Retraction

of
Rizal

Group 4
 Retraction of Rizal
Information:
The Retraction is a document containing a message that Dr. Jose Protacio Rizal
Mercado Y Alonso Realonda retracted or renounces his Anti-Catholicism
writings and ideals included in his novels.
Origin:
The Retraction was signed by Dr. Jose Rizal.

Rizal’s execution on December 30, 1896 was a major political event, closely
monitored by local and international newspapers at the time. News reports
that day covered not only his execution but also what happened in his prison
cell on the eve of his death.

Fr. Pi instructed the Jesuits (Frs. Vicente Balaguer, Jose Vilaclara, Estanislao March,
Luis Visa, Federico Faura, and Miguel Saderra ) to persuade Rizal to retract his anti-
Catholic teachings as well as his affiliation with the Masons. The Jesuits were supposed
to demand these two things before ministering the necessary sacraments.

According to the account of Fr. Balaguer, there are two templates of

the retraction prepared by the superior of the Jesuit society in the
Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal found the first template unacceptable
because it was too long and its language and style were not reflective of his
personality (Arcilla 1994, 114). So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and offered the
shorter one. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was uncomfortable
with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the
Church.” . Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in
the document. “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and
reprobated by the same Church” After making other minor changes to the
draft, Rizal signed his retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed
it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda

According naman po sa testimony of 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 primar- ily to gather information on the
activities of Katipunan members and supporters. Cuerpo agents were tasked to monitor
the activities of suspected Katipunan members. They were supposed to report all sorts
of rumors, collect news reports, identify the financiers of the Katipunan, compile
revolutionary papers, gather photographs, and intercept mail. The agents were also
instructed to monitor foreigners who were sympathetic to the Katipuneros. 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. )

. Thereis a partial unreleased documents from Cuerpo De

Vigilancia that was discovered and examined, from there, it stated
that one of the spy group agents, Federico Moreno, who happened to
be the guard of the cell where Rizal was kept, documented what was
happening in the last 24 hours prior before the execution.

,in other words po isa na namang “additional independent

eyewitness account.” According to the statement, Rizal wrote a paper
he heard of the retraction. Also mentioned were two Jesuit priests
who entered Rizal's prison — Father Jose Vilaclara and Father
Estanislao March, and two others, Juan del Fresno and Eloy Moure.
It mentions that when Fr. March returned at 3 o’clock in the
afternoon, Rizal handed him a document. Then it says that Rizal,
together with Juan del Fresno and Señor Maure, signed the document.
In the retraction document that Fr. Gracia found in 1935, one sees that
the three persons Moreno identified.

were signatories of the document. Moreno did not provide details on the
contents of the document, probably because he was witnessing the event from a
distance. But that did not prevent him from presupposing that the document was
Rizal’s retraction letter. He simply wrote, “It seems this was the retraction
[parece que el escrito era la retractación].”

Here is a part of the report that have been translated into English from Spanish:

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed
him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del
Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They
entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused
had written. It seems this was the retraction.

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 meet- ing
that he presented the retraction template to Rizal but the latter did not sign. Moreno
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 after- noon. 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 Señ or Andrade, Señ or Maure, and Frs. March and Vilaclara. Again,
Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of the meeting was 9 o’clock and not
shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report mention that they discussed
issues concerning faith and the retraction. The narrative is short and ends with Rizal
going to bed.
Rizal wanted to empha- size that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism
and that Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The
Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I
abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church”
(Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed his
retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn
submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda (Guerrero 1971, 459).

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, 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

Perspective:
So for the perspective, Dr. Jose Rizal is a patriot and the one who wrote the
Noli me tangere and el filibusterimo and his essay towards La Solidaridad. His
essays criticize not the catholic religion, but the friars, the main agents of
inequality in the Philippine society.
.. Dr. Jose P. Rizal became a hero because of his writings against the Spanish
colonists ideas and that he wanted to aspire the Filipinos to open their minds
and build the country as one great nation.
He was a multifaceted intellectual and a political activist, best known for his
political writings that inspired the Philippine revolution and ultimately led to
his execution by the Spanish colonizers. The document The Retraction of Rizal
was created in the perspective of a leader of the reformist movement.

Rafael Palma, former president of the University of the Philippines and a prominent
Mason, disputed the veracity of the document because it did not reflect Rizal’s true
character and beliefs. He regarded the resurrected retraction story as a “pious fraud”
(Nidoy 2013). Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual, one of the persons who was given permission by
the archbishop to examine the document, wrote: “it is better that such document should
not have been discovered at all” (Pascual 1959, 4). Pascual scrutinized the document
thoroughly and came up with a book that questioned its authenticity. First, he
scrutinized its handwriting and compared it with other documents that Rizal had
written days before he was executed. These included the Mi Ultimo Adios, the letter he
wrote on December 15, 1896 titled “To My Countrymen,” the Defensa that he wrote on
December 12, 1896, and the dedicatory note found on the title page of the book
Imitacion de Cristo, which Rizal gave to Josephine Bracken. Pascual identified
inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks used, the font
of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters were formed (Pascual 1959,
7–30). All these observations led him to conclude that the newly found retraction
document was a forgery.

Another objection raised against the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction was the
differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version of the retraction
that Fr. Balaguer had presented. In the 1935 document cualidad is spelled with a “u,”
while in Fr. Balaguer’s version the spelling is calidad (without the “u”). Second, Fr.
Balaguer’s version does not have the word Catolica after the word Iglesia. In the 1935
and the newspaper versions, the word Catolica is present. Third, in the Jesuits’ copy the
third Iglesias is preceded by the word misma. This word cannot be found in the 1935
document. Fourth, with regard to paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer’s version does not begin
the second paragraph until the fifth sentence while the 1935 version starts the second
paragraph immediately after the second sentence. Finally, the text of the 1935
retraction has 4 commas, while the text of Fr. Balaguer’s has 11 (Retana 1907, 426–
427).

Pascual concluded that the 1935 retraction document was a forgery, but he was not able to
identify the forgers. It was 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 Abads, was among the celebrant’s
well-wishers. On this occasion, Roque disclosed that he had

Jose Rizal, Phil. Revolution, Cuerpo de Vigilancia 377

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. For several 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 friars.
He thought of keeping one for himself, but when he was searched upon departure, his
copy was taken from him (Runes and Buenafe 1962, 107–128).

The saga of the retraction controversy continued even after World War II. It sur- faced
again as a side issue when the Rizal Law was under consideration during the 1950s.
Known historians, such as the Jesuits Horacio de la Costa, John Schumacher, and Jose
Arcilla, insisted that Rizal had retracted. The Masons, on their part, remained adamant
in their stand and refused to accede to the arguments and evidence presented by pro-
retraction advocates. Since there was no new evidence or primary sources presented,
the debates during the postwar era were mostly philosophical and interpretative in
nature.
 Context :
The Retraction of Rizal was created on December 29, 1896. It was when Philippines was
under the colonization of the Spaniards. Filipinos are deprived of education and are treated as
indios. Dr. Jose Rizal created the La liga filipina aiming to defend the people and country
against violence and injustices, mutual protection in every want and necessity and to study
and apply reforms to the society.
Rizal advocates equal rights and education for filipinos. In order to make effects to the
changes he returned to the philippines. His writings (novels) helped the movements and he
became an enemy of the spaniards. Also, the Katipunan has arisen.
After his release in the Dapitan, Rizal was arrested en route because he was suspected,
incorrectly, of being an ally of the Katipuneros. In the trial Jose rizal was convicted of
rebellion, conspiracy, and sedition and sentenced to death. A day before his execution, the
death sentenced was read to him. The morning before the execution he married Josephine
Bracken because it was said that he signed a retraction.
Audience:
The document was intended for the Catholics, Jesuits or Priests, Friars and people during the
Spanish era.
Motive:
Dr. Jose 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 government.
Sa paglipas ng panahon, binigyan na ng mga Espanyol ang Indio ng masasamang
kahulugan: mga táong walang saysay, tamad, pangit, unggoy, walang pinag-aralan, marurumi, at
iba pang panlalait.

The controversy over Rizal’s retraction is a recurring issue in Philippine history because the
protagonists are members of well-established institutions that have been actively involved in
the writing of Philippine history. The debate has persisted for more than 100 years because
succeeding generations of protagonists took turns reviving it for various reasons. Since each
side argued with so much interest at stake, each ended up uncom- promising and close-minded
to the evidence presented by the opponent. In cases like this, it is ideal to look for evidence
outside the circle of the interest groups involved. It is in this context that Federico Moreno’s
report plays a vital role. Moreno’s account may be considered more credible than the affidavits
and evidence given by the Catholic Church and the Masons. Moreno was a neutral eyewitness
and had no interest in pro- tecting this particular issue. His presence in Fort Santiago was a call
of duty, and the report that he submitted was a requirement connected with his job.

Why it is significant?
The significance of the retraction to the Philippine history if it was really true is that
maybe it may change of how people can view rizal as our national hero but then again
for me wala naman po siya ganun ginawa sa reputasyon ni rizal and it doesn’t apply to
rizals works and principle. Because whether he retracted or not po it still didn’t change
the fact that his works led us filipino people fight for our rights, and his works stirred
the nationalism and patriotism in our hearts us a filipino people that made us fight our
own country for our own people. And also it didn’t change the fact the he is one of the
reason why filipinos made revolution to free the country, to give us freedom that we
yearn, and secure a brighter future for future generation.

Bakit kailangan itong pagaralan?

For me it is important to study and know this retraction in order to understand or para
mas maintindihan natin ang buhay ng ating pambansang bayani. As well as the
retraction challenges us on how we perceived dr. jose rizal mula sa mga aralin natin sa
kanyang pagkabata hanggang sa mga huling sandal ng kanyang buhay.

What are the proofs that rizal retracted or not?

Statements from the priests(father vicente Balaguer and fr pio pi) around him before he died
claimed that he retracted and the documents that were retrieved pertains to the retraction.
And si Rafael palma and Austin coates po ung may critical analysis that rizal did not
retracted.

Actually wala naman po sinasabi si rizal na mali laban sa simbahan pero sa mga prayle at pari
marami po. Di po galit si rizal sa simbahan at sa pagiging katoliko niya pero tinutukigsa niya
ang mga pari sa mga Gawain nilang immoral na pinakita niya sa libro niyang noli at el fili.

Sources contain the information about the past through which historians base their
interpretations on. It provides a factual basis to the works of historians, ensuring that what
they add to the body of knowledge is indeed based on what actually happened and not just a
made up story. But then, not all sources retrieved should be automatically considered as
factual. They have to be subjected to internal and external criticisms first before they can be
considered as valid and reliable sources.

"Upon researching, do you find parts that are difficult to find or determine? Can
you explain what are those and why?"
"Do you think using the IOPCAM analysis, suits the best for your historical
research?"
"do you think the boxer codex is a mirror of the past?"
"Why do you think the source of the boxer codex was created?"
"What is the significance of the boxer codex to Philippine
History"
"How is the Boxer Codex important to the historians and anthropologists?"
"What do you think is the significance of the boxer codex to our subject
Readings in the Philippine History?”
What are the different Philippine ethnic groups that were depicted in the
1595 Boxer Codex? Are there changes in the way they dress or changes in
superstitions presented in the manuscript now? Or how did the superstition
affect us until now?
“Upon the analysis of the Boxer Codex, do you ever wonder
“do you think the boxer codex is a mirror of the past?
Why or why not?”
ethnic groups across Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Micronesia at the time of the
early Spanish contact.
Upon the analsysis niyo of the boxer codex, Are there changes or meron
kayong kaitang change in the way they dress or changes in superstitions
presented in the manuscript now?
Though portions of the Codex have been translated in the past, Turley
and Souza’s is the first complete transcription and translation of the
ancient text. This is despite the Codex’s importance to historians,
anthropologists and philologists as a primary resource. And those
portions that were translated after Boxer’s were found severely lacking.
“There’s a big chunk about the Philippines. The translation was almost
laughable, it was so bad,” Turley said, giving an example. “It was done
in the early ’60s, and it stood. No one ever really commented on how
bad it was. They just assumed that [the translators] knew what they were
doing. I think I was the first one to ever go in and study and see what the
manuscript actually said. And I was shocked because it was so far off.”

With the help of research students, Turley and Souza transcribed the
entirety of the manuscript and translated it, even those portions that
Boxer had previously translated himself, giving it a consistent tone and
checking for accuracy every step of the way. Turley and Souza were
intent on avoiding the mistakes of the past. Turley said, “Now, for the first
time, people can read and access it in an accurate way.”

Describing the project’s importance, Turley said, “It appeals to a lot of

people in different fields. This material is important for historians and
anthropologists. It’s linguistically interesting, so it attracts Spanish
philologists. Right there you have enough people in a scholarly
community that this will be a pretty important referenc