Introduction of the Controversy

For many years, Filipinos glorified respect for Jose Rizal because of his sacrifices
and
huge contribution as a citizen of our country and his beliefs as an honest
propagandist.
However, his reputation as an unwavering "bayani" has been doubted due to
lingering issues
that contradict the very core reason why we Filipinos gratify his efforts, his
existence in our
history. One of the most intriguing issues in our history was the issues of Jose
Rizal on his
alleged retraction before his execution on the 30th of December, 1896 which was
all about his reversion to the Catholic Faith and all other issues linked to it such as
his marriage to Josephine Braken. Many historians arguing whether Rizal retracted
from what he had stated about the Catholic Church or not. From Rizal's
statement: "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.", some says that this document is a forgery and the other are
asserting that it's authentic and Rizal was the only who wrote and signed the
retraction paper. There are arguments found that depend the both claims.
Retraction is the public statement made about an earlier statement that
withdraws, cancel,
refutes, or reverses the original statement. In this case, he is taking back what he
have stated
against the Catholic Church and in the Philippines and the Friars. There were four
well-known
reasons behind Rizal's retraction. First, He wanted to marry Josephine Bracken
and to make her his wife legally. Second, He wanted to protect his family. Third,
He wanted to reforms from the Spanish Government. Lastly, He wanted to heal
the sickness of the Catholic Church. All theories came from the retraction paper
that was written by Rizal. Other people insist that Rizal did retract while some
says that he did not. There are different evidences that appeared to defend each
side.

In some sources, they state that Rizal's alleged retraction did not actually happen.
These
sources say that the friars who visited him within twenty four hours prior his
execution convinced him to confess the sins they accused him of committing.
[1]The main motive, of which, is to make Rizal admit his errors against religion
and retract them. At least seven Jesuits visited Rizal at various times during the
course of the day.[2] If the friars of the future could state with authority that
Rizal's expressed views were not what he really believed, it would cast an
element of doubt over everything he had written, making people hesitate to
believe it.

Sides and/or Evidences of the Controversy

Moreover like a coin, there were also two sides of the story. According to Teodoro
Kalaw, a professional on our hero's writings and other handwritings experts, the
retraction was originally written by Rizal and it has been judged by them through
their deep study. There are also prominent Philippine historians who uphold the
authenticity of Rizal's retraction such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, Gregorio
Zaide and many more. As of them, they consider the witnesses when Rizal wrote
the retraction paper, signed the book of prayers of the Catholic, and recited the
prayers of the Catholic. Base on them, there were also people who saw him when
he kissed the crucifix before the execution. Rizal was also said that he had his 4
confessions, beheld by different qualified witnesses, newspapers, and historians
including the leader of the Spanish Supreme Court. And this affirmation was
stated by Rizal's great nephew

While the other stands for the contradicting, that of which claims Rizal of actually
signing a statement of his retraction. There are sources indicating that there are
proofs of Rizal not
actually retracting. An example of such is his burial. He was not buried within a
Catholic cemetery and was listed as a suicide case, a neglected body along with
the persons with
unknown causes of death.

If he did retract and admonished Masonry, then the Church, claiming his
retraction and his reconciliation with the religion, would have had the decency of
giving him a proper Catholic burial and declare his death under the list of
Catholics, to acknowledge the confession the friars claimed they witnessed Rizal
committed. The alleged retraction papers also only were revealed about thirty
(30) years after Rizal's death. A matter of concern was uprooted when two
statements of the declaration were recognized, both of which had a great deal of
differences. Some claim that one of these was fabricated, and some claim that the
loriginall copy aged and rotted in the grasp of the Spanish Catholic friars. [4] What
they saw was a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal's handwriting while the
original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. 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."
However, 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. 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.

The Stands

There are also those who strongly believe that Rizal could not have
had any reason to retract, arguing that Rizal was a noble man who
would not stoop so low as to follow those whom he initially was
writing against. A man of his character with such devotion and
patriotism to his country and, moreover, willingness to die for the
country 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. Opinions in this issue
would not be the same because some may agree and some may
not. It was also argued that Rizal retracted in order to save his
family from further persecution, to give Josephine a legal status as
his wife, and to assure reforms from the Spanish Government.

Positive Stand
I agree on the presented evidence because most of the people
believed that Rizal did not fight the Catholic religion. Rizal fought
those who abused the religion. He was not against the Catholic
religion but he was against the manner of the Catholic religion by
the practiced of the friars in the Philippines during no time. I believe
that even though Dr. Jose Rizal not fought the friars physically but
he fought through his writings. Those writings helped us Filipinos to
be aware about the friars since then. Dr. Jose Rizal Gives us not only
information but also a knowledge that we can use in our daily lives.

Negative Stand

Some point I oppose is where they examined the handwriting of the

document of Rizal’s retraction. They conclude that in this particular
case of the retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal, all the indicators and
symptoms show that it is genuine but the anti-retraction says it was
absurd. They examined it differently but they will come up with the
same answer.

Final Stand (Generalization)

In my humble stand, retraction was being fabricated or fogged to

make Rizal look as if he was defeated by the church. The
ecclesiastical authorities at that time didn't want to become
"poisoned" by the writings of Rizal. If they can convince the people
that Jose Rizal retracted, all of his writings would be void. When it
comes to history, we may never be fully certain if an event really
occur or did not. The people can have the power to obscure or belie
an occurance of an event and deceive others We also know that
Rizal stands on 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. Knowing his character, he's clever enough not to let
those Spaniards get the upper hand. There are many documents
and loopholes debunking the idea of the retraction. If he retracted
before his execution, then he must been buried properly. He was
buried in the place for those who are against the Catholic Church.
He did not even get a proper burial. If he died as a catholic, they
should have given him the burial that deserves. And also the
retraction was made for Rizal to be able to marry the love of his life,
which is Josephine Bracken, then why was there no marriage
certificate presented. And as we could remember from our history,
Offense against the Roman Catholic is an offense to both Spain and
Rome. Remember the power of Spain was accorded by the Vatican
to the Catholic. And whether Rizal retracted or not, it still didn't
changed the fact that his works led the Filipino people to fight for
their rights. His works stirred the nationalism and patriotism in the
hearts of the Filipino and secure the
future generations. So It is immaterial whether Rizal retracted or
not. One fact remains, Rome and Spain were both behind the death
of Rizal.

References

[1] An excerpt from iThe Life and Writings of Dr. José Rizali Chapter
16: Did
Rizal Retract paragraph 2
12] An excerpt from iThe Last Hours of Rizali by Coates, as cited by
www.geocities.com/rizalretraction paragraph 3
[3] An excerpt from iThe Last Hours of Rizali by Coates, as cited by
www.geocities.com/rizalretraction paragraph 2
[4] An excerpt from www.joserizal.ph The Retractioni paragraph 25
[5] A statement by Gumersindo Garcia, Sr., M.D., as cited by Maria
Stella S Valdez, from the book IDr. Jose Rizal and the Writing of His
Story!