The document summarizes various perspectives on Jose Rizal's alleged retraction of his beliefs shortly before his execution. It discusses four different versions of the retraction text that surfaced. It also outlines arguments that were made both for and against the veracity of the retraction, including witness testimony, the secrecy surrounding the document, and analyses of the writing. Handwriting analysis of the retraction document by Dr. Jose del Rosario found similarities between it and Rizal's known handwriting, but acknowledged some differences could be due to the small size of the paper used.

1. RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Joven, Reynald L.
Villar, Charlize Mae
Estrada, Jhon Lloyd
BSIS C2021

2. Retraction
A statement saying that something you said or
wrote at an earlier time is not true or correct

3. According to a testimony by Father Balaguer, a Jesuit
missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in
Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document
prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the
Philippines, Father Pio Pi

4. Jose Rizal’s Retraction:
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.

5. Four Different Versions of Rizal’s Retraction that
had surfaced
1. The First version of the text was published in La Voz Espanola and Diaro de
Manila on the very day or Rizal’s execution, Dec.30, 1896.

6. Four Different Versions of Rizal’s Retraction that
had surfaced
2. The Second one came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself years later
as Fr. Balaguer. It appeared in Barcelona, Spain on February 14,1897 in the
Fortnightly magazine in La Juventud.

7. Four Different Versions of Rizal’s Retraction that
had surfaced
3. The Third one that was said to be 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.

8. Four Different Versions of Rizal’s Retraction that
had surfaced
4. The Fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution. It is
the short formula of the retraction.

9. REASONS FOR RETRACTION
1. To save his family and town fromfurther persecution
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish Government

10. Document about Retraction
came from:

11. Father Balaguer
- Delivered the document to Fr.
Pio who deliver it to Archbishop
Nozaleda who deliver it to Sec.
Gonzalez Feijoo

12. Father Pio Pi
- Father Balaguer handed out the
Retraction documents to Father Pi
- After having a copy for their
archives, Fr. Pi then gave the
document to the Archbishop the
next day

13. Archbishop
Nozaleda
- Rizal made slight variations in his
retraction from the proposed text by Fr.
Pi
- Fr. Pi gave the document to
the Archbishop then handed it
to the Secretary of the Archbishopric

14. Gaspar Castano
- Few days after death of Rizal,
Castano saw and read Rizal’s
Retraction paper wherein the
later declared himself a
Catholic.

15. Father Rosell
- On Dec 30, 1896, Rosell saw
the retraction paper in
Ateneo

16. Luis Taviel de
Andrade
- Heard that in the morning of Rizal’s
execution, married Josephine
- Upon arriving at the door, saw Rizal
in an attitude of praying the Rizal
came out after kissing the statue of
the Sacred Heart

17. Thomas Gonzalez
Feijoo
- The retraction document was handed to him
for safekeeping in the archives of the
Secretary’s office.

18. ARGUMENTS against the Retraction
The retraction information was published late that could be unauthenticated

19. ARGUMENTS against the Retraction
Claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story. Those most often
referred to by writers as follows.

20. ARGUMENTS against the Retraction
The “Coetaneous Acts” that undermine the belief that Rizal Retracted:
The document of retraction was kept secret
The request of the Rizal Family to have the original or copy was both denied

21. ARGUMENTS against the Retraction
Rizal’s burial was kept secret
No masses or funeral was held by the Catholics
He was not buried in the Catholic Cemetery of Paco but in the ground
There was no entry in the book of burials that Rizal’s body was buried on the page of December 30 and
it appears on a special page where special orders of authorities are indicated.

22. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by
“witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.

23. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
In the desire for historical truth in much later years, people began the search of
Rizal’s retraction and different versions of duly notarized documents

24. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
“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

25. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eyewitnesses,” and other
“qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head
of the Jesuit order,the archbishop, etc

26. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachings but would
agree to a number of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed.

27. OTHER ARGUMENTS if it is true…
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.”

29. Differentiation of Two Copies
1. First, Instead of the words “mi cualidad which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, The Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad”

30. Differentiation of Two Copies
2. Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word “ Catolica” after the
first “ Iglesias” which are found in the original and the newspaper texts

31. Differentiation of Two Copies
3. Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third ”Iglesias” the
word “misma” which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the
retraction.

32. Differentiation of Two Copies
4. Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the
critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph

33. Differentiation of Two Copies
5. Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila
newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven
commas.

34. Differentiation of Two Copies
6. Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of
the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

35. Observation on the document of Retraction of
Dr. Jose Rizal
By: Dr. Jose del Rosario
1. The execution and writing movement in Capital letters including the
different varieties used as in the letter D,J,R,I,P,V,S,C,M,E are all in natural
form of letter used by Dr. Rizal

36. Observation on the document of Retraction of
Dr. Jose Rizal
By: Dr. Jose del Rosario
2. The small letters h,p,d,r,o,g,l,j,a are all of the handwriting of Rizal

37. Observation on the document of Retraction of
Dr. Jose Rizal
By: Dr. Jose del Rosario
3. The slant of writing is irregular and nearly vertical in the writing of the
Ultimo Adios because the paper used was too small so the difference in slant
between the Ultimo Adios and the normal was not a motive for doubting the
genuineness of this writing

38. Observation on the document of Retraction of
Dr. Jose Rizal
By: Dr. Jose del Rosario
4. All the other characteristics like the short ending strokes show nothing to
argue the genuineness of the document.

40. End of the Presentation..