Retraction controversy

Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document which
stated: "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."[note 10] However, there are doubts of its
authenticity given that there is no certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken.
[48]

Also there is an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.[49]

After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction
document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael
Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a
retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs.[50] He called the retraction story
a "pious fraud."[51] Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach,[17] a Protestant minister; Austin
Coates,[26] a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.[52]
Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine historians such
as Nick Joaquin,[note 11]Nicolas Zafra of UP[53] Len Mara Guerrero III,[note 12] Gregorio Zaide,[55] Guillermo
Gmez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo,[52]John Schumacher,[56] Antonio Molina,[57] Paul Dumol[58] and Austin
Craig.[20] They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost
expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting
experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. Jos I. Del Rosario,
both of UP.[53]
Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer
book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his
execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's
4confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12
historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. [59] One witness was the
head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly
esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.[60]
Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical
method, in contrast with merelycircumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas
Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." [53]Guzmn attributes the denial of
retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons. [59]
Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his mistakes," [55][note
13]

his reversion to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory,"[60] and a return to the "ideals of his

fathers" which "did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that
stature to greatness."[63] On the other hand, senator Jose Dioknostated, "Surely whether Rizal died
as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... 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'."[64]

"Mi ltimo adis"

Main article: Mi ltimo adis
The poem is more aptly titled, "Adis, Patria Adorada" (literally "Farewell, Beloved Fatherland"), by
virtue of logic and literary tradition, the words coming from the first line of the poem itself. It first
appeared in print not in Manila but in Hong Kong in 1897, when a copy of the poem and an
accompanying photograph came to J. P. Braga who decided to publish it in a monthly journal he
edited. There was a delay when Braga, who greatly admired Rizal, wanted a good job of the
photograph and sent it to be engraved in London, a process taking well over two months. It finally
appeared under 'Mi ltimo pensamiento,' a title he supplied and by which it was known for a few
years. Thus, when the JesuitBalaguer's anonymous account of the retraction and the marriage to
Josephine was appearing in Barcelona, no word of the poem's existence reached him in time to
revise what he had written. His account was too elaborate that Rizal would have had no time to write
"Adis."
Six years after his death, when the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 was being debated in the United
States Congress, Representative Henry Cooper of Wisconsin rendered an English translation of
Rizal's valedictory poem capped by the peroration, "Under what clime or what skies has tyranny
claimed a nobler victim?"[65] Subsequently, the US Congress passed the bill into law which is now
known as the Philippine Organic Act of 1902.[66]
This was a major breakthrough for a US Congress that had yet to grant equal rights to African
Americans guaranteed to them in the US Constitution and the Chinese Exclusion Act was still in
effect. It created the Philippine legislature, appointed two Filipino delegates to the US Congress,
extended the US Bill of Rights to Filipinos, and laid the foundation for an autonomous government.
The colony was on its way to independence.[66] The Americans, however, would not sign the bill into
law until 1916 and did not recognize Philippine Independence until the Treaty of Manila in 1946fifty
years after Rizal's death.This same poem which has inspired liberty-loving peoples across the region
and beyond was recited (in its Indonesian translation by Rosihan Anwar) by Indonesian soldiers of
independence before going into battle.[67]

Later life of Bracken

Josephine Bracken, whom Rizal addressed as his wife on his last day,[68] promptly joined
the revolutionary forces in Cavite province, making her way through thicket and mud across enemy
lines, and helped reloading spent cartridges at the arsenal in Imus under the revolutionary General
Pantalen Garca. Imus came under threat of recapture that the operation was moved, with Bracken,
to Maragondon, the mountain redoubt in Cavite.[69]

She witnessed the Tejeros Convention prior to returning to Manila and was summoned by
the Governor-General, but owing to her stepfather's American citizenship she could not be forcibly
deported. She left voluntarily returning to Hong Kong. She later married another Filipino, Vicente
Abad, a mestizo acting as agent for the Tabacalera firm in the Philippines. She died
of tubercolosis in Hong Kong in March 15, 1902, and was buried at the Happy Valley Cemetery.
[69]

She was immortalized by Rizal in the last stanza of Mi Ultimo Adios: "Farewell, sweet stranger, my

friend, my joy...".

Polavieja and Blanco

Polavieja faced condemnation by his countrymen after his return to Spain. While visiting Girona,
in Catalonia, circulars were distributed among the crowd bearing Rizal's last verses, his portrait, and
the charge that Polavieja was responsible for the loss of the Philippines to Spain. [70] Ramon Blanco
later presented his sash and sword to the Rizal family as an apology.[citation needed]

Criticism and controversies

Attempts to debunk legends surrounding Rizal, and the tug of war between free thinker and Catholic,
have kept his legacy controversial.

Rizal Shrine in Calamba City, Laguna, the ancestral house and birthplace of Jos Rizal, is now a museum
housing Rizal memorabilia.

Jos Rizal's original grave at Paco Park in Manila. Slightly renovated and date repainted in English.

National hero status

The confusion over Rizal's real stance on the Philippine Revolution leads to the sometimes bitter
question of his ranking as the nation's premier hero.[71][72] But then again, according to the National
Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) Section Chief Teodoro Atienza, and Filipino
historian Ambeth Ocampo, there is no Filipino historical figure, including Rizal, that was officially
declared as national hero through law or executive order.[73][74] Although, there were laws and
proclamations honoring Filipino heroes.
Made national hero by colonial Americans
Some[who?] suggest that Jose Rizal was made a legislated national hero by the American forces
occupying Philippines. In 1901, the American Governor General William Howard Taft suggested that
the U.S. sponsored Philippine Commission name Rizal a national hero for Filipinos. Jose Rizal was
an ideal candidate, favourable to the American occupiers since he was dead, and non-violent, a
favourable quality which, if emulated by Filipinos, would not threaten the American rule or change
the status quo of the occupiers of Philippine islands. Rizal did not advocate freedom for Philippines
either.[75] Subsequently, the US-sponsored commission passed Act No. 346 which set the anniversary
of Rizals death as a day of observance.[76]
Renato Constantino writes Rizal is a "United States-sponsored hero" who was promoted as the
greatest Filipino hero during the American colonial period of the Philippines after Aguinaldo lost the
PhilippineAmerican War. The United States promoted Rizal, who represented peaceful political
advocacy (in fact, repudiation of violent means in general) instead of more radical figures whose

ideas could inspire resistance against American rule. Rizal was selected over Andrs Bonifacio who
was viewed "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was considered "unregenerate."[77]
Made national hero by Emilio Aguinaldo
On the other hand, numerous sources[78] quote that it was General Emilio Aguinaldo, and not the
second Philippine Commission, who first recognized December 30 as "national day of mourning in
memory of Rizal and other victims of Spanish tyranny. As per them, the first celebration of Rizal Day
was held in Manila on December 30, 1898, under the sponsorship of the Club Filipino. [79]
The veracity of both claims seems to be justified and hence difficult to ascertain. However, most
historians agree that a majority of Filipinos were unaware of Rizal during his lifetime, [80] as he was a
member of the richer elite classes (he was born in an affluent family, had lived abroad for nearly as
long as he had lived in the Philippines) and wrote primarily in an elite language (at that
time, Tagalog andCebuano were the languages of the masses) about ideals as lofty as freedom (the
masses were more concerned about day to day issues like earning money and making a living,
something which has not changed much today).[81]
Teodoro Agoncillo opines that the Philippine national hero, unlike those of other countries, is not "the
leader of its liberation forces". He gives the opinion that Andrs Bonifacio not replace Rizal as
national hero, like some have suggested, but that be honored alongside him. [82]
Constantino's analysis has been criticised for its polemicism and inaccuracies. [83] The historian Rafael
Palma, contends that the revolution of Bonifacio is a consequence wrought by the writings of Rizal
and that although the Bonifacio's revolver produced an immediate outcome, the pen of Rizal
generated a more lasting achievement.[84]

References to the Catholic Church

In one recorded fall from grace he succumbed to the temptation of a 'lady of the camellias'. The
writer, Maximo Viola, a friend of Rizal's, was alluding to Dumas's 1848 novel, La dame aux camelias,
about a man who fell in love with a courtesan. While the affair was on record, there was no account
in Viola's letter whether it was more than one-night and if it was more a business transaction than an
amorous affair.[85][86][note 14]

Critiques of books
Others present him as a man of contradictions. Miguel de Unamuno in "Rizal: the Tagalog Hamlet",
said of him, a soul that dreads the revolution although deep down desires it. He pivots between fear
and hope, between faith and despair.[87] His critics assert this character flaw is translated into his two
novels where he opposes violence in Noli and appears to advocate it in Fili, contrasting Ibarra's
idealism to Simoun's cynicism. His defenders insist this ambivalence is trounced when Simoun is
struck down in the sequel's final chapters, reaffirming the author's resolute stance, Pure and
spotless must the victim be if the sacrifice is to be acceptable.[88]

Many thinkers tend to find the characters of Mara Clara and Ibarra (Noli Me Tngere) poor role
models, Mara Clara being too frail, and young Ibarra being too accepting of circumstances, rather
than being courageous and bold.[89]
In El Filibusterismo, Rizal had Father Florentino say: ...our liberty will (not) be secured at the
sword's point...we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it. And when a people reaches that
height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, tyranny will crumble like a house of
cards and liberty will shine out like the first dawn.[88] Rizal's attitude to the Philippine Revolution is
also debated, not only based on his own writings, but also due to the varying eyewitness accounts
of Po Valenzuela, a doctor who in 1895 had consulted Rizal in Dapitan on behalf of Bonifacio and
the Katipunan.

Role in the Philippine revolution

Upon the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution in 1896, Valenzuela surrendered to the Spanish
authorities and testified in military court that Rizal had strongly condemned an armed struggle for
independence when Valenzuela asked for his support. Rizal had even refused him entry to his
house. Bonifacio, in turn, had openly denounced him as a coward for his refusal. [note 15]
But years later, Valenzuela testified that Rizal had been favorable to an uprising as long as the
Filipinos were well-prepared, and well-supplied with arms. Rizal had suggested that
the Katipunan get wealthy and influential Filipino members of society on their side, or at least ensure
they would stay neutral. Rizal had even suggested his friend Antonio Luna to lead the revolutionary
forces since he had studied military science.[note 16] In the event that the Katipunan was discovered
prematurely, they should fight rather than allow themselves to be killed. Valenzuela said to
historian Teodoro Agoncillo that he had lied to the Spanish military authorities about Rizal's true
stance toward a revolution in an attempt to exculpate him. [90]
Before his execution, Rizal wrote a proclamation denouncing the revolution. But as noted by
historian Floro Quibuyen, his final poem Mi ultimo adios contains a stanza which equates his coming
execution and the rebels then dying in battle as fundamentally the same, as both are dying for their
country.[91]