DID RIZAL RETRACT?

TITLE SLIDE (Ms. Cnartagena)

For today’s lesson, we will discuss one of the most controversial events in Philippine history -
Jose Rizal’s alleged retraction. This issue has sparked debates for more than a century because
it raises an important question: Did Rizal remain true to his principles until the end, or did he
take back what he fought for in his final hours? In this lesson, we’ll examine the different
accounts, documents, and perspectives about this issue, guided by the two research studies
that shed light on the controversy: ‘Did Rizal Retract? Uncovering the Controversies of the
National Hero’s Last Moments’ and ‘Jose Rizal’s Retraction Controversy: A Textual Analysis of
the Critics’ Discourses.’

LEARNING OBJECTIVES (Ms. Cartagena)

Before we delve into our discussion, let’s first take a look at our learning objectives for today.
Everyone, please read.

(Pause for students to read aloud. The objectives on screen are:)

Explain the different accounts and sources about Rizal’s alleged retraction.
Appreciate the importance of understanding different perspectives on controversial events in
history.
Demonstrate understanding by sharing ideas or opinions through discussion or recitation.

Thank you.

INTRODUCTION

We know Rizal as the national hero who inspired Filipinos to seek freedom - not through
violence, but through his writings. His novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo exposed the
injustices of the Spanish friars and opened the eyes of Filipinos to the abuses happening during
the Spanish colonial period. He criticized the friars as agents of injustice, but he never opposed
the Catholic religion itself. In fact, his second novel, El Filibusterismo, was even dedicated to the
memory of the three martyred priests - Gomburza - whose unjust execution deeply influenced
his fight against oppression.

Later on, Rizal also joined Freemasonry - a group that promotes moral and social values,
equality, and freedom. The group opposed the abuses and corruption of the Church at the time,
which aligned with Rizal’s ideals. He joined Freemasonry in 1883 while he was in Spain.
Because of this and his critical writings, the Catholic Church considered him excommunicado.
When we say excommunicado, what does it mean?

(Expected student answer: Removed from the Church, can’t receive sacraments.)

Correct - being treated as excommunicado means being cut off from the Catholic Church and its
sacraments. This shows just how serious the conflict between Rizal and the friars was, which
makes the alleged retraction even more controversial.

RIZAL'S RETRACTION (Ms. Cartagena)

Now let’s move on to Rizal’s alleged retraction. But first - what does retraction really mean?

(Expected student answer: Taking back what you said or wrote.)

Exactly - a retraction is a statement where someone takes back or denies what they previously
said.
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

THE CONTROVERSY (Ms. Cartagena)

Here’s where the controversy lies - just hours before his execution, Rizal allegedly signed this
document now called ‘The Retraction.’ It claimed he took back everything he had written against
the friars and said he was returning to the Catholic faith. So the question remains: did he really
change his mind? Or was he pressured to sign it?

What do you think (student) - is it possible for someone to change their beliefs in their final
hours? Why or why not?

THE AUTHOR AND ACCOUNTS (Ms. Cartagena)

Now let’s proceed to the author and accounts that claimed to have evidence about Rizal’s
retraction. First, we’ll look at the account of Fr. Manuel Garcia.

FR. MANUEL GARCIA

(Picture of Fr. Garcia)

He was the Spanish priest who, in 1935, claimed to have found the so-called ‘original’ retraction
document in the Church archives - nearly 40 years after Rizal’s death. Many historians doubted
its authenticity because of the long delay in finding it.

(Next slide)
On the screen, you also see the document itself.

Let me read the first sentence: ‘I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die.’ This line already shows what the document claims -
that Rizal returned to the Catholic faith. But many question its authenticity - why was it not
presented during Rizal's trial or immediately after his death? Why did it only appear decades
later?

According to Escalante (2019), the document was discovered while Garcia was sorting through
a bundle of documents entitled ‘Masoneria.’ It was verified by Teodoro Kalaw, a Mason and
director of the National Library, as authentic and final, and published under the headline: ‘Rizal
Retraction Found.’ H. Otley Beyer, a U.P. professor stated, “there is not the slightest doubt that
every word on that sheet was written by Jose Rizal."

But even before Garcia’s discovery, many already questioned the idea of Rizal’s retraction. As
early as 1913, Masons like Hermenegildo Cruz argued that there was no proof Rizal converted
back to Catholicism because no document had ever been shown. At the time, Father Pio Pi - a
Superior of the Jesuit in the Philippines - even asked about it but failed to produce any copy of
the alleged retraction. The Jesuits, however, had already been trying since Rizal’s Dapitan exile
to convince him to retract. His former and favorite teacher Fr. Francisco de Paula Sanchez at
Ateneo Municipal and Fr. Pastells had written him many letters. In fact, in 1912, Fr. Antonio
Obach told Professor Austin Craig that Rizal had written a draft of a retraction in 1894 in order
to marry Josephine Bracken - but he took it back before it could be submitted to the bishop and
never returned it.

Some also note that, according to textbook accounts, Archbishop Nozaleda sent Rizal a draft
retraction the night before his execution, but he rejected it for being too long.

Lastly, British writer Austin Coates, in his book Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (1968),
strongly doubted the authenticity of the document Fr. Garcia found. Coates believed it was most
likely forged - either entirely or partially - possibly by a friar’s hired forger in the early 1900s. He
argued that the document looked convincing but that the date, place, and signature were
questionable.
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

Class are you following?

VERSIONS OF THE RETRACTION (Ms. Cartagena)

There are three known versions of the retraction. The first was published in La Voz Española
and Diario de Manila. The second came out later in La Juventud, Barcelona - which turned out
to come from Fr. Vicente Balaguer. The third, which Fr. Garcia claimed the original was found
decades later. These inconsistencies raise doubts.

On the screen, you'll see the three versions - the first published in Manila, the second from
Barcelona, and the last in Spanish claimed as original. Earlier, we read the English text - that
was just a translation of this Spanish document.

Do you have any questions or clarifications about what I’ve explained so far? If none, let’s now
proceed to the next part, which will be discussed by Ms. Barrientos.
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

THE BALAGUER TESTIMONY (Ms. Barrientos)

Thank you Ms. Cartagena.

(Picture of Fr. Balaguer)

This is Fr. Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit priest who befriended Rizal during his exile in Dapitan.

(Next slide)
Fr. Balaguer testified that Rizal woke up several times that night, confessed four times, attended
mass and communion, prayed the rosary, and signed a retraction letter shortly before his
execution. According to him, these actions proved that Rizal sincerely returned to the Catholic
faith - although many point out that such behavior seemed out of character for Rizal, based on
his strong principles and earlier writings.

In his sworn affidavit/ statement, Balaguer stated:

"I was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad day’s hours. I argued with him and
demolished his arguments. I witnessed it myself and documented everything in detail on the
very day of his death, and kept it for twenty years."

He also claimed that Rizal accepted a shorter retraction prepared by Fr. Pio Pi, the Jesuit
superior, and signed it after making some changes. According to Balaguer, Rizal renounced
Masonry and his religious beliefs that opposed the Catholic faith.

Balaguer’s testimony is often pointed to as the only so-called primary account that claims Rizal
himself wrote and signed a retraction. That’s why it is usually used as evidence by those who
argue the retraction was real - even though many still question it.

However, this account raises doubts when we consider Rizal’s own words in his earlier letters.
In 1889, he wrote to Mariano Ponce:

"At the sight of those injustices and cruelties… I swore to devote myself to avenge so many
victims, and this is reflected in all my works and writings. God will someday give me an
opportunity to carry out my promise."

And in another passage criticizing the friars, Rizal wrote:

"The friars are not what they pretend to be… Don’t they show cruelty? Don’t they instigate the
government against the people? Where are sanctity, protection, and force?"

These statements - also reflected in Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo - make us wonder
whether Rizal could have truly changed his convictions at the very end.

Interestingly, another Jesuit, Fr. Antonio Obach, had written as early as 1895 that Rizal was
already considering retraction, but only under certain conditions. In his letters, Obach quoted
Rizal as saying:

"I no longer want battles with the friars, but I wish to live and work in peace. I am ready to do
what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions."

Those conditions were:

1 - His freedom.
2 - The return of his family’s confiscated properties or their equivalent.
3 - A sum of ₱50,000 to start a business and support himself and his family.

Obach noted that Rizal was torn and hesitant, saying:

"I am convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but his pride strongly holds him
back."
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

From these accounts, we can see that Rizal was facing a moral dilemma - weighing his
principles against his concern for his family’s safety, his own desire for peace, and his wish to be
able to marry Josephine Bracken. He feared that his family would suffer discrimination and
hardship after his execution, and even asked in writing:

"But on condition that they give me ₱50,000 since I have no means to support myself in
decency, and with that amount I could bring my parents with me anywhere."

Obach also recalled that Rizal requested a clear list of his supposed errors so that he could
retract them properly, even though he knew this meant losing everything he stood for.

