Readings in Philippine History Page 1 of 9

Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal

Topic: HISTORIC CONTROVERSIES: RETRACTION OF RIZAL

III. LESSON PROPER

Case 1: Did Rizal Retract?

Background
Jose Rizal is celebrated as a national hero for his writings that aimed to end colonialism and foster
Filipino identity. His most influential works, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, critique the Spanish
friars, who were seen as the main perpetrators of injustice in the Philippines, rather than the Catholic
religion itself. Given Rizal’s commitment to these causes, a document allegedly signed by him shortly
before his execution, known as “The Retraction,” which supposedly renounces his criticisms of the Church,
poses a significant challenge to his revolutionary image.
The authenticity of this retraction is a topic of intense debate among Philippine history enthusiasts
due to its controversial nature and the wealth of literature available. Some argue that the retraction letter,
discovered in 1935 by Father Manuel A. Garcia, is a forgery, suggesting that Rizal never actually
renounced his earlier writings. The term "retraction" refers to the withdrawal of a statement or claim. In this
context, it implies Rizal's possible reconciliation with the Catholic Church and his abandonment of Masonry.
The debate continues as to whether Rizal genuinely retracted his earlier criticisms or if the document in
question was fabricated.
English Translation the Retraction
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. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I
submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority,
make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have
caused and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila, the 29th of December, 1896

Jose Rizal

The Chief of the Picket The Adjutant of the Plaza

Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure

Report of the Press

1. Diario de Manila
Readings in Philippine History Page 2 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
The Diario de Manila reported extensively on José Rizal's retraction just before his execution. The
account, published on December 30, 1896, highlights the key events surrounding Rizal’s final act of
recantation.
2. La Voz Española
La Voz Española, a Manila newspaper, reported on December 30, 1896, that Rizal’s retraction
document had been seen and read by its staff. The paper claimed that Rizal had sent this handwritten
retraction to the Archbishop of Manila.
3. El Imparcial
Published on December 31, 1896, El Imparcial reported a short formula of Rizal’s retraction the
day after his execution. This short formula was said to have been issued by the military authorities.
4. La Juventud (Barcelona)
On February 14, 1897, La Juventud published a version of the retraction attributed to an
anonymous writer who was later identified as Fr. Balaguer. This version was presented as a detailed
account of Rizal's final retraction.

Testimony of Eyewitness: Fr. Vicente Balaguer Llacer, S.J.

