Recently, the Workers of Our Lady of Mount Carmal released a statement on their website indicating that Joey Lomangino has passed away. As many may known Joey Lomangino is the man who was reportedly prophesied to receive new eyes at the great miracle which was promised by the Blessed Virgin Mary to be proof of Her apparitions in Garabandal Spain. Many who are reading this might state that, this goes to show that Garabandal is not an authentic apparition. Others may be discouraged, mystified (as he died on the very day of one of only two public messages given by the blessed virgin Mary...presumption will be used in this sense for the entirety of the article), confused, or disappointed. Despite where you stand or don't stand, I wish to address the following issues:
#1. Joeys passing in light of the prophecies made about his eyes
#2. The Churches PRESENT position on Garabandal
To begin, Joeys passing: The thing about Marian apparitions is that we have as Catholics (at least in West) have a tendency in the Church to base what a Marian apparition should be around Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe. Garabandal was quite different in that these children received thousands of visions. Unlike the seers of Fatima they were not always present with each other at a time of an apparition. What Im getting at is that you can have the best of intentions, and still as a human being (and 12 years old) make mistakes in conferring the message. Here is a brief example of this related to Garabandal. In 1965 Conchita of Garabandal declared:
“Our Lady told me that after the death of Pope John XXIII, there would be three more popes. One will reign for a short time, and then it will be the end of these times… [what she would years later clarify was not the end of the world but the end of a certain age in history].”
Objectively speaking, one could look at this and state the apparitions are false on this statement alone. Since the death of John XXIII you have four popes: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul 1 (who did in fact reign for a short time), Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.
History and background: Conchita made this statement in her village after the passing of John XXIII. The Church bells rang after which she wore a look of concern. She told those gathered the above statement. Whats not well known is that following this, she went to her house with her Mother and a German author named Albrecht Weber. In the presence of the Author, (who would shortly thereafter write a book called "Garabandal, the Finger of God") her mother asked her what she meant by there only being three more popes. To this Conchita responded that the Blessed Virgin had actually mentioned four popes. The Blessed Virgin told her that she did not include the pope who was to reign "For a short time" among the three. What this would mean is that the pope who was to reign "For a short time" was an additional pope to the three. Another way of stating this would be to say: there will be three popes. There will also be a pope who reigns for a short time. Its what the visionary meant to convey and was a truth. The majority of public records and anyone who has not heard of Weber or read his testimony of this has only heard three. It was not conveyed correctly in the majority of information that circulated publicly after the apparitions.
So revisiting this prophecy. There will be three popes following John the XXIII. There will ALSO be a pope who reigns for a short time (not counted among the three/in addition to the three..ALSO), and "THEN" it will be the end of these times but not the end of the world (what she would later allude was connected to the beginning of the prophetic events. Revisiting the popes then after John XXIII, you have Paul VI (1), John Paul 1 (2- who reigned for a short time exactly as prophecied years earlier in 1965), John Paul II (3), Benedict XVI (4) "AND THEN" (during the reign of Pope Francis...THIS POPE) it will be the time of the prophetic events/ "The end of these times but not the end of the world."...what many would suggest is a purification leading to a new springtime in the Church proclaimed by John Paul II throughout his pontificate.
This brings us to the prophecy of Joey. Joey was a devout follower of Garabandal. After receiving his sense of smell back upon kissing the stigmata of Padre Pio, he asked the future saint if it was true that the Virgin Mary was appearing in Garabandal, to which Padre Pio related: "yes it is" He went to the village and after his visit, and prayed that he would receive new eyes. One night he woke up testifying that he had clearly heard the voice of a woman telling him that a time would come when he would see again (the blind will see the deaf will hear the lame will leap for joy). He revisited Garabandal years later and spoke with Conchita about this stating how real it was.
After leaving this second time he heard back from Conchita who wrote to him. She stated: "Just two lines to tell you the message which the Blessed Virgin gave me for you today at the pines…she told me that the voice you heard was hers and that you shall see on the very day of the Miracle. She also told me that the House of Charity you will establish in New York will bring great glory to God."
Notice how she says you will see ON the day of the miracle. However some sources record this as: On the day of the miracle you will RECEIVE new eyes. You have two completely different statements there. One indicating that ON the day of the miracle, he will be seeing. The other stating on this very exact day he would "RECEIVE". Receive limits it to that day whereas ON that day you will be seeing does not limit it to time.
