Rizal's Retraction

While Cavanna and other pro-retraction scholars pointed to the foregoing evidences to support their position, those who espouse the belief that Rizal did not retract substantiate their claim based on the following arguments (Hessel,1995): 1.The retraction document is a forgery. As pointed on by, Pascual (1950), the handwriting in the document is questionable, as only one man prepared it. The point stressed by Pascual was corroborated by the confession made by the forger to Antonio Abad on August 13, 1901, employed by the friars earlier that same year to make several copies of the retraction document (Runes & Buenafe, 1962). 2.The other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of retraction. Some of these are the following: >The retraction document was not made public until 1935. Even members of Rizal's family did not see it. > No effort was made to save Rizal from death penalty after saying his retraction. > Rizal's burial was kept secret. He was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco Cemetery. >The record of his burial was not placed on the page of entries of December 30th but on a special page, where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded. >There is no marriage certificate or public record of Rizal's marriage with Josephine Bracken. > Rizal's behavior did not point to a conversion during his last 24 hours. His Ultimo Adios and the letters he, wrote during his remaining hours do not indicate conversion. 3. The retraction is out of character. It is not in keeping with Rizal's character and faith. It is incongruent with his previous assertions and declarations of religious thought.

Source: Chapter 21: The trial and Martyrdom of Rizal

Counter-Proof Interestingly, the counter-proof presented by historians who are convinced that no retraction ever happened is mainly based on the analysis of the document itself. But first, Fernandez observes that: The matter of Rizal's retraction is a very nebulous one. Eighty-five years have elapsed, and the polemic on whether he did retract or was faithful to his convictions up to the last moment remains unresolved. When two opposing camps maintain their positions, irreconcilable through many years, it means that the facts are not clear. (Fernandez 1980:359) Fernandez then proceeds to say that: We close with the finding of the document of 'retraction' by Father Manuel A. Garcia on May 18, 1935, in the archives of the Archbishop's Palace. It is to be stressed, however, that the marriage contract (religious) has not been found until now. The religious marriage implied, as necessary prerequisite, retraction, At the same time, Father Garcia also found a book of prayers With Rizal’s signature. The proofs would seem to be conclusive, but the adversaries would not admit defeat. They argued that the signature is false. This opinion is supported by a study made by Prof. Ricardo

Pascual in his books Rizal beyond the grave. He points out similarity of the handwriting in the ‘retraction’ itself and that of the three signatories, and arrives at the conclusion that the document is the work of a single hand. (Fernandez 1980:391)

Fernandez introduces us to an analysis of the actual content of the retraction document: A meticulous research by those who reject the 'retraction' has yielded differences in the versions presented by various parties. In the version found by Father Garcia in 1935, line 6 says ‘Iglesia Catolica' while in the declaration of Balaguer it says only ‘Iglesia’. In line 10 of Father Garcia's version it says' por la Iglesia. The same line in Balaguer version says 'por la misma Iglesia' It is also surprising that in the retraction allegedly written seven and a half hours before Rizal’s death, he should say ‘En esta religion en que naci y me eduque, quiero vivir y morir’ (In this religion in which I was born and educated, I wish to live and die.). (Fernandez 1980:391) The argument of Runes and Buenafe will also be presented later but for now, let us allow Fernandez to cite the same authors his own argument against the retraction. Fernandez continues to say: Finally, Runes has reproduced three photocopies of the retraction which differ from each other as regards the date. All of which serves only to heighten skepticism on the matter. (Fernandez 1980:391) Fernandez also cites Coates' stand on the retraction: The latest and most documented biography of Rizal by Coates is of the opinion that either the retraction was forged or the draft written by Rizal in Dapitan was used when he signified his wish to marry Josephine. (Fernandez 1980:392) Fernandez also wonders why Balaguer did not make an official report about the retraction, considering the apparent urgency and supreme effort that the Jesuits seemed to bestow on the project of converting their former student: But surprisingly, Balaguer did not make an. of the retraction, although Mataix, the correspondent of Heraldo de Madrid, cabled a few minutes after minutes after midnight quoting the only possible source of such information that “Rizal will retract [future tense) his errors, and will confess before contracting marriage.' (Fernandez 1980:366) Fernandez also wonders about the identity of who allegedly accompanied Josephine when she visited early morning of December 30, when the Balaguer ac that the couple contracted marriage. Did the account mention the presence of witnesses? If so, shouldn't it be logical that this sister should have known about the marriage too? Fernandez says: Going back to Balaguer's report, which unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, is the only available source of this matter, he relates that shortly after 6:00 a.m., Josephine arrived, accompanied by a sister of Rizal. Other sources do not mention the fact of the sister's presence during Josephine's visit but it is logical to assume that Josephine would not have gone at such an early hour in the morning, alone and unaccompanied: (Fernandez 1980:368) Fernandez also dismisses the claim of the Balaguer a about Rizal's reaction to eternal damnation: At 3:00 in the morning, he heard Mass and confessed for the fourth time. Then he heard another mass. This is on the basis of Balaguer's account. At this point Rizal asked a question, "Can my soul go to heaven

right now?" The question. we can only say, is a puerile one and radically goes against Rizal's mentality and character. So much for Balaguer's story. (Fernandez 1980:366) The sources that Fernandez has cited in his book are Runes and Buenafe, who base their argument against the veracity of Rizal's Buenafe begin by saying that: retraction on the analysis of the copies of the retraction. Runes and Buenafe begin by saying that: It should be deplored that for the full duration of sixty-five years since the criminal execution of the greatest Filipino hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, at Bagumbayan, the veiled attack at his character had continued; that the pattern of the systematic defamation was casuistic in that his alleged recantation of his patriotic labors brought him unfading glory. This reasoning is advanced by bigoted catholic thinking the real objective of which church the Roman Catholic Church- is to perpetuate ignorance among the Filipinos so that their exploitation may be prolonged. (Runes and Buenafe 1962: vii)

What they have to do is to examine the copies of the retraction document as published in books: Imbued with a spirit of inquiry, the authors inquired into the copies of the retraction document as published in Catholic books or in books used in Catholic schools and colleges. Among these books which reproduced facsimiles of the retraction document are those of Dr. Gregorio F. Zaide, Dr. Jose M. Hernandez, Mr. Ricardo C. Bassig and Fr. Jesus Cavanna. Each of these authors or compilers claims, by the very act of reproducing the facsimile of the document, to have reproduced his facsimile from the original retraction document. Before the Runes-De la Rosa book and this one being referred to as now, nobody noticed the differences in on dates of these facsimiles. Not even the gentlement referred to above. But now come Runes and Buenafe, with arms waving violently, shouting that the dates in the facsimiles are not the same. Thus, Dr. G.F. Zaide's facsimile has the 1896 date, but whose '6' is absolutely different from the '6' in Fr. J. Cavanna's facsimile. If both were made from the same original document, then there must have been two original retraction documents. Yet the priests who allegedly witnessed the signing of the retraction mentioned one and only one document. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:2-3) They continue to say that their analysis has yielded: Not two, but four original retractions, according to the heated authors. Dr. J.M. Fernandez's facsimile is dated 1890; so is Mr. Ricardo C. Bassig's, and, surprisingly, the one in the pamphlet 'Statement of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines . . . 'This date is, to say the least, fantastic, for Rizal in 1890 was in Europe busy putting the finishing touches to his El Filibusterismo. If Dr. J.M. Hernandez's facsimile is from the original retraction - and there is no reason to doubt his integrity in this matter then the original document carries the date 1890. But according to the priest who attended Rizal in his last hours, there was one and only one retraction document and its date is 1896. It is obvious, then, that Dr. Hernandez's original form which his facsimile was taken and that of the Catholic Hierarchy’s itself is a forgery. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:3) There are also other authors who have written about the retraction whose articles are part of the Runes and Buenafe book. One of the authors, Gumersindo Garcia, Sr., M.D. writes that: I find it inconceivable that a man of his character with such devotion and patriotism to his country willingness to die for her would break down in a moment and write the alleged retraction for no other reason than to abjure masonry and return to the Roman Catholic Church for fear of the damnation of his soul in case he did not do it. In my humble opinion, Rizal was a sincerely religious man who knew what

he believed in and could not be cowed by threat of eternal damnation from anybody. Besides, he could remain a mason and a Catholic at the same time just as many masons in the Philippines today remain in the Catholic fold regardless of the attitude of their church toward masonry in particular. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:6) Gumersindo Garcia, Sr., M.D continues: On the other hand, if the objective of the retraction was to get Rizal back to the Catholic church 'from which he (allegedly)’ strayed, and was, through that alleged retraction thus accepted back as a fullfledged Catholic with all the rights and privileges of a member of the church and, furthermore, forgiven of all the sins he was supposed to have committed for being a mason. I would like to ask this question: Why was it that the Church did not intercede for his pardon or commutation of his sentence to life at least? (Runes and Buenafe 1962:7) Gumersindo Garcia, Sr., M.D asks: Why was his burial shrouded with mystery until it was discovered that he was buried in a plot outside of the Roman Catholic Church cemetery at Paco in which he should have been interred as a Catholic? Why was it that in the entry of deaths on December 30, 1896, his name did not appear in the list of bonafide Catholics but instead it was listed with those of criminal (a suicide case) and another who died by accident (burning)? Both did not have the benefit of the extreme unction. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:7) Here is also one of Palma's argument:

In the first place, the document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspapers, but, with the exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place, when family of Rizal asked for the original of said document of a copy of it as well as a copy of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were denied. (Palma 1949:339) Runes and Buenafe in effect support Palma's stand against the retraction by citing Palma's contribution to the cause of searching for the truth: Rizal's biographer, Rafael Palma, than whom no other writer has made a more penetrating study of the hero's thinking, recounted the indefatigable efforts of the Jesuits - the order had least antagonized – ostensibly to win him back to the ad from which, to them, he had strayed. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:42-43) Runes and Buenafe recall Palma's account of the Jesuits' attempt to have Rizal recant his position so he could marry Josephine when they were in Dapitan: Palma had dramatized how the Jesuits in Dapitan required Rizal first toʻretract his religious and political ideas and to submit himself to spiritual exercises' before being allowed to live at the order's mission-house but to which conditions the Filipino hero refused to accede. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:43) The authors also remind us of the debate that Rizal had with Pastells:

The story of his classic debate with Fr. Pablo Pastells is too well known to require a detailed report here. Suffice it to say that in those types of controversies Rizal was at his best when on the defensive for he was far too skillful in wrestling the advantage from his antagonist for the latter to even notice it. (Runes and Buenafe 1962:43-44) Runes and Buenafe also tell us of the attempt of the Catholic Church to block any further attempt to improve the teaching of Rizal's works, particularly his two novels, in schools:

Did not the Vatican's papal nuncio here write the pastoral letter -- which was issued by the Archbishop of Manila - opposing the Noli-Fili law so called when it was being discussed in the Congress? Years earlier, in fact, when an appropriation was being sought by the Congress for the publication of the english translation of Rizal's biography written by Rafael Pama the late Archbishop Gabriel M. Reyes issued a pastoral letter threatening with 'pain of canonical sanctions reading or mearely retaining a copy of the Palma biography of the hero. To the powerful pressure group that the Church is, the Congress bowed and abandoned the project. If those are not clear evidences of thought control, what could be? (Runes and Buenafe 1962:11) In the midst of all the controversy about Rizal Fernandez asks the most important question: At the outset, we should like to state clearly our opinion that, whether or not Rizal retracted, he should still be held in highest esteem by the Filipinos as their greatest patriot. The total accomplishment of a man in life cannot be measured by his conduct during the last hours of his life. (Ferna 1980:359)

Source: (((I update ko lang kay nalipat ko sang title ka book sa library))