RETRACTION OF RIZAL

What is Retraction of Rizal?

The retraction of Rizal refers to his decision to renounce his masonic affiliation and return to the
Catholic Church. This issue was part of a legal controversy in the Philippines, known as the “Noli-
Fili” Law, which required college students to read Rizal’s novels Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo.

Did Jose Rizal Retract?

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various
authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any
justification to end the debate.

The following assertions to bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.

First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret
and was only published in newspapers. Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the
archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda
to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the
documents presented was a forgery. Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father
Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper,
however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s
statements. Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction
paper he would still be executed? Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda
where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death.

Analysis of Rizal’s Retraction

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the
day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s
execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the
fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself
fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The “original” text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives
on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty- nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal
was shot. There was no record of anybody seeing this “original” document in 1896, except the
publishers of La Voz Española, which published its contents on the day of Rizal’s execution: “We
have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable
Archbishop....” Most experts think that the handwriting on the document is authentic. However,
scholars are baffled as to why Rizal, who courageously faced persecution for most of his life, and who
was finally sentenced to death for his beliefs, would suddenly balk at the last, futile moment.

On May 18, 1935, the lost “original” document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s
retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly
from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies.

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”

Jose Rizal’s 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 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

Reasons for Retraction:

1. To save his family and town for further persecution, Rizal may have been told that he faced the
dilemma of signing the retraction or of having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he
hoped his death would stop the persecution of his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to
be the only way of achieving that purpose.

2. To give Josephine a legal status as a wife

3. To secure reforms from the Spanish Government

4. To help the church to cut away from the disease which harmed him.
Major Arguments for the Retraction

Affirmative:

1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to the reality of the
retraction

2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye witness”, and other “qualified
witnesses”, those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order the archbishop
etc.

3. “Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by
“witness” and the signed “Prayer book” which 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 “witness”

5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by the witnesses, there could
be no marriage without retraction.

Negative:

1. The retraction is said to be a forgery.

2. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other
versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Belaguer

3. Its content is 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 this retraction was “spontaneous”

4. There was a confession of the forger. Antonio K. Abad tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at
his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by
the friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document.