Which one is it? When asked later about this in an interview the visionary this time instead of using her own quote, quoted what the Blessed Virgin directly said. What she recorded the Blessed Virgin as having said is: “The first thing that he shall see will be the miracle which my Son will perform through my intercession, and from that time on he will see permanently. How did Fr. Luis Andru of Garanbandal die? After observing the apparitions he had a vision of the miracle and said it was the happiest day of his life and crossed to the other side on the spot.
When people cross over to the other side there are multiple transitions. Some of those who have near death visions relate to seeing themselves outside their bodies looking down on themselves in a state of shock. Still others see themselves going toward a tunnel of light with someone at the end. Still others state that they see deceased relatives or angelic beings. They vary from what anyone who has had one can testify to. If the prophecy given by the Blessed Virgin is true, than the first thing that Joey Lamangino saw passing from this world was the miracle either immediately before or immediately after he crossed over. And the Blessed Virgin's direct quoted statement also makes sense: From this time forward he will see permanently.
The point is in light of the direct quotation what has occurred is completely acceptable and compliant with the prophecy directly quoting the Blessed Virgin.
Point number 2, Authenticity:
Before wring this, I would like to express that I accept the end judgement of the Catholic Church regarding authenticity. However over the years many have stated that the end judgement on Garabandal has already been reached. Some websites around the web have recorded it as such. This is incorrect information, and there are many in the Church who would verify that this is incorrect. Garabandal has and remains in the hands of the local bishop in terms of approval. While it is possible for the doctrine of faith to intervene and take away the bishops authority to rule on the matter, there has been no grounds for this with Garabandal.
The first bishop of the diocese that investigated the apparitions had a negative view of the apparitions. In one of the Blessed Virgins public messages it was declared that there were many priests and bishops on the road to perdition and taking souls with them (of which there are also thousands of others that are not). But the point was that according to Her from what she was seeing there were/are. The bishops did not take well to this. He had an investigation formed and hand selected individuals who would be in opposition to the apparitions. Who was not interviewed in this? Anyone who had anything positive to say about the apparitions. In other words, the villagers who saw their faces during their ectasies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2VgTajNDc&index=1&list=PLB0CFE7866ECA9AA2 or saw them levitating, or had rosaries turn to gold, or who were unable to lift the children during the apparitions....None of these people were interviewed.
When the report was given, the Bishop received exactly what was expected from the commission (of which one of the members years later had something increadible occur and outwardly supported the apparitions years later). After this first commission, the bishop proclaimed:
"We have not found anything supernatural in nature"
To not FIND anything supernatural is different than saying we are condemning the apparitions. In fact, years later, this would be clarified when a later bishop came forward and stated:
"we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation.” He also added after retiring from office that the message of Garabandal was both Important and theologically correct.
But this clarification on the Churche's state would come years later. In the immediate time following this first commission, the statement created a great deal of confusion. By this time the apparitions were attracting people throughout Europe, including St. Padre Pio who was publicly expressing his belief in the apparitions and affirming to those who visited him that She was appearing there. Again he was even encouraging pilgramages to the village, and more than one source can confirm this was not limited to Joey.
However after the commission, people were still flowing into the village. The bishop had enough. He pressured the children to sign a letter stating that they had fabricated their visions. The children continued to remain firm in their stance for quite some time. However, after a period time and greater pressure, the children consented to sign this letter. They were told that if they did not sign it, they were lying and being disobedient to the Church. Another way of stating this would be to say that they were led to believe that they were committing mortal sin for disobedience. This is different than Fatima where the children were pressured by the government. It was the Church hierarchy (the bishop himself as this was an individual bishop and not the Holy See doing this). Shortly after it was signed, the children verbally retracted their signatures. They could not reconcile desiring to be obedient to the Church, while at the same time denying the reality of what they had seen. None the less this added further confusion to the Church's stance.
The bishops who followed this bishop maintained the stance of "we have not found anything supernatural" until again, the arrival of Bishop Dal Val Gallo. In 1987, he instituted a new inquiry of the apparitions and lifted the ban on priests going up to the village that had been placed by the original bishop. He also instituded a third commission whose finding were sent directly to Rome but were never released publicly. He gave permission to Dr. Luis Morales, a man on the original commission that had a negative disposition to the apparitions permission to proclaim his own testimony and change of belief regarding what he had witnessed. He did not lift the findings of the first bishop "We have not found anything supernatural" but again made very clear to the entire Church that this statement was not a condemnation. Again he stated "we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation.” In addition, after he retired from office he stated that the message of Garabandal was both Important and theologically correct.
For many this renewed faith in the apparitions. But further attacks would come. After Bishop Dal Val Gallo retired from office a later bishop came to the diocees. He wanted to know what the finding of the third commission that Bishop Dal Val Gallo had conducted were. He wrote to the Holy See requesting information. Upon hearing back he addressed the faithful. His letter in no way condemed the apparitions. It remained very neutral....in Spanish. What he declaired was:
Santander,
Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the "alleged apparitions" of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I must communicate that:
1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed.
2. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. Not withstanding, the same Msgr. Del Val, the first years having passed in which there was confusion to enthusiasm, initiated an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon. The conclusion of this study coincided with the previous findings by the bishops, which is to say, that it does not prove the supernaturality of said apparitions (As stated by the previous bishop, not a condemnation).
4. This study concluded during the days in which I took possession of the diocese in 1991. Taking advantage, in that same year, of a trip to Rome for the motive of making the ad limina visit, I presented said study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for guidance for pastoral activity concerning the case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me its response, consisting in, that after having examined attentively the mentioned documentation, it did not consider it opportune to intervene directly, removing the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, this subject that belongs to him by right. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding.
In the same letter it was suggested, if I find it opportune, to publish a declaration in which it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors, who studied the case, have been clear and unanimous, I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago. However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which I give finally, accepting the decisions of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my predecessors, I only allow that it be celebrated in the parish church without reference to the alleged apparitions and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence.
With the wish that this information is helpful to you, receive my cordial greeting in Christ,
Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander
As can be read, the bishops letter was very neutral. He maintained what was passed down. Unfortunately however, this was NOT what was written in English immediately after his statement was released. The above translation was given by EWTN as a service to the truth of what he said: What was actually released in this bishops letter in the English translation: "All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
In short, whoever wrote the transition over to English, took the liberty of changing the meaning from the original statement. Compare what is directly above to the Spanish version: All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 (including Bishop Del Val Gallo who stated that the apparitions had never been condemned) affirmed that the supernatural character of said apparitions was not certain for those succeeding years.
However many might argue: Even if this information is true, and the apparitions have never been condemned, why is there so much hesitancy in affirming them? After all, if hundreds of villagers and pilgrims came forward testifying to events that defied human nature (and even recorded these children in their visions. You even have doctors who testified that the children did not respond when poked by pins and needles during their visions....If these things actually occurred, and there is proof of the "preturnatural"
( https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/garabandal.htm ) than why the hesitancy?
Beyond the stance of the first bishops due to the first investigation that was formed (and his forcing the girls to sign the letter early on), there is the basic reality that Garabandal is incomplete. There were a number of events prophesied at the apparitions that simply have not occurred:
1. A communist crisis
2. A global illumination of the soul to illuminate all hearts to the reality of sin and prevent the communists from progressing
3. A miracle in Spain which the Blessed Virgin stated would be much much greater than one witnessed by 70,000 in Fatima Portugal, 1917.
The visionary Conchita once wrote that the Blessed Virgin told her the miracle would offer proof of her apparitions. That has not occurred yet. It would be like approving Fatima three months before the miracle of the sun recorded by the Portugal citie's newspaper.
The three reasons listed above would be principle reasons. That's not to say that there are not other reasons, but most of the other reasons are related to a lack of clarification regarding statements made at Garabandal. The statement of the three popes addressed above would be a perfect exmaple. Some others examples would be that thousands of people showed up at Garabandal years ago believing this miracle would occur. Conchita is supposed to announce it 8 days in advanced. The visionary never announced this, but many have used this as grounds to state that the appritions are false. Another example is that Conchita stated in her diary that both Padre Pio and Pope Paul VI would see the miracle. Indeed, the members of St. Padre Pios order testified that the saint had seen the miracle before his passing. In fact on that note, Padre Pio had personally met with Conchita before his death and related to her that Europe would suffer greatly before the miracle. By suffer it is likely that the now canonized saint was referring to communism.... In 1965 Conchita was asked about the timing of these supernatural events. She directly stated: When communism newly comes again, everything will happen. When asked what she meant by this she stated she did not know what the Blessed Virgin meant. All she knew is that when communism newly comes again, everything will happen. There was direct reference to Western Europe. It remains unknown to what degree the Americas will be affected. But what is clear from the visionaries is that there will be a crisis related to communism shortly before the warning, and the warning and miracle will occur when the world is most in needs of Gods direct intervention. Padre Pios statement makes sense in light of this.
In regards to Pope Paul VI, the holy father was a mystic. He had multiple visions during his pontificate. There had to have been a reason he said to Conchita: "Conchita I bless you and with me the whole church blesses you (this would include the Holy See)."
In Conclusion:
In light of the four popes prophecy and everything that has occurred with Joeys death, my personal thought is that the events of Garabandal are close. I respect those who disagree, while also stating that there are many good priests and bishops in the church. Garabandal was a very priest centered apparition. The Blessed Virgin once reportedly told the children that if they were to see a priest and an angel side by side that they should first give respect to the priest as he is the one that confers the sacraments. The death of Joey Lomangino is entirely acceptable in light of what the Blessed Mother herself is quoted as having said. The visionaries prophesied that a communist crisis would occur before these events begin and Garabandal is validated. I would go so far as to state: If there is not a communist crisis that begins before the end of Pope Francis reign that for certain involves Western Europe, then there will be serious doubt cast on Garabandal's authenticity. From everything seen during the years of apparitions, it seems evident that we are on the verge of a transition to the Era of Peace prophesied by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima Portugal, 1917. I speak about all of this (and other catholic prophecy) in a book on the apparitions, hopefully to be released shortly here. In the meantime, I encourage anyone who believes in the message of Garabandal, not be be disheartened. Conchita was once told in one of the apparitions: One day, before the Miracle, something will happen that will cause many people to stop believing in the apparitions of Garabandal. The doubts and desertions will not be due to an excessive delay of the Miracle. This in my opinion is it. Though I think those who support the apparitions should keep hope particularly with the direct quotations differentiation as well as the fact that Joey passed to the other side and saw the miracle on the very day of one of only two public apparitions at Garabandal. The odds of that are very unlikely. It seemed very providential timing.
#1. Joeys passing in light of the prophecies made about his eyes
#2. The Churches PRESENT position on Garabandal
To begin, Joeys passing: The thing about Marian apparitions is that we have as Catholics (at least in West) have a tendency in the Church to base what a Marian apparition should be around Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe. Garabandal was quite different in that these children received thousands of visions. Unlike the seers of Fatima they were not always present with each other at a time of an apparition. What Im getting at is that you can have the best of intentions, and still as a human being (and 12 years old) make mistakes in conferring the message. Here is a brief example of this related to Garabandal. In 1965 Conchita of Garabandal declared:
“Our Lady told me that after the death of Pope John XXIII, there would be three more popes. One will reign for a short time, and then it will be the end of these times… [what she would years later clarify was not the end of the world but the end of a certain age in history].”
Objectively speaking, one could look at this and state the apparitions are false on this statement alone. Since the death of John XXIII you have four popes: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul 1 (who did in fact reign for a short time), Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.
History and background: Conchita made this statement in her village after the passing of John XXIII. The Church bells rang after which she wore a look of concern. She told those gathered the above statement. Whats not well known is that following this, she went to her house with her Mother and a German author named Albrecht Weber. In the presence of the Author, (who would shortly thereafter write a book called "Garabandal, the Finger of God") her mother asked her what she meant by there only being three more popes. To this Conchita responded that the Blessed Virgin had actually mentioned four popes. The Blessed Virgin told her that she did not include the pope who was to reign "For a short time" among the three. What this would mean is that the pope who was to reign "For a short time" was an additional pope to the three. Another way of stating this would be to say: there will be three popes. There will also be a pope who reigns for a short time. Its what the visionary meant to convey and was a truth. The majority of public records and anyone who has not heard of Weber or read his testimony of this has only heard three. It was not conveyed correctly in the majority of information that circulated publicly after the apparitions.
So revisiting this prophecy. There will be three popes following John the XXIII. There will ALSO be a pope who reigns for a short time (not counted among the three/in addition to the three..ALSO), and "THEN" it will be the end of these times but not the end of the world (what she would later allude was connected to the beginning of the prophetic events. Revisiting the popes then after John XXIII, you have Paul VI (1), John Paul 1 (2- who reigned for a short time exactly as prophecied years earlier in 1965), John Paul II (3), Benedict XVI (4) "AND THEN" (during the reign of Pope Francis...THIS POPE) it will be the time of the prophetic events/ "The end of these times but not the end of the world."...what many would suggest is a purification leading to a new springtime in the Church proclaimed by John Paul II throughout his pontificate.
This brings us to the prophecy of Joey. Joey was a devout follower of Garabandal. After receiving his sense of smell back upon kissing the stigmata of Padre Pio, he asked the future saint if it was true that the Virgin Mary was appearing in Garabandal, to which Padre Pio related: "yes it is" He went to the village and after his visit, and prayed that he would receive new eyes. One night he woke up testifying that he had clearly heard the voice of a woman telling him that a time would come when he would see again (the blind will see the deaf will hear the lame will leap for joy). He revisited Garabandal years later and spoke with Conchita about this stating how real it was.
After leaving this second time he heard back from Conchita who wrote to him. She stated: "Just two lines to tell you the message which the Blessed Virgin gave me for you today at the pines…she told me that the voice you heard was hers and that you shall see on the very day of the Miracle. She also told me that the House of Charity you will establish in New York will bring great glory to God."
Notice how she says you will see ON the day of the miracle. However some sources record this as: On the day of the miracle you will RECEIVE new eyes. You have two completely different statements there. One indicating that ON the day of the miracle, he will be seeing. The other stating on this very exact day he would "RECEIVE". Receive limits it to that day whereas ON that day you will be seeing does not limit it to time.
Which one is it? When asked later about this in an interview the visionary this time instead of using her own quote, quoted what the Blessed Virgin directly said. What she recorded the Blessed Virgin as having said is: “The first thing that he shall see will be the miracle which my Son will perform through my intercession, and from that time on he will see permanently. How did Fr. Luis Andru of Garanbandal die? After observing the apparitions he had a vision of the miracle and said it was the happiest day of his life and crossed to the other side on the spot.
When people cross over to the other side there are multiple transitions. Some of those who have near death visions relate to seeing themselves outside their bodies looking down on themselves in a state of shock. Still others see themselves going toward a tunnel of light with someone at the end. Still others state that they see deceased relatives or angelic beings. They vary from what anyone who has had one can testify to. If the prophecy given by the Blessed Virgin is true, than the first thing that Joey Lamangino saw passing from this world was the miracle either immediately before or immediately after he crossed over. And the Blessed Virgin's direct quoted statement also makes sense: From this time forward he will see permanently.
The point is in light of the direct quotation what has occurred is completely acceptable and compliant with the prophecy directly quoting the Blessed Virgin.
Point number 2, Authenticity:
Before wring this, I would like to express that I accept the end judgement of the Catholic Church regarding authenticity. However over the years many have stated that the end judgement on Garabandal has already been reached. Some websites around the web have recorded it as such. This is incorrect information, and there are many in the Church who would verify that this is incorrect. Garabandal has and remains in the hands of the local bishop in terms of approval. While it is possible for the doctrine of faith to intervene and take away the bishops authority to rule on the matter, there has been no grounds for this with Garabandal.
The first bishop of the diocese that investigated the apparitions had a negative view of the apparitions. In one of the Blessed Virgins public messages it was declared that there were many priests and bishops on the road to perdition and taking souls with them (of which there are also thousands of others that are not). But the point was that according to Her from what she was seeing there were/are. The bishops did not take well to this. He had an investigation formed and hand selected individuals who would be in opposition to the apparitions. Who was not interviewed in this? Anyone who had anything positive to say about the apparitions. In other words, the villagers who saw their faces during their ectasies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2VgTajNDc&index=1&list=PLB0CFE7866ECA9AA2 or saw them levitating, or had rosaries turn to gold, or who were unable to lift the children during the apparitions....None of these people were interviewed.
When the report was given, the Bishop received exactly what was expected from the commission (of which one of the members years later had something increadible occur and outwardly supported the apparitions years later). After this first commission, the bishop proclaimed:
"We have not found anything supernatural in nature"
To not FIND anything supernatural is different than saying we are condemning the apparitions. In fact, years later, this would be clarified when a later bishop came forward and stated:
"we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation.” He also added after retiring from office that the message of Garabandal was both Important and theologically correct.
But this clarification on the Churche's state would come years later. In the immediate time following this first commission, the statement created a great deal of confusion. By this time the apparitions were attracting people throughout Europe, including St. Padre Pio who was publicly expressing his belief in the apparitions and affirming to those who visited him that She was appearing there. Again he was even encouraging pilgramages to the village, and more than one source can confirm this was not limited to Joey.
However after the commission, people were still flowing into the village. The bishop had enough. He pressured the children to sign a letter stating that they had fabricated their visions. The children continued to remain firm in their stance for quite some time. However, after a period time and greater pressure, the children consented to sign this letter. They were told that if they did not sign it, they were lying and being disobedient to the Church. Another way of stating this would be to say that they were led to believe that they were committing mortal sin for disobedience. This is different than Fatima where the children were pressured by the government. It was the Church hierarchy (the bishop himself as this was an individual bishop and not the Holy See doing this). Shortly after it was signed, the children verbally retracted their signatures. They could not reconcile desiring to be obedient to the Church, while at the same time denying the reality of what they had seen. None the less this added further confusion to the Church's stance.
The bishops who followed this bishop maintained the stance of "we have not found anything supernatural" until again, the arrival of Bishop Dal Val Gallo. In 1987, he instituted a new inquiry of the apparitions and lifted the ban on priests going up to the village that had been placed by the original bishop. He also instituded a third commission whose finding were sent directly to Rome but were never released publicly. He gave permission to Dr. Luis Morales, a man on the original commission that had a negative disposition to the apparitions permission to proclaim his own testimony and change of belief regarding what he had witnessed. He did not lift the findings of the first bishop "We have not found anything supernatural" but again made very clear to the entire Church that this statement was not a condemnation. Again he stated "we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation.” In addition, after he retired from office he stated that the message of Garabandal was both Important and theologically correct.
For many this renewed faith in the apparitions. But further attacks would come. After Bishop Dal Val Gallo retired from office a later bishop came to the diocees. He wanted to know what the finding of the third commission that Bishop Dal Val Gallo had conducted were. He wrote to the Holy See requesting information. Upon hearing back he addressed the faithful. His letter in no way condemed the apparitions. It remained very neutral....in Spanish. What he declaired was:
Santander,
Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the "alleged apparitions" of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I must communicate that:
1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed.
2. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. Not withstanding, the same Msgr. Del Val, the first years having passed in which there was confusion to enthusiasm, initiated an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon. The conclusion of this study coincided with the previous findings by the bishops, which is to say, that it does not prove the supernaturality of said apparitions (As stated by the previous bishop, not a condemnation).
4. This study concluded during the days in which I took possession of the diocese in 1991. Taking advantage, in that same year, of a trip to Rome for the motive of making the ad limina visit, I presented said study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for guidance for pastoral activity concerning the case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me its response, consisting in, that after having examined attentively the mentioned documentation, it did not consider it opportune to intervene directly, removing the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, this subject that belongs to him by right. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding.
In the same letter it was suggested, if I find it opportune, to publish a declaration in which it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors, who studied the case, have been clear and unanimous, I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago. However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which I give finally, accepting the decisions of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my predecessors, I only allow that it be celebrated in the parish church without reference to the alleged apparitions and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence.
With the wish that this information is helpful to you, receive my cordial greeting in Christ,
Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander
As can be read, the bishops letter was very neutral. He maintained what was passed down. Unfortunately however, this was NOT what was written in English immediately after his statement was released. The above translation was given by EWTN as a service to the truth of what he said: What was actually released in this bishops letter in the English translation: "All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
In short, whoever wrote the transition over to English, took the liberty of changing the meaning from the original statement. Compare what is directly above to the Spanish version: All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 (including Bishop Del Val Gallo who stated that the apparitions had never been condemned) affirmed that the supernatural character of said apparitions was not certain for those succeeding years.
However many might argue: Even if this information is true, and the apparitions have never been condemned, why is there so much hesitancy in affirming them? After all, if hundreds of villagers and pilgrims came forward testifying to events that defied human nature (and even recorded these children in their visions. You even have doctors who testified that the children did not respond when poked by pins and needles during their visions....If these things actually occurred, and there is proof of the "preturnatural"
( https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/garabandal.htm ) than why the hesitancy?
Beyond the stance of the first bishops due to the first investigation that was formed (and his forcing the girls to sign the letter early on), there is the basic reality that Garabandal is incomplete. There were a number of events prophesied at the apparitions that simply have not occurred:
1. A communist crisis
2. A global illumination of the soul to illuminate all hearts to the reality of sin and prevent the communists from progressing
3. A miracle in Spain which the Blessed Virgin stated would be much much greater than one witnessed by 70,000 in Fatima Portugal, 1917.
The visionary Conchita once wrote that the Blessed Virgin told her the miracle would offer proof of her apparitions. That has not occurred yet. It would be like approving Fatima three months before the miracle of the sun recorded by the Portugal citie's newspaper.
The three reasons listed above would be principle reasons. That's not to say that there are not other reasons, but most of the other reasons are related to a lack of clarification regarding statements made at Garabandal. The statement of the three popes addressed above would be a perfect exmaple. Some others examples would be that thousands of people showed up at Garabandal years ago believing this miracle would occur. Conchita is supposed to announce it 8 days in advanced. The visionary never announced this, but many have used this as grounds to state that the appritions are false. Another example is that Conchita stated in her diary that both Padre Pio and Pope Paul VI would see the miracle. Indeed, the members of St. Padre Pios order testified that the saint had seen the miracle before his passing. In fact on that note, Padre Pio had personally met with Conchita before his death and related to her that Europe would suffer greatly before the miracle. By suffer it is likely that the now canonized saint was referring to communism.... In 1965 Conchita was asked about the timing of these supernatural events. She directly stated: When communism newly comes again, everything will happen. When asked what she meant by this she stated she did not know what the Blessed Virgin meant. All she knew is that when communism newly comes again, everything will happen. There was direct reference to Western Europe. It remains unknown to what degree the Americas will be affected. But what is clear from the visionaries is that there will be a crisis related to communism shortly before the warning, and the warning and miracle will occur when the world is most in needs of Gods direct intervention. Padre Pios statement makes sense in light of this.
In regards to Pope Paul VI, the holy father was a mystic. He had multiple visions during his pontificate. There had to have been a reason he said to Conchita: "Conchita I bless you and with me the whole church blesses you (this would include the Holy See)."
In Conclusion:
In light of the four popes prophecy and everything that has occurred with Joeys death, my personal thought is that the events of Garabandal are close. I respect those who disagree, while also stating that there are many good priests and bishops in the church. Garabandal was a very priest centered apparition. The Blessed Virgin once reportedly told the children that if they were to see a priest and an angel side by side that they should first give respect to the priest as he is the one that confers the sacraments. The death of Joey Lomangino is entirely acceptable in light of what the Blessed Mother herself is quoted as having said. The visionaries prophesied that a communist crisis would occur before these events begin and Garabandal is validated. I would go so far as to state: If there is not a communist crisis that begins before the end of Pope Francis reign that for certain involves Western Europe, then there will be serious doubt cast on Garabandal's authenticity. From everything seen during the years of apparitions, it seems evident that we are on the verge of a transition to the Era of Peace prophesied by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima Portugal, 1917. I speak about all of this (and other catholic prophecy) in a book on the apparitions, hopefully to be released shortly here. In the meantime, I encourage anyone who believes in the message of Garabandal, not be be disheartened. Conchita was once told in one of the apparitions: One day, before the Miracle, something will happen that will cause many people to stop believing in the apparitions of Garabandal. The doubts and desertions will not be due to an excessive delay of the Miracle. This in my opinion is it. Though I think those who support the apparitions should keep hope particularly with the direct quotations differentiation as well as the fact that Joey passed to the other side and saw the miracle on the very day of one of only two public apparitions at Garabandal. The odds of that are very unlikely. It seemed very providential timing.