Debate Piece.docx

Salaysay, Javi Marie A. BSA 1-1

DEBATE PIECE We, the Affirmative side strongly believe that Jose Rizal retracted his statements against the Catholic Church. There was a strong evidence presented to the public that Jose Rizal really withdrawn his statements against the Church. Various primary sources and secondary sources affirm Rizal’s retraction. Let us address these. First, there is the letter of Rizal to his mother which was received January 5, 1893, stated therein that Rizal has been going to church every Sunday in Dapitan. Isn’t this evidence enough that he has already retracted? To further strengthen the claim, it was also witnessed that Rizal was convinced to go back to the Catholic fold, he even asked Fr. Viza for the Sacred Heart statute which he carved when he was an Ateneo student. Consequently, Mi Ultimo Adios can also be used as a reference in Rizal’s penmanship which was performed by Teodoro Kalaw. On the other hand, The testimony of the eyewitnesses shows that Father Balaguer, who was with Rizal, presented the retraction format prepared by Father Pio Pi, the superior of Jesuit society in the Philippines prior to the execution. He further stated that on December 20,1896, the day before the execution, Rizal have accepted and signed the retraction. Consequently, on May 13, 1935, Rizal’s retraction was found by Fr. Manuel A. Garcia. There were many significant reasons for Rizal’s retraction. Specifically, it is to save his family, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife, to secure reforms from the Spanish government, and to help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her. Aren’t these primary sources and eyewitnesses not enough proof that Rizal really retracted? And if it still questions you why he is still being executed after his retraction? That is solely because Rizal’s case was Heresy and Filibuster. Retraction doesn’t save him from all of it.

Based on the argument concerning the forgery of the document, it was also furthered out in an article of Paraiso in 2012 under National Historical Commission of the Philippines that what Father Pi saw is not the original document of retraction since the original document was kept by the friars and was almost eaten by termites. Moreover, the retraction letter is a significant document since it is a condition for the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. To further justify, the sworn statements of the eyewitnesses, specifically, father Balaguer,

Salaysay, Javi Marie A. BSA 1-1

agreed that there was a retraction in Rizal and a marriage between the two. Another significant matter is that Rizal dedicated a Catholic devotional book, to his sisters, Josefa and Trinidad. Josephine, his wife was also mentioned in the dedication which was stated: “To my dear and unhappy wife” Doesn’t these prove Rizal’s Catholicism? Isn’t it obvious how Catholicism surfaced in his actions? In addition, expressly stated in his letter “ I abominate masonry as an enemy of the church and a society prohibited by the church.” Rizal implied the extend and used a superlative “abhor” to communicate his retraction, which is even more powerful than retraction.

It could not and could never be called forgery if what we are basing is the verbatim of the two priests.