Patrick Keena

15335 79th Ave Phone: 718-969-8447

Flushing, NY 11367
    

(Possibly husband of Garabandal visionary Conchita Gonzales)

GARABANDAL CLARIFICATION

     In November 1996 a letter from Bishop Jose Vilaplana Blasco of Santander, Spain,
"postmarked October 11, 1996" appeared in a periodical called GOSPA MISSIONS. Since
then, it has been widely circulated causing confusion because the English translation of the
original Spanish is inaccurate in key areas.

     This letter has now appeared on the Internet and in The National Catholic Register and
was reprinted in SOUL Magazine in its March-April 1997 issue. We have, therefore, to rectify
the situation.

     Firstly, the letter is not new. Ramon Perez, the author of Garabandal - the Village Speaks,
received the original in Spanish dated 8 June l993 from Bishop Vilaplana. (Where therefore
did they get the above-mentioned date of October llth l996? Was it deliberately updated?)

     Secondly, we have the original Spanish and it is obvious to those who understand the
language that there have been serious discrepancies in the translation. We mention only one
as follows:

GOSPA translation: All the bishops of the diocese since l96l through l970 agreed that there was
no supernatural validity for the apparitions (last part of the sentence omitted).

CORRECT translation: All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 affirmed that
the supernatural character of said apparitions was not certain for those succeeding years.

     Furthermore, the entire GOSPA translation conveys a harsh tone that is not characteristic of the Spanish
original. Whoever made that translation is obviously hostile toward Garabandal. Incidentally, SOUL Magazine
has made the correction in their May-June 1997 issue in accordance with the accurate translation outlined
above.

     We now quote the last two paragraphs of the Bishop's letter in full because they are important for our
comments. We will use our own translation and these two paragraphs are numbered 6 and 7 in the original:

6. Given the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and
unanimous I do not believe it opportune at this time to make a new public declaration which
would only give notoriety to events that happened so long ago. However, I do believe it timely to
reissue this information as a direct response to those persons who ask for orientation about this
question which I consider finished, accepting the decisions of my predecessors -- which I make
my own -- and the directives of the Holy See.

7. Referring to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my

predecessors, Mass can only be celebrated in the village church without reference to the alleged
apparitions and with the authorisation of the current pastor who acts on my behalf.

Commentary
The misuse of the Spanish verb constar definitely changes the meaning implied in the letter. But aside from that,
it is nevertheless true that Bishop Vilaplana considers the matter settled; and has no intention of continuing the
study, at the diocesan level, of these events. What should be the response of the followers of Garabandal? The
facts are these:

 Garabandal has never been condemned as is clearly stated in the nota of Bishop Eugenio Beitia
Aldazabal dated 8 July 1965 -- "we have found no grounds for an ecclesiastical condemnation" (And
this has been specifically confirmed by Bishop del Val Gallo in the video entitled Garababandal - the
Eyewitnesses.)

 The messages of Garabandal "do not contain anything contrary to traditional Church teaching on Faith
and Morals" (Declaration of Bishop Jose Cirada Lachiondo published in June 1970.)

 The spiritual recommendations made at Garabandal were under "traditional praiseworthy forms"
(nota of Bishop Beitia, 8 July 1965).

 Expressions no constaba and no consta indicate that the door is open for future amendment. The
declaration of the Bishop of Santander is not irrevocable. We have been assured of this by an
ecclesiastic who is a canon lawyer. While it is certainly Bishop Vilaplana's prerogative to regard the
matter finished as far as he is concerned, how can the case of Garabandal be considered closed so long
as the date of the prophesied miracle is still pending. And Conchita, the visionary who knows the date,
has said that she will reveal it at the proper time.

 With the abrogation in 1967 of canons 1399 and 2318, it is permitted without ecclesiastical censorship,
to publish information about alleged manifestations and visit the sites thereof so long as there is nothing
in the events contrary to the Church's teaching on Faith and Morals. Garabandal clearly passes this
test.

Bishop Vilaplana has cordially received Jacinta on two occasions and Conchita at least once.
In fact, after the circulation of his letter, Mari Loli telephoned him about it. He told her it was
not meant for publication. (So why was it on the Internet?)
The bottom line is that the Garabandal events are of such an awesome nature that the seal of
authenticity can only come from an act of God and that is what we eagerly await in the
Warning and Miracle and in the Sign that will be left at the Pines in Garabandal until the end
of time. And let's not forget that Fr. Luis Andreu and Padre Pio have already been given a
preview of the Miracle. So Garabandalists take heart and be assured that the status of the
events is the same as it has always been and will probably remain so until the great events
take place. Then, as Our Lady has assured us, "All will believe."
God bless!

CLARIFICATION CONTINUED

In view of persistent attempts to discredit Garabandal (a blatant case of "they protesteth too
much"), here is our response on behalf of our members.
The translation of Bishop Vilaplana's letter published on the Internet is still flawed in that it
fails to accurately translate the key parts that designate the status of Garabandal. This is a
very important point because whenever bishops deal with private revelation or mystical
phenomena to which they are required to render a judgement, they use a very specific
terminology, which signifies the classification in which they place the alleged manifestations.
This was true in the case of Padre Pio when the genuineness of his stigmata was being called
into question and it is also true with Garabandal. There are three classifications:
 1. Constat de supernaturalitate -- It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.

2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate -- It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, or the
supernatural origin has not been established. In this classification, the events in question are still open
to eventual recognition as being authentic.

3. Constat de non supernaturalitate -- It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.

The key word here is "constat" which has the meaning -- to be certain, to be sure, to be
evident. So long as a manifestation is in the second category listed above, it is in the safe zone.
Garabandal is in this second category and what is interesting is that the very letter being used
to discredit the events confirms its second category status. In Spanish, the verb "constar" is
derived from the Latin "constat" and has the same meaning. In Bishop Vilaplana's letter,
when referring to the alleged apparitions, he uses the expression "no consta" (not certain)
clearly assigning it to the second category.
Also, the detractors of Garabandal claim that because Bishop del Val (predecessor of Bishop
Vilaplana as diocesan bishop) said he was "in communion with his predecessors" (some of
whom did not believe in the apparitions) that means he also did not believe. This simply is not
true and Bishop del Val once admitted to Father Turner that it was an ambiguous statement.
All the bishops, at least of that diocese, are required upon their installation, to publicly affirm
their communion with their predecessors. This does not mean they agree with everything they
did nor said as evidenced by the fact that Bishop del Val launched a new investigation into
Garabandal after his two immediate predecessors, Bishop Puchol and Cirarda, declared
there were no apparitions. If "communion" meant "agreement" then why would he have
bothered instituting a new study?
We are not at all concerned that Garabandal is still being attacked. Viewed in the light of all
God's authentic works throughout Church history, this is a good sign.