DID RIZAL

RETRACT?
There is one issue in Jose Rizal’s life that historians
have debated on several occasions but remains
unsettled even now. That issue is whether Rizal,
on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic
faith and disassociated himself from Masonry.

With Rizal being an international and national

hero, his life story has been written and
scrutinized by Filipino and foreign scholars for
more than a century.
Jose Rizal , who was assassinated by the Spanish
colonialists 120 years ago, December 30, 1896,
became a hero for his writings to destroy the idea
of colonialism and free our minds to form the
nation- us
But, hours before he was shot, it was being said
that Rizal signed a document stating that he was a
Catholic and that he was retracting all his writings
against the church. The document became known
"The Retraction”.
TWO TESTIMONIES

THE BALAGUER TESTIMONY

THE TESTIMONY OF CUERPO DE VIGILANCIA
BALAGUER
TESTIMONY
According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara
arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in
the morning. He mentioned in his letter and
affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started
with a discussion of some articles of Catholic
faith. They debated on issues such as the
supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic
differences that divided Catholics and
Protestants.
Since time was not on their side, they persuaded Rizal not to spend so
much time discussing faith-related issues and focus instead on how to die in
the state of grace so that he could enter heaven. They explained to him that
they could not administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a
retraction letter and making a profession of faith. Fr. Balaguer mentioned
that Rizal softened a bit when he warned him that his soul would go to hell
if he did not return to the Catholic fold.
He reminded him that outside the Catholic Church, there was no
salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam nulla datur salus) (Cavanna
1956, 8). The two Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around lunchtime, with
Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the retraction letter or
not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s palace and
informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first
meeting with Rizal.
Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal
around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried
until sunset to persuade him to recant. They
were still not able to convince him to sign the
retraction document. Their third meeting with
Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it
was during this meeting that they showed Rizal
the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had given
them.
According to Fr. Balaguer, 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.” He said he had met Masons in London who
had nothing against the Catholic religion. Rizal wanted to
emphasize 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. 
BALAGUER TESTIMONY
Me declaro católico, y en esta Religión, en que nací y me eduqué,
quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazón de cuanto en mis
palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario á mi
calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña, y me
someto á cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como enemiga
que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia.
Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior
eclesiástica, hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía, para
reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar, y para que
Dios y los hombres me perdonen
        Manila, 29 de Diciembre de 1896
            José Rizal
Jefe del Piquete
Juan del Fresno
Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure (Retana 1907, 426–427)
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
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.

The Chief of the Picket

Juan del Fresno
Adjutant of the Plaza
Eloy Moure (Guerrero 1971, 458–459)
THE 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
primarily 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 report of Moreno (NAP Manuscript A-6, Doc. 1)
presents another eyewitness account of what transpired in
Rizal’s prison cell before he was executed. It contains
several details that could be used for and against the claim
that Rizal returned to the Catholic fold and renounced
Masonry. The account may be considered more objective
than earlier ones because Moreno was neither a member of
the Catholic hierarchy nor a known Mason. He was in Fort
Santiago not to serve a particular interest group but simply
to perform a function connected with his work. Moreover,
the fact that his report was written a day after the event
lessened the possibility that it was edited to please a
particular group. Since the report is not very long, a
translation of it will be presented first before analyzing it:
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in
Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison
of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by
his counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose] Vilaclara.
At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a
light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor
[Eloy] Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the
moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him shortly
by Father [Estanislao] March.

Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with
the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it
seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared
retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about
the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little
chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time
by himself.
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
[Juan] 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.

From 3 to 5:30 in the afternoon, Rizal read his prayer book several times,
prayed kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fathers Vilaclara
and March, read the Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity repeatedly as well as
the Prayers for the Departing Soul.

At 6 in the afternoon the following persons arrived and entered the

chapel; Teodora Alonzo, mother of Rizal, and his sisters, Lucia, Maria,
Olimpia, Josefa, Trinidad and Dolores. Embracing them, the accused bade
them farewell with great strength of character and without shedding a
tear. The mother of Rizal left the chapel weeping and carrying two bundles
of several utensils belonging to her son who had used them while in
prison.
A little after 8 in the evening, at the urgings of Señor Andrade,
the accused was served a plate of tinola, his last meal on
earth. The Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure and Fathers
March and Vilaclara visited him at 9 in the evening. He rested
until 4 in the morning and again resumed praying before the
altar.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the

prison accompanied by his sister Pilar, both dressed in
mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a
military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his
formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the
nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were
performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After
embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterwards
he heard another mass where he received communion. At
7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him and he left for
the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his
counsel and the Assistant of the Plaza. Father March gave
him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal kissed repeatedly.

When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am

very certain that all the time he was imprisoned he
demonstrated great strength of character and composure.

God grant Your Excellency.

Manila 30 December 1896.

Chief Inspector Federico Moreno (Harper 1997)

Moreno’s report contains details that are not consistent
with Fr. Balaguer’s affidavit. The most serious and obvious
discrepancy is that Moreno never mentioned Fr. Balaguer
in his report. All throughout the history of the retraction
controversy, Fr. Balaguer consistently claimed that he was
present in Rizal’s prison cell and actively involved in
convincing him to retract. All other pro-retraction
advocates who came after Fr. Balaguer took his account as
historical fact and argued their case using him as their
primary source. The Masons attacked Fr. Balaguer’s
narrative, but they never questioned his claim that he was
a witness to this event. However, in Moreno’s account only
two Jesuits are identified: Fr. Jose Vilaclara and Fr.
Estanislao March.