RPH Modules
RPH Modules
RPH Modules
Rizal’s retraction is one of the intriguing issues that is all about his reversion to
Catholicism retracting his Masonic ideals. This lesson presents contrasting views of the
retraction by biographers of Rizal.
Fill in the KWL Chart. On the first column, write what you know about the life of
Rizal, on the second column write what you want to know about the Jose Rizal. On
the last column, write what you have learned, it will be filled in at the end of the lesson.
Learn
Know Want
(What did you learn?)
(What do you know (What do you want to
To be filled in at the end
about the Katipunan?) know about this topic?)
of the lesson
Do you think that Rizal’s retraction will affect the course of Philippine history?
Why?
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
RIZAL RETRACTION
Historical Context
The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first two are the official
accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were instrumental in the alleged
retraction of Rizal. The other two are critical analyses by two Rizalist scholars
who doubted the story of the retraction.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
The Account
They told him that Fr. Vilaclara only, who had returned to
Manila few days before remained. They told him that I (Father
Balaguer) was also in Manila and he asked that I go also, since I
have been, as already stated, a Missionary in Dapitan, where he
dealt with me as a friend. He was a very polite gentleman, and
even friendly towards me. It seems to me convenient to a mention
an incident that took place in the visit that Fathers Saderra and
Viza made him. It is following: When Dr. Rizal was a boarding
student at the Ateneo, very devout and exemplary indeed, he
carved with a penknife a little statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
about centimeters in size, not beautiful, but rather well modelled.
That statuette remained in the Ateneo. It seems that the Lord saw
it that it be preserved during twenty years, although the room
where it was kept underwent many changes. When Dr. Rizal
called for the Fathers to assist him, one of them remembered the
statuette that was still preserved.
One of this Fathers, Father Viza, took and put it in his pocket.
When he arrived at the Fort with Father Saderra, after exchanging
greetings with them, Dr. Rizal asked whether that statuette made
by him was still preserved in the Ateneo, Father Viza, taking out of
his pocket told him; “Yes, sir, here, you have; it is the Heart of Jesus,
who has been waiting for you for twenty years and he comes now
to greet you”. Dr. Rizal took it, kissed it, and placed it on the desk
and there it remained until the hour he left for the place of
execution. This happening indeed providential in such
circumstances. At about ten o’clock in the morning, Father
Villaclara and I went to Fort Santiago where the chapel cell of the
great convict was. He received us with great affection and
embraced us.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
I think it convenient to point out that, in case of conversion,
before ministering the Sacramento to him, Dr. Rizal should make a
retraction of errors publicity professed by him in words and writings
and a profession of Catholic faith. To this effect, when the Father
Superior of the mission went to the Archbishop’s Palace, he
brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith,
concise, but including what we thought ought to be exacted from
Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient. He
said, however, that he would prepare or order to be prepared
another more extensive more extensive one.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
reason God had given him, adding with self-profession that
curdled my blood, that he was going to appear thus before the
tribunal of God, with a clear conscience for having fulfilled his duty
as a rational man. When I attacked him with the arguments of
Catholic doctrine, he began to expound the objections of the
heretics and rationalists, a thousand times refuted already.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
grace of faith, which is a God bestows abundantly and is
obtained infallibly by humble and persevering prayer. Only on
your part, you should not regret it.”
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
I ought to profess or express and I shall write, making in any cause
some remarks.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
past eleven: it was dated December the twenty-ninth. The text,
literally copied from the original says thus:
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal
knowledge have personally intervened and witnessed it myself;
and I subscribe and confirmed it with an oath. And lest, perhaps,
someone may think that I could not remember it with so many
details, after twenty-years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s
death I wrote a very detailed account of everything. The original
of this account I have preserved, and from it I have taken all the
data of the present narration.
I declare and affirm that, a little before Rizal came out from
the chapel, I felt in the company of Josephine Bracken and a sister
of Rizal’s own handwritten retraction signed by him and by the
witnesses. Before Rizal’s reached the Bagumbayan I went to the
Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document to Father
Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palce and handed it to
the Archbishop Nozaleda. His Grace entrusted it to his Secretary,
Reverend Tomas Gonzales Feijo, who kept it in the Secretary’s
Office in the chest reserved documents. This last fact I know
through the testimony of his grace, the Most Reverend Bernardino
Nozaleda, and of his Secretary. The other things I have declared I
know as an eyewitness and because I personally took part in the
said events.
Fr. Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when
Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement
in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was
involved only in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of
Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document
as will which was the one Rizal allegedly copied.
The Account
On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel,
that is, on December the twenty-eight, I received the commission,
which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers, for the
spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only
because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially
because of its object was to reconcile with God and with the
Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very
distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us,
the Jesuits, a special esteem, and affection even after his
estrangement from the Church and had rendered us a good
service…
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted
personally with Rizal, did not visit him. All the Fathers who remained
with him during his stay in the chapel or who accompanied him to
Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my
request or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all
the happenings…
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and 33 with Palma’s analysis
in the latter chapter.
The Account
For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken
from the beginning because of their direct have spoken from the
beginning because of their direct intervention in the act of
conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak and confirm in all its parts
the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That
should be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein
cited are those of ecclesiastics and their friends, and it is to be
supposed that al, of the latter would not contradict the version
given by the former. The only testimony that might be considered
impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal,
but his testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that is
to say, what he heard the priests say, and that diminishes its value
very much.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Catholics. In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal
was reconciled 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. Only the diligence of the family was able to
identify the spot where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry
in the book burials of the internment of Rizal’s body is not made
on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where there
as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear
those buried by special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures
on a page between a man who burned to death and who could
not be identified and another who died by suicide; in other words,
he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did
not receive spiritual aid. In the seventh and last place, there was
no moral motive for the conversion. The extraordinary or abnormal
acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive.
What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure
masonry and reconcile himself to the rites of the religion which he
had fought? Did he not realize that do so was to be a renegade
to his own history?
******
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Austin Coates’s Critical Analysis
The Account
Those who had read Rizal’s book or who knew him closely,
which at that time meant the family and his wide circle of personal
friends, most of whom were abroad, took one look at the
announcement and dubbed it … as ecclesiastical fraud.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who
wanted his retraction. But while in the event Rizal’s intuition did not
play him false, there is no evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along
came a small man with what the Archbishop wanted.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled down
that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since
he intended it to be published anonymously, he included much
praise of himself, an aspect which, since he admitted the
authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure…
Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem;
he made his account so elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in
which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo Adios is needed to
show that it would have taken several hours to write…
1. What was the purpose of the Retraction document to the Spanish colonial
government and the Catholic Church?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
3. Does Rizal’s retraction mar his image as a patriot and as a principled hero of
the Filipino nation? Why?
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN