Did Jose Rizal Retract?

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by
various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no
proof or any justification to end the debate.
The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his
execution.

First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept
secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original
copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of
the paper? Or was it just hidden?

Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual
Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and
later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a
forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had
made errors in reproducing another copy 1of the original.

Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he
married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no
marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements.

Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he
would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his
penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or
church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in
filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The
same of what happened to the three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though
they were still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given
a proper burial.

Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal’s favourite
teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student’s
allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez
told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate
(Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer.

It was argued that Rizal retracted in order to save his family from further persecution, to give
Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife and to assure reforms from the Spanish

1
government. It is more likely to be of Rizal’s mentality however, come to think of it, would Rizal
just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that
brought him to the point of being executed? No.

Rizal’s behaviour during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion- the Mi
Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister
and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father
Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula
of the retraction.

Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had
coveted death a long time ago. His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do
not believe that he have written a retraction.

Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man aged 33. He was mature enough to realize the
consequences of the choice he had made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been
anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a behaviour showing a threat from
death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him knows
this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a behaviour consistent of what he
was throughout his mature years.

Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal’s retraction controversy,
“…it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.”

2
Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth

THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content
has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated
December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself.

It stated: “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.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the
judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the
Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists
(who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the
hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the
superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the
Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
3
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the
History department of the De La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a
body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts,
clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the
controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still did
not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society
during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction
is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of history,
having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book The
Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal retracted
and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous
nationalistic works.

3
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he was
buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr
with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were
present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as
some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well,
that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal
retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The
issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”