Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND

CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

TOPIC: RETRACTION OF RIZAL

INTRODUCTION

Did Rizal die anti-catholic, propagandist and mason or did he denounce his membership before
his execution? Is his retraction something he willfully did or something that he was forced to do
in complacency to his old professors? Is the reraction document genuine or not will the image of
Rizal as a hero change if he made the retraction letter?
These are some of the crilieal questions posed by historians, clergy and other interested
individuals regarding the subject of controversy which is the Retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal.
The Retraction means that Rizal withdrew his membership in the masonry and all his critics
against the Catholc church. This is contained in the statement, "I retract with all my heart
whatever in my words, writings, publicatons and conduct have been contrary tomy character as a
son of the Catholic Church.", which made some historians believed that Rizal had retracted. For
many decades, historians and religious people debated about the Retraction of Rizal making it a
favorite subjeet matter of academicians and Catholic defenders. It is actually the most
controversial and talked about issue in Philippine history and the debate still continues.
This reading presents the clashing arguments regarding the retraction letter of Rizal. It presents
two sides of the story from several prominent Philippine historians afiirmng and negating the
authenticity of Rizal's retraction. Some evidences are first-hand while others are second-hand.
Some evidences may be credible, convincing and scientific while others are biased, subjective
and unempincal. It is hoped that after showing the contrasting claims that students are able to usc
their analytical thinking and make a stand on which argument to believe.
For this topic, a text by Eugene A. Hessel entitled Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate is
presented. It was selected irom among the many publications regarding this issue because it
"summarizes all the arguments either n favor or against it. The author gathered the threads of
claims and disclaims together and woven them into a coherent sumnmary.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading the text, each student will be able to:

1. Explain the common attitudes toward the Retraction and its bearing on the life and character
of Rizal;
2. Discuss the two significant points ot the Retraction letter;
3. Examine the major arguments for and against the Retraction;
4. Enumerate and discuss the three stages ot the Rctraction debate;
5. Make a personal stand about the issue after weighing the evidences and arguments.
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

PRESENTATION OF LEARNING CONTENT

Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate

Eugene A. Hessel

This is a debate in which this lecturer hcsitates to take part. For onc thing, I believe there are
aspects in the life and thought of Dr. José Rizal which are of far greater significance. I have
already expressed this view in my book The Retigious Thought of José Rizal, ' and I shall have
more to say about it in the concluding part of this lecture. It is most unfortunate that some people
speak and write about the Retraction without really knowing what Rizal did or did not retract,
i.., not sufficient attention has been given to the mature, quite unifom and systematic religious
thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has been done first can one evaluate the meaningfulncss of
the Retraction. For some people to retract would mean little , for they have so little to retract.
This was not so of Rizal, and I have tried to make this clear in my previous lectures and writing.
It is the life and thought of Rizal duringmhis mature years which are of primary interest to me,
and not what happened during the last day of his life.
Another reason hesitate to enter the "debate" is that some of the protagonists have generated
more heat than light. There has been a great deal of "argumentum ad hominem, i.e., vitnolic
attacks upon opponents in the debate. I do not wish to engage in such. I have respect for a
number of Roman Catholic defenders of the Retraction. I treasure a letter received recently from
one who has wtten four books defending it. He says, after reading my book, "I wish to
congratulate you for your..impartial appraisal of the man [Dr. Rizal]". Father Manuel A. Garcia,
the discoverer of the Retraction Document, has been most gracious in personally helping me
with my research.
Recently, however, I have been looking into the question of the Retraction with Some interest
and I intend to continue my research. I find that there are four common attitudes toward the
"Retraction and its bearing on the lifc and character of Dr. Rizal:

1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the" converted"
Rizal. This is the official Roman Catholic position. In the only "official " book dealing with all
aspects of the Retraction ("official in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop
Santos), Rizal 's Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface:
Rizal s glory as a scholar, as a poct, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may some day
fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having foumd at
the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the
Lite, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY.
This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in
1956 and signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
. . We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown
the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he
courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, "whatever in his works, writings,
publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic
Church.

2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a free thinker and
unbeliever"; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman
Catholic position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which
this thesis is based is not true.
3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre
retraction Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is
held by many students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not
necessarily follow, This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction.
4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal's life and thought is desirable. In the interest of
truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an
obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research
continues, fancy may yet become acknowledged fact.
Before we proceed further it would be well to say something about bibliography and method.
More than twenty books and pamphlets, in addition to numerous articles have been surveyed in
the course of this study. A number of writings on the Retraction merely repeat the arguments of
earlier ones and add nothing new, Others are more sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening.
But something of value has been gained from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two
general categories: biography, and works dealing specifically with the Retraction. Among the
biographers, Gucrrero, Laubach," and Palma have given the most adequate treatment oi the
Retraction, the irst accepting it and the other two rejecting it. Of works dealing specitically with
the Retraction, the most objective scholarly and complete are hose by lrascual, arguing agamst
the Retraction, and Father Cavanna in its favor. As an almost complete compendium ol
information and arguments pro and con there is no book to date which is the equal of that of
Father Cavanna. The second edition has 353 pages of text, appendices, änd bibli0graphical
entries totaling some 123 items. (A new edition just off the press is enlarged further but could not
be utilized. Incidentally, Father Cavanna draws heavily upon the documents and information
supplied by Father Manuel A. Garcia.) Amongst other witers consulted, special indcbtedness to
Collas," Ricardo Garcia, and Runes and Buenafe should be mcntioned. Garcia is a prolific
popular writer in defense of the Retraction; the other two oppose it. All tend to chiefly
summarize what has previously argued although Runes introduces several new arguments which
will be examined in due course. Much research time has been spent in running down various
versions of the Retraction Document appearing in books, articles, newspapers, etc. in writing
letters to clarify or verify certain points, and in conferring with individuals. Unlortunately, many
documents were destroycd during the war.
The story of the Retraction has been told and retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours
of Rizal were published on Dec. 30, 18896 or the days shortly thereafter. However, the first
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
detailed account came out in a series of anonymous articles in the Barcelona magazine, La
Juventud," issues of January 15 and 31 and Feb. 14, 1897, republished some months later in a
booklet entitled La Masonización de Filipinas --Rizal y su Obra. Some thirteen years later,
Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J., the Jesuit priest who claimed to have secured Rizal's Retraction,
asserted that this account was his work which he originally wrote "that very same night of
December 29, 1896." Subsequently, on August 8, 1917, Father Balaguer repeated his story in a
notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain. The only detailed account is that by Father Pio Pi
Y Vidal, S. J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines in 1896, who published in Manila in
1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal and confirmed his account in a Notarial Act signed in
Barcelona, April 7, 1917. In brief, the Jesuit account is this: On the 28th of December (the very
day Governor General Polaviéja ordered the death sentence) ATCnoishop NOZalcda
commissioned the Jesuits to the spiritual care of Rizal, indicating tunat it woula probably be
necessary to demand a retraction and suggesting that both he and Father P'i would prepare
"formulas." Thus, about 7:00 a.m. of the 29th, two of the Jesuits arrived at the temporary chapel
where Rizal was to spend his last 24 hours. Durng this day various Jesuits came in and out
together with other visitors, including members ot his own family. Rizal also took time to write
letters. Arguments with Rizal, with Father Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk
by which time, according to the Father's account, Rizal was already asking for the formula of
retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it
about 11:30 p.m. The Retraction contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (I
abominate Masonry") and (2) a repudiation of "anything in my words, writings, publications, and
conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church," together with
the statement "I believe and profess what it teaches and I submit to what it demands." During the
night there followed, according to the Jesuit Accounts, several Confessions (some say five),
several hearings of Mass, a number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional
booklets intended tor various members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts,
some fifteen minutes betore he was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage
ceremony perfortmed by Father Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. So much for the story
in outline. Details, including the text of the Retraction, will be presented and discussed later.
Before assessing the validity of the account a brief word should be said about the history of the
controversy concerning the Retraction. One way to arrive quickly at an overall view of the
course of the debate is to read the titles and dates of pamphlets and books dealing with the
subject such as are contained in any good bibliography of Rizal. A seemingly accurate
description of the history of the struggle n convenient form is found in Part II of Cavanna's book
which reports the vanous attacks down to the publication in 1949 of Ozaeta's translation of
Palma's biography of Rizal. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the
Retraction, and in doing so makes rcference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the
Debate lasted for some twelve ycars atter Rizal's death, and at lcast overtly was wholly one-
sided. Cavanna aptly calls this period one of Concealed Attacks. The newspapcrs published the
reports given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the Jesuits published a
quite complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. ln successive years other
books and booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating in
the famous full length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who ncorporatcs the Jesut
account. Yet even in the carly years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in
objection, quite
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control. Cavanna
himself ists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the
retraction. Their main point, stated or implied, 1s that the Rctraction is not in keeping with the
character of Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of
his own biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29,
1908. Although still not denying the retraction, he adds:

... The fact is that influenced by a serices of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal
circumstances, Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and
which no one has seen.... The conversion of Rizal. . was a romantic concession of the
poet, it was not a meditated concession of the philosopher.