Father Vincent Balaguer, a Jesuit priest, was key in trying to reconcile José Rizal with the Catholic
Church before his execution. Balaguer's account is the only eyewitness testimony about Rizal’s retraction
document, but doubts about its authenticity persist. He reported that Rizal engaged in unusual religious
practices, making Balaguer's testimony central to debates about the retraction’s validity.
Fr. Balaguer’s Account (December 29-30, 1896; Notarized in Murcia, Spain on August 8,
1917)
1. Initial Visit to Fort Santiago (Morning of December 29, 1896)
 Visit by Priests: Father Vicente Balaguer and Father Vilaclara visit Dr. José Rizal in his
chapel cell at Fort Santiago around 10 AM.
 Rizal’s Reception: Rizal receives the priests warmly, embracing them.
 Archbishop's Instructions: The Archbishop had instructed that if Rizal converted, he
must first retract his errors publicly before receiving the Sacraments.
 Prepared Retraction: The Father Superior of the Mission brought a concise retraction
document for Rizal, which was approved by the Prelate, although a more extensive one
was promised.
2. Discussion on Religion and Reason
 Questioning Rizal: Father Balaguer asks Rizal to explain his religious views. Rizal
expresses that his rule of faith is based on the word of God as contained in the Sacred
Scripture.
 Debate on Rationalism: Rizal declares himself a rationalist freethinker, rejecting any
criterion of truth other than individual reason.
 Catholic Arguments: Father Balaguer argues against rationalism, emphasizing the
necessity of Catholic doctrine and the impossibility of interpreting the word of God
individually.
3. Rizal’s Emotional Reaction
Readings in Philippine History Page 3 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
 Warning of Damnation: Father Balaguer warns Rizal that if he does not embrace faith, he
will be damned, leading Rizal to tearfully respond that he does not wish to be damned.
 Continued Discussion: The discussion continues until dusk, with Rizal showing some
hope for conversion.
4. Request for the Retraction Formula
 Return to Fort Santiago: Father Balaguer returns to the Fort at night to find Rizal
impatiently waiting for the retraction formula.
 Arrival of the Formula: The formula from the Prelate arrives around 10 PM. Rizal asks for
it insistently.
5. Writing the Retraction
 Rejection of the Initial Formula: Upon hearing the first paragraph, Rizal rejects the initial
formula, stating that its style does not match his own.
 Acceptance of Father Pi’s Formula: Father Balaguer presents a shorter, simpler formula
prepared by Father Pi, which Rizal finds acceptable. Rizal begins to write the retraction
with steady hands, occasionally adding his remarks.
6. Completion and Signing of the Retraction
 Completion: Rizal completes the retraction around 11:30 PM, dating it December 29th.
 Witnesses: The retraction is signed by Rizal, Señor Fresno (Chief of the Picket), and
Señor Moure (Adjutant of the Plaza).
7. Rizal’s Religious Act
 Kneeling Before the Altar: After signing, Rizal kneels before the altar of the Virgin in the
chapel cell.
 Reading the Retraction: In the presence of various officials and religious figures, Rizal
reads the retraction and profession of faith with devotion.
8. Final Testimony
 Personal Testimony: Father Balaguer confirms that he personally witnessed and
participated in these events and testifies to their accuracy under oath.
 Detailed Account: He mentions that he wrote a detailed account of these events on the
day of Rizal's death, which he has preserved and used to recount this narration.
9. Delivery of the Retraction Document
 Delivery to the Palace: Before Rizal's execution at Bagumbayan, Father Balaguer
delivers the retraction document to Father Pio Pi, who then takes it to the Palace and
hands it to Archbishop Nozaleda.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer's Letter to Fr. Pio Pi (July 21, 1910 in Tarrazona, Spain)
1. Purpose of the Letter:
 Fr. Balaguer begins by acknowledging Fr. Pio Pi's work, Dr. Rizal's Christian Death, which
defends Rizal’s sincere conversion and Christian death. He expresses his involvement in
the events surrounding Rizal’s final moments, positioning himself as the best-informed
witness.
Readings in Philippine History Page 4 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
 Fr. Balaguer criticizes Wenceslao Retana’s portrayal of Rizal, accusing the author of
misrepresenting the facts to support anti-Catholic views. He asserts that the book falsely
denies Rizal’s conversion and retraction.
2. Context of Fr. Balaguer’s Interaction with Rizal:
Previous Relationship:
 Balaguer had known Rizal during his exile in Dapitan, where he treated Rizal with respect
and affection, which Rizal reciprocated.
 Rizal called for Jesuit priests during his imprisonment in Manila, requesting to see his
former teachers, including Balaguer.
Initial Encounter in Prison:
 Upon meeting Rizal in prison, Balaguer found him willing to discuss his beliefs. Rizal
expressed a desire to confess, but Balaguer insisted on discussing his errors first.
3. Discussion on Religion:
Rizal’s Beliefs:
 Rizal expressed his reliance on Holy Scripture as his rule of faith, indicating a Protestant-
like belief system.
 Balaguer challenged this, arguing the inconsistency and baselessness of relying solely on
individual reason and rationalism.
Rizal’s Struggle:
 Despite acknowledging the Catholic Church’s authority, Rizal struggled to fully accept it
due to the rationalist influences he had encountered in Europe.
 Balaguer emphasized the necessity of faith, which he explained as a divine grace obtained
through prayer.
4. The Retraction:
Awaiting the Formula:
 Rizal agreed to retract his errors but found the initial retraction formula too lengthy and
stylistically different from his own writing.
 Balaguer presented a simpler version, which Rizal agreed to sign after making some
modifications, particularly regarding his views on Masonry.
Signing the Retraction:
 Rizal signed the retraction, which included a statement condemning Masonry as an enemy
of the Church, although he initially hesitated to make a blanket condemnation of all
Masons.
 After signing, Rizal appeared peaceful, even resting and sleeping soundly.
5. Final Moments and Testimony:
Final Acts of Faith:
 After signing the retraction, Rizal performed various acts of piety, including prayer, reciting
psalms, and expressing forgiveness towards his enemies.
 Balaguer attested to witnessing Rizal’s sincere conversion and Christian death, countering
claims that Rizal’s retraction was insincere.
Reflection on Rizal’s Life:
Readings in Philippine History Page 5 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
 Balaguer reflected on Rizal’s journey from a devout Catholic youth to his later struggles
with faith, influenced by rationalist and Protestant ideas during his time in Europe.
 He argued that Rizal’s true nature was never anti-religious, and that his conversion was
genuine, rooted in his earlier Catholic convictions.
Final Affirmation:
 Balaguer affirmed that Rizal was a good Christian at heart, who desired the welfare and
independence of his country through peaceful means.
 He urged that Rizal’s memory should be honored as that of a devout Christian and a
patriotic hero of the Philippines.
6. Certainty of Rizal’s Conversion:
 Fr. Balaguer expressed full certainty of Rizal’s sincere conversion, challenging anyone
who doubted the authenticity of the events he witnessed.
 He concluded by reiterating that Rizal died a devout Christian, and his legacy should be
remembered accordingly.

