RETRACTION OF DR. JOSE RIZAL, Study Guides, Projects, Research of History

Download RETRACTION OF DR. JOSE RIZAL and more Study Guides, Projects, Research History in PDF only on Docsity!

CRUZ, JUSTIN EIVAN

MAMANGUN, FAITH DANIELLE

MANALOTO, ALICIA DANE

MERCADO JASMINE ERICA

MURO, TIMMY

BSA – 1A

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

Question: DID THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO TRULY RETRACT? For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth regarding this controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statements by significant people involved have only contributed to the complications and uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument. "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", this was the statement in the document which made the historians believed that Rizal had retracted. However, there have been claims that the document, as compared to the original file which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe that the retraction documents are authentic. These people include eleven eyewitnesses who were present when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a great grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced.

1. The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896.
2. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer.
3. The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
4. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction. We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is.. ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may... verify whether it might be of Rizal himself... ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement. This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del 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. Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION

The argument between the original document and the released retraction documents brought more controversy because this differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits. Which is really the “original”? Some of the significant differences between the copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following: (1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the Archbishop’s copies, (2) the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias” in the Jesuits’ copies, (3) the word “misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s copies, (4) the second paragraph from the archbishop’s copies started with the second sentence, however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started until the fifth sentences, (5) the Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and (6) the Jesuits’ copies did not have the names of the witnesses. These arguments are further discuseed below. Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman University, summarizes the major points of argument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:

1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to the reality of the retraction.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book which was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction. If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachings but would agree to a number of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen and sad ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”
4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction. CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION
6. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points against the document itself.  First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific study criticizing the authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found.

Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his “standard”, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the document, he further concluded that it was a “one-man document” because of the similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two witnesses. o The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that the hand-writing is genuine.  A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. To date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences with regards to the use of certain phrases within the document. o The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.  A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.  Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document.

2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers as follows: The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.” No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction. o The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken.