The Rizal Retraction

Reported By: Shelly Colleen Trinidad

 Historical context
• Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by a
Spanish court-martial after being implicated as a leader of the
Philippine Revolution.
• At the Luneta on December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal
allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and his writings and
reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of
persuasion by Jesuit priests.
The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first two are
the official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were
instrumental in the alleged retraction of Rizal. The other two are
critical analyses by two Rizalist scholars who doubted the story
of retraction.
 Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement
Fr. Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests who visited
Rizal during his last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he
managed to persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to
the Catholic fold. In an affidavit executed in 1917 when he had
returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who
solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours
before the hero’s execution.
 Fr. Pio Pi’s statement
Fr. Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the
time when Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued the affidavit
recounting his involvement in the alleged retraction of Rizal.
Unlike Fr. Balaguer, he was involved only in securing the
retraction document from the Archbishop of Manila Bernardino
Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document as well
which was the one Rizal allegedly copied.
 Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
• “ Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe
that the extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the
Church which he had fought. The Archbishop was interested in his
conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits lent themselves as
his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in
the whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping
prestige of religion with his abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of
valor and convictions and his conversion would be unbelievable?
So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His
aureole of glory had to be done away with if necessary. What did it
 Austin Coates’ Critical Analysis
• “Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that
the prime mover in this world would be the friar archbishop.”
• “Balaguer had the intelligence to perceived that everything depended
on the speed and audacity with which he declared his success.”
• “Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church’s case. Worse than this,
he had unwittingly revealed his own fraud. In his account he made no
mention of the Ultimo Adios.”
END OF REPORT
• DID RIZAL RETRACT?