@Live John Bishop Beitia Aldazabal was the local Ordinary in Santander from 1962 and resigned in 1965. Santander (Diocese) [Catholic-Hierarchy] Please can you show an OFFICIAL document to back up what you state - that he gave Garabandal full ecclesiastical approval. It is very odd that all subsequent official statements from the Holy See and local Ordinaries never mention this - quite the opposite in fact, that the alleged apparitions are not approved. Your statement is actually incorrect. The pieces below come from a pro-Garabandal site, but they clearly show he never gave the alleged apparitions full approval. And yet I am accused of spreading misinformation on this site.

FIRST OFFICIAL NOTE OF BISHOP BEITIA. OFFICIAL NOTE ON THE EVENTS OF SAN SEBASTIÁN DE GARABANDAL.

The SPECIAL COMMISSION, which hears the events which are occurring in the village of San Sebastián de Garabandal, has presented us the related report, dating October 4 of the current year. The commission affirms its anterior statements, judging that these phenomena lack all sign of supernatural nature and have a natural explanation.

Consequently, and in our desire that the members of our diocese to be duly informed and that all those who have any relation with the events be provided with sure guidance, in fulfillment of our pastoral duty and employing our given authority:

1. WE CONFIRM in their entirety the OFFICIAL NOTES of the Bishop’s Office of Santander, dating August 26 and October 24, 1961.
2. WE PROHIBIT ALL PRIESTS, both diocesan and extra-diocesan, and all religious still exempt, from visiting the mentioned place without the express permission of the diocesan authority.
3. WE REITERATE TO ALL FAITHFUL the warning that they should abstain from encouraging the atmosphere created by the development of these events and, therefore, should abstain from visiting with this motive the cited village.

In such a grave matter, we expect the timely compliance with these provisions by all of you.

In Santander, Feast of the Rosary, October 7, 1962.
EUGENIO, Bishop of Santander.

(From the Official Bulletin of the Bishop’s Office, November 1962, p. 242.)

SECOND OFFICIAL NOTE OF BISHOP BEITIA. OFFICIAL NOTE OF THE BISHOP’S OFFICE OF SANTANDER ON THE EVENTS OF SAN SEBASTIAN DE GARABANDAL.

We write this NOTE in accord with our Pastoral duty. The name GARABANDAL and the events that occurred during these years in this small village in the mountains of our diocese, have, through the media, spread outside our homeland and our European continent. International agencies have divulged graphic information and special reports about wishes of Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary and about spiritual messages. At the same time, we are asked to give an authorized opinion on these events which they wish to unite with other venerable Marian devotions which are universally known.

The Bishop’s Office of Santander has collected very extensive documentation during these years on everything that has occurred there. It has not the “file” on this subject. It will gratefully receive all evidence which is submitted. Up until now, three official NOTES have appeared attempting to guide the judgment of the faithful. This will be the fourth NOTE and, presently, its conclusion is the same as the preceding notes. The Commission implied in the classification of the events has found no reason to modify the already-issued judgment, opining NO CONSTA the supernatural nature of the phenomena, which it has carefully examined.

Consequently, this diocesan authority renews the relevant rulings so that an atmosphere of confusion is not fostered artificially, by means of massive propaganda, outside the confines of the letter and spirit of the sacred canons, and by means of news, newspaper or magazine articles, graphic reports, itinerary reports and other similar means.

All are reminded that according to canon 1399, number 5.0, “books and pamphlets which refer to new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophesies, or miracles, or which introduce new devotions, are prohibited if they are published without observance of the prescriptions of the canons.” We note that in the Diocese of Santander, no “imprimatur” has been granted for any book, pamphlet, article or review of this material. We extend to the full reach of our diocesan authority the same prohibition of this canon to all publication of articles or reports which have not been submitted to the censure of the Diocese of Santander.

We ask all the faithful to abstain from fostering, by their presence in San Sebastián de Garabandal, the atmosphere created around these apparitions and spiritual communication. We note, however, that we have not found any material worthy of condemning by ecclesial censure, neither in doctrine nor in the spiritual recommendations directed towards the Christian faithful, for they contain an exhortation to prayer and sacrifice, Eucharistic devotion, devotion to Our Lady in traditional praiseworthy forms and a holy fear of God, who is offended by our sins. They simply repeat the current doctrine of the Church in these matters. We recognize the good faith and religious fervor of those who come to San Sebastián de Garabandal, they deserve profound respect. We wish to count precisely on this same religious fervor, so that, fully trusting in the Hierarchy of the Church and in its Magisterium, they might comply, with the greatest possible exactitude, with our repeatedly published recommendations.

