Rizal didn’t retract

Rizal didn’t retract. Actually, he even revolt. However, not in typical meaning. It was a silent
revolution. He didn’t use sword and all physical deadly weapons but rather just like a
famous metaphorical sentence-example: “A PEN is mightier than a sword. He wrote to
revolt. His books Noli Mi Tangere and El Filibusterismo speaks about how he revealed
abuses in the government. He didn’t retract - he even died for the nation.

Rizal’s extraction from religious error has been a very controversial claim since it was first
brought up. In it, Rizal disowns all his life’s work. In the supposed retraction document, he is
alleged to have written:

“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.”

This document is critical as Rizal became the inspiration of the Katipunan which advocated
for Philippine Independence. Ironically enough, Rizal was not really pro-independence
himself. He is aware that as of the time he was in, the people are not yet ready to launch a
fight for independence and any attempt will just result in heavy losses and suffering to the
people.

He was an advocate of better treatment for the people, representation in the Spanish
Cortes, and education for the people - presumably to better prepare the people for
Independence. When the Katipunan visited him in Dapitan, he himself emphasized it to Dr.
Pio Valenzuela. However, when pressed further, he advised that should a revolution be
unavoidable, to at least have the rich be neutral as they could easily turn the tide on the
revolutionaries

By showing a retraction document, the Spanish authorities are hoping that Rizal’s death will
not become a rallying cry for the Filipinos in the quest for independence. They fear it so
much that the authorities even broke a promise to the Rizal family to release the body to
them after the execution and instead dumped his body on a secret, unmarked grave.

This document will also serve as a face saving measure for the friars whom Rizal made fun of
and criticized in his novels. However, there has been no definitive proof whether this
supposed retraction is real or not. While a copy of the original retraction document was
supposedly found in the 1930’s, it could also be a forgery. Two other documents could also
indirectly debunk the retraction:

1. The “Mi Ultimo Adios” - the person who supposedly witnessed the retraction, Fr.
Balaguer, never mentioned Rizal writing the poem during Rizal’s last night
2. The marriage certificate - it was also claimed that upon retracting, Rizal married
his sweetheart Josephine Bracken. Josephine’ whereabouts during the days of the
 execution is not known. If she was at his cell that night, it would have been noted
by the guards and other people in the area. When Josephine was trying to claim
Rizal’s library from his friend Jose Basa, she was asked to produce their marriage
certificate as proof. She stopped the claim then, the assumption of which is that
she can not produce any as there really was no marriage which puts into question
the accounts made by Fr. Balaguer.

Rizal did retract

The truth, however, was that Rizal wrote a retraction during his exile in Dapitan (Jose Rizal
[The Retraction], n.d.). Since his actions were against the Catholic Church, he was required to
write a retraction that must be approved by the Bishop of Cebu.

According to the same source, the copies received by the Archbishop and Fr. Pi were only
imitations of the original document. The said versions of the document were only copies
made by a person who has the same handwriting as Rizal. In addition, it was confirmed that
Rizal retracted and sided with the Catholic church in order to marry Josephine Bracken.

Rizal had many principles that were geared towards serving the country and keeping the
spirit of nationalism burning in every Filipino. However, since Rizal retracted his views
against the Catholic church and the Spaniards’ rule, it might be interpreted that Rizal valued
his romantic partner, Josephine Bracken, more than the welfare of his countrymen.

This further suggests that the “hero” image that Rizal has, can be easily broken in order to
satisfy his personal desires, which is marrying Josephine Bracken. In analyzing Rizal’s
biography, Rizal can be considered as a perfect human who cannot be swayed by emotional
tragedies. However, according to Santos (2011), Rizal was not perfect and he wanted to
settle all his conflicts when he dies. The same source also stated that the retraction of Rizal
won’t render his works useless. With this, I believe that even if Rizal displayed a strong
personality, it is possible that he has flaws in some aspects of his life. Rizal’s contributions to
the country still qualify him as a hero. The retraction still has an effect to Rizal’s image, but I
think that this doesn’t apply to Rizal’s works and principles. He simply did this for the sole
purpose of marrying his loved one and settling all the conflicts in his life. His stand against
the catholic church and the Spaniards, who caused a lot of suffering and emotional tragedy
to Rizal, remains.

One of Rizal’s notable characteristics is his sense of nationalism that endured all throughout
his life. He is against the Spaniards’ rule and he will do anything to make sure that all
Filipinos will share the same thought. With that, the Filipinos will establish their own sense
of nationalism and will most probably take on the same side against the Spaniards. Even if
Rizal was suffering from a lot of emotional tragedies, he was still focused on sacrificing
himself for the nation. However, just like a normal human being, Rizal had his own flaws,
and these could lead to him turning his back on some of his principles. An example is the
retraction of his stand against the Catholic church.

According to “Jose Rizal [The Retraction]” (n.d.), there were four versions of Rizal’s retraction.

 The first text appeared on La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the day Rizal
died.
 The second version appeared on La Juventud, from a writer named Fr. Balaguer.
 The third version, which is the “original” text, was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M.
 The fourth version appeared on El Imparcial a day after Rizal’s death.

According to the same source, there were difficulties in identifying the writer of the
document stating the retraction of Jose Rizal. The receivers of several versions of the
document were unsure if Jose Rizal wrote the document or not. However, Fr. Balaguer
released a notarized testimony containing the witnesses who signed the document with
Rizal. He also explained that the version that he received was from the Archbishop. The
“original” text sparked more doubts on its originality, as there were many differences in the
other versions of Rizal’s retraction (Jose Rizal [The Retraction], n.d.).

In my perspective, this issue is of little importance to the current society. It is true that the
Philippines has several government officials who go back on their word and fail to
accomplish their promises. However, Rizal already achieved many things before retracting.

The main topic that should be discussed in Rizal’s life is the contributions that he did for the
country and how he sacrificed himself for the Filipinos. The retraction of Rizal had a negative
impact towards his image, but in my opinion, Rizal did not go back on his principles. No
human is perfect, and in some circumstances, they might be forced to go back on some of
their principles for their own good. In the case of Rizal, he retracted for the sake of his own
welfare, but this is negligible when compared to his achievements and contributions to the
country.
To retract will go against everything Rizal believed in. But because of love, he may have
done it.

Josephine Bracken wanted to be recognized as Rizal’s legitimate widow. So they have to be

But why did the church keep it a secret? There were some accounts of Rizal’s retraction in
some local and foreign newspapers right after Rizal’s death, but the retraction letter itself
was shown years later. Why was the retraction ‘revealed’ only years after Rizal’s execution?’
If Rizal retracted, they would have shown it to the Spanish authorities to stop Rizal’s
execution. So either the authorities have already decided to kill Rizal no matter what, or
there was no retraction in the first place, or the church simply wanted Rizal to be killed,
retraction or not. After all, heresy or deviation from Church dogma or doctrine should not
be tolerated under any circumstances.

Rizal was executed anyway.

So no, history did not change because of Rizal’s retraction, if there ever was. It was simply so
insignificant compared to Rizal’s role in our history. It is only the Catholic Church that makes
a big deal out of it. Nobody else cares.
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,” 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.
“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.”