We may accept Cavanna's dating of the second period as covering from 1908-1935. This is the
time of vigorous open attacks, many of them by Masons. Ever Since, somewhat unfortunately, an
active battle has been waged between Roman Catholic and Masonic protagonists. Early in the
period, in 1909 to be exact, Father Pi published his booklet La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor
Rizal. This was answered three years later in a long article by Hermenegildo Cruz in which
several arguments often repeated subsequently were presented, chief of them being: Where is the
Retraction Document? The debate drew forth in 1920 the most serious Roman Catholic answer
until recent times, namely Father Uonzalo Ma. Piñana's Murio el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente?
Which is chiefly significant because it reports a series of notarized accounts made in the years
1917-1918 by the chief witnesses." The period seemingly closes with victory for the defenders of
the Retraction, for after many challenges to show the actual Document of Retraction on May 18,
1935 it was "discovered" by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., while he was archdiocesan archivIst
and] was busily sorting through a pile of documents |so] that they might be arranged in orderly
fashion in their new fireproof vault. On June 16th the news was released by The Philippine
Herald.

I would date the last period of the Debate from 1935 until the present. This is the time when, in
the light ot the Retraction Document discovery, major and minor works have been written on the
subJect of Rizal's hfe and thought as a whole and on the Retraction in particular. This leads us
naturally fo an assessment of the chief arguments pro and con which have been raised over the
years and systematically dealt with in the last thirty years.

As one examines the issues brought torth in the debate, a tabulation of the chief ones raised Since
1955 (the year of the discovery of the alleged Retraction Document) indicates that a sort of
impasse has been rcached. Similar points are n0w made over and over again. In what follows I
shall not devote myself to presenting detailed answers to detailed arguments. This has becen
done in book after book. Furthermore, as any college debater or trial lawyer knows, it is possible
to present an objection to almost any statement, and the effect so far as the audience is concerned
is often the result of a subtle turn of phrase or an appeal to a bit of loyalty or sentiment. Rather,
we shall be concerned with the thrust of certain main positions which taken individualy and in
their accumulative significance serve to swing the weight of unbiased conviction from one side
to the other. Finally, we shall offer some suggestions for escaping from the present stalemated
debate. What, then, are the major arguments for the Retraction? Althougn the arguments had
been presented by otherS before him, Father Lavanna gives a well organized summary which is
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
adopted by most subsequent detenders. I he points wnen Toltow are based on Cavanna with
some minor modifications:

1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction "Document 1S considered the chief witness
to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact ract, since then, by words or implication , the
defenders have said: the burden of proof now rests with those who question the
Retraction,"
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event , of eye-witnesses, and other"
qualified witnesses," i.e. those closoly associated with the events such as the head of the
Jesuit order, thc archbishop, etc.
3. "Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity" reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as
attested by "withesses and a Sigmed Praycr Book. This is Very strong testimony of true,
for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case
of the Retraction statement but specilically to a number ol belieis which he had previously
repudiated. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the
Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. H took the prayer book, read slowly those
acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying Credo" (I believe) he signed the acts with his
name in the book itself." What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the "Act
of Faith.
I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy
Ghost, Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second
Person of the Most Holy 'Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the most pure womb
of the Virgin Mary, suffcred, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He
will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they
have kept his holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because
they have not kept them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus
Christ are really present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the
Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her
natural life conceived without the stain of ornginal sin. I believe that the Roman
Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head ot the Church, is the Pastor and Teacher
of all Christians; that he is infallible when ne teaches doctrines of faith and morals
to be observed by the universal church and that his definitions are in themselves
binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and
Apostolic Church believes and teaches since God who can neither deceive nor be
deceived, has so revealed it; and in this faith I wish to live and die.

The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the
Retraction.
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.
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as "irrefutable facts" .
But to call them "facts is to prejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a Retraction Document
was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document actually prepared and signed by
Rizal is the question at issue. As we shall soon see, many opponents of the Retraction use the
Document as their chief argument. So also, there is a signed Prayer Book. But a number have
asked, is this really Rizal's signature? Granted, ror sake of argument, that it is, what is the
significance of a mere signature apart from the testimony of Father Balaguer as to why Rizal
signed?

What about the testimony of the "witnesses?" We may dismiss the newspaper reports as being
less significant though of corroborative value . Their news was secured from others. One reporter
got into the chapel during part of the twenty-four hours. He states that "studies, frolics of
infancy, and boys stories, were the subject of our chat." As for the actual eye witnesses, some
eight testified to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to
having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government
officials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes
froni notarized statements in 1917 or later. Having made these remarks, it is none the less true
that the testimony is impressive. It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with a few
sarcastic comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be
better judged only after weighing this evidence over against the arguments rejecting the
Retraction.

