BECED 2A Group 3:

De Silva, Sy, Delos Santos, Managuelod, Ciron, Porcia, Lee, Lacanilao

Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? (Rizal Retraction Letter)

Dr. Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines, is a notable character with

massive influence in our history. His biography entails controversies that are still topics

of debate in the present generation. This includes the question yet to be answered to

this day, “Did Jose Rizal die a Catholic?” There are many thoughts and opinions

regarding the two sides of the debate, but we believe that Jose Rizal did not retract and

he died as a Catholic.

A copy of the controversial retraction document. Courtesy Ambeth R. Ocampo

English Translation: "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 anything in my words,

writings, publication, and conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son of

Church. I believe and profess what it teaches, and I submit to what it demands. I

abominate Masonry as the enemy that it is of the Church and as a society prohibited by

the same.
"The Diocesan Prelate, as the superior ecclesiastical authority, may make this

spontaneous manifestation of mine public in order to repair the scandal that my acts

may have caused and in order that God and men may forgive me.

"Manila, December 29, 1897. José Rizal"

In a book titled “Biografía de Rizal” authored in 1938 by Rafael Palma, one of the

known biographers of Rizal, he gave a critical analysis against the alleged retraction of

the national hero. He stated many points that prove that Rizal did not retract. First, the

retraction document was kept hidden by the authorities even from Rizal’s family. When

his family asked for the original document or a copy of it as well as the copy of the

certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both requests were denied.

There was also no original retraction document that was provided to the public, only

reproductions of it. In 1935, 39 years after Rizal’s death, 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 retraction

document about Rizal in a bundle titled “Masoneri.” That was how the copy of the

retraction was discovered. Going back to Palma’s narrative, Rizal's burial was also kept

undisclosed, his corpse having been delivered to the Catholic association instead of his

family. In his last will, he wrote “Ilibing niyo ako sa lupa. Lagyan ninyo ng panandang

bato at krus. Ang aking pangalan, araw ng kapanganakan at ng kamatayan. Wala nang

iba.” This statement further proves that Rizal died as a Catholic, wanting the symbol of

the religion to be in his tomb, but the Spanish Priest did not honor and respect his dying

wish. He was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground, without any

cross or stone to mark his grave. In addition, the entry in the book of burials of the
interment of Rizal's body is not made on the page where those buried on December 30,

1896, instead, he was considered among those who died unrepentant with no spiritual

aid. This contributes to the idea that Rizal did not cooperate with the Jesuits that wanted

him to retract, and he did not reconcile with the Jesuits of the Catholic church. Lastly, in

Palma’s account, there was no moral motive for the conversion of Rizal. "Rizal was a

man of character," wrote Palma in his book, "and he had demonstrated it in many

circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former

preceptors and teachers talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any

result. Why would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours more of life?" Palma

added. As he summarized, “Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make people

believe that the extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the church which

he had fought.” Palma believed that the retraction was politicized by the Catholic church

to tarnish Rizal’s reputation and make it seem like the national hero lost against them.

Let’s head onto the examination of the discovered copy of the alleged retraction

letter. One of the individuals that was permitted to access and examine the document by

Manila Archbishop Michael O’Doherty was Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual. After carefully

examining the document, Pascual wrote a book casting doubt on its authenticity titled

“Rizal Beyond the Grave”. He began by closely examining its handwriting and

comparing it with other documents that Rizal had written prior to his execution. These

included the dedicated note on the title page of the book “Imitacion de Cristo”, which

Rizal gave to Josephine Bracken, the Mi Ultimo Adios, the letter he wrote on December

15, 1896, titled "To My Countrymen," and the Defensa, which he wrote on December

12, 1896. Pascual noted irregularities in the margin, the font of some words, the inks
used, Rizal's signature, the slants of the handwriting, and the formation of individual

letters. He came to the conclusion that the recently discovered retraction document was

forged.

