✝️ Introduction
After exposing clerical abuses in his novels and letters (Part 1), Dr. José Rizal faced execution on December 30, 1896.
On the eve of his death, a document surfaced—later called the “Rizal Retraction Letter”—claiming he returned to the Catholic faith and retracted his Masonic beliefs.
But did Rizal really write it?
Historians, theologians, and even the Catholic Church remain divided.
📜 1. What the Retraction Letter Says
The alleged document reads in part:
“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 a 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 of the Church.”
— Purported Retraction Letter, Dec 29, 1896
If authentic, this meant Rizal died reconciled with the Church.
If forged, it meant authorities fabricated it to soften his image and justify his execution.
🧩 2. Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dec 29 1896 | Jesuit priests visit Rizal in Fort Santiago; he allegedly signs a retraction. |
| Dec 30 1896 | Rizal executed at Bagumbayan after receiving confession and Communion (as claimed by Jesuits). |
| 1900 – 1930s | Controversy grows; no public record of the original document. |
| 1935 | Fr. Manuel García claims to discover the “original” retraction in the Manila Archbishop’s archives. |
| 1956 | Debate resurfaces during the passage of the Rizal Law (RA 1425); scholars challenge authenticity. |
| Present | Historians remain divided; the Church holds the retraction as probable, while secular scholars doubt it. |
⚖️ 3. The Case for Authenticity
Supporters of the retraction include several Jesuit missionaries who attended to Rizal:
| Evidence Type | Supporters / Testimonies | Key Details |
|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness Accounts | Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.J.; Fr. José Villaclara, S.J. | Claimed Rizal confessed, received Communion, and signed the retraction. |
| Archival Claim | Fr. Manuel García (1935) | Reported discovery of the “original” document in Archbishop’s files. |
| Photographic Copies | Church Archives of Manila | Copies match Rizal’s style and paper type of 1896. |
| Church Tradition | Catholic Church Philippines | Holds that Rizal reconciled with God before death. |
🔍 4. The Case Against Authenticity
Many scholars, historians, and nationalists dispute the letter’s authenticity.
| Issue | Evidence / Arguments | Scholars / Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Handwriting Mismatch | Graphological studies show differences between the retraction text and Rizal’s known penmanship. | Dr. Ricardo Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave (1939) |
| Late Discovery | No witness saw the original after 1896; it appeared only in 1935. | Austin Coates, Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr |
| Contradictory Testimonies | Some prison guards and Jesuits gave inconsistent accounts of the signing. | Teodoro Kalaw, Ambeth Ocampo |
| Rizal’s Character and Beliefs | His letters from Europe show firm belief in reason, justice, and reform, not blind submission. | Epistolario Rizalino; Rizal Without the Overcoat |
🧠 5. What Rizal Himself Believed
From his letters and writings:
-
Rizal believed in God, morality, and conscience, but opposed superstition and clerical control.
-
He wrote that religion and reason must work together.
-
His concept of faith was spiritual, not institutional.
“To doubt God is to doubt one’s conscience, and to doubt one’s conscience is to act against God.”
— Letter to Mariano Ponce, 1889
This suggests that even without a formal retraction, Rizal’s moral convictions were deeply spiritual and consistent with Christian ethics.
🕊️ 6. The Catholic Church’s Official Stance
The Church neither canonized nor condemned Rizal.
Instead, it interprets his life as a journey of faith and repentance:
-
The Catechism of the Catholic Church §827 states:
“The Church is holy though it always needs purification… all members are sinners.”
-
Jesuit historians view Rizal’s possible reconciliation as an act of grace, not denial of his ideals.
-
Modern Filipino bishops publicly honor Rizal as a moral model, not a heretic.
Thus, Rizal and Catholicism need not be enemies. His call for reform parallels the Church’s own call to constant renewal.
🧾 7. Legacy of the Controversy
Whether true or not, the retraction letter has become a symbolic battleground:
| Interpretation | Meaning / Implication |
|---|---|
| If True | Rizal reconciled with the faith, proving that reform and belief can coexist. |
| If False | Rizal remained loyal to conscience and reason until death. |
| For the Nation | Either way, he stood for truth, justice, and moral integrity—values rooted in the Gospel itself. |
📚 8. Conclusion: Beyond the Retraction
The “Retraction Letter” controversy should not divide faith and nationalism.
Rizal’s true legacy lies not in whether he signed a piece of paper, but in how he lived:
-
courageously exposing injustice,
-
defending human dignity,
-
and reminding both Church and State that faith without truth is hypocrisy, and freedom without morality is chaos.
“The glory of saving a country is not for him who has contributed to its ruin.”
— José Rizal, El Filibusterismo (1891)
📖 References
-
José Rizal, Noli Me Tángere (1887); El Filibusterismo (1891)
-
Epistolario Rizalino, National Historical Commission of the Philippines
-
Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J., The Jesuits in the Philippines (1961)
-
Dr. Ricardo Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave (1939)
-
Ambeth R. Ocampo, Rizal Without the Overcoat (1990)
-
Austin Coates, Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (1968)
-
Catechism of the Catholic Church §827
-
Official Gazette of the Philippines, RA 1425 (Rizal Law)
READ ALSO:
No comments:
Post a Comment