What is the case against the Retraction?

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a
significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the
document itself.

a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific study
leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R.
Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which
he incorporated in his book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half dozen
unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of
variations with the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most
significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the slant of the letters in the standard
writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction
Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the
Document; (2) there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with
reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most
significant being indications of "stops which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the
fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; (4) there are
marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all
three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual's conclusion that
this is a one-man document."
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis
which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although
most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to specifically
prepare. Dr. del Rosario's main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough
of Rizal's writings by way of comparison. On the bass of a larger selection of standards he is able
to challenge a number of Pascual's statements although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del
Rosario's own data. Dr. del Rosario’s conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine.

TEXT OF THE RETRACTION TEXT OF THE RETRACTION AS

DOCUMENT DISCOVERED BY FATHER REPORTED BY FATHER BALAGUE IN
GARCIA IN 1935 IN THE ARCHIVES OF HIS NOTARIAL ACT OF AUGUST 8,
THE ARCHDIOCESE 1917

Me declare católico y en esta Religion en que

naci y me eduque quiero Vivir y morir. Me declare catolico y en esta rengion en que
naci y me eduque quiero Vivir y morir. Me
Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis retracto de tod0 Corazon de cuanto en mis
palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha palabras, escritos, impress y conducta ha
habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la
lglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella lglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella ensena, y
ensena y me someto a cuarto ella manda. me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la
Abomino de a Masoneria, como enemiga que Masonerla, como enemiga que es de la lglesia,
es de la y como Sociedad prohibida por la
giesia, y como sociedad prohibida por la misma lglesia. Puede el Parclado
Iglesia. Puede el Parelado Diocesano, como diocesano, como Autoridad superior
Autoridad superior Eclesiastica hacer publica eclesiastica, hacer publica esta
esta manilestacion espontanea mia para reparar manifestacion, espontanea mia para
el cscandalo que mis actos hayan podido reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan
causar y para que Dios y los hombres me podido causar y para que Dios y Los hombres
perdonen. me perdonen.

José Rizal
Manila, 29 de Deciembre de 1896.
El Jefe del Piquete El ayudante uplaze

Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure Esta... retractación la firmaron con el Dr. Rizal,
el Sr. Fresno Jefe del Piquete y el Senor
*Based on a photostat of the Retraction in Moure, Ayudantede la Plaza.
the files of Rev. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. seen
by this lecturer. * Cf. Gonazlo Ma. Piñana, Murió el
Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? (Barcelona:
Editorial Barcelonesa, S.A., 1920), p. 155)
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the docunient itself is based on the
principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, 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." Since this kind of criticism is related to
my work in Biblical shudics I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which
consists first of all in gathering togcther all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from
my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been,
discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant
differences. The one fom is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other
early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, "Iglesia
Catolica," and in line 10 "la Iglesia." The other form of the text is much more common
beginning with the text of Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6
there is the single word "Iglesia" and in place of "la lglesia" there Appears “la misma lglesia”.
There also tend to be consistent differences between the two types of the text in the use of capital
letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the original.

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. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in
the "formula" which he supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal
writing out his own, but he didn't accurately note them all. On the other hand, it would have
seemed that the copy would have been carefully compared at the very moment or at some other
early date before the “original” disappeared. It 1s not surpnsing that some have wondered if the
Retraction Document was fabricated from the "wrong" version of a retraction statement issued
by the religious authorities.

c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to
the Retraction itself is that its content 1s 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."

d. Finally, there is the “confession” of "the forger. Only Runes has this story. He and his co-
author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a
party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman
Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a
retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to
forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the
capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador
Dionisio, former provincial seeretary of Nueva Ecija, who aas also present when Roque told his
story and contirms it.

On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable
ground to at least question the Retraction Document.
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
(2) The second main lne 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 wiiters
beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

a. 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."

b. No efiort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal's death was due to political factors and with this the
religious authorities could not interfere.

c. Rizal's burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery and
the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page
where at least one other admifted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is
Contlicting).

It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated?
Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To
top the rebuttal, Rizal's "Christian Burial Certificate" was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the
very same file with the Retraction Document! The penmanship is alamitied by all to be by an
amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question.

d. There is no marriage certificate or public rccord ot the marriage ot Rizal with Josephine
Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincng.

e. Finally, Rizal's behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24
hours in particular does not point to a converston. Whether written during the last 24 hours or
somewhat carlier, Rizal's Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal's thought.
The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious
turmoil. in the evening Rizal's mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about
the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal's atitude was
beginning to change and he was asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to
point out that all the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in
the minds of many.

3) The third chief line of argum ent against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This
argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with
the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every significant
statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed to many, including the present
lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character and faith of Rizal as well as
inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought.

First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted with the facts
of his life knows this is so. Thirty-five is not exactly young and Rizal was far more mature than
the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have been shocked into abnormal
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some time that the authorities would
destroy him, and oven the priests admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a
type ot behavior consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature yearsworked,
closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the scaffold. Their
behavior was restrained and consistent would have expected Rizal's to be the same. Furthermore,
in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a "believer." In my book and elsewhere I have
argued strongly that Rizal was not a "free-thinker" in the usual sense of the word. History is full
of the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most siynificant meaning of true
conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas.

Rizal's conversion 1s also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not as though
Rizal had becen bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of Europe (and by
antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who worked hand-in-
hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought through his religious
convictions. As I have written elsewhere: "The fact that similar views are found from writing to
writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such
theology as he had was fully his own....Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of
Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for another.

So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is
perhaps evident on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that themquestion is
settled. What, then, remains to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for
further investigation?

(1) Let a new effort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future
discussion. It is time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the "Protestant," the "Masonic,"
or the "Roman Catholic" view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves.

(2) Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scientific analysis. This suggestion is not
new, but in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year
since its discovery it would be fitting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of
good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who
favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in ether case the cause of truth will gain. I would
suggest for this analysis a govermment bureau of investigation in some neutral country such as
Switzerland or Sweden.

Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself
would not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study.

(3) As a third step, then, to be undertaken only after a new evaluation of the Retraction
Document, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other “documents”
pertaining to Rizal's case to be investigated, i.e. "the burial certificate" the signature of the Prayer
Book, and perhaps also certain other retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of
Dr. Rizal's.

(4) The story concerning the "forger" should be investigated further.

 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

(5) If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a
moratorium on further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal's life and thought, in
particular to his mature religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José
Diokno:

Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his
greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. .
.Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal: the hero who courted death *to prove to those who
deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs"...

Application

Do this:
1. Watch the film "Rizal", Be able to critic the movie particularly on the last days of Rizal in Fort
Santiago before his execution. Determine whether the movie has captured the details about the
Retraction Letter of Rizal. Write your critic on the space provided below.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2. In your own idea, is Rizal a revolutionist or reformist? Why?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Feedback

Read and analyse each statement below. On the space before each number, write A if the first
statement is correct, B if the second statement is correct, C if both statements are correct and D it
both statement are incorrect. Write the letter of your choice on the space provided before each
number.

_____1. A. The official position of the Roman Catholic is to remember and honor Rizal as the
"converted hero.
B. The first detailed account about the Retraction came out in a series of anonymous
articles in the Barcelona magazine, "La Juventud," in 1897.

_____2. A. Father Manuel A. Garcia *discovered" the actual Document of Retraction on

May 18, 1935.
B. The Retraction letter has more than one copy.
C.
_____3. A. Based on evidences, Rizal was not maTied to Josephine Bracken in accordance to the
rites of "Roman Catholic Marriage
B. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery because there are significant
variations in the way individual letters are formed.

_____4. A. The second period of the Retraction Debate is called "Concealed Attacks"
B. According to Cavanna, the last period of the Retraction Debate is from 1935 until the
present.

_____5. A. For the pro-Retraction letter, the Retraction "Document is considered the chiet
witness to the reality of the Retraction itself.
B. According to the pro-retraction camp, Rizal signed a Prayer Book which was
among the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction Letter.

_____6. A. The anti-retraction camp noted the differences between the text of the document
found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by
Father Balaguer.
B. According to Runes, a certain Antoni0 K. Abad made several copies of a retraction
document.

_____7. A. The document of Retraction was made public until 1935.

C. Members of Rizal's family did not see the Retraction Letter.

_____8. A. Rizal's burial was kept secret and he was buried outside the inner wall of the
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Paco cemetery.
B. Rizal's "Christian Burial Certificate was diseovered on May 18, 1935 in the
very same file with the Retraction Document.

_____9. A. According to the anti-retraction camp, there is no marriage certificate or public

record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken.
B. According to Father Balaguer, Rizal asked for the formula of the retraction letter.

_____10. A. Rizal died at the age of forty.

B. Rizal's Ultimo Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal's thought and does
not indicate conversion during his last hours,
 Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

REFERENCES:

Tamayao, Antonio., Readings in Philippine History

Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Unit III: “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY