Position paper

“The Retraction of Rizal”

History 101
• Introduction

For many years, many who have been interested in learning the truth about this subject have
questioned the veracity of Jose Rizal's retraction documents, which has led to skepticism and acrimonious
discussions. However, the absence of proof and conflicting accounts from key participants have further
increased the difficulties and ambiguity surrounding this heated debate. The phrase in the paper that led
historians to conclude that Rizal had recanted was, "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications, and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church."
There have been allegations that the document is different from the original file that Fr. In 1935, Manuel
Garcia, an archivist for the archdiocese, was a fraud.

Despite these assertions, a number of people are of the opinion that the retraction documents
are real. These persons include the countless individuals who witnessed Rizal kiss the crucifix before to
his death as well as the eleven eyewitnesses who were there when he wrote his retraction, signed a
Catholic prayer book, and performed Catholic prayers. Fr. A great-grandnephew of Rizal named Marciano
Guzman claims that 12 historians and authors, including Aglipayan bishops, Masons, and anti-clericals, as
well as 7 newspapers and 12 historians and writers, attested to Rizal's four confessions. Professor
emeritus of history at the University of Pennsylvania Nicolas Zafra described the retraction as "a plain
unadorned fact of history" because to what he believes to be the strength of these direct evidence in
comparison to just circumstantial evidence in the context of the historical method. Guzmán blames "the
blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons for the refusal of retraction.

Father Balaguer's "Act of Faith, Hope, and Charity" claims that on the night before After
Rizal's execution at 10:00 in the evening, the Jesuits worked hard to bring him back tothe Church of
Christ. Father Balaguer provided him with the complicated retraction procedure that had beenwritten on
the Prelate's command, but Rizal refused to sign it because it was too lengthy. Father, Rizal
questionedBalaguer to take notes on what he will speak. And there was Rizal's record of retractions,
which isregarded as the most important testimony to the truth of the retraction. There are, however,
concerns about its Authenticity is questioned, and a counterfeit of the retraction document is allegedly
involved. A Rizal is somebody who keeps his word and there is insufficient the cause of the unexpected
retreat. Below are the statements mentioned below provide evidence that Rizal did not back down before
his execution.

According to the facts That we will be providing below, it will tell you that Rizal did not withdraw
his remarks on Spanishfriars. We all know that Rizal has a strong opinion, and his journal entries make it
evident that he has strengthened his unwavering loyalty to his fundamental values and principles in light
of the fact that he even gave his life for them.

• Body

-Background information
 José Rizal, full name José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda, was a
patriot, physician, and writer who was an inspiration to the Philippine nationalist movement. He was born
on June 19, 1861 in Calamba, Philippines, and died on December 30, 1896 in Manila. Rizal, the son of a
wealthy landowner, was educated in Manila and at the University of Madrid. He was a talented medical
student who quickly dedicated himself to reforming Spanish authority in his own country, albeit he never
called for Philippine independence. The majority of his work was done in Europe, where he lived from
1882 until 1892.Rizal's first novel, Noli me tangere (The Social Cancer), was released in 1887, and it was
a passionate expose of the injustices of Spanish authority in the Philippines. El filibusterismo ante la ley
is a sequel.

He became known as the prominent speaker for the Philippine reform movement.
He issued an annotated version of Antonio Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (1890; republished
1958), trying to demonstrate that the native people of the Philippines had a lengthy history prior to the
arrival of the Spaniards. He rose to prominence as the leader of the Propaganda Movement, writing
several pieces for its Barcelona-based publication, La Solidaridad. Rizal's political platform included the
Philippines' incorporation as a province of Spain, representation in the Cortes (the Spanish parliament),
the replacement of Spanish friars with Filipino priests, freedom of assembly and speech, and equality
before the law for Filipinos and Spaniards.

In 1892, Rizal returned to the Philippines. In Manila, he created the Liga Filipina, a
peaceful reform movement, and was banished to Dapitan in northwest Mindanao. He spent the following
four years in exile. The Katipunan, a secret Filipino nationalist organisation, rose against Spain in 1896.
Despite having no ties to that group and having played no role in the insurgency, Rizal was arrested and
prosecuted for sedition by the military. He was found guilty and killed publicly by a firing squad in
Manila. His sacrifice persuaded Filipinos that there was no other option than to declare independence
from Spain. While imprisoned in Fort Santiago on the eve of his execution, Rizal penned "ltimo adiós"
("Last Farewell"), a classic of 19th-century Spanish lyric.

Evidence supporting the author position (anti retraction)

Firstly, Dr. Jose P. Rizal expended so much work on his published books and essays
denouncing the wrongdoings of Spaniards that it is difficult to think that he had withdrawn his
accusations against the Catholic Church. I absolutely oppose Rizal's reversal since, according to
Bayaningrizal, Fr. Balaguer admitted that the paper was faked, that he couldn't remember whose precise
duplicate it was, and that Fr. Pio could not confirm it with his own words. The copy of the retraction
document with Rizal's signature was kept hidden, and when his family sought for a copy, they stated it
was lost. It was also published in newspapers, and many claimed to have seen and read it. According to
the book "Rizal Beyond the Grave" by Ricardo Pascual PhD, there are three copies of the retraction with
various dates, and there was also a disclosure of a forger called Roman Roque at the party in Nueva Ecija
on August 13,1901. Abad informed them that the forger told them how he was hired by the friars earlier
that year to manufacture many copies of the retraction paper, which is proof of fabrication. According to
Dr. Pascual, who investigated the document, there are differences in the shapes of letters, slants, writing
habits, distinguishing features in the signature between authentic writings on one hand and retraction on
the other, and the closed affinity between the writings, which suggests These are done by various people,
indicating forgery.

Second is that Baron Fernandez and Manuel Morato are two witnesses who claimed
that Rizal did not retract. Baron Fernandez is a Spanish orphan who discovered the eyewitnesses account
from the archives or collection of Spain's dirty secrets; according to an online source, he found 34
documents, including handwritten letters, telegrams, and military documents; this information is the basis
for the theory. According to Fernando, the letter Rizal left could only be a denial or retraction since he
was aware that friars were misinforming Filipinos and wanted to correct the record. It is said in the
document that Rizal instructed his sister Narcissa to check inside his shoes because he had left a note. In
the meanwhile, Manuel Morato had a report of the facts about anything, especially a news story that
makes a sensational revelation. In his letter, which was then published in the Clerico-Fascist periodical,
he claimed that he had legitimately purchased Fernandez' document and affirmed that Rizal had never
recanted, despite the friars' publication of a purported retraction.

Lastly As stated by Unfading Glory of Rizal, the archdiocesan archivist Fr. found the
"original" document of this retraction that had been lost. Garcia, Manuel C.M. ... the wording contained in
the Jesuits' and the Archbishops' versions is notably different from that seen in this recently unearthed
document. The wording of the retraction that was published in the newspapers in Manila could be proved
to be perfect replicas of the original rather than just imitations, indicating that the Jesuits only possessed
the false original while the friars who controlled the Manila press had the real one. Additionally, there was
no record of their marriage since in Dapitan, the retraction was a requirement for them to tie the knot.
Rizal and Bracken's retraction was intended to prove their union.

Discussion Contains refutes arguments

Father Balaguer, together with Fr. On December 29, 1896, at approximately ten in the
morning, Vilaclara entered Rizal's cell. In his letter and affidavit, he made note of the fact that their
discussion of some Catholic tenets before their meeting with Rizal. They engaged in discussion on topics
like the theological distinctions between Catholics and Protestants and the primacy of religion over
reason. They informed him that he would have to sign a retraction letter and confess his beliefs before
they could give the sacraments he required. Around noon, the two Jesuits departed from Rizal's
confinement, with Rizal still debating whether or not to sign the retraction letter. After their initial
meeting, the Jesuits hurried directly to the archbishop's palace to notify their superiors of what had
happened.
 Around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal and
continued their attempt to convince him to repent until dusk. They were still unable in getting him to
acknowledge the retraction in writing. At their third encounter with Rizal, which began at ten o'clock that
evening, they presented him the two retraction templates Fr. They received from Pi. Father said. The
initial template was deemed undesirable by Balaguer, Rizal because it was too lengthy and its language
and style did not accurately represent him. So Fr. Rizal resisted signing it straight away because he felt
uncomfortable with the declaration "I abominateMasonry as a society reprobated by the Church."
Balaguer removed it and provided the shorter one. Rizal intended to make it clear that neither Masonry in
London nor in the Philippines demanded that members relinquish their religious beliefs. The Jesuits gave
Rizal permission to make changes to the retraction template, and his final version stated, "I abominate
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church" (Cavanna 1956, 9). Following
some little revisions to the text, Rizal and Before the clock struck midnight, the retraction letter was
signed by Seor Fresno, the picket's leader, and Seor Moure, the plaza's adjutant. then came Fr. Balaguer
gave it to Father. Pi sent it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda, who in turn did so.

• Conclusion

To conclude whether Jose Rizal did retract or not,we feel that Rizal had the moral
fortitude to admit his errors in the retraction paper. The fact that he recanted and returned to his faith may
or may not be genuine, but this does not lessen Rizal's status as a great hero of such magnificence. Joel
Torre's portrayal of Rizal reminded the time travelers in the documentary "Ang Bayaning Third World"
that whether he retracted or not, it does not affect what he has already accomplished and what his writings
have already accomplished. Furthermore, former senator Jose Diokno once said: "Surely whether Rizal
died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his glory as a Filipino. Catholic or Mason,
Rizal is wonderful whether he was a Catholic or an apostate.
 He was known to be a man of his words until this issue had afflicted his image and
putting into jeopardy his reputation as one of the greatest proponent of our country’s freedom and being
our national hero. A controversy like this should be taken into extensive examination. Many question have
rose in our mind while trying to figure out our stand on this issue prossedly this message of rizal was
published after he was shot in Bagumbayan. Why do they need to do it after he was killed? And not when
he was still alive?

in the instance of Dr. Rizal, we are not informed and there is no proof that he was still
looking for his life's purpose at the moment of his death. No, in reality, he had already given his life and
everything else to his nation, to the advancement of his people on all fronts, including politically, socially,
spiritually, and scientifically. We know that in 1886, he dedicated the magnificent "Noli Me Tangere" not
to his parents to whom he ascribed the status of venerable creatures on earth nor to his sweetheart, but to
the Philippines, a larger and nobler sweetheart.

In the societal context of today, is it still critical to have a dialogue about this issue? Some
could argue that it is, but I believe we should just recognize what Rizal has accomplished for our nation.
He helped the Filipinos see how terrible the Spaniards were. He awoke our understanding of nationalism,
and that is sufficient. His contributions to the nation will remain constant. Whatever new information
about the truth of the retraction controversy surrounding Rizal may reveal, "...it detracts nothing from his
greatness as a Filipino," as senator Jose Diokno put it. Rizal is still Rizal, the hero who sought death "to
prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs."

Rizal is a hero. Rizal spoke about the truths of his time. He is not perfect but I do not believe
that he will retract his life for a chance to be buried in a nameless grave in a Catholic Cemetery. What
would be the point of living only to say in your last hours that you did not live well? The question of
retraction must be put to rest, the nation must investigate if he really did retract and if he did not then
somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.