But even with all these accounts, two important questions remain for us to consider:
Why was Rizal still executed if he truly retracted?
Why would he retract, knowing that his death was already certain?

These are the questions we leave to you to reflect on as we move forward.

Any questions or clarifications before we proceed? Then, let's proceed to the next part, which
will be discussed by Ms. Retubis.
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

TESTIMONY OF THE CUERPO DE VIGILANCIA (MS. RETUBIS)

Thank you Ms. Barrientos.

(Picture of Rene Escalante)

This is historian Rene Escalante, who in 2016 analyzed documents from the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia.

(Next slide)
But what exactly is the Cuerpo de Vigilancia?
It was a Spanish colonial intelligence unit, created in 1895 under the leadership of Federico
Moreno. Its main task was to monitor revolutionaries like the Katipunan. Years later, these
documents were discovered among the papers of a Spanish general’s descendant and later
sold by Señor Enrique Montero.

Escalante explained that these spy reports are considered reliable because they were written
immediately after the events, without favoring any religious or political group. However, he also
reminded that they should still be read carefully and verified alongside other evidence.

(Next slide: Picture of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia document)

And here you see the actual document written by Moreno himself.

(Next slide)
According to Moreno’s report dated December 30, 1896, Rizal entered death row at 7:50 AM,
accompanied by his lawyer Señor Taviel de Andrade and Jesuit Fr. Vilaclara. He was served
breakfast and requested a prayer book from Fr. March. Throughout the day, Rizal spoke with Fr.
March and Fr. Vilaclara about religious matters. They presented him with a prepared retraction,
which he initially refused to sign.

By 3 PM, Rizal handed Fr. March a document he wrote himself, and he signed it together with
two witnesses - Señor del Fresno and Señor Maure. Moreno identified this document as the
retraction. Notably, this account shows that it was Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March - not Fr. Balaguer -
who were with Rizal handling the retraction. This already casts doubt on Balaguer’s earlier
testimony.

According to the historian Xiao Chua, he pointed out in his 2016 report for GMA News, Moreno’s
report listed all the people who entered Rizal’s cell the night before his execution, and Fr.
Balaguer was not one of them. This means that Balaguer’s affidavit - even though it is often
called a primary source - is actually a secondary source because he was not directly mentioned
in the report. Chua also added that there was no reason for Moreno or the civil guards to lie in
their report, since the retraction would benefit the Jesuits more than anyone else.

Early the next morning, Rizal was married in articulo mortis - at the point of death - to Josephine
Bracken, with no witnesses and no signed marriage contract. This suggests that Rizal’s
decision to retract may have been influenced by his wish to marry Josephine Bracken,
something the Church would not have allowed if he did not return to the faith. Afterward, he
confessed, heard Mass, received Holy Communion, and kissed the image of the Blessed
Mother before being led to his execution.

Xiao Chua also noted hints in Rizal's own words - like his request for a cross on his grave and
his use of the word “cross” in his final poem Mi Último Adiós. This might indicate that Rizal
wanted a Christian burial and reconciliation with his faith.

On the other hand, British writer Austin Coates argued in his book Rizal: Philippine Nationalist
and Martyr (1968) that the retraction was likely forged. He explained that the Jesuits, knowing
Rizal’s writings would remain influential even after his death, saw his retraction as a way to
“blunt the point” of his works. According to Coates, the Jesuits may have pushed for a retraction
not only for Rizal’s spiritual good but also to lessen the dangerous influence of his anti-clerical
 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

writings on future generations - which is evident to the fact that both Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo are still studied under the current DepEd curriculum.

This gives us yet another perspective to consider - whether Rizal truly retracted sincerely, or
because of external pressures, or whether the document itself was even real at all.

Do you understand? Any questions or clarifications? Okay, thank you.

 DID RIZAL RETRACT?

SUMMARY (Ms. Barrientos)

Looking at all these documents, accounts, and testimonies, we can see that Jose Rizal’s alleged
retraction remains a mystery. Different sources tell different stories - some saying he returned to
the Catholic faith and signed a retraction, others claiming it was forged or done under pressure.

Even today, historians and scholars continue to debate what really happened. But one thing is
clear: this controversy does not diminish Rizal’s heroism. His life and works still inspired
Filipinos to fight for freedom, which they achieved in 1898.

Whether or not Rizal truly retracted, his legacy as our national hero remains strong and
unshaken.

(Ms. Cartagena)

Do you have any questions, clarifications, or violent reactions regarding our topic? None?

Well, I have a question:

If you were Rizal, would you stand firm in your beliefs even at the cost of your life, or would you
sign to protect your family and avoid disgrace?