Retraction of rizal

• A retraction letter is a document that withdraws, or rescinds, a

previous claim. In the world of construction and mechanics lien
rights, a retraction letter is most often used to retract a
preliminary notice or a notice of intent to lien
• The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been
signed by the National Hero himself
• According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit
missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan,
Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the
superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.
• It stated: “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.”
• 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" discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935
Me declarocatolica y en esta Religion en quenaci y me eduquequierovivir y
morir.
Me retracto de todocorazon de cuanto en mispalabras, escritos, inpresos y
conducta ha habidocontrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la IglesiaCatolica. Creo y
profesocuantoellaenseña y me somento a cuantoellamanda. Abomino de la
Masonaria, como enigma quees de la Iglesia, y comoSociedadprohibidapor la
Iglesia. Puede el PreladoDiocesano, comoAutoridad Superior
Eclesiasticahacerpublicaestamanifastacionespontaneamiaparareparar el
escandaloquemisactoshayanpodidocausar y paraque Dios y los hombers me
perdonen.
• Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896
• 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
Retration of rizal according to ambeth
ocampo
• "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a
son of the Catholic Church.",
this was the statement in the document which made the historians
believed that Rizal had retracted.
REASONS FOR RETRACTION

• Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction

documents? What possible reasons could have
pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction
document, assuming that he truly wrote the said
document? The following four reasons would have
been worthy of his character and mentality
1

• To save his family and town from further persecution

2

• To give Josephine a legal status as his wife

3

• To secure reforms from the Spanish government

4

• To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her
MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION

• The argument between the original document and the released

retraction documents brought more controversy because this
differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits. Which is
really the“original”? Some of the significant differences between
the copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following
• (1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad”
from the Archbishop’scopies, (2) the word “Catolica” was omitted
after the first “Iglesias in the Jesuits’ copies, (3) the
word“misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s
copies,
• (4) the second paragraph from the
• archbishop’s copies started with the second sentence, however,
from the Jesuits’ copies it started until the fifth sentences, (5) the
Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and (6) the
Jesuits’
• copies did not have the names of the witnesses.
•Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his
lecture given at Siliman University,
summarizes the major points
ofargument for the Retraction
of Rizal as follows:
• 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
witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. 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 "witnesses” and a signed Prayer
Book which was amongst the documents discovered by
• Father Garcia along with the Retraction
• If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic
teachings but would agree to a number of beliefs which he had
previously disclaimed.

According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the

Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer
book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen and sad
‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”
• 4.
• Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified
to by “witnesses.”
• 5.
His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to
by “witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.
CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION
• 1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four
points against the document itself.
• First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the
only scientific study criticizing the authenticity of the document
was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the
Philippines shortly after the document was found.
• A second argument directed against the authenticity of the
document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism.
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 Balaguer.
A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that 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 his
retraction was “spontaneous
• Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad
tells how onAugust 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certainRoman Roque told how he was
employed by the Friars earlier that same year tomake several
copies of a retraction document
The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the
claim that other acts andfacts do not fit well with the story of the
Retraction. Those most often referred to bywriters as follows
• The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even
members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”
• No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his
signing of theRetraction.
• Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner
wall of the Paco
• cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the
page for entries ofDec. 30th
There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of
Rizal with Josephine Bracken
• Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago
and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a
conversion
• The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is
out of character.
CONCLUSION
sources

DidRizalRetract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_
martyr/chapter16.htm
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-
retraction-controversy.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/181351754/Rizal-Retraction-
Controversy-docx