Retraction of Rizal

The retraction of Rizal is a topic that has generated significant controversy and

debate. Rizal, also known as Jose Rizal, was a prominent Filipino nationalist and

polymath who played a key role in the Philippine Revolution against Spanish

colonization. His writings and activism inspired a generation of Filipinos to fight for

their independence and reclaim their identity. However, some argue that Rizal's

retraction, which occurred just before his execution, tarnishes his legacy and raises

questions about his true beliefs. The controversy surrounding his retraction highlights

the complexity of his character and the ongoing interpretation of his role in Philippine

history.

His ideas and writings, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El

Filibusterismo, exposed the harsh realities of colonial rule and sparked a sense of

national identity among the Filipino people. However, despite his contributions to the

nation, there have been calls for the retraction of Rizal's writings and ideas, claiming

that they were detrimental to the country's progress and unity. This debate

surrounding Rizal's retraction raises important questions about the complexities of

historical interpretation and the role of national heroes in shaping a collective identity.

Calls for the retraction of Rizal's writings fail to recognize the significance of his

works in raising awareness about the injustices of colonial rule and inspiring a sense

of national identity among Filipinos. For example, during the Spanish colonial period

in the Philippines, Jose Rizal's writings, such as "Noli Me Tangere" and "El

Filibusterismo," were seen as a threat to the ruling class as they exposed the

corruption and abuses of the colonial government. Some argued that Rizal's works

should be retracted due to their potential to incite rebellion and disrupt unity among
Filipinos, while others recognized the importance of these writings in igniting a

collective sense of national consciousness and inspiring Filipinos to fight for their

independence. Despite the controversy surrounding his works, Rizal's writings

became a catalyst for the Philippine Revolution, as they provided a platform for

intellectual discourse and served as a rallying cry for the oppressed. His ideas of

equality, justice, and freedom resonated with the masses, ultimately leading to the

birth of a nation that would strive for self-determination and sovereignty. Today,

Rizal is revered as a national hero, with his writings continuing to inspire generations

of Filipinos to advocate for social change and fight against injustice.

According to historical accounts, Rizal supposedly wrote a retraction letter,

renouncing his previous views and actions, including his writings and activities that

were critical of the Spanish colonial government and the Catholic Church. However,

many historians question the authenticity of this retraction letter, believing it was

coerced or fabricated by the Spanish authorities. Regardless of the controversy

surrounding the retraction, Rizal's unwavering commitment to his people and his

country's liberation remains undeniable. His martyrdom at the hands of the Spanish

authorities only served to ignite the flames of revolution further, solidifying his place

as a symbol of resistance and national identity for the Filipino people. However, some

argue that Rizal's retraction letter shows a change of heart and contradicts his previous

writings and actions, raising doubts about his true intentions and commitment to the

revolution. Additionally, the timing of the letter's release, just days before his

execution, raises suspicions that it was a desperate attempt by the Spanish authorities

to discredit Rizal and weaken the growing nationalist movement in the Philippines. In

this context, a detailed example is the controversy surrounding Rizal's retraction

letter. Despite dedicating his life to fighting for freedom and independence, Rizal's
letter, in which he renounced his previous works and beliefs, raised questions about

his true loyalty to the Philippine Revolution. This fueled debates among historians

and scholars about whether the letter was genuine or coerced by the Spanish

authorities as a means of sabotaging the nationalistic movement. 1. The impact of

Rizal's retraction letter on the perception of his legacy: Explore how the controversy

surrounding the letter has shaped public opinion and interpretations of Rizal's

contributions to Philippine independence. 2. Examination of historical documents and

primary sources: Analyze various archival materials, eyewitness accounts, and other

relevant resources to shed light on whether the retraction letter was authentic or

forged. 3. Political motivations behind coerced confessions: Discuss broader patterns

in history where individuals have been forced to make false confessions for political

reasons and how this practice has been used to manipulate public opinion and control

dissent. 4. Impact on Rizal's Legacy: Assess the long-term implications of the

controversy on Rizal's reputation and the perception of his role in the fight for

Philippine independence. 5. Public response and backlash: Examine the reactions

from the Filipino community and international observers to the controversy and how

it has influenced their views on Rizal and the struggle for independence. 6. Lessons

learned: Reflect on the importance of critically evaluating historical documents and

understanding the complexities of political manipulation in shaping historical

narratives.

That said, there is much debate surrounding the authenticity and circumstances

of Rizal's retraction. Some argue that the retraction letter was coerced or fabricated by

the Spanish authorities, while others believe it to be genuine. While it is important to

critically evaluate historical documents, it is also crucial to consider the possibility

that Rizal's retraction letter may indeed be genuine and not a result of political
manipulation. By examining other historical sources and accounts from that time

period, we can gain a better understanding of the context in which the retraction letter

was written. Additionally, analyzing Rizal's own beliefs and actions leading up to his

execution can provide valuable insights into his mindset and motivations. Ultimately,

the truth may lie somewhere in between, with elements of both manipulation and

genuineness present in the retraction letter. It is imperative that historians continue to

investigate and question these narratives in order to uncover a more accurate depiction

of history.

It is important to note that Rizal's retraction, or lack thereof, has significant

implications for the understanding of his beliefs and motivations. The controversy

surrounding the retraction highlights the complex and tense relationship between

Rizal, the Spanish colonial government, and the Catholic Church during that period.

Brief Background about Jose Rizal

 He is identified as the hero of the Revelation

 Jose Rizal was a man of many accomplishments—a linguist, a novelist, a poet,
a scientist, a doctor, a painter, an educator, a reformer, and a visionary.
 Wrote his classic novel Noli me Tangere, which condemned the Catholic
Church in the Philippines for its promotion of Spanish colonialism,
immediately upon its publication, he became a target for the police.
 He returned to Manila in 1892 and created the Liga Filipina, a political group
that called for peaceful change for the islands.
 After Andrés Bonifacio issued the Grito de Balintawak in 1896, Rizal was
arrested, convicted of sedition, and executed by firing squad on December 30,
1896.
 Rizal's Masonic membership was said to have prompted significant alterations
in his religious beliefs.
Retraction

 the act of taking back an offer or statement, or admitting that

a statement was false
 the action of drawing something back or back in

FOUR TEXTS OF RIZAL’S RETRACTION

 The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the
very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896.
 The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the
fortnightly magazine in La Juventud
 As the second text appeared an anonymous writer revealed himself fourteen
years later as Fr. Balaguer
 The original text was discovered in May 18, 1935 in archdiocesan archives,
after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when
Rizal was shot.

FR. VICENTE BALAGUER

 Fr. Balaguer present the first-person pronoun, which propose the he was
present and involved in the negotiation
 Fr. Vicente Balaguer, who wrote extensively about Rizal's incarceration cell
the day before his execution.
 He also convinced everyone to accept his declaration of innocence as a
primary source because he knew about Rizal's retraction firsthand.
 He and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in the
morning
 Balaguer claimed that if Rizal did not surrender, he would be condemned by
God's judgement, which caused Rizal to weep and vow, "No, I will not damn
myself." He reminded him that there was no salvation outside the Catholic
Church.
 A formula of retraction composed by Father Pio Pi was given by the
Archbishop to Balaguer
  Eventually around 3 o’clock in the afternoon after their first visit was not
convincible
 Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 p.m. that night, and they
brought two retraction templates with them.
 Rizal rejected first template because it was too long and the style of writing
and language do not reflect to his personality
 Second template is shorter one but Rizal did not sign it right away because of
the statement: “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.”
 He revised it into: “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and
reprobated by the same Church”
 “Rizal wanted to emphasize that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to
Catholicism”
 “Rizal signed his retraction letter before midnight”

TRANSLATION OF THE RETRACTION

“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. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches, and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the [Link] Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior
Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order
to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may
pardon me.”

ARGUMENTS AND WITNESSES FROM RIZAL SCHOLARS

Analysis of Rafael Palma

  The document was kept a secret no one except for the authorities was able to
see the “original” copy.
 Regardless when the family of Rizal asked for the “original” or just a copy of
the said Retraction paper and a copy as well of the canonical marriage with
Josephine Bracken, both petition was denied.
 There was no mass or funeral held by the Catholic for Rizal’s death
 No Cross or mark on him when he was buried in the ground
 There was no oral explanation for his conversion, such as why he chose
masonry and reconciled himself to the rites of the faith against which he had
fought.

Analysis of Austin Coates

State of Argument pertaining that no marriage happened between Bracken and Rizal:

 Absence of Ms. Josephine Bracken was reported in the vicinity of Fort

Santiago in the morning of the execution
 The possibility of the three priest that was said to be present in the wedding is
enclose to be low since the two priests not including Balaguer is not present
 Father Balaguer said that he performed the canonical marriage in the presence

of one of Rizal's sisters in the morning, but Rizal's family denied this. At 7:03

a.m., Rizal was martyred.

 When Josephine is being married to Vicente Abad, Josephine legal register

used the last Bracken instead of Rizal

Marriage of Rizal and Josephine (positive)

One of the man points of the retraction was the marriage of Jose Rizal and

Josephine Bracken which has been bitterly contested by the anti-retractionists. I can

understand their position because once marriage is admitted, the act of retraction is

established because while still in Dapitan, the condition imposed on Rizal was: “No

retraction, no marriage.” Therefore, the retraction was a sine qua non to marriage. In
other words, Rizal could never be married to Josephine unless he retracted first. The

anti-retractionsts, therefore, must deny by all means the marriage of Rizal and

Josephine. They argue that the retraction was forced upon Rizal under duress and that

it does not reflect his true beliefs. They believe that Rizal's refusal to retract until the

very end, even when faced with death, is a testament to his unwavering principles and

integrity. They view the marriage as a symbol of Rizal's love and commitment to

Josephine, regardless of any external pressures or conditions imposed upon them.

Ultimately, the debate between the anti-retractionists and those who accept the

marriage as valid continues to fuel discussions and interpretations of Rizal's life and

legacy. A counterargument to the view that Rizal's refusal to retract is a testament to

his unwavering principles and integrity could be that his refusal may have been driven

by fear of the consequences he would face if he retracted. This counterargument

suggests that Rizal's decision to not retract may have been a result of self-preservation

rather than a clear demonstration of his commitment to Josephine. It is possible that

he feared the backlash from the Spanish authorities and the potential harm it could

bring to his loved ones. However, supporters of Rizal argue that his unwavering

dedication to his beliefs and the sacrifices he made for his country outweigh any

personal fears he may have had. Ultimately, the true intentions behind Rizal's refusal

to retract will remain a subject of debate and speculation. But the affidavits of

eyewitnesses agree that Rizal was married to Josephine soon after he retracted. Father

Balaguer, the priest who had married them, testified under oath the following:

At six o’clock (in the morning of December 30 th) Josephine Bracken and one

of Rizal’s sister (Maria Rizal), arrived crying bitterly. With the knowledge of the

warden of the Fort, I proceeded to the wedding of Rizal and Josephine. The warden of

the Fort ordered, as a precaution which did not seem necessary, that the spouse be
placed at both sides of him and of the Chief of the Picket who was before him; and he

even ordered that the spouses should not join their hands. But I had to tell them that

they must join their hands, because this was prescribed by the Ritual (of marriage);

and that I must proceed according to the instructions and faculties I had from the

Prelate. Hence, omitting the previous instructions (of the marriage ceremonial),

inasmuch as there was certainty on the liberty and capacity of the contracting parties,

I just asked for mutual consent (to their canonical marriage). While they joined their

hands I pronounced the sacramental formula; and from that moment those unfortunate

spouses became canonically wedded. – end of oath. The couple exchanged vows in

front of their loved ones, their hands clasped tightly together. As the officiant spoke

the sacred words, a sense of joy and relief washed over the newlyweds. With the

utterance of the sacramental formula, their lives were forever intertwined, bound

together in the sacred bond of marriage. And so, with the completion of the oath, their

journey as husband and wife began. Surrounded by cheers and applause, the couple

sealed their commitment with a passionate kiss, sealing their love for all eternity. The

room erupted in celebration, the air filled with laughter and tears of joy. As they

walked down the aisle, the couple couldn't help but feel a renewed sense of purpose

and excitement for the future that awaited them. From that day forward, they knew

they would face life's challenges and triumphs together, united as one.

Through this affidavit, Father Balaguer executed proof that he was the one

who solemnized the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. Basically, Father

Balaguer, who is a Jesuit priest, along with other priests who made the retraction

formula, was an eyewitness (primary witness) to the retraction of Rizal before the

wedding had happened. And Father Balaguer was also the one who claimed that he

conveyed the message to convince Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to the
Catholic fold. Father Balaguer's testimony solidifies the historical record of the

marriage between Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken, adding to the evidence that they

were indeed united in matrimony. As a primary witness, Father Balaguer's account of

Rizal's retraction before the wedding provides valuable insight into Rizal's spiritual

journey and his decision to denounce Masonry. Father Balaguer's role in convincing

Rizal to return to the Catholic faith highlights the influence and importance of the

Catholic Church in Rizal's life and the historical context of the time. Likewise, the

presence of a marriage certificate, discovered in the archives of the Catholic Church,

solidifies the fact that Rizal and Bracken were legally married. This document not

only adds credibility to their union, but it also challenges the skepticism surrounding

their relationship. The marriage between Rizal and Bracken becomes a symbol of

their love and commitment, despite the societal obstacles they faced.

Furthermore, Father Balaguer's affidavit sheds light on the circumstances

surrounding the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. It provides valuable

insight into the role that Father Balaguer played in not only officiating the wedding

but also in influencing Rizal's decision to renounce his affiliation with Masonry and

embrace Catholicism once again. This affidavit serves as a crucial piece of evidence

in understanding the complex relationship between Rizal and the Catholic Church

during this pivotal time in Philippine history. This affidavit provides insight into the

distinctive motivations and pressures that Rizal faced during this time. It reveals that

his decision to renounce Masonry and embrace Catholicism was not solely motivated

by personal belief but also by external influences and societal expectations.

Additionally, it raises questions about the extent to which Rizal's actions were driven

by his own agency or by the manipulations of those in power, showcasing the intricate

dynamics at play during this important period in Philippine history.

 From the Leader of the Opposition:

Rizal did not retract. The documents were forged, as pointed out by Pascual;
(1) the penmanship on the retraction is questionable. Furthermore, Rizal's close
friends and family members attested that he never mentioned any intention of
retracting his beliefs. It is also worth noting that the retraction was conveniently
discovered after Rizal's execution, raising suspicions of a possible conspiracy to
tarnish his reputation. Moreover, Rizal's unwavering commitment to fighting for
justice and equality throughout his life further contradicts the idea of him retracting
his beliefs at the last moment. (2) Also, the one who forged the retraction confesses to
Antonio Abad on August 30, 1901. The priests ordered to forge the retraction and
make many copies. This confession adds another layer of doubt to the authenticity of
the retraction. If the priests were so confident in their actions, why would they need to
forge multiple copies? Additionally, the timing of the confession, more than three
years after Rizal's execution, raises questions about the motives behind the retraction
and its subsequent discovery. It seems more likely that the retraction was a calculated
attempt to discredit Rizal and his revolutionary ideas rather than a genuine change of
heart on his part. (3) The other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of
retraction, and some of the following are: first, the retraction document wasn't made
public until 1935. Even Rizal's family did not see the retraction document. Second,
Rizal's close friends and confidants were shocked to hear of his supposed retraction,
as they knew him to be steadfast in his beliefs. Third, the timing of the retraction, just
before his execution, raises suspicions that it was coerced or fabricated by those in
power. Overall, the evidence suggests that the retraction was a political maneuver to
discredit Rizal. Second, no effort was made to save resolve from the death penalty,
even after saying his execution was right. If Rizal really did retract, why has he still
been killed? If Rizal truly believed in his retraction and renounced his revolutionary
ideas, it is puzzling that no attempt was made to save him from the death penalty. If
his retraction was genuine, one would expect that authorities would have recognized
his change of heart and perhaps commuted his sentence. However, the fact that he was
still executed suggests that those in power were determined to silence him and
discredit his ideas, regardless of any supposed retraction. The third piece of evidence
is that the results of the burial were kept secret. His record was not placed on the
entries of December 30, 1896, but rather on a special page. This suggests that the
authorities wanted to hide the true circumstances surrounding his death and prevent
his ideas from gaining any further attention or momentum. By burying him discreetly,
they hoped to erase any trace of his existence and prevent his ideas from spreading to
others. This deliberate attempt to silence and suppress him only further supports the
notion that those in power were determined to maintain control and prevent any
dissenting voices from challenging the status quo. Fourth, there is no marriage
certificate or public record of a marriage with Josephine Bracken. This lack of
evidence raises suspicions about the legitimacy of their relationship and fuels
speculation that it may have been a ploy to manipulate public perception. Without a
marriage certificate, it becomes easier for those in power to discredit Rizal and
dismiss any claims he may have made about his personal life. This deliberate
omission serves as another tactic to undermine his credibility and diminish the impact
of his ideas. Overall, these actions highlight the lengths to which those in power were
willing to go in order to maintain their control and suppress any threats to their
authority. Fifth, the behavior of Rizal did not point to a conversion during the last 24
hours before his execution. Lastly, the retraction itself is out of character. It is not in
keeping with Rizal's character and faith. It is widely known that Rizal was a man of
strong principles and unwavering beliefs. Throughout his life, he consistently
advocated for justice, equality, and the liberation of his people. His actions and
writings were always guided by his deep love for his country and his desire to see it
flourish. Thus, the idea that he would suddenly retract his beliefs and embrace the
very system he had been fighting against seems highly unlikely. Furthermore, Rizal's
steadfastness and unwavering commitment to his ideals were evident in his final
moments, as he faced his execution with courage and dignity, reinforcing the belief
that the retraction was coerced or fabricated.

(Opposition)

The lack of conviction encompassing Jose Rizal's withdrawal is established

within the circumstances beneath which it unfolded, especially the timing and the

perceived constraint he confronted. Pundits contend that the nearness of the

withdrawal to his looming execution raises true blue questions around its genuineness.
The inescapable risk of passing by terminating squad seems to have put Rizal in an

exceptionally powerless position, inciting concerns that his explanations may have

been a survival strategy instead of an honest to goodness move in his ideological

position. Furthermore, the fact that Rizal's withdrawal came at a time when the

Spanish government was tightening its grip on dissenters and revolutionaries adds to

the suspicion surrounding his actions. It is difficult to ignore the possibility that Rizal

may have made these statements under duress, in an attempt to save his own life. The

fear of facing the firing squad undoubtedly clouded his judgment and raises doubts

about the sincerity of his supposed ideological shift. Digging more profound,

authentic records demonstrate that Rizal was captured, attempted, and sentenced to

passing for his revolutionary writings, which fervently criticized Spanish colonial rule

within the Philippines. His impact as a patriot figure was significant, making him a

perceived danger to the colonial specialists. Within the background of this tense

political climate, the circumstances of his withdrawal pick up noteworthiness. The

circumstances of his withdrawal from the revolution raise questions about his

sincerity. Some argue that his arrest and subsequent sentencing were merely a ploy to

protect himself and his family from further persecution. However, others believe that

Rizal's decision to distance himself from the revolution was a calculated move to

continue his fight against Spanish colonialism through more subtle means. Regardless

of the true motives behind his withdrawal, there is no denying the impact Rizal had on

the independence movement in the Philippines. Faultfinders contend that the Spanish

specialists, energetic to suppress disagree and dreading the affect of Rizal's thoughts

on the burgeoning patriot development, might have connected undue weight on him to

abnegate. The mental weights Rizal confronted amid his imprisonment encourage and

emphasize the skepticism encompassing his withdrawal. Confronting the prospect of

up-and-coming execution is a candidly charged circumstance that can significantly

affect decision-making. The mental pressures Rizal faced during his imprisonment

were likely exacerbated by the constant fear of execution, making it difficult for him

to make clear and independent decisions. The Spanish authorities' desire to suppress

dissent and their concern about the impact of Rizal's ideas on the growing nationalist

movement further suggests that he may have been coerced into renouncing his beliefs.

The emotional and psychological toll of facing possible execution cannot be

underestimated, and it is important to consider these factors when examining Rizal's

decision to retract his ideas. Pundits posit that the fear, push, and uneasiness related to

approaching passing may have clouded Rizal's judgment, driving him to form

articulations that were not intelligent of his genuine feelings. This doubtfulness finds

its way back into the works of history specialists and researchers who have

scrutinized the occasions leading up to Rizal's execution. These historians and

researchers argue that Rizal's retraction was more of a strategic move to preserve his

life rather than a genuine change in his beliefs. They believe that Rizal's fear of death

and the pressure he faced from the Spanish authorities compelled him to make a

decision that was not truly reflective of his true convictions. Thus, the circumstances

surrounding Rizal's execution continue to be a subject of debate and speculation

among scholars. Strikingly, Ambeth Ocampo, a regarded Philippine student of

history, has addressed the realness of the withdrawal in his works. Ocampo, among

others, raises substantial concerns around the coerced nature of Rizal's articulations

and the vital timing of the withdrawal in relation to the broader political scene.

Ocampo suggests that Rizal's withdrawal may have been a strategic move to protect

his family and supporters from further harm. He argues that Rizal's true convictions

were evident in his writings and actions leading up to his execution, and that the
withdrawal was a calculated decision made under duress. This perspective challenges

the traditional narrative of Rizal as a reluctant martyr and raises questions about the

complexities of his final moments. Scholars continue to explore these theories,

striving to uncover the truth behind Rizal's execution and its significance in Philippine

history.