Concerning priests, because of the special importance which their intervention may have, both in their form of active participation and collaboration in the development of the events and by their simple presence as spectators, we explicitly and formally PROHIBIT their attendance without express permission of the diocesan authority on an individual and case-by-case basis. We declare that those who contravene our formal warning will have their faculties suspended in the Diocese of Santander “ipso facto.” The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has contacted the Diocese of Santander to obtain adequate information on this grave matter.

Santander, July 8, 1965,
EUGENIO, Bishop Current Administator of Santander.
(From the Bishop’s Office Bulletin, July 1965, pp 180-82)

Your post as usual is devious and false. Nowhere did I state that Bishop Aldzabal gave Garabandal full ecclesiastical approval (your words). What I did say was: "Those Messages were given Full Ecclesiastical Approval by His Excellency Bishop Aldzabal in a nota issued by him in 1965."
Of course you won't find official statements to support your false claim because they are a figure of your imagination and don't exist. Making false accusations against me won't help either except to destroy your credibility.
I await your reply to me concerning my question for evidence of your credentials.

@Live John Where is this 1965 nota where Bishop Aldazabal gives 'full ecclesiastical approval' to the 'messages'? The only 1965 nota I could find from him, I had already posted above. The second nota, para 5, although trying to adopt a more positive tone, is far from a 'full ecclesiastical approval' of the 'messages'. In fact, if read properly, the whole second nota is asking people to be obedient to the Hierarchy. I put the paragraph I refer to below, but urge readers to read both notas (see above).

"We ask all the faithful to abstain from fostering, by their presence in San Sebastián de Garabandal, the atmosphere created around these apparitions and spiritual communication. We note, however, that we have not found any material worthy of condemning by ecclesial censure, neither in doctrine nor in the spiritual recommendations directed towards the Christian faithful, for they contain an exhortation to prayer and sacrifice, Eucharistic devotion, devotion to Our Lady in traditional praiseworthy forms and a holy fear of God, who is offended by our sins. They simply repeat the current doctrine of the Church in these matters. We recognize the good faith and religious fervor of those who come to San Sebastián de Garabandal, they deserve profound respect. We wish to count precisely on this same religious fervor, so that, fully trusting in the Hierarchy of the Church and in its Magisterium, they might comply, with the greatest possible exactitude, with our repeatedly published recommendations." (emphasis mine)

In any event, since then, the 1996 statement has 31 years of hindsight on the above notas - it can be found in here: DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ON GARABANDAL and it still doesn't give approval. Also the current bishop says the same thing: “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality." And remember - Bishop Aldazabal asked everyone 'with the greatest possible exactitude' to comply with the Hierarchy and the Magisterium's 'repeatedly published recommendations'. That is all I am trying to do.

But @LiveJohn - if one lives the Message of Fatima, then one has no need of Garabandal, and is spared the danger of being led astray by something illusory - especially when since 1965 there have been cases of failed prophecies (Fr Luis Andreu and Joey Lomangino come to mind). I have mentioned the case of Joey Lomangino elsewhere on this thread. I have also read that Fr. Luis Andreu, went with the children at Garabandal as they marched backwards into the woods, like they had “wings on their heels.” He then claimed he believed in the apparitions and was “overwhelmed with joy.” While telling all this to Fr. Valentin, the pastor of the village church, Fr. Andreu suddenly declared that he felt sleepy, lowered his head, coughed, and died on the spot. The priest was young (not more than 40 years old), and had no history of heart problems, no family history of heart problems, and had not been seriously ill. Garabandal supporters claim he “died from joy.” It was claimed by the seers his body would be found incorrupt. When his body was exhumed, it was decomposing normally. Defenders of the apparitions claim that his body will become incorrupt after “The Great Miracle.” I’ve never heard of a saint’s body going from corruption to incorruption. Moreover, the seers never said this beforehand, it was made up post factum upon finding his body in a state of corruption. All these things are very disturbing.
Also - and please correct me if I'm wrong, Garabandal never mentions the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary through enrolment in and wearing the Brown Scapular (Sister Lucia insisted that the Rosary and Scapular are inseparable parts of the Fatima message - see this video by Fr Rafferty RIP Fr Rafferty Interview w Sr Lucy of Fatima/Brown Scapular, Consecration, Third Secret, 7th Apparition (Father Howard Rafferty, O. Carm - "My Visit with Sister Lucy" on August 15, 1950. Speech given in 1958. Sr Lucy confirms Brown Scapular, Personal Consecration, Five First Saturdays, Daily Rosary and Offering up suffering indispensable components of the Fatima Message.) To the best of my knowledge, Garabandal doesn't mention the First Five Saturdays, The Consecration of Russia etc. Do you see my concern?

@English Catholic Yes, I do understand your concern which is shared by many others. It is recognized that Garabandal is a continuation of Fatima and not a contradiction of it. To understand more fully the connection between the two events requires an in-depth knowledge of both.. Might I respectfully suggest you visit: @LiveJohn where I have addressed many of the issues of concern you have raised. Don't overlook the importance given by the Virgin to the Rosary and the Brown Scapular which She wore over Her right arm throughout the ecstasies. I expect the Consecration of Russia to take place at the important Ecclesiastical Event co-inciding with the future Great Miracle above the 'Pines" at Garabandal along with the election of a valid successor to BXVI. A valid Consecration of Russia will bring with it the conversion of that long suffering nation and the fulfillment of the Promise of Mary's Immaculate Heart.

@Live John I'm not sure I agree that Garabandal is a continuation of Fatima. I definitely, definitely saw an article years back and I'm almost sure it was in one of the old 'Blue Army' Soul magazines. Garabandal Centres had apparently been spreading a story that when Sister Lucia last visited the scene of the apparitions at Fatima, before entering religion, Our Lady appeared to her and allegedly said 'Farewell until San Sebastian de Garabandal'. On one of the rare occasions that someone got to meet Sister Lucia, she was asked about this and Sister Lucia said it was untrue, and that Garabandal and Fatima were unconnected. Sister Lucia definitely didn't say Garabandal was false - she wouldn't make a judgement like that. She just said unconnected. I checked the official memoirs of Sister Lucia and Our Lady did appear to her on that occasion, when she left to enter religion, but she said Our Lady remained silent.
Another thing - the 'lady of Garabandal' images always show the alleged apparition with an uncovered head and not a brown scapular, but a maniple (reserved only to priests). See attached image.

@English Catholic By Divine instruction the important content of the Third Secret was to be made known to the world by the end of 1960. The appearances of The Holy Virgin at Garabandal with equally important Messages for the World began six months later; in June 1961. The link between the two events will be obvious. It certainly was to Fr Malachi Martin who had read the Third Secret. I'm more interested in facts supported by prime source material rather than speculative stories.

@English Catholic Because his “pretty hair” has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the perverse abominations he’s committed and the abuse he perpetrated upon the child he ran off with. They are two totally separate and distinct issues and should not be confused nor mixed with each other. How attractive or “pretty” a Priest’s hair is, isn’t a legitimate, authentic or correct indicator or barometer of the depth to which he is likely to fall into sin or iniquity. And thus, it is both foolish and unproductive to mention such things in these kinds of discussions.

@Sonsofthechurch His attachment to his pretty hair shows that he had an attachment to being sexually attractive. So, yes, it has everything to do with seducing schoolgirls & eloping to Europe with a girl he groomed. When you read his absolutely cringe love letters to her, they focus on prettiness.

Cultivating sexually attractiveness - and look at the comments on his videos, which call him the "heartthrob priest" - is an occasion of sin. And - surprise surprise - he's fallen for a pretty teen.

What would you think if your wife, who say, has a beautiful figure, shows it off with tight clothes, low necklines, leather tube tops, etc, and men at work, strangers on the bus, whatever - are commenting on how hot she is? Would you say this is perfectly innocent, and it only becomes a sin if she succumbs to a man's seduction, and has nothing to do with the sin of adultery?

Sorry - you are very very wrong. Dignity and modesty are signs of inner chastity. You sound like a feminist, actually, that it is a woman's choice to dress seductively, for her own happiness, and that if men are aroused by seeing her, that it is only they who are at fault.

DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ON GARABANDAL This is what Fr Crow was promoting. Disobedience. Garabandal and Jesus Christ and Catholicism cannot be conflated as one thing. The 1996 CDF notification on alleged apparitions stated: “Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states: The interpretation given by some individuals to a decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the “Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books” and determined that after the relevant censures were lifted, the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals. It should be recalled however, that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, Canon 823#1 of the current code remains in force: “the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement”. Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Live Mike's DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ON GARABANDAL / STATEMENTS FROM THE BISHOPS OF SANTANDER below, all come from the pro-Garabandal site www garabandal it Home - Garabandal so by their nature, cannot be definitive, and also contravene the above CDF statement.

DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ON GARABANDAL || STATEMENTS FROM THE BISHOPS OF SANTANDER The Apparitions in San Sebastián de Garabandal have nothing to do whatsoever with the choices of Fr Crow. The assertion made by certain members on GTV that the recent actions taken by Fr Crow necessarily 'ipso facto' cast a dark cloud over the Apparitions of Garabandal are ridiculous in the extreme. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH DECREE regarding canons 1399 and 2318 no longer in force || 1917 Code of Canon Law #1399 and 2318 || "Non constat" - Garabandal || Actuación de la comisión - Garabandal || Documentation - Garabandal || Interview with Bishop Juan Antonio del Val Gallo, Bishop of Santander, an eyewitness who states the Church's official current view || What is the official position of the Church on Garabandal? There are 3 official forms of declaration by the Church authorities regarding apparitions or alleged apparitions:
1. Approbation “Constat de supernaturalitate” It is certain to be supernatural
2. Condemnation “Constat de non supernaturalitate” It is certain to be non-supernatural (the non-supernaturality is proven, it is evident to be of non-supernatural origin, it is established not supernatural)
3. Neither Approbation nor Condemnation “Non constat de supernaturalitate" It is not certain to be supernatural (essentially "we're not sure") This is the official position of the Bishops of Santander regarding Garabandal.

Why number 3? Because in January of 1966 Conchita González of Garabandal was invited to the Vatican by Cardinal Alfredo Ottavini (Head of the Holy Office - CDF) for an interview and during which Conchita declared the future date of the Miracle to take place above the Pines in Garabandal. So somewhere in the secret archives they have this date and in prudence the Church must wait for that date to come to pass before making any further official declarations. Incidentally, in a letter dated 3 March 1962 that Padre Pio wrote to the girls of Garabandal he stated, "they will believe when it is too late." ||
In 1975, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, former Head of the Holy Office / the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that, “he believed in the supernatural character of Garabandal.” Cardinal Ottaviani also said at that time, “We must pray a great deal, so that the Church may acknowledge Garabandal.” - Jacques Serre and Béatrice Caux, Garabandal: Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 234
Note: Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, an impeccable source, personally spoke with Sister Lucia of Fatima in May 1955, he read the Third Secret of Fatima, and he personally interrogated / interviewed Conchita González of Garabandal in January 1966 at the Vatican. So impressed was he by Conchita & her answers that Cardinal Ottaviani arranged a private papal audience.

Also the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Pierre Charles (Paul) Philippe, O.P., who worked under Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani confirmed the approval of Padre Pio regarding the Apparitions of Our Lady in San Sebastián de Garabandal. ||

In his officially sealed and signed letter to Fr. Gustavo Morelos on 8 July 1966, Archbishop Manuel Pío López Estrada of Veracruz, México wrote:

"One of the Officials of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, Msgr. Philippe, who was consulted in Rome by the Very Rev. P. Elias, Superior of the Carmel of the City of Puebla, on the subject of the apparitions of the Most Blessed Virgin at Garabandal, stated that the fact that Padre Pio -- well known for his virtue, his knowledge and his faithfulness to the Holy See -- acknowledged these apparitions, and encouraged the 4 Visionaries to spread the Message of the Most Blessed Virgin, was great proof of the authenticity of these apparitions."

Note: Archbishop Pierre Charles (Paul) Philippe, O.P. [later Cardinal Philippe] served as Secretary of the Congregation for Religious and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. ||
Padre Pio affirmed Garabandal to a Ph.D in confession.
Joachim Bouflet, Ph.D. went to Padre Pio for confession in July of 1968 [2 months before his death on 23 September 1968]. Padre Pio told him "Pray to the Madonna. Consecrate yourself to the Virgin of Carmel." "Yes, Padre, I pray to Our Lady of Mount Carmel. For that matter, I would like to become a Carmelite." He didn't comment on this but repeated with insistence, "Consecrate yourself to the Virgin of Carmel who appeared at Garabandal."
Bouflet:"So it's true?"
Padre Pio: "Certo e vero!" ("Yes, it's true!")
From the book “Our Lady comes to Garabandal” by Fr. Pelletier on page 219
“While he was living, the same Padre Pio guaranteed the authenticity of the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin. He met Conchita at San Giovanni Rotondo. Even during the last days of his life he talked about this to his brothers in religious life and left a personal message for the principle personage of the apparitions.”
From the book “The Final Hour” by Michael Harold Brown on page 141
On the topic of Padre Pio’s belief in Garabandal:
“Asked on another occasion about its authenticity, he answered curtly,”
“How many times must she appear there to be believed?”
From the book “Thunder of Justice” by Ted and Maureen Flynn on page 163: An incident which confirms Padre Pio’s belief in Garabandal occurred early in 1966. Conchita, who was only 16 years old, was visiting Rome with her mother and Fr. Luna. She had been invited by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. During the visit, Conchita met privately with Padre Pio. On this occasion, he took Conchita’s hand and her crucifix that Our Lady had kissed in Garabandal and held them both in his own two hands. The crucifix had passed through the hands of the Child Jesus, during the Apparition of November 13, 1965.
“He [Padre Pio] saw the Miracle before he died. He [Padre Pio] told me himself.” - Padre Bernardino Cennamo, OFM Cap.
Padre Cennamo acknowledged that he did not believe in Garabandal at the beginning, but shared with Conchita that when Padre Pio asked him to give her the veil that covered his face after his death, he changed his views. At Lourdes, on that day, “the veil and the letter were delivered to Conchita.” But something else interested her more. And so she immediately asked Padre Cennamo: “Why did the Virgin tell me that Padre Pio would see the Miracle and he has died?” To which the Capuchin responded: “He saw the miracle before he died. He told me himself.” That being so, then the saint of the stigmata has entered into a close circle of Garabandal protagonists who, just before their death, have seen the big announced Miracle. It links Padre Pio to Garabandal in a much deeper way than having a spiritual interest in its message, having supernaturally seen the Miracle, something not even the seers have experienced.
Luigina Sinapi de Tre Fontane, Italia and Conchita de Garabandal
Garabandal, Padre Pio and the Servant of God !
MORE ON THE PADRE PIO’S LETTER SENT TO GARABANDAL
MORE ON THE PADRE PIO’S LETTER SENT TO GARABANDAL
THE ORIGINAL LETTER OF PADRE PIO TO THE SEERS OF GARABANDAL
THE ORIGINAL LETTER OF PADRE PIO TO THE SEERS OF GARABANDAL ||

