PHILIPPINE WOMEN’S COLLEGE OF DAVAO

University Ave., Juna Subd., Matina, Davao City

TERTIARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Lesson| GEEL 002 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Module 5 "ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: Controversies and Conflicting Views
In Philippine History

Learning Outcomes: At the end of this lesson, the learners shall be able to:

1. Analyze the context, content, and perspectives of different kinds of primary sources.
2. Determine the contribution of different kinds of primary sources in understanding
Philippine history.
3. Develop critical and analytical skills with exposure to primary sources; and
4. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue
using primary sources.

What is retraction

• An act of taking back a statement, saying or something you said or wrote at an

earlier time is not true or correct.

RETRACTION OF RIZAL

"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has

been contrary to my character as as on of the Catholic Church."

Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document.

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues,

skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth this controversy.

However, the lack of evidence and regarding different statements by significant people

involved have only contributed to the complications and uncertainty which envelope this

fiery argument. Reasons for Retraction The introduction of Hessel (1965) conveys on how

unfortunate it is that some people speak and write about the Retraction without really

knowing what Rizal did or did not retract, not sufficient attention has been given to the
mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has

been done first can one evaluate the meaningfulness of the Retraction. For some people

to retract would mean little, for they have so little to retract. He expounds the four common

attitudes toward the “Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character of Dr. Rizal: 1.

There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the

“converted” Rizal. This is the official Roman Catholic position. In the only "official" book

dealing with all aspects of the Retraction (“official" in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur

of Archbishop Santos),Rizal's Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface:

Rizal's glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may someday

fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the

hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life,

that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY. This same sentiment is echoed in the statement

issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop with

regard to the Noli and the Fili: .. We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did

when he was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we

ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, “whatever

in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son

of the Catholic Church. 2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his

mature life was a 'free thinker and unbeliever'; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie.

This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic position. My previous writing has tried

to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based is not true. 3. A third

implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre-Retraction

Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held

by many students and admirers of Rizal, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction. 4. Scholarly

investigation of all facets of Rizal's life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth,

the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an

obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction.

Major Arguments of Retraction

Hessel (165) argued that scholarly research continues, fancy may yet become

acknowledge fact. Before we proceed further it could be well to say something about

bibliography and method. More than twenty books and pamphlets, In addition to

numerous articles have been surveyed in the course of this do number of writings on the

Retraction merely repeat elements of earlier ones and add nothing new. Others are more

sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening. But something of value has been gained

from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two general categories:

Biography and works dealing specifically with the Retraction. Among the

biographers are: Guerrero, Laubach, and have given the most adequate treatment

of the Retraction, the first accepting it and the other two rejecting it.

Of works dealing specifically with the Retraction, the most objective, scholarly and

complete are those by: Pascual, arguing against the Retraction, and Father

Cavanna in its favor. As an almost complete compendium of information and

arguments pro and con there is no book to date which is the equal of that of Father

Cavanna. The second edition has 353 pages of text, appendices, and

bibliographical entries totaling some 123 items. Amongst other writers consulted,

special indebtedness to Collas, Ricardo Garcia, Runes and Buenafe should be

mentioned. Garcia is a prolific popular writer in defense of the Retraction; the other

two oppose it.

Hessel (1965) refers to the writings of Father Cavanna (1952) on how it gives a well

organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders. The points which

follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modifications:

1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction 'Document' is considered the chief

witness to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or

implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of proof now rests with those

who question 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. This is very strong testimony if

true, for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way

as in the case of the Retraction statement but specifically to a number of beliefs

which he had previously repudiated. According to the testimony of Father

Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayerbook was offered to Rizal,

“he took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen

and saying 'Credo' (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”

What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.”

" believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, and/ believe in God the Holy Ghost,

Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person of the

Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary,

suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He will come tojudge the

living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his holy

commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked becáuse they have not kept them.

I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present in the

Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother

of God, was in the first moment of her natural life conceived without the stain of original

sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the Church, is

the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; when he teaches doctrines of faith and morals

to be observed by the universal Church, and that this definitions are in themselves binding

and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church

believes and teaches,since God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has so

revealed it; and in this faith / wish to live and die.”

The signed Prayer Book 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 'witnesses'.

5. His 'Roman Catholic Marriage' to Josephine Bracken as attested to by 'witnesses'.

There could be no marriage without retraction.

These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as 'irrefutable

facts'. But to call them 'facts' is toprejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a

Retraction Document was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document

actually prepared and signed by Rizal is the question at issue. As we shall soon see,

many opponents of the Retraction use the Document as their chief argument. So also,

there is a signed Prayer Book. Butnumber have asked, is this really Rizal's a Signature?

Granted, for sake of argument, that it is, what is the significance mere signature apart

from the testimony of a Father Balaguer as to why Rizal signed?

Case Against the Retraction

With the remarks above given by Hessel(1965),the less true that the testimony is

impressive.t is none It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with sarcastic

comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be

better judged only after weighing are evidence over against the arguments rejecting the

Retraction.

1.The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document

plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case

against the document itself.

a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific

study leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by

Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the

document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal beyond the

Grave. Taking as his "standard" some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal

dating from the last half of December1896, he notes a number of variations with

the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most

significant ones according to the present lecturer: (i) the slant of the letters in the

standard writing gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by

the Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters

are to be found in the Document;(il) there are significant variations In the Way

individual letters are formed; (ill) with reference tothe signature, Pascual notes no

less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications of 'stops'

which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might

stop at certain points to determine what form to make (iv) there are next; marked

similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing

of all three signers, ie Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to

Pascual's conclusion that this is a 'one-man document'. ·

The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José *. Del Rosario as part

of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of. Tomas,

1937, although most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna

asked him to specifically prepare. Dr. del Rosario's main criticism màybe said to be that

Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison. On the basis

of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge number of Pascual's statements

although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario's own data. Dr.del Rosario's

conclusion is that the hand-writing is génuine.

b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the

principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual,

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.(19) Since this

kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies I am now engaged in a major

textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms

of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of

December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct

forms of the text with significant differences. The one form is represented by the

Document discovered in 1935 and certain other éarly records of the Retraction. Two

phrases in particular are to be noted: inline 6, 'Iglesia Catolica,' and in line 10 'la Iglesia'.

The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer

published in 1897. In place of 'lglesia Catolica' in line 6 there is the single word 'lglesia'

and in place of "la lglesia" there appears 'la misma lglesia'. There also tend to be

consistent differences between the two types of the text in the use of capital letters. The

second form also claims to be a true representation of the original.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father

Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from

this earliest copy to others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father

Balaguer made corrections in the 'formula' which he supplied..to Rizal according to the

charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn’t accurately note them

all. On the other hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully

compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the 'original'

disappeared. It is not surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document

was fabricated from the 'wrong' version of a retraction statement issued by the religious

authorities.
c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also

applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. inthe

Catholic Religion 'I wish to live and die', yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal's

claim that his reaction was 'spontaneous'.

d. Finally, there is the 'confession' of 'the forger’. Only Runes has this story. He and his

co-author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13,

1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen)

a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year

to make several copies of retraction document. This same Roque had been previously

employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna

on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated

November 10,1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva

Ecija, who was also present when Roque told history and confirms it.

On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is

reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document.

2.The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts

and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by

writers beginning with Hermenegildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

a. 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'.

b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the

Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal's death was due to political factors and with this the

religious authorities could not interfere.

c. 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 of Dec. 30th
but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps

others, the evidence is conflicting).

It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon

be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been

specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal's' Christian Burial Certificate' was

discovered on May 18,1935 in the very same file with the Retraction Document! The

penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine

is open to question.

d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine

Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.

e. Finally, 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. Whether written during the last

24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change

in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate

conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal's mother and sister Trinidad

arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims

that even in the afternoon Rizal's attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for

the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened

prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.

3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that itis out of character. This

argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other.

Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in

every significant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed too

many, including the present lecturer that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character

and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious

thought.
First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted

with the facts of his life knows this issue. Thirty-five is not exactly young and Rizal was

far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have

been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some

time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests admit that during most

of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior consistent with all that was

previously exhibited during his mature year worked closely with prisoners for some ten

years and companied two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was restrained and

consistent. I would have expected Rizal's to be the same. Furthermore, in the deepest

sense of the word Rizal was already a 'believer'. In my book and elsewhere I have argued

strongly that Rizal was not a 'free-thinker' in the usual sense of the word. History is full of

the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most significant meaning of true

conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas.

Rizal's conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not

as though Rizal had been bowled Overby confrontation with the new thought of Europe

(and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who

worked hand-in-hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought

through his religious convictions. The fact that similar views are found from writing to

writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such

theology as he had was fully his own. Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of

Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for

another.

Let a new effort bé made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties ·out of

future discussion. It is time for honest Investigators to stop speaking of the 'Protestant',

the 'Masonic or the 'Roman Catholic' view towards the Retraction. Let the fact seek for
themselves. Let the Retraction Document be subject to a scientist analyzes the document

is genuine, those whoof Truth will gain.

The Retraction of Rizal

By Fr. Balaguer

Who is Fr. Balaguer?

According to a testimony by Father 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.

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.”

Figure 1 Documento de retracción del Dr. José Rizal

Four Different Versions of Rizal’s Retraction that had surfaced.

1. The First version of the text was published in La Voz Espanola and Diaro de Manila
on the very day or Rizal’s execution, Dec.30, 1896.

2. The Second one came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself years later
as Fr. Balaguer. It appeared in Barcelona, Spain on February 14,1897 in the
Fortnightly magazine in La Juventud.

3. The Third one that was said to be 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.

4. The Fourth text appeared in El Impartial on the day after Rizal’s execution. It is the
short formula of the retraction.
REASONS FOR RETRACTION

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

Document about Retraction came from:

• Father Balaguer - Delivered the document to Fr. Pio who deliver it to Archbishop
Nozaleda who deliver it to Sec. Gonzalez Feijoo.

• Father Pio Pi - Father Balaguer handed out the Retraction documents to Father Pi
- After having a copy for their archives, Fr. Pi then gave the document to the
Archbishop the next day.

• Archbishop Nozaleda - Rizal made slight variations in his retraction from the
proposed text by Fr. Pi - Fr. Pi gave the document to the Archbishop then handed
it to the Secretary of the Archbishopric.

• Gaspar Castano - Few days after death of Rizal, Castano saw and read Rizal’s
Retraction paper wherein the later declared himself a Catholic.

• Father Rosell - On Dec 30, 1896, Rosell saw the retraction paper in Ateneo.

• Luis Taviel de Andrade - Heard that in the morning of Rizal’s execution, married
Josephine - Upon arriving at the door, saw Rizal in an attitude of praying the Rizal
came out after kissing the statue of the Sacred Heart.

• Thomas Gonzalez Feijoo - The retraction document was handed to him for
safekeeping in the archives of the Secretary’s office.

ARGUMENTS against the Retraction

The retraction information was published late that could be unauthenticated.

Claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story. Those most often referred
to by writers as follows.
The “Coetaneous Acts” that undermine the belief that Rizal Retracted:
The document of retraction was kept secret
The request of the Rizal Family to have the original or copy was both denied
Rizal’s burial was kept secret
No masses or funeral was held by the Catholics
He was not buried in the Catholic Cemetery of Paco but in the ground
There was no entry in the book of burials that Rizal’s body was buried on the page of
December 30 and it appears on a special page where special orders of authorities are
indicated.
His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.”
There could be no marriage without a retraction.

OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…

In the desire for historical truth in much later years, people began the search of Rizal’s
retraction and different versions of duly notarized documents
“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
The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eyewitnesses,” and other
“qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of
the Jesuit order,the archbishop,
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.”

.Differentiation of Two Copies

1. First, Instead of the words “mi cualidad which appear in the original and the newspaper
texts, The Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad”
2. Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word “ Catolica” after the first “
Iglesias” which are found in the original and the newspaper texts
3. Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third” Iglesias” the word
“misma” which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
4. Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical
reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph
5. Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers
have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
6. Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the
witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
Observation on the document of Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal By: Dr. Jose del
Rosario

1. The execution and writing movement in Capital letters including the different varieties
used as in the letter D,J,R,I,P,V,S,C,M,E are all in natural form of letter used by Dr. Rizal

2. The small letters h,p,d,r,o,g,l,j,a are all of the handwriting of Rizal

3. The slant of writing is irregular and nearly vertical in the writing of the Ultimo Adios
because the paper used was too small so the difference in slant between the Ultimo Adios
and the normal was not a motive for doubting the genuineness of this writing

4. All the other characteristics like the short ending strokes show nothing to argue the
genuineness of the document.