Retraction of Rizal

By
Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Rafael
Palma
Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in
Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851.
He joined the
Society of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and
went to the Philippines in 1894.
Moreover, he was one of
the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal’s
last hours in Fort Santiago and
claimed that he managed to
persuade Rizal to denounce masonry
and return to the Catholic fold. In
1917 when he had
returned to Spain, an affidavit
executed that proves he was who
solemnized the marriage of Jose
Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
Rafael Palma was born on October 24,
1874. He was a Filipino politician,
lawyer, writer,
educator and a famous freemason.
Additionally, he became the fourth
President of the University
of the Philippines. He was later
elected as senator under the
Nacionalista Party, consistently
representing the 4th District, in both
the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls.
Furthermore, he was the
author of Biografia de Rizal, a work
on the life of the national hero which
won a literary contest
in 1938 sponsored by the
Commonwealth Government. The
story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is
found in chapter 32 and 33 with his
analysis in the latter chapter.
Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and
sentenced to death by a Spanish court
martial after
being implicated as a leader of the
Philippine Revolution. On December
30, 1896, accounts exist
that Rizal allegedly retracted his
masonic ideals and his writings
reconverted to Catholicism
following several hours of persuasion
by the Jesuit priests. A few hours
before he was shot, Rizal
signed a document stating that he was
a Catholic and retracted all his
writings against the church
and the document were as “The
Retraction”. Moreover, Rizal’s
retraction letter was discovered
by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in
1935 at the Catholic hierarchy’s
archive in Manila. The letter,
dated December 29, 1896.
According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr.
Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell
around 10
o’clock in the morning on December
29, 1896. He mentioned in his letter
and affidavit that their
encounter with Rizal started with a
discussion of some articles of Catholic
faith. They debated on
issues such as the supremacy of faith
over reason and the dogmatic
differences that divided
Catholics and Protestants. They
explained to him that they could not
administer the sacraments
he needed without him signing a
retraction letter and making a
profession of faith. The two
Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around
lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided
over whether to sign the
retraction letter or not. The Jesuits
went straight to the archbishop’s
palace and informed their
superiors of what had transpired
during their first meeting with Rizal.
Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara
returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in
the afternoon and tried until sunset to
persuade him to
recant. They were still not able to
convince him to sign the retraction
document. Their third
meeting with Rizal took place at 10
o’clock that night, and it was during
this meeting that they
showed Rizal the two retraction
templates Fr. Pi had given them.
According to Fr. Balaguer,
Rizal found the first template
unacceptable because it was too long
and its language and style
were not reflective of his personality.
So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and
offered the shorter one.
Rizal did not sign it right away
because he was uncomfortable with
the statement “I abominate
Masonry as a society reprobated by
the Church.” Rizal wanted to
emphasize that Philippine
Masonry was not hostile to
Catholicism and that Masonry in
London did not require its members
to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction
template, and his final
version read, “I abominate Masonry as
the enemy of the Church and
reprobated by the same
Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After
making other minor changes to the
draft, Rizal together with
Retraction of Rizal
By
Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Rafael
Palma
Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in
Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851.
He joined the
Society of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and
went to the Philippines in 1894.
Moreover, he was one of
the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal’s
last hours in Fort Santiago and
claimed that he managed to
persuade Rizal to denounce masonry
and return to the Catholic fold. In
1917 when he had
returned to Spain, an affidavit
executed that proves he was who
solemnized the marriage of Jose
Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
Rafael Palma was born on October 24,
1874. He was a Filipino politician,
lawyer, writer,
educator and a famous freemason.
Additionally, he became the fourth
President of the University
of the Philippines. He was later
elected as senator under the
Nacionalista Party, consistently
representing the 4th District, in both
the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls.
Furthermore, he was the
author of Biografia de Rizal, a work
on the life of the national hero which
won a literary contest
in 1938 sponsored by the
Commonwealth Government. The
story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is
found in chapter 32 and 33 with his
analysis in the latter chapter.
Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and
sentenced to death by a Spanish court
martial after
being implicated as a leader of the
Philippine Revolution. On December
30, 1896, accounts exist
that Rizal allegedly retracted his
masonic ideals and his writings
reconverted to Catholicism
following several hours of persuasion
by the Jesuit priests. A few hours
before he was shot, Rizal
signed a document stating that he was
a Catholic and retracted all his
writings against the church
and the document were as “The
Retraction”. Moreover, Rizal’s
retraction letter was discovered
by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in
1935 at the Catholic hierarchy’s
archive in Manila. The letter,
dated December 29, 1896.
According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr.
Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell
around 10
o’clock in the morning on December
29, 1896. He mentioned in his letter
and affidavit that their
encounter with Rizal started with a
discussion of some articles of Catholic
faith. They debated on
issues such as the supremacy of faith
over reason and the dogmatic
differences that divided
Catholics and Protestants. They
explained to him that they could not
administer the sacraments
he needed without him signing a
retraction letter and making a
profession of faith. The two
Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around
lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided
over whether to sign the
retraction letter or not. The Jesuits
went straight to the archbishop’s
palace and informed their
superiors of what had transpired
during their first meeting with Rizal.
Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara
returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in
the afternoon and tried until sunset to
persuade him to
recant. They were still not able to
convince him to sign the retraction
document. Their third
meeting with Rizal took place at 10
o’clock that night, and it was during
this meeting that they
showed Rizal the two retraction
templates Fr. Pi had given them.
According to Fr. Balaguer,
Rizal found the first template
unacceptable because it was too long
and its language and style
were not reflective of his personality.
So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and
offered the shorter one.
Rizal did not sign it right away
because he was uncomfortable with
the statement “I abominate
Masonry as a society reprobated by
the Church.” Rizal wanted to
emphasize that Philippine
Masonry was not hostile to
Catholicism and that Masonry in
London did not require its members
to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction
template, and his final
version read, “I abominate Masonry as
the enemy of the Church and
reprobated by the same
Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After
making other minor changes to the
draft, Rizal together with
Retraction of Rizal

