“Rizal retracted his statement against the Catholic Church and the Spanish rule?

”
It has long been a source of controversy and historical interest whether Jose Rizal, the renowned
writer and national hero of the Philippines, actually retracts his statements about the Catholic Church and
Spanish colonial government. Examining his alleged retraction is a topic of major historical relevance
because of Rizal's strong dedication to reform and independence in the Philippines, which is interconnected
with his legacy. This examination explores the intricate and controversial subject matter, examining the
evidence that backs up the historical context, and various points of view of Rizal's alleged retraction,
eventually illuminating the uncertainty that still envelops this significant facet of his life and legacy.
To begin with, it's crucial to acknowledge that there exists a lack of convincing and compelling
evidence when it comes to determining whether or not Jose Rizal truly retracted his statements. The "Rizal
Retraction," a document purportedly signed by Rizal on December 29, 1896, confesses to his mistakes and
shows his intent to return to the Catholic faith. Within this supposed retraction, he is claimed to have
written, “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.” However, this document's authenticity has been strongly
contested, mostly because there are uncertainties regarding its origins and the circumstances surrounding
its appearance in 1935. The fact that it took roughly thirty-nine years for the original copy to be witnessed in
the archdiocesan archives raises authorized concerns about its truthfulness and drives the possibility that it
was staged or made up by the Church to damage Rizal's reputation as an opponent of colonialism and the
hierarchy of clergy.
On the different side of this argument, individuals who question Rizal's retractions frequently bring
to the repressive conditions surrounding his arrest. After all, Rizal's ardent nationalist writings and activities
led to his arrest, sentence, and eventual execution by a Spanish court. It's reasonable to assume that he may
have signed the retraction paper under extreme pressure given the dangerous and life-threatening
circumstances. It's possible that he committed this action out of hopelessness, either to ensure his own
existence or to protect his family from harm. Given these conditions, it is only reasonable to question the
legitimacy of the retraction, raising the possibility that it was more a matter of pragmatism than a genuine
change in convictions.
Aside from that, the contradicting stories offered by individuals who were Rizal's contemporaries
and close colleagues ended up fueling the dispute regarding his retractions. While some of these historians
insist that Rizal did indeed change his mind, others firmly believe that he did not. It is quite difficult to draw
a firm judgment because of these conflicting testimonials, which constitute a difficult puzzle. For instance,
figures like Fr. Balaguer and Fr. Villaclara assert that the retraction document was signed by Rizal in the
presence of Senor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Senor Moure, Adjutant of Plaza. However, the claims made
by Fr. Balaguer added to the body of evidence refuting the claim that Rizal retracted his statement. To
illustrate, Fr. Balaguer stated that he carried out Jose and Josephine's marriage following Jose's alleged
signature on the retraction paperwork. But a marriage certificate or other official document that would
support Father Balaguer's claims is conspicuously absent. Additionally, there are questions about the
ceremony's time, which is said to have occurred between 6:00 AM and 6:15 AM on December 30, 1896. It's
vital to keep in mind that Dr. Jose Rizal was killed around 7:03 AM on the same day, which makes the
timeframe highly unlikely and extremely tight. One would anticipate that Dr. Rizal would have told his family
about this significant change if he had in fact changed his mind about his views and conduct. However, in his
correspondence with his family or in their interactions before his execution, there are no indications of such
retraction. His family relentlessly sought the original paper in response to this lack of proof since they had
their suspicions about Rizal's supposed retractions. They are adamant that Rizal did not repudiate his life's
work, which strengthens the case against it.
To support this argumentative view, one analysis, presented by Rafael Palma, comes out as the most
convincing and persuasive when we evaluate the many reports about the National Hero's claimed retraction.
Palma fiercely argued that Jose Rizal didn't change his mind about anything or make any corresponding
compromises. He provided a strong body of supporting material as well as cogent arguments to refute any
suggestions that Rizal was retracting what he believed. The way the friars handled Rizal after his death was
among the most convincing pieces of evidence Palma presented. Rizal was laid to rest without a
conventional crucifix or grave markers. This designation placed him among those who passed away without
confessing their sins or obtaining spiritual support, which directly conflicts with the story of a retraction.
Additionally, Palma emphasized that the original copy of the retraction document was stored in a way that
caused it to be hidden for thirty-nine years following Rizal's execution. Furthermore, Rizal was a man of
unyielding character, something Palma stressed, a notion he had constantly displayed throughout his life. It
would seem unlikely that he would have a sudden change of heart and ideas based only on the influence of
his former colleagues or that he would make up with the Church just before his execution. Palma pointed out
that the friars had earlier made an unsuccessful attempt to convince Rizal at Dapitan, and that Rizal himself
was aware of the harm that a retraction would do to his reputation as a supporter of the Filipino revolution.
Another important thing to think about is what Dr. Rizal asserted in "Mi Ultimo Adios" (My Last
Farewell), a moving piece of work that inspired Filipinos to rebel against Spanish dictators. This work is
blatantly at odds with the purported retraction he is said to have signed. The song "Mi Ultimo Adios" is
unmistakable proof of Dr. Rizal's ardent love for his homeland and his unrelenting resistance to those who
persecuted it and his fellow citizens. The remarkable difference between these two letters highlights the
complexity of Dr. Rizal's beliefs and choices in his dying hours and raises legitimate questions about the
truthfulness of the retraction.
In conclusion, the ongoing discussion over whether Rizal changed his mind emphasizes how complex
historical narratives are and how crucial it is to carefully examine historical information. Regardless of the
outcome of this case, one thing is certain: Rizal's legacy as a cherished national hero and a representation of
Philippine independence is still as powerful as ever. It serves as an enduring source of inspiration for
Filipinos, inspiring generation after generation. In the end, the historical disputes surrounding Rizal's
retraction do not lessen the significant impact of his works and actions on the history and identity of the
country.