Pascual concluded that the 1935 retraction document was a forgery, but he was

not able to identify the forgers. This is where the crucial information about this matter

was revealed by Ildelfonso Runes, who would do so in a book that he published in

1962. Runes wrote that on August 13, 1901, Antonio Abad celebrated his 15th birthday

in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Roman Roque, a close neighbor of the Abad’s, was among

the celebrant’s well-wishers. On this occasion, Roque disclosed that he had been

fetched by Lazaro Segovia in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and later taken to Manila. He had

stayed in the Hotel Quatro Naciones in Intramuros and been employed by the friars for

10 days. He was given the equivalent of his salary for two months in the government.

Within those days, he studied Rizal’s handwriting. According to him, he made about five

copies of the retraction letter based on a draft prepared by the Jesuits. He thought of

keeping one for himself, but when he was searched upon departure, his copy was taken

from him. The forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged

the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The

mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro

Segovia. This proves Roman Roque’s expertise in handwriting forgery and Lazaro

Segovia’s connection in forging documents. This story was revealed by Antonio K.

Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself.

In addition, another primary source that proves that Rizal did not retract was the

Spanish report itself from Cuerpo de Vigilancia. The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila
(Security Corps of Manila) was the intelligence service that the Spanish colonial

government created in 1895. It was organized primarily to gather information on the

activities of Katipunan members and supporters. In a span of three years, they were

able to collect almost 3,000 documents containing eyewitness accounts of the activities

of individuals fighting for Philippine independence. To get straight to the point, one of the

eyewitnesses that stated that Rizal signed the retraction documents was Fr. Vicente

Balaguer, a Spanish friar who claimed that he was able to convince Rizal to sign the

retraction letter and succumb to the Catholic church. In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer

declared that he talked to Rizal three times on December 29, 1896. The first time was in

the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It was during this meeting that he presented the

retraction template to Rizal, in which Rizal did not. Frederico Moreno, a chief inspector

where Rizal was detained, confirmed this meeting, including the presentation of the

draft retraction. But he reported that Rizal was talking not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs.

March and Vilaclara. Moreno also confirmed that Frs. March and Vilaclara returned to

Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Fr. Balaguer claimed in his affidavit that he was

one of Rizal’s afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued that the third time he talked to

Rizal was around 10 in the evening. He had another lengthy and passionate discussion

with him for more than an hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal finally signed his

retraction letter. Moreno confirmed that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but the persons

he identified were Señor Andrade, Señor Maure, and Frs. March and Vilaclara. Again,

Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned. Neither did Moreno’s report mention that they

discussed issues concerning faith and the retraction. The fact that Moreno never

mentioned him in his report casts a cloud of doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of
the affidavit that he executed. Since Moreno was able to identify the names of Rizal’s

relatives and the other visitors who talked to him, there is no reason why Moreno would

not mention Fr. Balaguer in his report if indeed he talked to Rizal three times. Fr.

Balaguer may not have been a primary source but a secondary one that claims to be

primary, which contributes to the fact that a lot of forgery and fraud was involved in this

controversial debate.

Another controversy connected to this matter is whether Jose Rizal and

Josephine Bracken were married with blessing from the Catholic church. Rizal wanted

to marry Bracken with the Catholic blessing, but the priests would only allow it under

one condition. They wanted Rizal to retract all that he said or wrote that criticized the

Catholic church under the Spaniard friars. In his reports, Moreno stated that Rizal and

Josephine Bracken got married. The ceremony was done in articulo mortis (at the point

of death), and there were no sponsors or witnesses present. Moreover, Moreno did not

mention that the couple signed a marriage contract, which explains why the authorities

couldn’t provide Rizal’s family the marriage contract that they requested. This could be

evidence that Rizal retracted, however, when Josephine Bracken was interviewed in

