Conflicting views emerge regarding whether Jose Rizal actually retracted or not, with discrepancies

between the testimonies of the two Jesuit priests, Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Fr. Pio Pi, and the
perspectives of the two Rizalists, Rafael Palma and Austin Coates. Balaguer claims direct involvement in
persuading Rizal to retract and conducting his marriage to Josephine Bracken, while Pi asserts his role in
securing the retraction document and providing a simpler formula for Rizal to sign. Both Jesuits'
accounts contradict each other, raising questions about the authenticity of Rizal's alleged retraction.
Similarly, Palma and Coates question the validity of the retraction, with Palma highlighting the biased
nature of ecclesiastical testimonies and the lack of concrete evidence, and Coates suggesting that the
retraction was an ecclesiastical fraud orchestrated to discredit Rizal. These conflicting perspectives
underscore the challenges of determining the truth amidst historical ambiguity and bias.

The credibility of witnesses is called into question, with Rafael Palma highlighting the biased nature of
ecclesiastical testimonies and the lack of impartial witnesses. The reliance on accounts from religious
figures and their associates introduces a bias that may distort the true sequence of events. There is
controversy surrounding the secrecy and lack of concrete evidence regarding Rizal's retraction and
marriage. The fact that the original retraction document was kept secret, denied to Rizal's family, and
not made available until thirty years later raises doubts about its authenticity. Similarly, the absence of a
certificate of canonical marriage and the denial of access to Rizal's burial site contribute to the
skepticism surrounding these events.

The motivations behind Rizal's alleged retraction are debated. While some argue that it was a sincere
act of conversion, others view it as a strategic move orchestrated by ecclesiastical authorities to regain
religious influence. The lack of a clear moral motive for Rizal's conversion and the discrepancies in the
accounts further complicate the interpretation of his actions. Austin Coates provides an external
analysis, suggesting that Rizal's retraction was an ecclesiastical fraud designed to discredit him. Coates
points to inconsistencies in Balaguer's testimony and questions the authenticity of the retraction letter,
indicating a deliberate attempt by the friars to harm Rizal's reputation.

The alleged “Retraction of Rizal” highlight the complexities of historical interpretation. Different scholars
and witnesses offer varying perspectives, leading to divergent narratives and interpretations of the
events. These conflicting accounts emphasize the challenges of reconstructing historical truth from
fragmented and biased sources.

Conflicting views arise regarding Jose Rizal's alleged retraction, with discrepancies between the
testimonies of Jesuit priests Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Fr. Pio Pi, as well as the perspectives of Rizalists
Rafael Palma and Austin Coates. Balaguer claims direct involvement in persuading Rizal to retract and Pi
asserts a different role in securing the retraction document. Palma and Coates question the validity of
the retraction, citing biased ecclesiastical testimonies and lack of concrete evidence. These discrepancies
emphasize the challenges of determining historical truth amidst ambiguity and bias.