Salaysay, Javi Marie A.

BSA 1-1

DEBATE PIECE

We, the Affirmative side strongly believe that Jose Rizal retracted his statements against
the Catholic Church. There was a strong evidence presented to the public that Jose Rizal really
withdrawn his statements against the Church. Various primary sources and secondary sources
affirm Rizal’s retraction. Let us address these. First, there is the letter of Rizal to his mother
which was received January 5, 1893, stated therein that Rizal has been going to church every
Sunday in Dapitan. Isn’t this evidence enough that he has already retracted? To further
strengthen the claim, it was also witnessed that Rizal was convinced to go back to the Catholic
fold, he even asked Fr. Viza for the Sacred Heart statute which he carved when he was an
Ateneo student. Consequently, Mi Ultimo Adios can also be used as a reference in Rizal’s
penmanship which was performed by Teodoro Kalaw. On the other hand, The testimony of the
eyewitnesses shows that Father Balaguer, who was with Rizal, presented the retraction format
prepared by Father Pio Pi, the superior of Jesuit society in the Philippines prior to the execution.
He further stated that on December 20,1896, the day before the execution, Rizal have accepted
and signed the retraction. Consequently, on May 13, 1935, Rizal’s retraction was found by Fr.
Manuel A. Garcia. There were many significant reasons for Rizal’s retraction. Specifically, it is to
save his family, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife, to secure reforms from the
Spanish government, and to help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her.
Aren’t these primary sources and eyewitnesses not enough proof that Rizal really retracted?
And if it still questions you why he is still being executed after his retraction? That is solely
because Rizal’s case was Heresy and Filibuster. Retraction doesn’t save him from all of it.

Based on the argument concerning the forgery of the document, it was also furthered
out in an article of Paraiso in 2012 under National Historical Commission of the Philippines that
what Father Pi saw is not the original document of retraction since the original document was
kept by the friars and was almost eaten by termites. Moreover, the retraction letter is a
significant document since it is a condition for the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken.
To further justify, the sworn statements of the eyewitnesses, specifically, father Balaguer,
Salaysay, Javi Marie A.
BSA 1-1

agreed that there was a retraction in Rizal and a marriage between the two. Another significant
matter is that Rizal dedicated a Catholic devotional book, to his sisters, Josefa and Trinidad.
Josephine, his wife was also mentioned in the dedication which was stated: “To my dear and
unhappy wife” Doesn’t these prove Rizal’s Catholicism? Isn’t it obvious how Catholicism
surfaced in his actions? In addition, expressly stated in his letter “ I abominate masonry as an
enemy of the church and a society prohibited by the church.” Rizal implied the extend and used
a superlative “abhor” to communicate his retraction, which is even more powerful than
retraction.

It could not and could never be called forgery if what we are basing is the verbatim of
the two priests.