By

Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Rafael Palma

Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He joined theSociety
of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in 1894. Moreover, he was one ofthe Jesuit
priests who visited Rizal’s last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed topersuade
Rizal to denounce masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In 1917 when he hadreturned to
Spain, an affidavit executed that proves he was who solemnized the marriage of JoseRizal and
Josephine Bracken.

Rafael Palma was born on October 24, 1874. He was a Filipino politician, lawyer,
writer,educator and a famous freemason. Additionally, he became the fourth President of the
Universityof the Philippines. He was later elected as senator under the Nacionalista Party,
consistently representing the 4th District, in both the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls.
Furthermore, he was theauthor of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the national hero
which won a literary contestin 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The story of
Rizal’s alleged retraction isfound in chapter 32 and 33 with his analysis in the latter chapter.

Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by a Spanish court martial after being
implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution. On December 30, 1896, accounts existthat
Rizal allegedly retracted his masonic ideals and his writings reconverted to Catholicismfollowing
several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests. A few hours before he was shot, Rizalsigned a
document stating that he was a Catholic and retracted all his writings against the churchand the
document were as “The Retraction”. Moreover, Rizal’s retraction letter was discoveredby Father
Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935 at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. The letter,dated
December 29, 1896.

According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10o’clock in
the morning on December 29, 1896. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit that theirencounter
with Rizal started with a discussion of some articles of Catholic faith. They debated onissues
such as the supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences that dividedCatholics
and Protestants. They explained to him that they could not administer the sacramentshe needed
without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. The twoJesuits left
Rizal’s prison around lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign theretraction
letter or not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop’s palace and informed theirsuperiors of
what had transpired during their first meeting with Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclarareturned to
Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him torecant. They
were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their thirdmeeting with Rizal
took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it was during this meeting that theyshowed Rizal the two
retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer,Rizal found the first
template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and stylewere not reflective of
his personality. So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and offered the shorter one.Rizal did not sign it right
away because he was uncomfortable with the statement “I abominateMasonry as a society
reprobated by the Church.” Rizal wanted to emphasize that PhilippineMasonry was not hostile to
Catholicism and that Masonry in London did not require its membersto renounce their faith. The
Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his finalversion read, “I abominate
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the sameChurch” (Cavanna 1956, 9).
After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal together with Señor Fresno, chief of the
picket, and Señor Moure, adjutant of the plaza signed the retractionletter before midnight. After
which, Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted itto Archbishop Bernardino
Nozaleda.

On the other hand, Rafael Palma, a prominent Mason, disputed the veracity of
thedocument of the alleged retraction because it did not reflect Rizal’s true character and beliefs.
Heregarded the resurrected retraction story as a “pious fraud”. Where, according to his analysis,
theretraction of Rizal was hearsay with the following reasons: First, the documents of
retractionwere kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to see it that time.
Secondly, whenthe family of Rizal ask for the original copy of the document as well
as the certificate ofcanonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, bot petitions were denied.
Third, Rizal’s burial waskept secret, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what his
conversion meant, nomasses were said for his soul or funeral held by Catholics.
Notwithstanding that Rizal wasreconciled with the church, he was not buried in the Catholic
cemetery of Paco but in the ground,without any cross or stone to mark his grave. And, in the
entry of the entry in the book of burialsof the interment of Rizal’s body is not made on the page
those buried on December 30, 1896,instead he was considered among persons died impenitent
with no spiritual aid. Lastly, there wasno moral motive for the conversion.To conclude,
whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that theretraction
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
diminishRizal’s stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned the documentary
entitled “AngBayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told the time travellers
that whetherhe retracted or not, it does change what he has already done and what his writings
have alreadyachieved. Furthermore, former Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether
Rizal died as aCatholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.
Catholic orMason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death "to prove to those
who deny ourpatriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs".