GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

MODULE 2
ONE PAST, MANY HISTORIES
LESSON 9
THE RETRACTION OF DR JOSE RIZAL
Expected outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, students are expected to
1. Identify the conflicting views about the controversial retraction of Dr Jose
Rizal.
2. Examine each source in its account of the letter and intention of Rizal to
withdraw and apologize for his statements against Spain and the Catholic
church.
3. Determine the significant impact of Rizal’s retraction to the subsequent
course of Philippine revolution.
4. Recognize the importance of the differing accounts that lend depth and
significance to the implications of Rizal’s convictions and visions for the
Filipinos effort to pursue its struggle against colonial Spain.
5. Create your own arguments for and against a particular primary source.

Introduction:
The Philippine revolution and everything that preceded it comprised the most
concrete expression of the Filipinos’ intense desire to be independent and
sovereign. Their enlightenment and awakening were ushered by numerous events,
ideas, and personalities which enabled the exposition of the social and political
realities of that time. Considered as a prime inspiration of the revolution,
particularly to its Supremo, Andres Bonifacio, was the novelist-propagandists Dr
Jose Rizal. The wide circulation of his writings specifically the novels Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo spurred nationalistic sentiments and its ideals as the
marching cry of the armed struggled despite Rizal’s rejection of the very idea of war
against Spain. His subsequent arrest and execution in Bagumbayan on December
30, 1896 was seen to be Spain’s way of extinguishing the flame of the revolution as

1
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

colonial leaders believed that by eliminating Rizal, the nationalistic sentiments

would likewise loose its steam.
Historical context
A leader of the reformist movement in Spain, Dr Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and
then sentenced to death by the Spanish military court after being implicated to the
then brewing armed revolution. The night before he was executed by firing squad
in Bagumbayan, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and
his writings and reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of confession
and persuasion by Jesuit priests. A retraction or a document that clearly withdraws
all damaging statements or ideals against Spain and the Catholic church by an
accused was a significant legal requirement during the colonial period that may or
may not save one from execution. In Rizal’s case, his retraction was considered a
major act that Spanish leaders would want to utilize to control the brewing violent
revolution as he was well believed to be an inspirational figure for the
revolutionaries. His retraction was most important to the Catholic Church as it was
desperate to regain its moral authority gravely eroded by the impact of the Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo. However, there was considerable doubts to the
allegation that Rizal wrote a retraction letter that denounced everything he had
said that offended Spain and the Church.
In 1935, the supposed retraction document bearing Rizal’s signature was found in
the archives of the Manila cathedral. Speculations and investigations ensued but
up until today, the issue whether Rizal retracted or not and whether the document
is forged or real is a subject of continuous debate between historians and Rizal
scholars alike.
Today, documents relative to the retraction issue are divided into two groups:
official accounts of witnesses and critical analyses of Rizalist scholars.
1. Statement of Fr Vicente Balaguer
Fr Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his last
hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce
Masonry and return to the Catholic fold. He was born in Alicante Spain in January
1851 and became a Jesuit priest on 1894 with his first assignment in Surigao but in
1896 he was transferred to Dapitan where he met Rizal and Josephine Bracken. It

2
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

was there that he managed to assist Rizal with his intent to marry Josephine. He
claimed that Rizal wrote a retraction letter in exchange for the ecclesiastical
blessing for their marriage by Archbishop Nozaleda.
This is Fr.Balaguer’s personal account:
At about ten o’clock in the morning (December 29), Father Vilaclara and I went to Fort Santiago,
where the chapel cell of the convict was. He received us with great affection and embraced us. It
think it convenient to point out that when the Archbishop sent his commission to the Ateneo, he
remarked that in case of conversion, before ministering the Sacraments to him, Dr Rizal should
make a retraction of errors publicly professed to him in words and writings and a profession of
the Catholic faith. To this effect, when the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop’s
palace, he brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including
what he thought out to be extracted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be
sufficient. He said, however, that he would prepare or order to prepare another more extensive
one.
Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive ordersand instructions from the
Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of faith, composed by
Rev Fr Pio pi….
Therefore, whe we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings with him
and talking on various matters, I , who knew the history and errors contained in his books, in order
to fulfill our delicate mission asked Rizal to give an explanation of his ideas on religion… He came
to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the word of God contained in the Sacred
Scripture. I tried to make him see how false and indefensible such a criterion was, inasmuch as
without the authority to the Church he could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture
or of the books truly revealed by God; how absolutely impossible it is for the individual reason to
interpret at his will the word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist freethinker,
unwell to admit any other criterion of truth than individual reason.
I then pointed out to him that absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of the immense
majority of humankind, and for the absurd monstrous errors professed by the greatest sages of
paganism….When I attacked him with the arguments of Catholic doctrine, he began to expound
the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand times refuted already…When I attacked
him with the logic and evidence of Catholic truth, I told him with energy that if he did not yield his
mind and his reason for the sake of faith, he would soon appear for judgment before God and
would surely be damned. Upon hearing this threat, tears gushed from his eyes, and he said: “No
I will not damn myself”.
“Yes”, I replied, “You will go to hell, for whether you like it or not. Yes; out of the Catholic church
there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one.”…..

3
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

At three o’clock or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Fort where Fr Vilaclara had remained,
and I resumed the discussion with Dr Rizal, that lasted until dusk, arriving at the point which I
already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo and thence I met with Father Viza to the Palace.
There I reported on the condition of the convict, who offered some hope for conversion, since he
had asked for the formula of retraction. Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had
promised, and he told me that it was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to me.
It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr Rizal impatient. He asked for the formula
of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o’clock;upon knowing it, the convict asked me for it
insistently. Without letting me read it first, he called and asked me to read it to him.
Both of us sat at a desk. Upon hearing the first paragraph, he told me, “Father do not proceed.
That style is different from mine. I cannot sign that, because it should be understood that I am
writing it myself.”
I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. I read the first paragraph
and he said to me: “That style is simple as mine. Don’t bother Father, to read it all. Dictate what
I ought to profess and express, and I shall write, making in any case some remarks.”
And thus it was done. As I suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady hand and clear
letters, making at times some observations or adding some phrase. Certainly after the discussion,
Dr Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had retired into himself and prayed as he
had promised. Thus he appeared to be while writing his retraction…
He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half past eleven; it was dated December the
twenty ninth….
This declaration of retraction was signed together with Dr Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the
Picket, and Senor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza….
All of these acts… he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the Virgin, placed in the
chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers, of the Judge Advocate, of the Chief of the Picket, of the
Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked me for his retraction and profession
of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and devotion…
Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have personally intervened
and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirm it with an oath. And lest, perhaps, someone
may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after twenty years, I testify that on
the very day of Rizal’s death I wrote a very detailed account of everything. The original of this
account I have preserved, and from it I have taken all the data of the present narration.
Before I reached Bagumbayan, I went to the Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document
to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palace and handed it to Archbishop Nozaleda.

4
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

2. Fr Pio Pi’s statement

Fr Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal
was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the
alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Fr Balaguer, however, he was involved only in
securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of Manila Bernardino
Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document as well which was
the one Rizal allegedly copied.
On the eve of the day when Dr Rizal was put in the chapel, that is, on December the twenty
eight, I received the commission, which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers,
for the spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only because it came from
the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object was to reconcile with God and with
the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal
had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special esteem and affection even after his
estrangement from the Church and had rendered us good service…
Eventhough I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not visit him. All
the fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who accompanied him to
Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request or with my knowledge,
and they kept me informed of all the happenings….
In regard to conversion, in the beginning not a little difficulty was found in convincing and
persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with Father Balaguer,
became necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his Christian sentiments.
At last, he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the proofs of religiousness and
piety were such and so many that, with much less, the most exacting person would have been
satisfied. He was right indeed when he said, wondering at the change wrought in himself, that
he was the Rizal of some time ago, but another entirely different….
When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the form of the
composition presented by Fr Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one which I had
made was shorter though conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless, to make it appear
more of his own and spontaneous, he wished to introduce some little modifications. He wrote
it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand… Beneath Rizal’s signature, the
Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of the Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as
witnesses.
Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure from
anyone, took into his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the chapel.
Aloud and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity he read his own retraction…

5
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

3. Rafael Palma’s critical analysis

Rafael Palma was a lawyer, writer, educator, and politician who authored the
Biografia de Rizal, which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the
Commonwealth government. It was however printed only in 1949 due to the
onset of World War II. That same year, an English translation by Roman Ozaeta
with the title Pride of the Malay Race was published by Prentice-Hall, Inc.in the
United States. The story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and
33 with Palma’s analysis in the latter chapter.
For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the beginning because of
their direct intervention in the act of conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak and confirm in
all its parts the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That should be conclusive;
but that is not. All the declarations therein cited are those of ecclesiastics and their friends,
and it is to be supposed that all of the latter would not contradict the version given by the
former. The only testimony that might be considered impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade,
the defense counsel of Rizal, but his testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that
is to say, what he heard the priest say, and that diminishes its value very much.
We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial and
interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said persons;
but as Brutus said, “You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend.” Lastly, we must consider
whether the coetaneous acts performed by the ecclesiastical authorities or by the government
are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if they are not, they would not
produce the moral evidence that is needed.
Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the Catholic
church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place, the document
of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities were able to see it at that
time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspaper, but, with exception of one person,
nobody saw the original. Infact this original was kept in such a way that it was not found until
after 30 years had transpired. In the second place, when the family of Rizal asked for the
original of said document or a copy of it as well as a copy of the certificate of canonical
marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were denied. In the third place, Rizal’s burial
was kept secret, the cadaver having been delivered to the members of a Catholic association
friendly to the friars instead of being delivered to the family, who had claimed it. How is
Christian charity applied to one who dies within the Church if not even the desire of his family
to bury him on their own account is respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant
to the Filipinos and of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral
held by the Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled
with the Church, he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without

6
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

any cross or stone to mark his grave. Only the diligence of the family was able to identify the
spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book burials of the interment of
Rizal’s body is not made on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where there
were as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear those buried by special
orders of the authorities. Thus Rizal figures on a page between a man who burned to death
and who could not be identified and another who died by suicide; in other words, he was
considered among persons who died impenitent and did not receive spiritual aid. In the
seventh and last place, there was no moral motive for the conversion. The extraordinary or
abnormal acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive. What was the motive
that could have induced him to adjure masonry and reconcile himself to the rites of the religion
which he had fought? Did he not realize that to do so was to be a renegade to his own history?
Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many circumstances of his life.
He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers talked to him.
They did it Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce his religious ideas
for a few hours more of life?
In short, Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that that
extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the Church which he had fought. The
Archbishop was interested in his conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits lent
themselves as his instruments. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in the whole
country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with his abjuration.
What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and his conversion would be unbelievable?
So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His aureole of glory had to be done
away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only an indio.

4. Austin Coates’s critical analysis

Austin Coates interest in Jose Rizal began when he was Assistant Colonial
Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on
the latter’s year-long stay in Hong Kong from 1891-1892. At that tie many of the
personalities who knew Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on Rizal
eventually led to the writing and publication of his book- Rizal: Philippine
Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press,1956)- the first Rizal biography
written by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr Jose Rizal by Wenceslao
Retana in 1907. Thesecond edition of the book was published in the Philippines
by Solidaridad Publishing House in 1992.
Coates’s analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other events that happened before
his execution are found in part VII, Chapter 5 of the book.

7
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the event,
and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal had retracted his religious errors, adjured
freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken. In most
newspapers, the text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full.
By the government the announcement was sent to Spanish consulates abroad with the
request to obtain for it the widest possible publicity.
Those who had read Rizal’s books or who knew him closely, which at that time meant the
family and his wide circle of personal friends, most of who were abroad, took one look at the
announcement and dubbed it… an ecclesiastical fraud.
While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop’s announcement was
issued knowingly, or that there was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to
perpetuate a fraud is going too far. The nature of society within the church, the society of
priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things to happen. When frauds
occur, they are not the planned work of the church as an organization, though this may be
what it looks like for the outsiders; they are usually the work of a small man with his own idea;
and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud as genuine, has to protect him. Rizal
believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that the prime mover in this would
be the friar archbishop. But while in the event Rizal’s intuition did not play him false, there is
no evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along came a small man with what the Archbishop
wanted.
Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed and audacity
with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a retraction, hoping for it.
When news of it came and he would announce it immediately, after which it would be too late
for any of Balaguer’s colleagues to gainsay it.
Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too well the damage such a letter
would do him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to retract…
Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public disbelief the Archbishop’s statements
provoked, had there been a signed retraction letter it would certainly have been produced for
inspection, particularly for the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and to many of whom- to
Teodora Alonso in particular- it would have been a source of consolation.
Once the execution was over, and Vilaclara and March returned to be faced with Balaguer’s
claims, the fraud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to rectify matters.
What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits of
probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Vilaclara and March, who
were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a retraction, it is
unconceivable that that they would not have given him Christian burial. The Jesuits had been
entrusted by the Archbishop with spiritual care of the condemned man; it was their

8
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to see he was decently buried.
This the two Jesuits at the execution did not do…
The Rizal family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage. They knew
their brother; they knew that if he had retracted he would certainly have so in his 6 a.m.
communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given her.
Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer’s urge to elaborate
and to see himself publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled down that very
night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it to be published
anonymously, he included much praise of himself, an aspect which, since he admitted the
authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure…
Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church’s case. Worse than this, he had unwittingly revealed
his own fraud. In his account, he made no mention of the Ultimo Adios.
That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told a journalist
about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol burner remained
to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no poem had been written
and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing the truth, which was that he
was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that last night, and had no knowledge of
what was then taking place.
Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem; he made his account so elaborate
that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo Adios is needed
to show that it would have taken several hours to write…

5. Ambeth Ocampo’s assertions as of December 30, 2020

Contemporarily, there have been a number of significant critiques and researches
that delve on the retraction of Rizal. One of these are the works of Ambeth
Ocampo. Ocampo is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of History
at the Ateneo de Manila University, teaching “Rizal and the Emergence of the
Filipino Nation.” He is also a Professorial Lecturer in the Department of Filipino and
Philippine Letters at UP Diliman. Among the books he has written are Rizal Without
the Overcoat (1990, revised 2008), Makamisa: The Search for Rizal’s Third Novel
(1993, revised 2008), Teodora Alonso (1995, reprinted 2008), 101 Stories of the
Philippine Revolution (2008) and Meaning and History: The Rizal Lectures (2001,
revised 2011). His extensive studies on Rizal revealed a lot of novel and a times

9
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

controversial and unpopular findings that have made Rizal, his works, and life more
interesting and challenging. This is his take on the retraction issue.

THE RIZAL RETRACTION IS A NON-ISSUE.

Rizal retracted religious errors, the document does not, in any way, erase the impact of his life,
his novels, essays, and poetry on our history.

Everyone now arguing for or against the

authenticity of the document do so from a bias
based on unreliable photostats from an unverified
source. Does the document exist? Yes, I have seen
it in the Archives of the Arzobisapdo de Manila. A
certified true copy was made in my presence on the
day I examined the actual document on November
11, 1996. *certification was made on the back of
the photocopy. I wish I had a cellphone then and we
could have high-resolution images to argue about.

While handwriting analysis is best left to experts,

my familiarity with Rizal's writings comes from over
30 years handling original Rizal manuscripts, and in
my opinion the document is authentic.
Rizal's signature varies depending on the time and
place it was made (he used a dip pen not a ballpen)
and it can be forged, but forging 17 lines of text in
Rizal's writing is another matter. In addition the
signatures of the witnesses: Juan del Fresno (El Jefe
de Piquete) and Eloy Maure (El Ayudante de la
Plaza) have to be forged as well. Signatures of these
witnesses can be compared with those in the Rizal
Trial documents made available in high resolution
scans to the National Historical Commission by the
Spanish Archives. I must add that del Fresno's
signature is very complicated.

Now that we know that the document exists and is

authentic, our next question will be why did he write it? Only Rizal can answer that and he left no
other clues except for the papers he left in his clothes and shoes all deteriorated when his corpse
was exhumed years later.
Even if the document were made available, it will not convince those who insist on the
counterfactual and conspiracy theories.

10
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

Generalization:

The retraction controversy which relates to the supposed abrogation of Jose Rizal of his
anti-religious writings is considered a major historical document as it concerns not just to
an alleged statement of an enemy of a former colonial power and its ecclesiastical
authorities but by a man who was deemed to be morally and intellectually prolific and
instrumental to the emergence of Filipino nationalism. His association to the historic
armed revolution that ended the three-century Spanish domination on the Filipinos as well
as the profound effects of his two radical novels underscored the importance of verifying
the authenticity of a document which apparently manifested a change of heart, an
unbelievable repentance by a staunch critique of the Spanish rule and its colonial arm,
the Catholic Church. The retraction controversy similarly tarnishes the hero figure of Rizal
as it raises question on his moral ascendancy as a progressive figure and an icon of
nationalism.

Testimonies of eyewitnesses and actual partakers in the last hours of Rizal as well as
critical analyses of the events by scholars on Rizal contribute to the clarification of the
retraction issue while adding more fume to the debates that have left students of Rizal
course and avid readers of the life history of Rizal groping for the truth behind this
significant event in our history.

Did Rizal retract or not? If he did, why? Was it his own volition borne out of his deep
Christian belief of the need for salvation? Or was it because of the defeat of his
rationalistic philosophy by the scholastic theological arguments of his Jesuit friends? Was
there really an intelligent debate that convinced Rizal to turn around from his religious
ideas or was he just threatened of the dark scenario of damnation? Do near death
scenarios always entail a realization and a turn-around of sort even for a man of conviction
like Rizal ?

Did he ever thought of its impact on his name, or, was he ever that confident that he’ll
soon be considered a hero and that such decision to retract would ever be a tarnish to
his heroism?

What does the insinuation of forgery of Rizal’s signature by pro-Rizal advocates mean to
the authority of the church despite the defense that such fraudulent act is a singular act
of a man and not of an entire institution? Can such fraud be considered a deception of
the Filipino people?

Has the retraction, true as it may have been accepted by renowned scholars, made any
difference at all to the depth and profundity of his ideas and the kind of life Rizal
exemplified? If the retraction claim against Rizal is such that it pulls down his credibility
as a national icon of nationalism, must he be relegated to a lower heroic status or even
be stricken out from the list of our nation’s great heroes? Will it have an effect on our
identity as a people and nation? Or even our history?

11
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

Considering that the two claims of whether Rizal retracted (Church) or not (Masons) are
premised on varying interests, is it not obvious that each ended up uncompromising and
close-minded to the evidence presented by the opponent? Is it more ideal to look for
evidence outside the circle of the interest groups involved?

Must the retraction issue be put to rest as Rizal is already a hero?

Additional readings:

1. The Rizal retraction and other cases by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung-

https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
2. Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports
Rene Escalante-Department of History, De La Salle University, 1501 Taft Avenue,
Malate, Manila, Metro Manila 1100, Philippines- https://englishkyoto-
seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/

Exercise:

1.Summative : Summarize the two contending views on the retraction involving Jose
Rizal.

2. Formative: From the long list of questions stated in the Generalization, choose one or
two that may help you construct a personal critique of the retraction controversy. You may
however raise your own questions that you will use to construct your critique of the
retraction controversy.

References:
Arcilla J.(1994). Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.J. and Rizal’s Conversion.Philippine Studies
vol. 42, no. 1 (1994): 110–123.Ateneo de Manila University
Coates, A.(1992).Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr. Solidaridad Publishing
House,Manila
Ocampo A. (2020). Rizal Retraction is a Non issue, Facebook post @ Ambeth R
Ocampo.
Palma, R. (1949). The Pride of the Malay Race: A Biography of Jose Rizal. Translated
by Roman Ozaeta. New York: Prentice Hall.
Pascual, R.(1959). Rizal beyond the Grave. Manila: Luzon Publishing Corporation.
Torres JV.(2018). BATIS Sources in Philippine History.C & E Publishing ,Inc.

12
GNED 04 MODULE 2-LESSON 9-BAGAY

Prepared by:

Rodolfo V Bagay, Jr.MA Socsci, PhD Philosophy (candidate)

Instructor

Reviewed by: Approved by:

LEAH C. NAVARRO, EdD MAT M NUESTRO

TED Chairperson Director, Curriculum and Instruction

13