Position paper

In
Reading in the Philippine history

Group member
Atienza, Jexzenielle aerlvon a.

Introduction
 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
regarding this controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statements
by significant people involved have only contributed to the complications and
uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument.

Many claim that Rizal accepted the retraction offer and have evidence and
many said that Rizal never did accept the offer and was never even married. But in
this paper we will see and learn of what really happened.

Sides and/or Evidences of the Controversy

After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that
the retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's
handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the
Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with
Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious
fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant
minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the
National Archives.

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent

Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María
Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John
Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin Craig.[24] They take the
retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost expert
on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting
experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr.
José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction,

signed a Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who
saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal,
Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4confessions were certified by 5
eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers
including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head
of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly
esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.

The Stand: The Positive Stand

The argument between the original document and the released retraction
documents brought more controversy because this differs significantly from the text
found in the Jesuits. Which is really the “original”? Some of the significant
differences between the copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following:
(1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the
Archbishop’s copies, (2) the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias in
the Jesuits’ copies, (3) the word “misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in
the Jesuit’s copies, (4) the second paragraph from the archbishop’s copies started
with the second sentence, however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started until the fifth
sentences, (5) the Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and (6) the
Jesuits’ copies did not have the names of the witnesses. These arguments are further
discuseed below.

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman University, summarizes the
major points of argument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:

1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to

the reality of 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 which was amongst the documents
discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.

 If true, 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.”

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 a retraction.

The Stand: The Negative Stand

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points against the
document itself.

 First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the

only scientific study criticizing the authenticity of the
document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the
University of the Philippines shortly after the document was
found.

Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his
“standard”, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the document,
he further concluded that it was a “one-man document” because of the similarities
in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three
signers: Rizal and the two witnesses.

o The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that

given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism
may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of
Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that
the hand-writing is genuine.

 A second argument directed against the authenticity of the

document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism.
Several critics 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.

To date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting
numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences
with regards to the use of certain phrases within the document.

o 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. Some have wondered if the
Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong”
version of a retraction statement issued by the religious
authorities.

 A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its

content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion
“I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and
also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.

 Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K.

Abad tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral
home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told
how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to
make several copies of a 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 as follows:

 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.”

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

o The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and
with this the religious authorities could not interfere.
  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.

 There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with

Josephine Bracken.

 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.

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

 Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the

Philippines and a prominent Mason, also argued that if Rizal retracted,
it would have been a very drastic change of character in Rizal which is
very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal
was. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud.”

The Stand: The Final Stand

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that
the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his
mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this
does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned
the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s impersonation
of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what
he has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore,
Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an
apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or
Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny
our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs."
Reference
 Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

 Did Rizal Retract?

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.ht
m

 http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

 http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

 http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-
controversy.html