Hong Kong in late 1897 by Rounseville Wildman said that the supposed wedding on

Dec. 30, 1896, did not materialize. Braken stated that she and one of the sisters of Rizal

were not allowed by the Spanish guards to enter the gate of Intramuros in the early

morning of Dec. 30, 1896. She was told that the wedding in Fort Santiago would no

longer take place. Josephine Bracken said that she cried when they were not allowed to

enter the Intramuros gate, but she could not do anything except to proceed to

Bagumbayan Field with Rizal’s sister, and wait for Rizal there. She and Rizal’s sister
witnessed the execution of the hero at 7:03 a.m. that day. Some people also believe

that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897, is also

forged and in a bad way. The document supposedly written by Josephine herself

supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look,

there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other letters

written by Josephine to Rizal. Nonetheless, on the book given by Rizal to Bracken in her

last visit, he wrote a note, “To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine, December 30th,

1896, Jose Rizal.” He called Josephine his wife, which signifies that the two were

possibly married. Some sources say because they could not be married in a church,

Rizal and Josephine Bracken exchanged vows on a monumental rock in Dapitan, which

is now known as the “Lover’s Rock". Rizal and Josephine fell in love with each other at

first sight. After a whirlwind romance of one month, they agreed to marry. But Father

Obach, the priest of Dapitan, refused to marry them without the permission of the

Bishop of Cebu. Since no priest would marry them, Rizal and Josephine held hands

together and married themselves before the eyes of God. In Father Balaguer’s

statement, he said that Rizal retracted because he wanted to marry Josephine Bracken,

who was a Catholic, but when he was asked to show a certificate, he was not able to

present anything. The marriage couldn't be the reason of retraction because there was

no marriage certificate found. No certificate legalizes the marriage between

Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal. Since no document serves as evidence of the

official union of the lovers, we cannot assume that they were married, also considering

that Bracken herself said that the wedding that was supposedly officiated by Spanish

priests that is recorded in our history books did not occur.

Courtesy Jeremy Barns

In conclusion, Rizal did not retract the words and actions that made him a hero

and he died as a Catholic. Rizal did not need to convert back to being a Catholic

through the retraction letter because he did not convert to another religion at all. Ever

since Rizal was a child, he was raised by his religious mother who was Catholic. His

everyday routine involved praying and going to the church regularly. In his works, he

criticized the Spaniards and their brutal acts as they colonized the Philippines, which

inevitably involved their religion, Catholicism, which had a great influence on our country

up until now. They were forcing Rizal to sign the retraction documents to make it seem

that Rizal lost against the Spaniards, to tarnish Rizal’s reputation. Since Rizal did not

cooperate with them, they did not respect his dying will as a Catholic, which explains

why Rizal’s body was buried ten months after his death. He was also buried without a
coffin. He was buried in the place for those who are against the Catholic Church. He did

not even get a proper burial. If he retracted, as the Spanish friars said, they would have

given him a burial that aligned with the Catholic traditions. Nonetheless, whether Rizal

retracted or not, this doesn’t change the fact that he is still our national hero who

accomplished his mission and awoke the spirits of the Filipinos to seek for freedom and

fight for our independence. Lastly, here’s a quote from Rizal that he stated in his exile in

Dapitan which symbolizes his unwavering faith in God and his religion, "...wherever I

go I would always be in the hands of God who has in His hands the destinies of

man." -Jose Rizal

References

Bartleby. (n.d.). Retraction controversy of Rizal.

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Retraction-Controversy-Of-Rizal-PCCFQX92R

Escalante, R. (2019). Vol. 8, No. 3. Southeast Asian Studies. https://englishkyoto-

seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/

National Historical Commission of the Philippines. (n.d.). The Rizal retraction and other

cases. https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

Palma, R. (n.d.). Biography of Rizal. Scribd.

https://www.scribd.com/document/339188332/Biography-of-Rizal-Rafael-Palma
Philippine Star. (2019, December 28). December 30, 1896.

https://www.philstar.com/other-sections/letters-to-the-editor/2019/12/28/1980210/

december-30-1896

Weebly. (n.d.). Chapter eight: Jose P. Rizal’s exile in Dapitan (1892-1896).

https://bshmjoserizal.weebly.com/our-hero-jose-rizal/chapter-eight-jose-p-rizals-

exile-in-dapitan-1892-1896

Xiao Chua. (2023, October 20). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at

pananaw. https://xiaochua.net/2023/10/20/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-mga-bagong-

dokumento-at-pananaw/