RIZAL’S

RETRACTION
LETTER
Discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M May 18, 1935
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die.

I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,

publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as
son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever
she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I
abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and
as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate
may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this
spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the
CRÉDITOS: Esta plantilla para presentaciones es
scandal which my acts
una creación may have
de Slidesgo, caused
e incluye and so that God and
iconos de
Flaticon, infografías e imágenes de Freepik
people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal
The retraction of Jose Rizal is the greatest controversy
that shook the nation. Jose Rizal is the Philippines’
national hero and he is known for his written works
that rebel against the Spanish colonizers and sparked
nationalism within the Filipinos. But what if he
retracted everything he had ever said and written? In
Jose Rizal’s letter of retraction, dated December 29,
1896, he withdrew what he previously said,
published, and acted against the Catholic Church.
However, there have been ongoing debates on
whether or not Rizal actually wrote the retraction
B The Jesuits version stated that during the last 24 hours of
Jose Rizal’s life, the Manila Archbishop Bernardino

A Nozaleda asked the Jesuits to accommodate and handle

Rizal’s spiritual needs. Fr. Pio Pi, who was the Superior of

C the Jesuits, accepted the task and sent emissaries to

Rizal’s cell and instructed them to persuade Rizal to
retract his anti-Catholic ideologies and his affiliation with
K the Masons. Of all the Jesuits appointed by Fr. Pi to deal
with Rizal, Fr. Vincente Balaguer wrote comprehensively

G regarding what occurred in Rizal’s cell the day before he

was executed
BACKGROUND According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara visited
Rizal three times during the day until he was
convinced to recant. At 10 in the evening, the two
Jesuits presented the two retraction templates given
by Fr. Pi, which was approved by the archbishop. Rizal
deemed the first template unacceptable because it
was too lengthy and the writing does not reflect his
personality. Fr. Balaguer offered the shorter one and
Rizal did a few alterations before he signed the letter.
The text of the retraction states:
BACKGROUND I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my
heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and
conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the
Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches,
and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry,
as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church.
The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical
Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine
in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused
and so that God and people may pardon me.
BACKGROUND Another version of this historical event is from the Cuerpo de Vigilancia,
which was the intelligence service created by the Spanish colonial
government. Federico Moreno is another eyewitness to what transpired in
Rizal’s cell before he was executed. Moreno was neither a member of the
Catholic hierarchy nor was he a Mason. He was in Fort Santiago only to
perform a function connected with his work. Moreno’s report contains
information that is not consistent with Fr. Balaguer’s affidavit. One of
these is that Moreno never mentioned Fr. Balaguer in his report nor did
he visit Jose Rizal’s cell and convinced him to retract. In Moreno’s report,
only two Jesuits were identified and these were Fr. Jose Vilaclara and Fr.
Estanislao March. However, Moreno did mention that Fr. March returned
at 3 in the afternoon, and Rizal handed him a document. He did not
provide details on the contents of the document since he was witnessing
the interaction from a distance but he did assume that this was the
retraction.
BACKGROUND
Decades later, Fr. Manuel Garcia found the
letter of retraction. In 1935, he was sorting
through folders of documents when he
discovered the letter. He immediately
contacted Manila Archbishop Michael
O’Doherty. The letter was published on June
15, 1935 in the Philippines Herald under the
banner headline “Rizal’s Retraction Found.”
REASONS WHY
WAS IT MADE?
1. To save his family and town from
further prosecution.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as
his wife.
3. To help the church cut away from the
disease that harmed her.
4. To secure reforms from the Spanish
government
Since rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by father manuel garcia, C.M. In
1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians
and catholics. The letter, dated december 29, 1896, was said to have been
signed by the national hero himself.
It stated: “i declare myself a catholic and in this religion in which i was born
and educated i wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my
words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as
son of the catholic church.”
The controversy whether the national hero actually wrote a retraction document
only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably
make the two opposing groups—the masonic rizalists (who firmly believe that
rizal did not withdraw) and the catholic rizalists (who were convinced rizal
retracted)—agree with each other.
Proofs, documents
History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was
sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort
Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan. But Rizal
was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.
According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit
missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal
accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the
Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.
Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the
document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious
thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was
purchased by the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the
Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some interesting points about the
retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department of the De
La Salle University.
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia de Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that
contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from
Spanish and Philippine newspapers.
Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change
even if the controversies were true.
“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that
he wrote about the Church, it still did not change the fact
that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine
colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that
led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is
just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”
But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant
today.
“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction
means nothing,” he said.
 ‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned

fact of history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and
reality” in his book The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.
Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that
Rizal retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry
and not from his famous nationalistic works.
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic
was he was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana,
who compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason
who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.
De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were
present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as
some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well,
that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal
retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The
issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”
THANK YOU!