Spanish version of letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to the (then) local Ordinary

VERSION DE LA CARTA DE LA S. CONGREGACION PARA
LA DOCTRINA DE LA FE AL OBISPO DE SANTANDER.

Roma, 7 marzo 1967.
Excmo. y Rvdmo. Senor:
Par carta del mes de Octubre del pasado ana V. E. hizo llegar a esta Sagrada Congregacion los documentos redactados par la Comision diocesana, asi como las normas dadas par V. E. acerca de las «apariciones» que se decia habian tenido lugar en GARABANDAL.
Esta Sagrada Congregacion ha examinado cuidadosa y atentamente toda la documenatcion, incluso la que ha sido enviada desde otros lugares, y finalmente ha llegado a la conclusion de que esta cuestion habia sido ya examinada minuciosamente y decidida par V. E. y que par tanto no hay razon para que esta Sagrada Congregacion intervenga en ella.
Mas aun, doy las gracias a V. E. par la discrecion y prudencia que ha mostrado en la resolucion de este asunto y aprdvecho gustoso la ocasion para expresar a V. E. mi gran estima y manifestarme
de V. E. Rvdma.

afectisimo
A. Card. Ottaviani
Pro-Prefecto

Excmo. y Rvdmo. Senor
D. VICENTE PUCHOL MONTIS.
Obispo de
SANTANDER

* Esta carta de la S. Congregacion es respuesta a la que Mons. Puchol habfa dirigido a este Dicasterio el 27 de octubre de 1966. En el cuerpo de la carta inclufa el Obispo de Santander el texto espanol de la Nota que pensaba hacer publica, como lo hizo el 17 de marzo del ano siguiente, despues de haber recibido del Cardenal
Ottaviani la presente carta.

Google translation into English:

VERSION OF THE LETTER OF THE S. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH TO THE BISHOP OF SANTANDER.

Rome, March 7, 1967.

Hon. and Rvdmo. Mister:

By letter of the month of October of last year, Your Excellency sent to this Sacred Congregation the documents drawn up by the diocesan Commission, as well as the norms given by Your Excellency regarding the "apparitions" that were said to have taken place in GARABANDAL. This Sacred Congregation has carefully and attentively examined all the documentation, including the one that has been sent from other places, and has finally reached the conclusion that this question had already been thoroughly examined and decided by Your Excellency and that therefore there is no reason to that this Sacred Congregation intervene in it. Furthermore, I thank Your Excellency for the discretion and prudence that you have shown in the resolution of this matter and I gladly take advantage of the opportunity to express to Your Excellency my great esteem and express myself by V.E. Rvdma.

affectionately
A. Card. Ottaviani
Pro-Prefect

Hon. and Rvdmo. Mister D. VICENTE PUCHOL MONTIS. Bishop of SANTANDER * This letter from the Holy Congregation is a response to the one that Bishop Puchol had addressed to this Department on October 27, 1966. In the body of the letter the Bishop of Santander included the Spanish text of the Note that he intended to make public, as he did on March 17 of the following year, after having received from the Cardinal Ottaviani this letter.

The matter of any alleged comments from Padre Pio was dealt with by @Patricia McKeever on her blog (now sadly closed). The evidence is still available here: Proof that Padre Pio did not approve Garabandal or…

@English Catholic

Thank you for that - it is crystal clear that Garabandal is NOT an approved apparition and that Padre Pio did NOT support or promote it. Why are these people so desperate to believe it? Is Fatima not sufficient?

@Patricia McKeever Apparently not, for some. The above 'definitive statements' made by a certain person regarding Garabandal, come from a pro-Garabandal website Home - Garabandal so are not definitive.
Also, the insults being slung around here should be a dead giveaway. Would their 'lady of Garabandal' be pleased with their lack of charity by stating other people who disagree with them are 'nitwits' or 'lacking in brain cycles'?

@English Catholic Would Our Lady be pleased with disinformation, misinformation and a deceptive presentation of the history surrounding the events of San Sebastián de Garabandal being widely circulated to the members of the GTV community?
I think She would be pleased with those who take a stand against the circulation of fallacious arguments and the promotion of erroneous notions about Garabandal to the GTV readership.

How am I being accused of spreading misinformation about Garabandal by simply publishing statements (often with protocol numbers, which can verify the authenticity of the statement) from the Holy See and the Santander bishops?

If anyone is in any doubt about the facts, please contact the current local Ordinary:

Bishop: Excmo. y Rvdmo. Mons. Manuel Sánchez Monge
(Secretary: Rvdo. D. Alejandro Benavente Talaverón)
Official Web Site: Diócesis de Santander | Portal de la Diócesis de Santander
Mailing Address: Obispado, Plaza Obispo Jose Eguino Trecu 1, 39002 Santander, Espana
Telephone: 942.36.56.57
Fax: 942.36.74.00

@English Catholic

No, Our Lady would never been pleased at the insults being slung around - you are spot on, there. Nor will she be pleased at those who belittle the definitive statements coming from the Vatican and the Santander Bishops. These are cult-followers, not Catholics, who are doing this, sad to say.

@Live Mike,

Calling English Catholic a "nitwit" (for whatever excuse you've dreamt up) is, well, hardly Christian is it? With whatever respect is due to you some people might just think that you're not exactly the brightest button in the box yourself, since you make such a nasty remark without explaining anything at all in relation to the subject. Fr Crow is not a "big promoter of ... Catholicism" but a big promotor of a fake apparition. There's a big difference. If he were promoting Catholicism, he wouldn't be living a double-life - get it now? I hope so, 'cos we don't want people going about the place thinking you are a nitwit, now, do we?

@Liam Ronan @Patricia McKeever See my comment above - first of all the definitive ecclesiastical statements on Garabandal from the Holy See and respective local Ordinaries. Then the fact that someone has conflated Garabandal and Jesus Christ and Catholicism as one thing (and I'm called a 'nitwit'?). Then the CDF 1996 Notification regarding alleged apparitions which is self-explanatory. Please can you state how any of this is 'senseless'?

@English Catholic

Many thanks for the brilliant link to the Church's definitive statement on Garabandal. Anyone who flouts that is about as traditional as my mobile phone.

@Liam Ronan

You are very charitable to compare St Paul's outspoken letter to the Galatians with the insult from @Live Mike addressed to @English Catholic However, we all know perfectly well that St Paul was writing with the authority to correct his churches, and teachers sometimes (or used to) have some leeway when addressing naughty pupils. So, St Paul's straight-talking to the early churches, whether in Galatia or Corinth or wherever, is not to be compared with the insult from @Live Mike who has no such authority and, it would appear, was merely venting his anger at @English Catholic

Sorry for the above long winded comment - I've been out, just in, don't ask, more in due course - or eventually

@Liam Ronan

So, in short, do you think it's a good idea for Christians to call people "nitwit" as long as (in their rather biased) opinion, the context warrants it? I can't think of a single context to justify insulting anyone. "Nitwit" is a clear insult. St Paul did NOT do that. Lamenting the (senseless) lack of Faith of the Galatians is one thing. Calling English Catholic a "nitwit" is quite another, so please stop being silly. I can say "stop being silly" because I'm not saying YOU are silly, just that you are (temporarily, one hopes) acting in a silly way. Get it now?

@Liam Ronan

Yes, and I have often, very often, quoted Our Lord calling Herod "that fox" but again, that is a considered character judgement, not a personal insult. If Christ had said that Herod was a nitwit it would not have conveyed the brutal truth about Herod's dishonesty, his untrustworthiness. I think, for example, that some, if not all, of the Scottish Bishops would receive the same condemnatory description from Our Lord today. They certainly appear to share the unfortunate characteristics of the fox. Sly, cunning, etc etc. So, I can cite their behaviour and quote their words, while underlining my concerns with reference to Christ's condemnation of the deviousness of Herod. That's allowed.

We have to make the distinction between the issue and the person, all the time. English Catholic knows his stuff when it comes to claims of apparitions and he can quote chapter and verse to prove the Church's position on most, if not all, of the claims doing the rounds these days. If you think he has got it wrong, tell him - he can debate - but don't resort to name-calling on a personal level. Is my considered advice. Free of charge

@Ivan Tomas

English Catholic is spot on in making the connection between the false "apparition" of Garabandal and this priest's immoral behaviour, given that said priest has been promoting the fake Garabandal big time. There's nothing premature about it - the Church has made clear that Garabandal is not an approved apparition and is patently false.

@English Catholic,

The poor deluded souls commenting under that video which you posted include one which praises Fr Crow as follows: "Good priest... God bless him!" And someone else thanking him and adding "May I also request you to look into the messages given to Sr. Anna Ali. A Kenyan Nun to whom Our Lord appeared to, over a long time, and he gave the same messages of warning and allowed himself to be photographed!!!

Incredible - the Faith has been well and truly lost thanks to double-living priests like him and others who are similarly about as Catholic as the nearest Hindu.

It's time people woke up to the fact that the current crisis in the Church is a crisis, above all, in the priesthood.

@ivsaIvan Tomas

Well, that's something. "Wholeheartedly", I mean. I can't be bothered with people who do things half-heartedly...

Please note that he gave his Garabandal talk in May 2023, when he was already having sex with his Teen Queen Secret Bride, who he married at the very latest in February 2023. He's posing like Fr Lankester Merrin the Exorcist, poncing around in his traddie cassock, and being praised to the skies by his parishioners as a holy man - with a girl waiting for him afterwards.

Total hypocrisy at best, but more likely Total split reality.

Demons totally got into this prideful, vain, immature Novus Ordo goofball's hairy head, finally convincing him Jesus and Mary themselves wanted him to boff one of his students.

@Sylvester Kobe

With respect, it would be a good idea - given Our Lady of Fatima's warning about impurity taking more souls to Hell than any other sin - if Catholics refused to use the language of the modern world when discussing such sins. Your description of this priest's infidelity even as he was preaching about Garabandal, is typical of the way the use of language has deteriorated.

I hope you don't mind me highlighting this part of your comment, because the points you make are very important and it is a pity to confuse the issue by embracing the language of the children of this world (so to speak!)

I agree that young scholarly priests should not be sent to Rome to further their studies....at least the way the Church and Rome is now under Bergoglio and company.
Time was, as far bck as 150 years, that it was an honor to send brilliant young American seminarians to Rome to study and complete their studies and be ordained in Rome in one of the great Basilicas....some even ordained in St. Peter's...and some even by the Pope himself (like CArdinal Burke was).
Many national colleges (seminaries) were established in Rome, where the most gifted seminarians were sent to Rome by their individual bishops or Cardinals.
There was the Pontifical Roman Seminary, which hosted many USA students as well, and those seminarians in the true days of the Catholic Church up until 60 years ago had the privilege of wearing magenta-colored cassocks and an overgarment of purple called a soprana. Very strikingly beautiful on the streets of Rome. The Scots college wore (and their few seminarians still do) wore a purple cassock and red sash, the USA students at the now high disgraced due to multiple homo scandals at the North American College in Rome wore black cassocks and soprana with red and blue buttons. Some colleges wore tan cassocks and soprana, some grey, some maroon, but the most striking and memorable were the German seminarians of the Teutonic Pontifical College who wore flaming scarlet cassocks and soprana and the black platter hats all seminarians wore called the saturno. Sadly, after Vatican II and up until now.....all gone. Totally. The very few seminarians today most of them usually slum around the streets of Rome in jeans, sweaters, t-shirts, or polo shirts. Some of the religious Order seminaries still wear their habits, like the Franciscans, Dominicans and Trinitarians( O.SS.T.), but most of others wear lay clothes too.
Even during the early days of Benedict XVI's pontificate, there were 200 seminarians at the Pontifical Roman College ( but with Bergoglio, there are about 40).
The Pontifical North American College had dropped from about 275 to about 160 by 2000, but rebounded under the first 5-6 years of Benedict XVI to 200+ and was even thinking of adding a wing, but in came Francis, and enrollment dropped quickly, accelerated by homo scandals among faculty and seminarians, so that thday there are only about 75 roaming around a buillding that could house 300.
Very sad. Everything Catholic that Bergoglio and his team touches dies.
Thank God for the SSPX, ICRSP, and all other traditionalist seminaries and Orders, including sede-vacantists. They will have a huge task of re-building when the Vatican II/Pope Francis "church" is finally dead.

It is one of the greatest triumphs for Satan to bring down a priest, and that's why we are encouraged to pray for priests. Our Lady said at Fatima that the greater number of souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh, which makes perfect sense given that temptations to impurity ranks way up high on the scale of temptations that afflict the human race. This young priest, God help him, should have stayed close to the tabernacle and practiced a firm devotion to Our Lady, both proven weapons against the assaults of the evil one, yet not inculcated into the souls of seminarians in Modernist seminaries. Is it any wonder, then, that so many priests have fallen into precisely this sin of being lured away from their lofty vocation by a woman. And woe betide that 18-year old who now faces her judgement having brought about the fall of a priest of God.

As for Garabandal, there will always be those who trust more in their own judgement than the wise judgement of the Church. They'll argue that Father so and so is a great priest and very devoted to Garabandal, or certain bishops or Cardinals have cited Garabandal positively, etc. They'll believe these authorities, including themselves, while rejecting the contrary official findings of the Church in the matter. It's pride, pure and simple. We saw the disobedience in the Medjugorje hoax and we see it in the Garabandal business, although I'm not so sure Garabandal is a hoax in the human understanding of the word.

Let's think about the bizarre behaviour of these so-called child seers at Garabandal. For example, running at speed backwards down a steep slope. What was the purpose of that action? We should recall here that the devil does things backwards. Then there was the children holding hands walking three abreast; they come to a narrow bridge, one walks over the bridge and the other two walk on air. Again, what was the purpose of this show? Do people not realise that Satan can perform miracles in the natural order? And then there's the conclusive evidence for me in that not one of those so-called seers entered religious life. It's pretty well recorded that children who have been blessed with genuine heavenly apparitions simply cannot function any longer in this world, they are drawn to religious life by their experience. Makes perfect sense, which is more than Garabandal does.

@Martin Blackshaw Your opinion and those of your like minded fellow travelers about Garabandal are meaningless since the reported events are, as yet, not an essential part of Catholic belief but simply under review. So why the obsessive hostility?
With regard to the priest: neither guilt by association nor hearsay are grounds for conviction. Christ associated frequently with sinners so according to your upside down logic He should also be condemned - correct?

@LiveJohn

I cannot fathon how you conclude that my opinion on Garabandal, as well as those of my "fellow travellers", whatever that means, is "meaningless" when it is based on the opinion expressed by the proper authorities in the Church. Surely, if anyone's opinion in the matter is "meaningless" under such circumstances, it is precisely yours and other peddlers of unapproved apparitions. We saw the same pride in the Medjugorje business (and it was a business!). It simply boils down to those who take the Church's wise and cautious approach to such matters, not to mention its investigative conclusions, and those who refuse obedience in preference to their own opinion. It really is that basic.

As for Our Lord mingling with sinners. I agree entirely that our Blessed Saviour mixed with sinners (lucky for us), but He did so to convert them away from their sinful living, not to indulge in sin with them. That's quite an important distinction to bear in mind.

Bottom line for those looking for fantastic divine interventions, like the one touted by the Garabandal brigade, is that heaven has already told us what to expect through Our Lady of Fatima. "In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph; the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, she will be converted and the world will be granted a period of peace". These are words straight from Our Lady's mouth and approved by the Church, unlike the sensationalist Garabandal narrative.

@Martin Blackshaw, @Patricia McKeever and other interested readers.
First, a "fellow traveller" in the context it was written means: other like minded individuals of the same opinion.
Secondly, the unsubstantiated claim that a definitive statement on Garabandal has been issued by the Church is incorrect. Statements by the bishops are clarifications intended for the faithful until a final declaration is issued by the Holy See. Until that point, the current status; 'Non Constat' (uncertain) remains, pending further evidence to support the supernatural character of the events. In an extraordinary way Garabandal will prove its own authenticity by the fulfillment of its own prophecies. In that sense any final statement from the Vatican is a confirmation of past events.
Thirdly, Medjugorje and Garabandal are completely unrelated and linking them is to be avoided.
Fourth, my opinions on Garabandal are supported by over 40 years promoting the Holy Virgins Messages and yes, extensive discourse at a personal level with the world's leading experts on the events including Joey Lomangino, Fr Franco's Turner and Fr Benac SJ. The latter of whom was a long standing personal friend before his death. I have also spent 16 days in the village and met, albeit briefly, (language barrier constraints) with two of the four visionaries.
Finally, what are your credentials and those of your fellow critics - including 'English Catholic' who blocks all replies to his posts?

@Martin Blackshaw Briefly addressing your other concerns. Prior statements by you and others pre-emptying any final decision by the Church are opinions only and not binding on practicing Catholics nor anyone else. That was the point I was making and I standby it.

Priests -- subject to the authority of their bishops, are free to choose their traveling companions without slanderous and defamatory statements made against them: particularly online which is even more serious. For example, would you apply the same criteria to a small group of female religious on pilgrimage to Fatima and accompanied by a priest?
Allegations that Fr Crow travelled overseas ostensibly for immoral purposes, (unproven) are committing detraction or even worse since he had earlier been defrocked of his priestly status by his bishop. Presumably, he would be obliged to travel as a private citizen and therefore outside clerical jurisdiction.