Rizal Did Not Retract

Retraction means the withdrawal of a promise, statement, or opinion. The focus of the retraction
is José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda, known as José Rizal. He was a Filipino
nationalist. He became a writer and a member of the Filipino Propaganda Movement which
advocated political reforms for the colony under Spain. He was executed by the Spanish colonial
government for the crime of rebellion after the Philippine Revolution, when his writings, broke
out. Many debates have been circulation around according to the retraction of Rizal. The
researchers believe that Rizal did not retract mainly because of the evidences that have been
gathered. No original document was also found up to this date. 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. The document of the said retraction was given a public
viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s
archive in Manila. Contrary the original document was never shown to the public, only
reproductions or imitations which make it an unofficial and not credible evidence of Rizal’s
retraction. It was merely a replica of it.  There are doubts of its authenticity given that there is no
certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Ricardo Pascual concluded that the
retraction document that was discovered in 1935 was not in Rizal’s handwriting. Forgery of the
document was alleged. A former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent
Mason, Senator Rafael Palma, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character
and mature beliefs.

No masses were said for his soul or funeral that was held for Catholics

Rizal did not retract because he was not buried in a catholic cemetery in Paco but in the ground.
A tradition of the Catholics prior to burials would have the masses for the dead, and a proper
burial but on December 30, 1896 after the execution, Rizal’s body was brought to San Juan de
Dios Hospital and on the same day Rizal’s remains were buried in the Paco Cemetery in an
unmarked grave.  Given the idea of how Catholics are strict with their beliefs, Rizal should have
had a proper burial. On August 17, 1898, they dug up the remains of Rizal. It were kept in the
Rizal family house in Binondo until it was brought to the final resting place in Luneta. On
December 30, 1912, this was the time that a solemn ceremony was held to finally bury the
remains at the monument in Luneta dedicated in memory of Rizal. 

No original copy
The copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and
was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was
said that it was lost. The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to
eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be given, and then the letter of
retraction would be shown to the Nevertheless, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of
retraction was shown. It had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace. This mere act proves the
possibility of no retraction happening since the family was given the opportunity to be given the
letter yet they could not give it to them. Retraction letters are formal document according to
one’s religion or faith. The family of Rizal has the right to see or know if Rizal had retracted of
not. was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were
many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May
13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila.
But the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it. 

Witnesses

Baron Fernandez - A Spanish orphan who worked for almost half century in two historical secret
archives in Madrid and Segovia, had an eyewitness account of the retraction which he discovered
in those repertories of Spain's dirty secrets. He found 34 documents including handwritten
letters, telegrams, and military documents including a thick sheaf of Rizal's defense. He had
written himself days before he was murdered at Bagumbayan. Fernandez said: " I have
documents stating that before he faced death, Rizal told his sister Narcisa to look inside his shoes
because he had left a letter. According to Fernandez, that letter could only be a denial of his
retraction because Rizal knew the friars were misleading the Filipinos and he wanted to set the
record straight".

Marriage
I order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend
Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the
retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to
reclaim it." This show how he was supposedly signed the retraction but was never approve
because Rizal had reclaimed it. There was also no proof of the marriage between Rizal and
Jospehine Bracken. The thought of how in love they are was still not a reason why Rizal would
retract in order for them to get married.

Inconsistencies and forgery

      However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported, the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim
and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document,
also copied it verbatim. But it is seen that in both reproductions, there were conflicting versions
of the text. Add to this the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document
which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.” Another supposedly
original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was
evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original
version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”. When
one has an original document, there would be no inconsistencies since you have the exact
document and everything that the document can never be changed especially when it is written
or signed.

      The researchers strongly believes that it might be forgery from the friars or priests because
they wanted to let the people know that Rizal retracted. It is reported that the forger of Rizal’s
signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which
was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s
signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final
day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature. This story was revealed by Antonio
K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours. 

      There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken,
written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written
by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal.