Answer the following questions:

1. Who are the sources of the conflicting accounts or analyses on the Rizal
retraction?
The first two are the official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were instrumental
in the alleged retraction of Rizal: Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Fr. Pio Pi.
- Fr. Vicente Balaguer is a Jesuit Priest who claimed that he met Rizal hours
before his execution and also the Priest who solemnized Rizal and Bracken’s
wedding.
- Fr. Pio Pi, is a Jesuit Superior allegedly involved in the alleged retraction of Rizal.
The other two are Rizalist scholars who doubted the story of the retraction: Rafael
Palma and Austin Coate’s Critical Analysis
- Rafael Palma is writer, lawyer, educator and a politician. He is the author of the
book Biografia de Rizal sponsored by Commonwealth Government.
- Austin Coate’s an Assistant Colonial Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in
1950 who caught the attention of Rizal’s Retraction.

2. What are their accounts or analyses? How are they similar to and/or different
from one another?
Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s account mostly narrates his claims on what has had
transpired hours before Rizal’s execution in Fort Santiago. Claims are as follows:
1. He managed to persuade Rizal to denounce masonry and return to the Catholic
Fold.
2. He claims to solemnized the marriage of Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
In short, Vicente urged Rizal to retract and profess the Catholic Church. Rizal is a man
of his words so he insisted because what he believes are only what is in the Holy
Scripture. Friar Vicente asked for a copy of a retraction to his superior. But it was so late
before his superior gave him the copy, and Rizal grew impatient. Around 10:00pm, they
sat in the chair and discussed the retraction. Balaguer red the first copy and Rizal
immediately stopped him and said, please do not continue, as it is not how I write. Then
Balaguer red the second copy wrote by Fr. Pio Pi, a more concise and clearer and Rizal
said please do not mind reading all of it as it is how I write while adding some subjects
and phrases. Rizal finished the retraction past eleven of December 29.
It was signed with Dr. Jose Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the Picket and Senor Moure,
adjutant of the Plaza.
3. He said that Rizal knelt down on his feet with the presence of every Priest and friends and
asked for his pause and devotion.
4. He confidently said that he intervened and witnessed it all and put it to his account.
He said that we might not think that he can still remember it after 20 years and an original and
detailed account but he preserved and get all the information from there.

Fr, Pio Pi’s account talks about his involvement on the retraction of Rizal.
His analysis includes:
1. Rizal was placed in the Chapel at December 28. He received a commission from Arch.
Nozaleda for the spiritual care of Rizal. They accepted it eagerly because it was about
reconciling with God and the church plus Rizal is one of their dear pupils, Rizal has nothing but
respect to the Jesuit.

2. Fr. Pio did not visit Rizal but all of the Jesuit Fathers who was accompanying him
when he was at the chapel and those who joined Rizal at Bagumbayan the place of
his execution did. They have the approval of Fr. Pio and kept him informed.
3. Next, he said that there is no difficulty in convincing and persuading Rizal to turn
back to the Church. Rizal discussed it with Fr. Balaguer who was aiming to revive
Rizal’s faith. At the end, Rizal surrendered willingly where he was satisfied with the
facts presented to him.
4. Rizal objected on the first composition presented by Fr. Balaguer sent by the
archbishop. Fr. Pio also made a short yet concise and clear and Rizal accepted it. He
did some modifications on the writings. He wrote it with a steady hand.
5. The retraction were signatured by Chief of Picket, Juan del Fresno and Eloy Moure
as witness.
6. Not satisfied with signing, Rizal without pressure from anyone red his own
retraction and knelt down at the altar.

Fr. Balaguer and Fr. Pio narration are mostly similar. These includes:
1. Rizal did a retraction before his execution.
2. The copies were from the Archbishop and Fr. Pio.
3. Rizal red his own retraction and knelt down.
4. The people who signed in his document are the same.
5. Rizal did choose Fr. Pio’s retraction formula and added some modification with a
steady hand.
6. Fr. Pio did not meet with Rizal in his stay at the chapel.
The difference are as follows:
1. If Balaguer did solemnized their wedding why did Pio did not mention this if Jesuits
fathers are continuously reporting and informing him of the events.
2. Fr. Pio said that it was easy to convince Rizal but in Fr. Balaguer, it seems that he
had an argument with Rizal before totally convincing him to renounce his allegiance
to the church.
This is between the two Jesuit Father’s analysis due to that they have the same
timeframe.
Next is the two Rizalist Scholar where they pointed out why the narration of the two
Jesuit Fathers.
Rafael Palma
He presented numerous rhetorical questions. He said that the declaration and
confession of Rizal cited are those from the Priest and friends.
He said that:
1. Rizal’s retraction and conversion before his execution were all fake.
2. The only testimony that should be consider is Rizal’s defense counsel Tavial de
Andrade but the is that it was a mere hearsay so it doesn’t give any strength or power
to it.
3.Moral Evidence from the authorities and priest should have its accordion to Rizal’s
belief/reason that is why he converted.
4. He said that the acts (from the authorities) do not mean that Rizal reconciled with
the Church judging from the way they treated him after his death.
(Reason/Action by the authorities after his death)
1. The retraction was kept secret and only available for the authorities. Copy was only
given published to newspaper, and the original later found after 30 years.
2. Copies of the retraction and canonical marriage with Bracken were all denied –
requested by Rizal’s family.
3. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; the corpse was delivered to the Catholic Church and
friendly not to Rizal’s family.
4. No mass for Rizal’s soul and funeral were held.
5. If Rizal reconciled, why is he not buried in a Catholic Cemetery in Paco? Instead in
a ground without any cross or stone to mark his grave?
6. The name of Rizal was not in any record in the day of his burial where there were
almost 6 entries, instead it was written in a special page where most people who
suicided or called impenitent and did not receive any spiritual aid are written.
7. No moral motive for the conversion. Rizal was a man of his word and belief, why
will he reconcile with the Church in exchange of a few hours of life? Rizal’s will not
change his mind just because of meeting his former preceptors and teachers which
they did try in Dapitan which they did not obtain any result.
Austin Coates
He researched on everything that has transpired on Rizal’s retraction because of the
issue of pious fraud of the retraction.
1. At the eve of Rizal’s execution, Manila and Madrid newspaper were full of info
about the retraction and abjuration to the Catholic Church.
- In the last hours of his life, he married Josephine Bracken.
- His paper was sent to Spanish consulates for widest publicity.
- For his family and Colleagues after reading his full copy of retraction doubted and
said it was an ecclesiastical fraud.
- Plus, if he really did retract, he would have said something to his mother for a
consolation of his.
2. Fraud was talamak and Rizal knew that the only person capable of this is the Friar
Archbishop.
- They wanted his retraction. Outsiders would see this as a fault of the whole
organization. But it is a doing of only one person and his ideas
(Note: When the church finds it genuine fraud, they have no choice but to protect the
man who spread the fraud.
3. Rizal is confident that doing a retraction will do a damage to him, but he knew to
God he has nothing to retract.
- They did not let Rizal’s family to inspect his retraction.
Finally, Balaguer revealed its own fraud by not mentioning Ultimo Adios which Rizal
wished to write. Plus, he concluded that there was no poem written, revealing that he
was not at that time of Rizal writing a retraction.
Similarities are:
1. The fact that a copy of the retraction and the marriage contract were not given to
Rizal’s family.
2. The retraction was a fraud.
3. Rizal did not die a Christian, due to the fact that he was not given a proper mass
and a burial that has no signs of Catholicism.
4. His writing is not the same with what’s written on the retraction.
5. Balaguer did not mention the last poem which Rizal wrote, Mi Ultimo Adios.
3. Which among the accounts or analyses do you consider the most convincing
and reliable? Why? Research more about these sources to come up with a
sound
answer.
- Of course, it would be Austin Coates’ Analysis where in its latter part revealing the
truth about Balaguer’s absence having no knowledge of Rizal’s last poem, Mi Ultimo
Adios.
-The “original” disappeared right after Rizal was shot, that was 39 years past.
- On May 18, 1935 the lost “original” document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by
the Archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M.
- The newly discovered retraction text document differs significantly from the text
found in the Jesuit’s and the Archbishop’s copies.
- The “original” was the same with what was sent to the Manila newspapers but only
the imitation of it.

4. Analyze each account further. Do you find any loopholes on inconsistencies?

What are those loopholes, if any?
1. Why did Fr. Pio said that it was easy to persuade Rizal? When Rizal is a
man of his words, a man who doesn’t jump to any conclusion without enough reason
to change his mind.
2. Why did Fr. Balaguer create an account of what transpired before Rizal’s
execution years later? When it most important after his death.
3. If Balaguer did solemnized their wedding why did Pio did not mention this if
Jesuits fathers are continuously reporting and informing him of the events.
4. Fr. Pio said that it was easy to convince Rizal but in Fr. Balaguer, it seems
that he had an argument with Rizal before totally convincing him to renounce his
allegiance to the church.
5. Why does Rizal needed a copy of retraction when he can totally do it by
himself?
6. A Christian should be buried in a Catholic Cemetery with its symbols.
 7. Someone sent an exact copy of Rizal’s retraction with Rizal’s sign on it but
both Fr. Pio and Archbishop were ascertained.
8. Finally, why does an organization will tolerate a fraud just because it was
genuine? Like, they should definitely punish once proven instead of tolerating actions
against God.

5. How can these accounts and analyses contribute to your understanding of

the
Rizal retraction?
- Differences and similarities found in these accounts and analysis connects the
dots in investigating and revealing the truth behind fraudulent actions. It gives
us different point of views and opinions. Which gives us the freedom to inspect
its reliability and factuality.