Retraction of Rizal

The Retraction of Rizal is a controversial document allegedly written and

signed by our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, the day before his execution in
1896. The document revolves around renouncing his previous writings such
as the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. The document is a “retraction”
of his words against the Catholic Church and its role in the Spanish
Colonization, and his apparent return to Catholic faith. This caused
controversy considering that “Rizal” was well-known for his words against
the Spaniards, particularly his criticism towards Spanish Friars and their
abusive tendencies and behaviors which was eagerly highlighted in the two
books that sparked the Philippine revolution.

The letter was allegedly written on the evening of December 29, 1896. It
primarily involved José Rizal, the Spanish authorities, and the Catholic
Church, particularly the Jesuits. Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit priest that
Rizal allegedly was allowed to meet claimed to have witnessed and
facilitated Rizal’s retraction, stating that he had engaged Rizal in religious
discussions leading to his reconciliation with the Church and his conversion
to Catholicism. However, many historians quickly question Balaguer’s
account, as it lacks corroborating evidence from neutral witnesses.

In the retraction letter, Rizal allegedly states "I declare[d] 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 letter soon disappeared and was not seen
again until 39 years later when it was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia on
May 18, 1935.

However, there was no record of anybody seeing this “original”

document in 1896, except the publishers of La Voz Española, which published
its contents on the day of Rizal’s execution: “We have seen and read his
(Rizal’s) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our dear and
venerable Archbishop…” The "exact" copy that 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
Escritos del 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.

The article of Rene Escalante which is a recollection of Rizal’s last 24

hours using spy reports that can be stated as primary sources we can
summarize the events that followed:

On the side of the Jesuits and their claims:

The Spain-based newspapers and magazines that covered the

retraction were El Imparcial, Heraldo de Madrid, and El Siglo Futuro. They
based their narrative on the testimonies of the Jesuits and other colonial
officials who visited and talked to Rizal the day before he was executed. The
Jesuits figured prominently during the last 24 hours of Rizal’s life because
Manila Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda asked them to take care of Rizal’s
spiritual needs while the latter awaited the hour of his death. In an affidavit
that he issued in 1917, Fr. Pio Pi (the Superior of the Jesuits) declared that he
had accepted the task because he considered Rizal to be Ateneo Municipal
High School’s “very distinguished and dear pupil” (Cavanna 1956, 15). The
Jesuits he sent to Rizal’s detention cell were Frs. Vicente Balaguer, Jose
Vilaclara, Estanislao March, Luis Visa, Federico Faura, and Miguel Saderra
(Cavanna 1956, 11). Fr. Pi instructed them to persuade Rizal to retract his
anti-Catholic teachings as well as his affiliation with the Masons. The Jesuits
were supposed to demand these two things before ministering the necessary
sacraments. Fr. Pi also ordered that the retraction should be in writing using
either of the two sample retraction templates approved by the archbishop.

Of all the Jesuits whom Fr. Pi commissioned to deal with Rizal, it was Fr.
Vicente Balaguer who wrote extensively about what happened in Rizal’s
detention cell the day before he was executed. His version of the story is
narrated in a letter he sent to Fr. Pi in 1908 and in an affidavit he executed in
Murcia, Spain, on August 8, 1917 (Cavanna 1956, 6–10, 260–266; Arcilla
1994, 121). In both documents, Fr. Balaguer used the first person pronoun,
which suggests that he was personally present and involved in the
negotiation. He even claimed that he “was the one who assisted Rizal most
of that sad day’s hours. I argued with him and demolished his arguments”
(Cavanna 1956, 115). He also persuaded everyone to take his affidavit as a
primary source because he had personal knowledge of Rizal’s retraction. In
his sworn affidavit he wrote: “Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by
personal knowledge. I have personally intervened and witnessed it myself;
and I subscribed and confirmed it with an oath. And lest, perhaps, someone
may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after twenty
years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s death, I wrote a very detailed
account of everything. The original of this account I have preserved, and
from it I have taken all the data of the present narration.” (Cavanna 1956,
10)

According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison

cell around 10 o’clock in the morning. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit
that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion of some articles of
Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over
reason and the dogmatic differences that divided Catholics and Protestants.
Since time was not on their side, they persuaded Rizal not to spend so much
time discussing faith-related issues and focus instead on how to die in the
state of grace so that he could enter heaven.

Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it
was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two retraction templates
Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal found the first template
unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were not
reflective of his personality (Arcilla 1994, 114). So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it
and offered the shorter one. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was
uncomfortable with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society
reprobated by the Church.” He said he had met Masons in London who had
nothing against the Catholic religion. Rizal wanted to emphasize that
Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism and that Masonry in
London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I
abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same
Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to the draft,
Rizal signed his retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over
to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda
(Guerrero 1971, 459).

However, Friedrich Stahl wrote to Ferdinand Blumentritt in January

1897, informing him that people did not take the retraction account seriously
because “nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact
that quite a number of people would want to see it” (Cavanna 1956, 145). In
a letter that Jose Alejandrino sent to Filipino expatriates in Hong Kong dated
March 6, 1897, he expressed the same point. He wrote, “The Spaniards want
to persecute him even in the tomb, since they slander him by imputing to
him confessions and retractions which he himself could not have done”
(Cavanna 1956, 147).

Trinidad, Rizal’s sister, also attested that after her brother’s death the
Jesuits invited their family to attend a Mass offered for the eternal repose of
his soul. The Jesuits promised that after the Mass they would show them the
original retraction. Until they parted ways, the promise did not materialize
(Pascual 1959, 50–51).

Filipino masons conducted campaigns to disprove that the retraction

happened. Herminigildo Cruz, a mason, wrote an article in La Vanguardia
where he openly attacked the Jesuits. He could not understand how the
Jesuits and the archbishop could have misplaced such a priceless document.
Other Masons used the character of Rizal as their main argument against the
retraction. They argued that Rizal was a strong-willed man of deep conviction
and would not easily flip-flop even in critical times. They could not
understand why Rizal would retract knowing that it would in no way affect
the court’s verdict. These arguments were popularized in the succeeding
years, and because of this the Jesuits and the Catholic hierarchy were forced
to come up with affidavits and other forms of proof to counteract the Masons.

In 1935 the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Gracia, C.M. was sorting
through folders of documents that he would later transfer to a newly
acquired fireproof vault. While doing this, he found the “original” retraction
document about Rizal in a bundle titled Masoneria (Garcia 1964, 31–43).
Right away he called Manila Archbishop Michael O’Doherty, who at that time
was in Baguio. The next day Fr. Gracia gave the document to the archbishop,
who in turn showed it to President Manuel L. Quezon. That same day they
asked Teodoro M. Kalaw, a Mason and the director of the National Library at
the time, to examine the document. Kalaw declared that it was “authentic,
definite and final” (Pascual 1959, ix). Then they summoned Carlos P. Romulo,
who was then the editor of the newspaper Philippines Herald, to evaluate the
veracity of the document. Romulo agreed with Kalaw’s findings, and on June
15, 1935 he published the news in the Philippines Herald under the banner
headline “Rizal’s Retraction Found.” To give more credibility to the newly
found document, Doherty requested H. Otley Beyer, a professor of
anthropology at U.P. Diliman and a known handwriting expert, to examine
whether the document was genuine or not. Beyer concluded, “there is not
the slightest doubt that every word on that sheet of paper was written by
Jose Rizal”
 The Masons regarded the retraction document that came out in 1935
as a fact, but 376 R. Escalante whether it was indeed written and signed by
Rizal was for them a big question. The discourse during this time was no
longer over whether Rizal had retracted or not. The debate was whether the
newly found retraction document was genuine or not. Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual,
one of the persons who was given permission by the archbishop to examine
the document, wrote: “it is better that such document should not have been
discovered at all” (Pascual 1959, 4). Pascual scrutinized the document
thoroughly and came up with a book that questioned its authenticity.

First, he scrutinized its handwriting and compared it with other

documents that Rizal had written days before he was executed. These
included the Mi Ultimo Adios, the letter he wrote on December 15, 1896
titled “To My Countrymen,” the Defensa that he wrote on December 12,
1896, and the dedicatory note found on the title page of the book Imitacion
de Cristo, which Rizal gave to Josephine Bracken. Pascual identified
inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks
used, the font of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters
were formed (Pascual 1959, 7–30). All these observations led him to
conclude that the newly found retraction document was a forgery.

Another objection raised against the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction

was the differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version
of the retraction that Fr. Balaguer had presented. In the 1935 document
cualidad is spelled with a “u,” while in Fr. Balaguer’s version the spelling is
calidad (without the “u”). Second, Fr. Balaguer’s version does not have the
word Catolica after the word Iglesia. In the 1935 and the newspaper versions,
the word Catolica is present. Third, in the Jesuits’ copy the third Iglesias is
preceded by the word misma. This word cannot be found in the 1935
document. Fourth, with regard to paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer’s version does
not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentence while the 1935
version starts the second paragraph immediately after the second sentence.
Finally, the text of the 1935 retraction has 4 commas, while the text of Fr.
Balaguer’s has 11 (Retana 1907, 426–427).

The saga of the retraction controversy continued even after World War
II. It surfaced again as a side issue when the Rizal Law was under
consideration during the 1950s. Known historians, such as the Jesuits Horacio
de la Costa, John Schumacher, and Jose Arcilla, insisted that Rizal had
retracted. The Masons, on their part, remained adamant in their stand and
refused to accede to the arguments and evidence presented by pro-
retraction advocates. Since there was no new evidence or primary sources
presented, the debates during the postwar era were mostly philosophical and
interpretative in nature.”

Aside from this, though it was not written in the article, the most
important evidence of all was that Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the
names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

With the previous events being cleared, that question that is left to ask
is “Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from?” Fr. Balaguer himself
has unwittingly answered this question in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the
two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that
of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you)
made; and the other the 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, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two
original texts of the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained
"the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is "that of the
Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by
Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was
"written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal
and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that
another person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself"
much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it
was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the
Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen the original
himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully
reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes"
(that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. The
difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr.
Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was "shorter" because it omitted certain
phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would
sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer
had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Which we can recall happened
during the narration of events of the article previously cited. Allegedly, Rizal
wrote down what was dictated to him, but he insisted on adding the phrases
"in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of
the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary
and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what would
have happened, if we were to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s
addition of the phrases was the restoration of the phrases found in the
original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort
Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in
the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read
aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong
because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s
copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never
claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had
written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came
to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness
by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of
a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically
but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write a retraction,
which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had
established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local
government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the
right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form
of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was
revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down
in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction),
inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came
hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had
written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to
get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction.
What they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting
while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both
the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish
between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.

Filipinos upon discovering this document have come to different reactions

regarding the issue. Some supported and believed that this document was
authentic and credible claiming that it reflects Rizal's true change of heart
and his desire to unite Filipinos under the banner of Catholicism. They point
to his later religious writings as evidence of his sincere conversion.
Meanwhile, others disproved that such would be possible and that it was an
act of forgery, stating that Rizal would have never renounced his beliefs and
cited evidence suggesting he was under duress and that the retraction was a
fabrication by Spanish authorities. Some scholars hold ambivalent views,
acknowledging the possibility of a complex mix of motives and
circumstances surrounding Rizal's retraction. They argue that it may be a
combination of self-preservation, reconciliation, and pressure from
authorities.

Further Arguments Against Authenticity shows:

1. Inconsistencies in handwriting and style compared to Rizal's other writings

days before his execution.

2. Differences between the 1935 document and earlier accounts of the

retraction by witnesses like Fr. Balaguer.

3. The retraction contradicts Rizal's known beliefs and principles expressed in

his writings, speeches, and letters.

4. The circumstances under which it was allegedly signed are questionable,

as Rizal was already sentenced to death.

5. The original letter has never been found, with only copies based on
eyewitness accounts existing.

6. The language and style are different from Rizal's usual writing, suggesting
it may have been written by someone else.

7. Other documents from the time, like Josephine Bracken's marriage

certificate, were also suspected to be fabricated.
While those who believe that the retraction argues for the authenticity claim:

1. Eyewitness testimonies from Rizal's family and friends who were present
at his execution.

2. The 1935 document was examined by handwriting experts who concluded

it was written by Rizal.

Conclusions:

There are various possibilities as such has happened, maybe it was to:

 Seek Clemency - One argument for the retraction suggests that Rizal
sought to save his life by renouncing his revolutionary ideals and
converting to Catholicism. He may have believed that a public
conversion could appease Spanish authorities and secure a pardon.
 Reconcile with the Church - Another explanation points to Rizal's desire
for reconciliation with the Catholic Church. He had been critical of the
Church's role in Spanish colonialism, and his conversion could have
been an attempt to mend the rift between him and the institution.
 Manipulated by Spanish Authorities - However, many historians argue
that Rizal's retraction was a fabricated act orchestrated by Spanish
authorities. They claim that he was pressured into signing the
document under duress, with no genuine intention to renounce his
beliefs.

The Rizal retraction controversy remains a divisive issue among historians

and Filipinos. Whether Rizal retracted his beliefs is still a matter of
interpretation, with valid arguments on both sides. Numerous claims state
the documents are suspected to be forged or done by unknown
personalities. Ultimately, Rizal's legacy as a national hero and champion
of Philippine independence remains unquestionable, regardless of the
authenticity of the retraction letter.