Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic?

Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports

I. Introduction
In Philippine history, José Rizal (1861–1896) is regarded as one of the most important figures. He
was a multifaceted thinker and political activist best known for his writings on politics, which sparked
the Philippine Revolution and ultimately led to his execution by Spanish colonizers. Rizal was also a
doctor who studied ophthalmology under the tutelage of Louis de Wecker and Otto Becker, two
eminent European ophthalmologists. Rizal completed his secondary education at Manila's Ateneo
Municipal, where he excelled academically. He received first place awards in five academic subjects
upon graduating from the Ateneo, and the only university in the Philippines with the authority to award
academic degrees, Santo Tomas University, awarded him a bachelor of arts degree.2 He also attended
Santo Tomas University in Manila from 1879 to 1882 to study medicine, agriculture, surveying,
philosophy, and literature. He was dissatisfied with his education there, in part because of the faculty's
animosity toward foreign students, so he continued his studies in Spain. Rizal graduated from the
Central University of Madrid in 1884 with licentiates in both medicine and philosophy and letters.
Further medical education was not necessary at that time to call oneself a doctor or practice medicine,
but one could obtain a doctoral degree, comparable to a modern American doctoral degree, after
passing examinations and writing an approved thesis. (The licentiate is an undergraduate degree similar
to the American bachelor's degree but with a more vocational focus.)

There is a subject in Jose Rizal's life that historians have discussed numerous times but never come to a
consensus on. Whether Rizal reaffirmed his Catholic faith and renounced Masonry on the eve of his
death is the subject of debate. The issue is controversial because parties on opposing sides of it belong
to a group that upholds moral standards and the pursuit of knowledge. The pro-retraction group is
represented by the Jesuits, the Manila archbishop, and a few other Catholic leaders. Being ordained
priests, they are all regarded as being reliable. Their opponents are those who belong to Masonry, a
fraternity that promotes brotherhood, integrity, decency, and professionalism. In light of the
appearance of a new primary source that discusses what happened to Rizal on the eve of his death, this
paper revives the retraction controversy. Because it was only recently made available to researchers—
within the last ten years—this document was never taken into account in the history of the retraction
controversy. Because he was present in the area where Rizal was detained, the report's author is a
reliable eyewitness. His account is clear and filled with information that calls into question the validity
and dependability of earlier primary sources, which served as the foundation for earlier narratives. The
discussion surrounding Rizal's retractions should seriously consider this document. El Imparcial, Heraldo
de Madrid, and El Siglo Futuro are Spanish publications that covered the retractions. They based their
account on the accounts of the Jesuits and other colonial officials who paid Rizal a visit and spoke with
him the day before his execution.

II. BODY
Balaguer consistently claimed that he was present in Rizal's prison cell and actively involved in
convincing him to retract. All other pro-retraction advocates who came after Fr. Balaguer took his
account as historical fact and argued their case using him as their primary source. Father Balaguer claims
that Rizal was given the condensed retraction and approved it. According to the story, he was successful
in persuading Rizal to join the Catholic Church because, otherwise, God would condemn him. Father
Balaguer also mentioned that Rizal withdrew his statement because he desired to wed Josephine
Bracken. Fr., however, A Spanish Jesuit named Pio Pi claimed that the retraction of Rizal was copied
verbatim, published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila as early as 1907. Fr. Gracia found the original
document and copied it exactly as well.

Since Father Manuel Garcia, C.M., came across Rizal's letter of retractions, Since 1935, academics and
Catholics have enjoyed debating the book's content. It was claimed that the National Hero himself had
signed the letter, dated December 29, 1896. It read, "I declare myself a Catholic, and I wish to live and
die in the faith in which I was raised. I sincerely apologize for anything I have said, done, or published
that is in violation of my character as a Catholic Church member. The first draft of the retraction was
delivered to Rizal's cell in Fort Santiago the evening before he was executed in Bagumbayan, according
to the majority of history books. However, it was claimed that Rizal had rejected the draft due to its
length. Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero while he was living in exile
in Dapitan, testified that Rizal accepted a condensed version of the retraction document that Father Pio
Pi, the head of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, had written. After making some changes to the
document, Rizal wrote his retraction. He renounced Masonry and any religious views that were in
opposition to Catholicism in his retraction.

According to Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department of De La Salle University,
"Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that were purchased by the Philippine
government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila," showed some interesting
points about the retraction. The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, also known as the Katipunan and Rizal
documents, is a collection of records on the Philippine revolutions that includes private reports,
transcripts, newspaper clippings, and images from both Spanish and Philippine newspapers. Torres
claimed that even if the controversies were accurate, his opinion of the Filipino martyr would remain
the same. Even though it would be simple to claim that he has since recanted everything he said about
the Church, Torres argued that this does not alter the fact that his writings set Philippine colonial society
during the Spanish era on the path to change, which ultimately led to our independence. "The retraction
is merely one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal." Torres then clarified that the controversy is
obsolete at this time. "The retraction means nothing, the way Rizal is taught in schools today," he
declared.

In his book The Historicity of Rizal's Retraction, Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra referred to the
controversy as a "unadorned fact," one that bears all the hallmarks and signs of historical certainty and
reality. Head of UST's Department of History Dr. Augusto De Viana also thinks that Rizal changed his
mind and now claims that the National Hero only renounced from the Free Masonry, not from his well-
known works of nationalism. Rizal backed down. De Viana compared the martyr to Apolinario Mabini, a
revolutionary and free mason who was interred in a Chinese cemetery. Apolinario Mabini was also a
Catholic who died and was buried within the holy grounds of Paco Cemetery, according to De Viana.
Given that witnesses were present when Rizal signed the retraction letter, according to De Viana, it is
not possible that it was forged. The speaker continued by saying that the evidence speaks for itself
before turning the conversation to the issue of Rizal's character. Some claim that the retraction is
inconsistent with Rizal's mature beliefs and personality. What kind of hero is Jose Rizal, anti-
retractionists query? He was allegedly unstable in his thinking. It's possible that's the case, but that's just
how people are. According to De Viana, Rizal was not a perfect person. The fact that Rizal was prone to
flip-flopping like everyone else was also mentioned. He thinks Rizal's retractions were motivated by the
national hero's desire for final peace. Will his retractions, however, make Rizal's writings seem pointless
and ineffective? Rizal awoke our awareness of nationalism, in De Viana's words. I'm satisfied with that.
His works won't be diminished in any way by the problem.