Inconsistencies of Fr. Balaguer’s Testimonies

Difference 1896 Testimony 1910 Letter
Description of Balaguer mentions Rizal's rejection of The letter notes that Rizal found the initial
the Retraction the initial retraction formula due to its formula too lengthy and stylistically different,
Formula style, and his eventual acceptance of but it does not specify the exact reasons for
a simpler version prepared by Father Rizal’s rejection or the specifics of the
Pi. simplified version that was ultimately signed.
Signing and Details the signing of the retraction at The letter describes Rizal signing the
Witnesses night with specific witnesses (Señor retraction and appearing peaceful, but does
Fresno and Señor Moure) and not provide details on witnesses or the
describes Rizal’s act of kneeling subsequent religious acts performed.
before the altar afterward.
Certainty of Balaguer testifies under oath to the Balaguer expresses full certainty of Rizal’s
Conversion accuracy of the events, highlighting conversion but does so in a broader context,
his personal witness and involvement. challenging interpretations of Rizal's final
moments and retraction without specific
corroborative details from the December
account.

Rizal’s Holograph
In 1907, there was much skepticism about José Rizal’s retraction due to the disappearance of the
document. Many, including Rizal’s family, doubted its existence and argued that without the document,
there was no proof of his retraction or conversion.
In 1935, Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., discovered the missing document among other papers.
He described it as a significant find for Filipino history, containing Rizal's retraction and other related
documents. The document was initially shown to Monsignor O’Doherty and Manuel Luis Quezon, and then
to Dr. Carlos P. Romulo, the publisher of the Philippine Herald, instead of Teodoro Kalaw, who had
Freemason ties.
Readings in Philippine History Page 6 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
Romulo later presented the document to Kalaw. The Philippine Herald then reported the discovery
with the headline, "Rizal’s Retraction Found."
Teodoro Kalaw, after reviewing the document, expressed his belief in its authenticity but admitted
he was not an expert in handwriting. This led to a formal authentication process. Handwriting experts Dr. H.
Otley Beyer and Dr. Jose I. del Rosario confirmed the document's authenticity, stating it was genuine and
written by Rizal.

Comparing Rizal's Retraction: Balaguer vs. Garcia Versions

Differences Fr. Balaguer’s Copy Fr. Manuel Garcia’s Copy
Textual This version is shorter and simpler, Found in 1935 by Fr. Manuel Garcia in the
Differences focusing on a general renunciation of Archbishop of Manila's archives, this version
errors and a return to the Catholic faith. It is more detailed and explicitly condemns
lacks specific condemnation of particular groups like Masonry, which Rizal is said to
groups or doctrines, including Masonry. have opposed as contrary to Catholic
teachings.
Stylistics The language is straightforward and less This version uses more formal and
Difference complex, potentially reflecting a elaborate language, which some historians
document Rizal might have signed argue makes it less likely that Rizal, a
quickly under pressure. Reportedly, Rizal known writer and critic, would have
rejected an earlier, more complex version approved without changes. Its style
provided by the Church, leading resembles official Church documents,
Balaguer to create a simpler version. raising questions about its authenticity.
Historical Balaguer claimed to witness Rizal Discovered decades later, this version was
Discovery signing this version, but its authenticity is presented as physical evidence of Rizal's
and contested due to the lack of retraction. Its late discovery has led to
Authenticity documentation or reference for many doubts about its authenticity, especially
years after Rizal's death. Initially, it was since it appeared when the Church might
known mainly through oral testimony. have had reasons to support Rizal's
retraction.
Content Emphasizes a broad retraction of errors Focuses on condemning Masonry and other
Focus and a return to the Catholic faith without movements, suggesting a thorough rejection
delving into specific ideologies. It of Rizal's previous beliefs and aligning with
portrays Rizal’s repentance as more the Church’s interest in depicting a complete
personal and sincere. return to orthodoxy.

Doubts in Authenticity
Rafael Palma’s Criticisms and Doubts on Rizal’s Retraction
Rafael Palma criticizes the credibility of the testimonies about José Rizal’s conversion and
retraction, first detailed in "Rizal y su Obra" (1897). Most testimonies come from ecclesiastics and their
supporters, raising questions about their impartiality. Taviel de Andrade, Rizal’s defense lawyer, provides
indirect testimony, which Palma considers less reliable.
Evaluation of Testimonies:
 Palma argues that these testimonies are biased and influenced by Church interests.
 He suggests that the sacred nature of these testimonies does not outweigh the need for
Readings in Philippine History Page 7 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
objective truth.
 The actions of ecclesiastical authorities and the government should align with the belief in
Rizal’s conversion to provide moral evidence.
Evidence Against Conversion:
1. Secrecy of the Document:
 The retraction document was kept secret, with only a few people seeing the original.
 Copies were given to newspapers, but the original remained inaccessible.
2. Denial of Access:
 Rizal’s family was denied access to both the original retraction document and the
certificate of his canonical marriage.
3. Secret Burial:
 Rizal’s body was buried secretly without a proper Catholic funeral.
 He was buried in an unmarked grave, not in the Catholic cemetery of Paco.
 His burial was recorded separately in the burial records, indicating special orders.
4. Lack of Motive:
 Palma questions the motive behind Rizal’s alleged conversion, suggesting it was
unconvincing given his prior convictions and actions.
Palma concludes that Rizal’s conversion was likely a "pious fraud" orchestrated for political
reasons, aimed at bolstering the Church’s prestige. He believes that Rizal’s conversion was intended to
undermine his legacy and diminish his influence, viewing him as a tool for advancing Church interests.
Additional Doubts:
 Ricardo Pascual’s Analysis: Pascual’s book, Rizal Beyond the Grave, questions the
authenticity of the retraction document. He highlights discrepancies in handwriting, letter
forms, and signatures, suggesting that the retraction might not have been genuine.

Austin Coates’s Analysis in Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (1956)

1. Immediate Aftermath of Rizal’s Execution
 Newspaper Reports: On the morning following Rizal’s execution, newspapers in Manila
and Madrid reported that Rizal had retracted his religious errors, renounced freemasonry,
and married Josephine Bracken shortly before his death.
 Publicity Efforts: The announcement was disseminated widely, including to Spanish
consulates abroad, to gain maximum publicity.
2. Reactions and Skepticism
 Public Disbelief: Those familiar with Rizal’s writings and personal acquaintances, mostly
abroad, dismissed the announcement as an ecclesiastical fraud.
 Nature of the Fraud: While acknowledging the fraud, Coates argues that it was not a
deliberate plot by higher ecclesiastical authorities but rather the work of individuals within
the church. The church’s hierarchical nature makes coordinated fraud improbable.
3. Involvement of Father Vicente Balaguer
Readings in Philippine History Page 8 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
 Role of Balaguer: Balaguer, who had a vested interest in the retraction, acted swiftly and
boldly to declare the success of the retraction, which was anticipated by the Archbishop.
 No Signed Document: There was no signed retraction letter. Rizal, knowing the potential
damage, would not have signed such a letter as he felt he had nothing to retract before
God.
4. Evidence and Response
 Lack of Evidence: The Archbishop’s statement would have been backed by a signed
letter if it existed, especially given the Rizal family's request to see it. The absence of this
document led to public skepticism.
 Jesuits’ Disbelief: Jesuits present at the execution, Vilaclara and March, did not believe
in the retraction. If they had been convinced of Rizal’s confession, they would have
ensured he received a Christian burial, which did not happen.
5. Family Reaction
 Rizal Family’s Skepticism: Rizal’s family found it hard to believe the retraction and
marriage claims. They felt that if Rizal had truly retracted, he would have communicated
this to his mother, which he did not.
6. Balaguer’s Account and Errors
 Balaguer’s Self-Promotion: Balaguer’s account, which he began writing on the night of
December 29, was intended to be published anonymously but included self-praise,
revealing his personal agenda.
 Revealed Fraud: Balaguer’s omission of the Ultimo Adios poem from his account was a
significant error. His conclusion that no poem was written exposed his lack of firsthand
knowledge of the events in Fort Santiago during that night.

Recent Document and Perspective Unfolded

In his GMA News Online article titled “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at
pananaw,” Dr. Xiao Chua discussed an analysis of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia report and the copy of De La
Imitacion de Cristo.
1. Cuerpo de Vigilancia
In 2016, Professor Rene R. Escalante uncovered new insights into José Rizal's final hours through
his research on documents from the Spanish intelligence agency Cuerpo de Vigilancia. During a lecture on
August 4, 2016, Escalante presented findings based on a report by Federico Moreno, detailing Rizal's last
day.
According to Moreno's report, Rizal met with Jesuit priests Padre Jose Vilaclara and Padre
Estanislao March, who presented him with a retraction document that Rizal initially refused to sign. After
further discussions and writing, Rizal eventually provided a document to Father March, which was signed
by officials Juan del Fresno and Eloy Moure, who were witnesses to the retraction. The report also notes
that Rizal married Josephine Bracken shortly before his execution.
Notably, the report does not mention Padre Vicente Balaguer, suggesting that Balaguer's testimony
may have been based on secondary sources rather than direct observation. The credibility of Moreno's
account is boosted by the absence of any apparent motive for falsifying the report.
Readings in Philippine History Page 9 of 9
Historic Controversies: Retraction of Rizal
2. De La Imitacion de Cristo
Recently, a copy of "De La Imitacion de Cristo" by Thomas á Kempis, which Jose Rizal gave to
Josephine Bracken on his last visit, was entrusted to the National Museum of the Philippines. Rizal’s
inscription in the book read: “To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine, December 30th, 1896, Jose Rizal.”
This book, which focuses on following Christ’s path, reflects Rizal’s Christian beliefs at the time of his
death.
In addition, Rizal’s final writings emphasize the Christian symbol of the cross. In his last will, Rizal
requested to be buried with a simple marker and a cross. His final poem also mentions the cross,
symbolizing his wish for a Christian burial.
These elements suggest that Rizal intended to die as a Christian. While the question of whether
Rizal’s retraction of his writings against the Church was genuine remains, the new documents and
interpretations may indicate it was.

Retraction and Rizal’s Legacy

The controversy surrounding Rizal's retraction remains unresolved, but many scholars agree that it
does not diminish his heroism. His unwavering love for the country and courageous actions to change its
condition solidified his relevance to Filipinos, inspiring them to continue the revolution that ultimately led to
independence in 1898. As Senator Jose Diokno aptly stated, “Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an
apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino… 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.’”