and a strong sense of patriotism. Rizal
tirelessly fought for Filipino rights and educational progress, demonstrating his
unwavering commitment to the well-being of his fellow Filipinos.

Given his unwavering dedication to justice and the betterment of the Philippines,
it's unlikely that he would willingly change his beliefs. Rizal's character and principles
were deeply rooted in the fight for a just and independent Philippines, which makes it
improbable that he retracted his beliefs.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE

Let's consider the primary sources available to us. When we examine Rizal's
writings and letters, they do not offer definitive proof of retraction. In fact, in his
final farewell letter, he expressed his unwavering love for the Philippines and his
willingness to die for the cause of independence. These primary sources provide insight
into Rizal's character and dedication to his nationalist ideals. (Rizal's farewell letter to
his countrymen is a primary source that underscores his dedication to the Philippine
cause. In this letter, he expressed his love for the Philippines and willingness to die for
its independence. This primary source aligns with the idea that he did not retract his
beliefs. Together with the absence of clear, unequivocal evidence of retraction in his
own words, it highlights the doubt surrounding the claim of retraction.)

Moreover, there's a notable absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from

Rizal himself retracting his beliefs. If he had indeed retracted, we might expect a
straightforward and unequivocal declaration in his own words. However, no such
document exists.

Instead, we are left with the accounts of others who were present during Rizal's
imprisonment and execution. These accounts can be conflicting and are often subject
to interpretation. They may have been influenced by their own biases or the interests of
the Spanish authorities.
Present during his retraction and execution;

When examining the circumstances of Rizal's retraction, we need to consider

the testimonies of individuals who were closely associated with him during his
imprisonment and execution, as well as those who documented the events.

Josephine Bracken, Rizal's common-law wife, was with him during his final
days, specifically from November 30 to December 30, 1896. Her presence and accounts
offer us valuable insights into Rizal's actions and mindset during this critical period.

Bracken-Rizal canonical marriage:

It was argued that among the reasons why Rizal must have retracted was to
marry Josephine
Bracken.

Bracken was an Irish woman whom Rizal met during his exile on Dapitan
where he treated her father as an ophthalmologist. It was said that Rizal then tried to
marry Josephine canonically but was not allowed by the church because he was a
protestant and was not qualified to be granted the sacraments. Some accounts have said
that Rizal – for a short time – became a horrible partner to Bracken which may or
may not have caused her miscarriage; It is a good reason why Rizal would want to
retract and marry Josephine before his death.

Meanwhile, upon research by historians, no record of their supposed

canonical marriage on the morning of 12/30/1896 was found. This marriage was
also accounted for in the reports of Cuerpo de Vigilancia and was said that there were
no signed papers during the ceremony in Fort Santiago hence no certification was found.
But this was to be opposed by Bracken’s own words.

In her 1897 interview with Rounseville Wildman in Hong Kong, she stated
that the supposed marriage on Fort Santiago at 5 in the morning of 12/30/1896 did
not materialize. She confirmed agreeing upon it with Rizal together with two friars
on the afternoon of 12/29/1896 when she and her sisters visited him in his prison cell.
In this interview, she said that she and a sister of Rizal were prohibited by the Spanish
century from entering Intramuros on that morning of execution and were told that the
wedding would no longer take place. After that, they proceeded to Bagumbayan and
waited for the hero’s execution.

Additionally, there were Filipino witnesses, including those imprisoned with

Rizal, who could provide accounts of what they observed during Rizal's captivity and
execution. The dates of their testimonies and presence in Fort Santiago vary, but they
collectively contribute to the historical context.

We also must not neglect the perspectives of the members of the Spanish
authorities involved in Rizal's trial and execution. These events transpired in
December 1896 and were under the control of the Spanish colonial government. While
these accounts are critical in shedding light on the circumstances surrounding Rizal's
retraction, it's important to acknowledge that they may be influenced by the biases and
motivations of the individuals providing them. The complexities of these varied
accounts indicate the difficulty in arriving at a definite conclusion regarding Rizal's
retraction.

No one was able to see the retraction paper of Rizal in the height of the issue:

Based on the statement of Rizal’s sister (Trinidad) there was no retraction

paper presented to them. In an interview with Ricardo Pascual in August 1935, she
said that no retraction was ever mentioned to them before the death of Rizal and
that it only surfaced after her brother had died. It is also remarkable that she said
the friars promised to show them the retraction paper after a mass held to commemorate
Rizal’s death, but even after the mass was over there is yet a retraction paper
to be presented to them.

The issue of the Retraction Paper found in 1935:

After 39 years, the issue of Rizal’s retraction was revived by the original
copy of his retraction paper found in Archdiocesan archives in 1935. It was a hot
controversy where people asked why it was only found that year when it was not
demanded compared to the times that the people were asking for years prior and it was
not found in the same archives. It was then declared as an authentic copy but it was
doubted by numerous personalities, including Ricardo Pascual.

