BACKGROUND

The Jesuits version stated that during the last 24 hours of Jose Rizal’s life, the Manila Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda asked the Jesuits to accommodate and handle Rizal’s spiritual needs. Fr. Pio Pi, who was the Superior of 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 the Masons. Of all the Jesuits appointed by Fr. Pi to deal with Rizal, Fr. Vincente Balaguer wrote comprehensively regarding what occurred in Rizal’s cell the day before he was executed. 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:
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.
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.

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?

A lot have asked on why was the retraction made? Was there any deeper meanings on it? The following are the reasons why did the retraction of Rizql was said to exist.

1. To save his family and town from further prosecution.

As Rizal was said to write his retraction to his family, The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and the marriage. They knew that if he had retracted, he would certainly have said so in his 6 a.m. communication to his mother on the fateful day of his execution.

2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.

The reason for his withdrawal was to marry the lady she experienced passionate feelings for while he was in a state of banishment, Josephine Bracken. Nonetheless, no genuine record of the wedding among Bracken and Rizal has been discovered, particularly a marriage authentication. Assuming the withdrawal was valid, there ought to, at any rate, be a report that shows that the marriage occurred and, taking into account where Rizal was covered, outside the internal mass of Paco Cemetery, and the record of entombment isn't that very day as his demise. Balaguer claims that he played out the standard marriage of Rizal and Josephine, Balaguer said he performed it before one of Rizal's sisters somewhere in the range of 6 and 6:25 a.m. on December 30. In any case, none of Rizal's sisters went to the fortress that morning.

3. To help the church cut away from the disease that harmed her.

Some historians reported that Rizal withdrew his enemy of Catholic thoughts through an archive which expressed: "I withdraw with my entire existence whatever in my words, works, distributions and direct have been in opposition to my character as a child of the Catholic Church."Historians likewise refer to 11 witnesses when Rizal composed his withdrawal, marked a Catholic supplication book, and presented Catholic petitions, and the huge number who saw him kiss the cross before his execution. An extraordinary excellent nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, refers to that Rizal's 4 confessions were guaranteed by 5 witnesses, 10 qualified observers, 7 papers, and 12 history specialists and journalists including Aglipayan ministers, Artisans and against clerics. One observer was the top of the Spanish High Court at the hour of his authenticated announcement and was profoundly regarded by Rizal for his respectability.Then again, congressperson Jose Diokno expressed, "Clearly whether Rizal passed on as a Catholic or a backslider adds or diminishes nothing from his significance as a Filipino... Catholic or Artisan, Rizal is still Rizal - the legend who pursued demise 'to demonstrate to the individuals who deny our nationalism that we realize how incredible our obligation and our convictions are..

4. To secure reforms from the Spanish government

As Rizal was said to write his retraction to the Spanish government for he is hoping that in the retraction, there would be change. Rizal not just wanted the change for him and his family but also for how the Spaniards treat the Filipino people.

THE DEBATE

Controversy over Jose Rizal's Retraction Many historians debate whether Rizal ever apologized for what he said about the Catholic Church. "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," Rizal said in a statement. Some argue the document is a forgery, while others claim it is genuine and that Rizal was the only one who wrote and signed the retraction paper. There are arguments that both assertions are based on. But, whether Rizal retracts or not, the experience he instilled in us will remain unchanged.
According to Teodoro Kalaw, a specialist in our hero's writings and other handwriting experts, the retraction was written by Rizal himself and was judged by them after a thorough review. Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, Gregorio Zaide, and others are among the prominent Philippine historians who believe Rizal's retraction is authentic. They consider them to be witnesses when Rizal signed the retraction document, signed the Catholic prayer book, and recited the Catholic prayers. According to them, there were also witnesses as he kissed the crucifix before his execution.
The validity of Jose Rizal's retraction paper is still a hot topic of discussion. Jose Rizal was supposed to have signed it just before his death. There were several witnesses, the majority of whom were Jesuits. On May 13, 1935, the paper was made public for the first time. Fr. Manuel A. Gracia discovered it in the Catholic hierarchy's library in Manila. However, only reproductions of the original text were presented to the public.
However, according to Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, Rizal's retraction was copied verbatim and published in Spain in 1907, and then reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who discovered the original text, copied it word for word.
There were different versions of the text in both reproductions. Furthermore, the date of the signing was specifically stated in the original Spanish document that Rizal allegedly signed. The year was 1890, and the date was “December 29, 1890.”
Later, a supposedly original text with the date "December 29, 189C" emerged. The number "0" was evidently modified to resemble the letter C. And, later, another ostensibly original version surfaced. The date is “December 29, 1896.” The “0” became a “6” this time.
Many who believed the Rizal retraction document was faked said that the forger of Rizal's signature was Roman Roque, the same man who forged Urbano Lacuna's signature, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. Lazaro Segovia, they said, was the mastermind behind both Lacuna's and Rizal's signature forgeries. During the final days of the Filipino-American war, they were confronted by Spanish friars who tried to forge Rizal's signature. Antonio K. Abad told the story after hearing it from Roman Roque himself, as they were neighbors.
In his book The Historicity of Rizal's Retraction, Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra referred to the debate as "a simple unadorned fact of history, bearing all the marks and indications of historical certainty and truth." Dr. Augusto De Viana, the head of UST's Department of History, agrees that Rizal retracted, claiming that the National Hero only renounced his popular nationalistic works and not his Free Masonry. “He (Rizal) retracted his comment. De Viana compared the martyr to Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and freemason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery, saying, "He died as a Catholic, and any evidence that he died as a Catholic was that he was buried within the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery."
The retraction letter could not have been fabricated, according to De Viana, because witnesses were present when Rizal signed it. He goes on to state that the evidence speaks for itself, and then moves on to the issue of Rizal's character, with some arguing that the retraction contradicts Rizal's mature values and personality.
“Anti-retractionist raises the question, 'What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?' He was said to be fickle-minded. That may be real, but that is the nature of the human character. Rizal was not a perfect individual, according to De Viana.
He also said that Rizal, like any other human, was prone to flip-flopping. He claims that Rizal retracted because he wanted to die in peace.
One of the most intriguing of all was the issues of Jose Rizal was his alleged retraction which was all about his reversion to the Catholic Faith and all other issues linked to it such as his marriage to Josephine Bracken. That issue was claimed to be true by the Roman Catholic defenders but asserted to be deceptive by anti-retractonists. They claim that the retraction document is a forgery, but handwriting experts concluded a long time ago that it is genuine. Rafael Palma’s opus on Rizal, titled “Biografia de Rizal” is so anti-Catholic that the Church successfully opposed its publication using government funds. In an article authored by Romberto Poulo, Rizal’s affiliation in Masonry was accounted to have caused a drastic change to his religious ideas. It was in the moment Rizal set foot on European soil when he was exposed to a lot of distinctions between what was happening to his country, the discriminations, abuses, partialities, injustices, and some other things made to cause sufferings to his countrymen, and what was the actual scene of the European nations. He observed that Europe was a lot more different compared to the Philippines in terms of way of life, attitudes towards Roman Catholicism, and most importantly, the freedom all the citizens enjoy.

The exact copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal's execution. Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi's copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal's retraction in the Manila newspapers. In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest's letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying, by all means, to get from him.

Certainly whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal: the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs”

Conclusion

There are many arguments, research, and papers about Rizal’s retraction. According to some researchers and handwriting experts, the retraction is authentic. Moreover, another researcher said that his retraction was copied word for word. However, some researchers believe that Rizal did not write this and that it was forged. It is hard to make a conclusion of the retraction because there are plenty of stories whether Rizal wrote this or not. There are those who say that it was forged, and they provide evidence for their claim too. This topic is still up for debate because the evidence seems to prove and at the same time, debunk the theory.

From the sources, the group members are at a stalemate. Half of the group members believe that the retraction is authentic, while the other half believe that it is fake. The sources being utilized do not provide enough information of the retraction’s authenticity. Different yet better sources and references would have led to a different conclusion but the group members currently have no access to them. The different evidence found on the internet is dubious and is quickly refuted. If there is even more evidence as to what happened back then, a clearer answer on which side would both parties stand.