RIZAL - RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL
https://www.scribd.com/doc/181351754/Rizal-Retraction-Controversy-docx?
fbclid=IwAR1MzrVl6ZZQsiDsQXfTX_h2HFSX3OkM0m5QVxmFGLswW-3hFoLZ5HqfJWs
For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues,
skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth regarding this
controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statements by significant people
involved have only contributed to the complications and uncertainty which envelope this fiery
argument.
"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been
contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", this was the statement in the
document which made the historians believe that Rizal had retracted. However, there have
been claims that the document, as compared to the original file which was discovered by Fr.
Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these claims,
there are several people who believe that the retraction documents are authentic. These people
include eleven eyewitnesses who were present when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a
Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix
before his execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a great grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4
confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12
historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.
Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical
method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history
Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the
denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.
REASONS FOR RETRACTION
Why would Jose Rizal wrote the retraction documents? What possible reasons could have
pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document, assuming that he truly wrote the said
document?
The following four reasons would have been worthy of his character and mentality.
1. To save his family and town from further persecution.
Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of having his
relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his death would stop the
persecution of his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way of
achieving that purpose.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.
Rizal, even though he for a time suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to have become
convinced that she now loved him, and he may have desired to give her a legal status in the
eyes of the church, and so provide for her future.
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her.
Rizal did not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove the cancer which
ruined both church and state in the Philippines -- friar control of land and domination by the
government. He was also struggling for freedom of thought and of conscience to the
individual. He may have felt that much of his propaganda had produced the insurrection,
and have repented of that. His letter to Paciano, written the night before his execution, supports
that theory. It also had been suggested that Rizal may have written the word "Catholic" in the
broad sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used by all branches of the Christian Church
accepting Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," in this
broad sense.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION
The argument between the original document and the released retraction documents brought
more controversy because this differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits. Which is
really the “original”? Some of the significant differences between the copies of the Archbishop
and the Jesuits are the following:
(1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the Archbishop’s
copies,
(2) the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias in the Jesuits’ copies,
(3) the word “misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s copies,
(4) the second paragraph from the archbishop’s copies started with the second sentence,
however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started until the fifth sentences,
(5) the Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and
(6) the Jesuits’ copies did not have the names of the witnesses.
These arguments are further discussed below.
Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Silliman University, summarizes the major points of
argument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:
1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to the reality of
the retraction.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye witnesses,” and other “qualified
witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order,
the archbishop, etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by
“witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book which was amongst the documents discovered by
Father Garcia along with the Retraction.
If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachings but would agree to a
number of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed. According to the testimony of Father
Balaguer, following the signing of the retraction, A prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took
the prayer
book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen and sad ‘Credo’ (I believe) he
signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”
4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.”
There could be no marriage without a retraction
A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the
principles of textual criticism. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the
document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father
Balaguer. To date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting
numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences with regards
to the use of certain phrases within the document.
The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made
errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy
to others. Some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong”
version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.
A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded,
e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also
Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.
Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad tells how on August 13, 1901 at
a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he
was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction
document.
2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and
facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by
writers as follows:
The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the
family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”
Sources:
Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
Did Rizal Retract?
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html
