Name: John Paulo T.

Musngi Subject: Reading in the Philippine History

Course/Year/Section: BSBA MM- 1A Instructor: Ms. Bianca Salvador

“Did Rizal Retract”

A Case Study

Did Jose Rizal really give up his beliefs right before his death, or his supposed
retraction is one of Philippine history’s biggest mystery? “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”-Jose Rizal. The retraction of Jose Rizal has been one
of the most frequently debated aspects of Jose Rizal’s life before his execution and now
became a subject that questions its authenticity and truthfulness. The retraction of Jose
Rizal contains apologies and his withdrawal of the morbid ideas about the Catholic Church
and the government of Spain. Many historians believed that Jose Rizal retract for the
reasons; first is to save his family and town from further persecution. Second, is to give
Josephine a legal status as his wife and lastly, to secure reforms from Spanish government.
Was it really enough reason for Jose Rizal to retract? Did he truly reach a point to take
everything back and let Filipino’s hanging? Considering how far he had come fighting for the
rights of every Filipinos’ against the Spaniards. Giving and risking his life writing his two
novels “Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo” that exposes the unfair treatment of friars
experienced by his fellow Filipinos’ and oppression caused by the Spaniards or is it was
forged and fabricated by the Catholic Church alongside with the Spanish government to
prevent the flame of revolution to spread further.
It’s my belief and the way I see it, Jose Rizal did not retract at all even though there
are many Historians and Friars believing that he retract and took back all the things he said
against the Catholic Church and Spanish Government before his death— considering Fr.
Manuel Garcia in 1935 who claims that he is the one who discovered Rizal’s retraction letter
dated December 29, 1986 and signed by our national hero himself. Similarly with Fr. Vincent
Balaguer who claimed that he visited Rizal during his last hour in Fort Santiago and managed
to denounce Mansanory and return to catholic fold. Regarding to this, I firmly do not believe
on this stories or tall tales made by Friars knowing their past and the stories made by our
National hero that expose their true colors as they also a factors to oppression experienced
many of our fellow Filipinos’ at the time of colonization for over 333 years. The way I see it,
there is a possibility the retraction of Rizal is fabricated by them to maybe weaken the
revolution, to make many Filipino’s to lose hope, to clear and clean their names to us
Filipinos and to make us believe that they are forgiving and kind in contrary to their image in
Name: John Paulo T. Musngi Subject: Reading in the Philippine History
Course/Year/Section: BSBA MM- 1A Instructor: Ms. Bianca Salvador

Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo as a unfair and abuses they caused written and
expressed by Rizal in his novels. Considering also the analysis conducted of other
researchers and students who believes the retraction was also forged and fabricated.
(Miranda, 2021) the claims made by Jesuit found there are many inconsistencies, which
questions their truthfulness and authenticity. Similarly, it finds more sufficient evidences
suggesting the possible fraud and forgery made by the Friars knowing there many variances
and edition of the Retraction of Rizal. Here are the evidences collected from a case study
entitled “Did Rizal Retract?: Uncovering the Controversies of the National Hero’s Last
Moments” conducted by John Christian Miranda in 2021 that is against the claim of many
Jesuits and Historians: First, the retraction letter said to be from José Rizal goes against his
strong beliefs against the friars, which he shared in a letter to Mariano Ponce in 1889. In
that letter, Rizal criticized the friars for treating people unfairly, using fear and cruelty to
keep control, and promised to fight for justice. He wrote that the friars were not true
followers of Christ and instead spread fear and turned the government against the people.
These strong opinions were also clear in his novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo,
showing his deep opposition to the abuses of the Catholic [Link], Friedrich Stahl
doubted the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction, pointing out that the Spanish often claimed
executed individuals had repented to discourage further resistance. Stahl emphasized that
no one had seen Rizal's supposed declaration, as it was kept by the archbishop, raising
suspicion that it might have been fabricated or influenced by the Catholic [Link], José
Alejandrino and others doubted the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction, noting that the
Spanish tried to tarnish Rizal’s image even after his death. He was buried in an unmarked
grave, with Spanish authorities likely aiming to prevent him from being honored as a hero.
Trinidad Rizal, his sister, claimed the Jesuits promised to show the original retraction
document but never did. Fourth, Manuel Artigas y Cuerva also dismissed the retraction as
“apocryphal,” pointing out that no one had seen the document in any archives, despite
other records of Rizal being preserved. This lack of evidence, along with the questionable
eyewitness accounts, gives significant doubt and hesitation on whether Rizal truly retracted.
Rafael Palma, former UP president and prominent Mason, called Rizal’s retraction a “pious
fraud,” doubting its authenticity as it didn’t reflect Rizal’s true beliefs. Dr. Ricardo P. Pascual
studied the handwriting on the retraction, comparing it with Rizal’s other works, including
Mi Ultimo Adios. He found inconsistencies in handwriting slant, signature, ink, typeface, and
Name: John Paulo T. Musngi Subject: Reading in the Philippine History
Course/Year/Section: BSBA MM- 1A Instructor: Ms. Bianca Salvador

a margin, leading him to conclude the retraction was likely forged. Fifth, researchers who
later compared the documents also noted noticeable differences in the strokes and layout,
adding to suspicions that the retraction might not be genuine. In examining Rizal’s signature
in DelaImitacion De Cristo and his retraction, researchers initially noted inconsistencies in
stroke style. Lastly, historian Ambeth Ocampo pointed out that Rizal’s signature often varied
by time and place, which weakens the argument against the retraction’s authenticity. Due
to limited access to some of Rizal’s works, only available samples were compared, providing
a preliminary basis for questioning the document, but not a definitive conclusion. In the
end, the supposed retraction just doesn’t add up, (Miranda, 2021). Between the
inconsistent handwriting, the hiding around the original document, and all the doubts from
people close to Rizal, it feels more like a last attempt by the Spaniards and the Church to
control his legacy than a genuine change of heart. It’s hard to believe that a man who spent
his life fighting for freedom would suddenly take it all back at the last moment.
Therefore I conclude the evidence points to the idea that Rizal’s retraction was not
true but rather a forgery made by the Catholic Church for its own benefit. The numerous
inconsistencies in the document itself, along with the suspicious things surrounding its
creation, raise serious hesitations about its authenticity. Many close to Rizal, like his family
and friends, have questioned its legitimacy, suggesting it was an attempt to undermine his
legacy and suppress the revolutionary spirit he inspired. The Church, aiming to maintain
control and protect its reputation, likely wanted to portray Rizal as a repentant sinner rather
than a national hero. It’s difficult to believe that a man, who dedicated his life to fighting for
justice and achieved many things aligned on his belief, would suddenly abandon his ideals at
the last moment. If the retraction is truly happened Jose Rizal still executed knowing the
great influence of catholic church to the Spanish government and why his other works
before his death doesn’t show a glimpse of his retraction and not influence by this
circumstances?. Even in the future, if other historians proved the retraction and collected
sufficient evidences it doesn’t erase the and a chapter in our history wherein a young man
has full of dreams for our country became a soul of the revolution in the Philippines that
lead to our democracy in Spanish government that gives identity to us that seperate from
colonial past. That he died loving his own country and fighting for our rights as a Filipino and
human beings. He became the inspiration of every generation and every one of us to
continue striving and seeking for a better future.
Name: John Paulo T. Musngi Subject: Reading in the Philippine History
Course/Year/Section: BSBA MM- 1A Instructor: Ms. Bianca Salvador

First Mass in the Philippines: Limasawa

 Philippine government since 1921 recognizes Limasawa as the site of the first mass in the
Philippines. It was further recognize by National Historical Commission of the
Philippines in 2021.
 When scholars had full access to one of the copy of Pigafetta’s written account or one of
the four manuscripts from the text archive in Ambrosiona, Milan in Italy. It was verified
by a Filipino Philologist and Linguist Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera that indeed there was
no Butuan mentioned in Pigafetta’s chronicle.
 Historian Fr. Pablo Pastells corrected other historians who are pro butuan as site of first
mass. Also, William Henry Scott an Eminent Philippine Historian observed that Gian
Battista Ramusios (1550) a another edition of Pigafetta’s chronicle is a paraphrased
version and a poor one because Ramusios edition and him was confused to the events
leading error and became a source of misinformation of Butuan as the site of first mass
that influenced generations of writers.
 There are misconceptions that document pertaining Butuan as the first of the mass are
considered as Primary Sources because they are basically written in Spanish but are now
considered as secondary because they are non eye witnessing account.
 Spelling at that time are not taken face value. Because some argued that “Masao” in
Butuan was closer “Mazaua” compared to Limasawa
 Masao was an ancient island and merged with Butuan, that imply Mazaua is closer to
Mindanao. But, primary sources like Pigafett described nothing about Mindano.
 Francisco Albo and Antonio Pigafetta are credible sources because they are part of
Magellan expedition
 In accordance to their account as they both recorded the geographical description and
coordinates of Mazaua/Mazzava. It was 9 degrees 40’ N Latitude according to
Pigafetta and 9 degrees 20’ N Latitude based on Francisco Albo’s Logbook. The
coordinates are closer to Limasawa coordinate which is 9 degrees 56’ N Latitude or
only a 0 degrees 16’ difference to Pigafetta. Even a Layman or simply googling can
confirm it. This coordinates are closer to Limasawa than Butuan.
 Similarly, they also both recorded another navigational data. According to Francisco
Albo, after leaving Humonhon they sailed west ward for about 20 leagues before
reaching Mazaua. Likewise Pigafetta recorded that Mazauz was 25 leagues away from
Humonhon. Butuan is already 35.56 leagues away compare to Limasawa which is
23.99 leagues. The distance recorded by Pigfetta and Albo align and relatively close
to Limasawa.
 Additionally, Albo described Mazaua/Mazzava a island as island as being small and
inhabited which matches the description of Limasawa.
 Besides, he also noted that one of the crew planted or raised a cross on the top/summit
of a hill wherein you will see a three(3) nearby islands. In Butuan you’ll only see a
one(1) nearby island. But, Limasawa matches the description provided by Albo—
when you’re in the summit of a hill in Limasawa you’ll actually see three nearby
island.
 There is consistent evidences in Limasawa. Even though the evidences presented came
from only two accounts— Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo are considered as
primary source as they witness and recorded evidences as being part of the expedition
with Magellan.