Ricardo Pascual is among the people who were allowed to examine the found
copy of the retraction. He analyzed it together with a handwriting expert and compared
it to Rizal’s recent writing at that time and his writing habits. After some time, based
on the findings they proved, the copy was declared to be a forgery. It was then later
proved to be forged by Roman Roque in 1901

TESTIMONIES OF CONTEMPORARIES

The testimonies of Rizal's contemporaries who were with him during his final
days strongly support the idea that he did not retract. These witnesses, including
Josephine Bracken and Ferdinand Blumentritt, consistently affirmed his
unwavering commitment to the cause of Philippine independence. Their accounts
provide compelling evidence against the notion of retraction.

Ferdinand Blumentritt, a close friend and correspondent of Rizal, provides

us with a perspective based on their correspondence. While he wasn't physically present
during Rizal's imprisonment, his writings and communications with Rizal, which
spanned several years leading up to his execution in December 1896, offer a unique
viewpoint.

Wenceslao Retana, a Spanish priest, visited Rizal in his cell in Fort Santiago.
He documented his interactions with Rizal on December 29, 1896, the day before
Rizal's execution. His accounts give us insights into Rizal's thoughts and beliefs during
this crucial time.
 There were more individuals present or involved during Rizal's
imprisonment and execution. In addition to the individuals we previously mentioned,
others played various roles or witnessed the events. Some of these individuals include:

Guards and Officials: The guards and officials at Fort Santiago, where Rizal
was imprisoned, were present during his captivity. Their actions and interactions with
Rizal may have been recorded or documented in some way.

Medical Personnel: Medical personnel who attended to Rizal's health or

examined him during his imprisonment or after his execution could have provided
accounts or documentation of his physical condition and well-being.

Journalists and Reporters: Journalists and reporters of the time might have
covered or documented Rizal's trial, imprisonment, and execution. Their articles and
reports could offer additional insights.

Other Prisoners: Rizal was not the only prisoner at Fort Santiago during his
incarceration. Other prisoners may have observed or interacted with him, providing
additional perspectives.

These individuals, along with the ones previously mentioned, collectively

contribute to the historical record regarding Rizal's imprisonment and execution.
However, it's important to consider the potential biases, motivations, and reliability of
their accounts when assessing the circumstances surrounding Rizal's retraction.

ROLES OF NATIONALISM

Jose Rizal is an iconic figure in Philippine history, celebrated for his role as a
symbol of Philippine nationalism. His writings, like 'Noli Me Tangere' and 'El
Filibusterismo,' were powerful critiques of Spanish colonial oppression. They resonated
deeply with Filipinos, exposing the abuses and social injustices of the era.

Rizal's life and principles inspired generations to fight for independence. His
dedication to the Filipino people and his unwavering love for the Philippines, as
expressed in his 'Farewell Letter,' are enduring symbols of his commitment to justice.
If there were to be any suggestion that he retracted, it would diminish his

RIZAL’S FINAL WRITINGS

When we scrutinize Rizal's final writings and letters, particularly his 'Farewell
Letter to his countrymen,' a striking contradiction emerges when considering the notion
of retraction. This letter, composed on the eve of his execution, is dated December 30,
1896. In it, Rizal passionately expresses his enduring love for the Philippines and his
unwavering commitment to the cause of independence.

Rizal's 'Mi Último Adiós' ('My Last Farewell') is a poignant testament to his
dedication. In this letter, he does not waver in his loyalty to his homeland. He states his
willingness to die for the Philippine cause. Such a resolute declaration contradicts the
idea that he would voluntarily retract his beliefs.
 If we take this letter into account, along with the lack of any unequivocal
retraction statement in his own words, we encounter a stark inconsistency. Rizal's
farewell letter underscores his unyielding love for the Philippines and the cause of
independence, making it highly improbable that he would have retracted his beliefs
voluntarily.

These final writings, along with the absence of direct evidence supporting
retraction in Rizal's own words, serve as critical pieces of evidence when evaluating the
likelihood of a voluntary retraction.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS

The accounts regarding Jose Rizal's retraction are conflicting. Some sources
claim he retracted, while others deny it. These conflicting viewpoints can be
attributed to the biases and motivations of the sources.

Those suggesting retraction often had affiliations with the Spanish authorities
and the Catholic Church, both of which sought to discredit Rizal and the nationalist
movement. On the other hand, sources denying retraction are often aligned with the
Filipino nationalist perspective, which aims to preserve Rizal's image as a symbol of
the struggle for independence.

Moreover, the possibility of misinformation and coercion cannot be ignored.

Rizal was imprisoned and facing execution, a situation where individuals might say or
do things under duress that do not reflect their true beliefs.

The conflicting accounts illustrate the complexity of the issue, and it's
challenging to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding Rizal's retraction due to the
influence of biases, motivations, and the potential for misinformation.

CONCLUSION

So, the primary sources available, including Rizal's writings, do not provide
concrete and verifiable evidence of his retraction. They leave room for doubt and
suggest that the issue of retraction should be seen in light of the intense pressure and
political motivations that were prevalent at the time.