Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Sarmiento,

Desiree G.
BS PHARMACY IV

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
Did the Philippine National Hero Retract?

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizals retraction documents have raised issues,
skepticism, 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.
Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the
historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of
history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmn
attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.
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 Archbishops 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 Jesuits copies, (4) the second paragraph from the archbishops 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
1. 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 Rizals 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.

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. Jos I. Del Rosario.
Rosarios main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizals
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.

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
Rizals 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.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizals death was due to political factors and with this the religious
authorities could not interfere.

Rizals 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.

Rizals behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours
in particular does not point to a conversion.

3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character.

Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent
Mason, also argued that if Rizal retracted, it would have been a very drastic change of
character in Rizal which is very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs
Rizal was. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud.

Sources:
Dr.
Eugene
A.
Hessel.
Rizal's
Retraction:
A
Note
on
the
Debate.
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
Did Rizal Retract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/181351754/Rizal-Retraction-Controversy-docx

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi