Proposition Speaker 1:

Ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you to argue that Jose Rizal did retract his statements
against the Catholic Church. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the existence
of three distinct retraction documents, all of which share similar content, attesting to Rizal's
return to the Catholic faith. These documents, attributed to credible sources such as Father
Pio Pi, Father Gracia, and Father Ortiz, outline Rizal’s declaration of faith and his abomination
of Masonry, a society he once supported.The most well-known account comes from Father
Pio Pi, who claimed that Rizal signed the retraction document on December 29, 1896, just
one day before his execution. This document, published shortly after Rizal’s death, clearly
shows that he retracted his views against the Church, renounced Masonry, and embraced
Catholicism once more.

Furthermore, accounts from Father Vicente Balaguer support this. Father Balaguer, a Jesuit
priest who was with Rizal in his final hours, claimed that Rizal confessed to him and accepted
the last rites of the Church. According to Balaguer, Rizal’s change of heart came as he faced
his mortality, realizing that he wanted to reconcile with the religion in which he was raised.
These testimonies, along with the documents themselves, provide strong evidence that Rizal
did retract.

---

Opposition Speaker 1:
While the Proposition team presents the retraction documents, we must question their
authenticity. First, there is the suspicious timing of the discovery. If Rizal truly retracted, why
did it take so long for these documents to come to light? Father Manuel Garcia only claimed
to have discovered the original retraction document in the archives of the Archbishop of
Manila in 1935, almost 40 years after Rizal’s death. How can we trust something that took so
long to come to light? If the retraction was real, why would it have been hidden for so long?
Furthermore, multiple historians, such as Austin Craig, have questioned the authenticity of the
document. Craig pointed out inconsistencies in the handwriting and structure, suggesting the
document might have been fabricated by the friars to protect their reputation after Rizal’s
execution.

Let’s not forget who Rizal was. Throughout his life, he stood firmly against the abuses of the
Church. In his novels *Noli Me Tangere* and *El Filibusterismo*, he openly criticized the friars
for exploiting Filipinos in the name of religion. His letters to Ferdinand Blumentritt further
reveal his disbelief in the Catholic Church’s teachings. As early as 1887, Rizal expressed
doubts about religious dogmas, writing to Blumentritt that he did not believe in hell and that
the Church used fear to manipulate people. Rizal’s actions throughout his life suggest that he
would never retract these beliefs, even under threat of death.

Proposition Speaker 2:
I understand the doubts about the authenticity of the documents, but we must also consider
Rizal’s relationships with certain members of the Church. Rizal had a complex relationship
with religion, particularly with some Jesuit priests. He maintained respect for priests like
Father Pablo Pastells and Father Francisco de Paula Sanchez, who were his mentors. During
his time in Dapitan, these priests repeatedly tried to convince Rizal to return to the Catholic
faith. While Rizal resisted them at the time, facing his own execution may have changed his
perspective. Father Balaguer specifically mentioned that Rizal was deeply moved by the idea
of eternal salvation, which could have led him to reconsider his stance on religion. He had
criticized the Church for many years, but when faced with death, he likely thought deeply
about his soul and his relationship with God. Many scholars, like Wenceslao Retana, also
believe Rizal's retraction was real, based on these documents and reports from the time. For
Rizal, this wasn’t about abandoning his beliefs but finding peace before he died. It’s important
to remember that, while Rizal criticized the abuses of the friars, he was not an atheist. He
believed in God, and in the face of death, he might have felt it was the right time to make
peace with the Church.

Another point to consider is Rizal’s love for Josephine Bracken. Rizal wanted to marry her,
but the Church refused unless he retracted his beliefs and accepted the sacraments again.
Rizal was a man who cared deeply about honor and integrity, and he may have been
motivated to retract in part because of his desire to legitimize his relationship with Josephine.
While he may not have retracted earlier, the thought of leaving her behind might have pushed
him to change his mind in his final moments.

---

Opposition Speaker 2
Even if we acknowledge Rizal’s connections with certain priests, there’s no strong evidence to
show that he would go as far as retracting. Throughout his life, Rizal consistently rejected the
Church’s demands. For instance, when Father Antonio Obach, the parish priest of Dapitan,
offered to marry Rizal and Josephine Bracken, he made it clear that the condition was that
Rizal must first retract his anti-Catholic views. Rizal refused, and he lived with Josephine
without the Church’s blessing. If Rizal refused to retract even when it would have allowed him
to marry the woman he loved, why would he suddenly change his mind just before death?

Also, the Church’s treatment of Rizal after his death casts further doubt on the claim that he
retracted. If Rizal had truly returned to the Church, why was he buried in such a dishonorable
manner? Rizal’s body was buried without a coffin, in an unmarked grave, which was how the
Church typically treated those who died outside the faith, and his name was entered into the
list of those who died without repentance. Historian Rafael Palma questioned this, asking why
the Church would allow such treatment if Rizal had repented. The fact that Rizal was buried
as a heretic suggests that he never retracted, despite what Father Balaguer claimed.

Finally, we must address the inconsistencies in the retraction documents. As mentioned

earlier, there are at least three different versions of Rizal’s supposed retraction. One version
was published by Father Pio Pi, another was revealed by Father Manuel Garcia, and a third
was put forward by Father Francisco Ortiz. These versions differ in wording, raising serious
questions about which, if any, is authentic. The very existence of multiple versions
undermines the credibility of the claim that Rizal retracted at all. As Miguel de Unamuno, a
Spanish philosopher who studied Rizal, argued, the friars likely fabricated the retraction to
save face and discredit a national hero who had exposed their abuses.

---

Proposition Speaker 3:
While there are indeed multiple versions of the retraction, that does not mean Rizal didn’t
retract. The differences in wording could be explained by the fact that multiple copies may
have been written or slightly modified for different purposes. What’s more important is that all
versions of the document share the same core message: Rizal professed his faith in the
Catholic Church and renounced his past criticisms. This consistency across the documents
should not be dismissed.

Additionally, it’s worth considering that Rizal’s personality was complex, and he may have had
moments of doubt as his execution approached. The Jesuits, particularly Father Balaguer,
were known for their persistence. If Rizal felt that retracting would give him spiritual peace, he
might have decided it was the right thing to do. After all, we see in Mi Último Adiós, Rizal’s
final poem, a deep faith in God. The poem’s spiritual tone shows that Rizal believed in a
higher power, even if he had once rejected the Catholic Church. It’s possible that in his final
hours, he returned to the faith he was born into.

---

Opposition Speaker 3:
While Mi Último Adiós does express faith in God, it does not show any explicit return to the
Catholic Church, it was only said as quoted “, "For I go where no slave before the oppressor bends.
Where Faith can never kill, and God reigns e'er on high.” Rizal’s belief in God was always separate
from the institution of the Church, which he criticized for its hypocrisy and abuse of power.
Just because Rizal had faith in a higher being does not mean he accepted the Church’s
teachings or retracted his criticisms of it.

Furthermore, Rizal was a man of strong convictions. He resisted all previous attempts to bring
him back to the Church, even when faced with death. Historian Teodoro Agoncillo argued that
Rizal’s refusal to retract during his exile in Dapitan proves that he would not retract later. Rizal
was firm in his beliefs, and his actions throughout his life show that he stood by his principles
until the end.

We must remember the words of scholars like William Henry Scott, who pointed out that the
supposed retraction was part of a broader effort by the Spanish friars to tarnish Rizal’s legacy.
By claiming that Rizal retracted, the friars could undermine his reputation as a national hero
and defender of freedom. The inconsistencies in the retraction story, the late discovery of the
document, and the way Rizal was treated after his death all suggest that this retraction never
happened. Rizal stayed true to his beliefs until the very end, even in the face of death.---