Fr. Ramon Andreu's Notes: Part Two, Post 47

Santander, October 9, 1968.

Annex I: “This canon, cited by Monsignor Beitia, has since lost its force and ecclesiastical law,” according to a declaration of the Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Decree 15-XI-66, but according to the same Decree “It inculcates again the valor of the moral who absolutely prohibit placing faith in danger and the good customs.”

We have already seen that the doctrine and recommendations that surge from the apparitions of Garabandal are fully orthodox and cannot be comprehended in the condition that they would be substituted for the repealed canon.

This text has been translated from the previous letter, according to the version given to the press by the Bishop of Santander.

His Excellence Reverend Father: Through a letter in the month of October of last year this Holy Congregation retracted the documents by the Diocesan Commission, as the rules given by the U.E. about the “apparitions” that have taken place in Garabandal.

This Holy Congregation has carefully and attentively examined all of the documentation, including that which has been sent from other places, and finally has arrived at the conclusion that this issue has already been examined minutely and decided by U.E. and so there is no reason for this Holy Congregation to intervene in it.

Even so, I give thanks to the U.E. for the discretion and prudence that they have shown in the resolution of this matter and I will avail myself to express my great esteem to the U.E.”

This letter merits, for its source and for being a test, intent examination. It is necessary, knowing the delicacy of the Vatican, to examine it point by point in order to get its full feeling. Apparently, it is necessary to dissemble its text. Rome has not lost interest nor has it become definitively uninterested in Garabandal. A proof of this is the trip that Conchita made to the Eternal City in the first months of the next year, after being solicited by a Vatican organization.

The letter is primarily an acknowledgment that he had received the documents returned by the Diocesan Commission, encompassing everything up to the declarations of October 11, 1966, the last that Monsignor Puchol received, as we know from his Note. Also, there are some rules given by this.

Since Bishop Puchol did not give any rule, it can be supposed that Monsignor Beitia tried to include some in the Commission’s documents, because they appear to be effective, which is the same as those given by Monsignor Puchol. In any form, it would be interesting to know which they were, to know of which ones Rome approved:

The Holy Office examined these documents been October 1966 and March 7, 1967. During this time, they saw all of the documentation sent by the Bishopric of Santander, and those received in other ways, according to the note in the letter.

It was like this that the information of the Holy Office in this manner was largest, but the normal conduct of the Bishopric helped inform them through other means, as is evident.

It is possible that they arrived in Rome and were ignored by the Commission, and gave direct testimonies by the protagonists in formal declarations.

This desire of Rome, of making it evident that they had received information apart from that of the Bishopric, could also mean that all they received from other places is reflected in the documents of the Commission, even though it is not nice to note it in this case. If everything was contained there, why talk of other informants? There is no benefit to the Commission in this; or it could also mean that in consequence of receiving information through other routes, the panorama of the case increases, and that which was collected by the Commission, was something poor, and they wanted to insinuate this.

The Holy Office, after an attentive and careful examination of the documentation, arrived at a disconcerting conclusion. It was that no role had been reserved.

This is evident and explicit in the letter. Without a doubt, the report from Santander, in its minutia, and principally, for its judgment of what should be established, cut the road of opinion, including for the Holy Office, and in consequence, the adopted decision is not sufficient reason to impose their intervention.

This negative conclusion in such a delicate matter, before the judgment of Rome, the only valid judge in these cases, as in all, has formulated concrete predictions, and situates the Holy Office in an embarrassing situation. For one part, the Holy Office has the right to intervene in matters and has the last word. On the other hand, it believes in the honesty of the Commission’s work, whose decisions have been made theirs by an interested Prelate, in this case, Bishop Puchol. The disagreeable situation that can be solved disinterestedly by leaving it under the responsibility of Santander, and to wait to see if it is the case that the events are entrusted to make changes in various criteria that has been adopted, opening a cause for their intervention. It is very evident that the logical consideration that the Holy Office has imposed upon hearing, before deciding nothing.

Finally, as the Bishopric has to interpret their documents and according to them, the conclusion at which we arrive is logical and prudent. The Holy Office, situated from that point of view, fully approves of all that has been established and is contained in the documentation sent up to this date, whose text is only known by them.

This letter can be shaded in the way that it was done, to contain the affirmation in the conclusion that before sending anything to Rome they had already judged the matter, what can be interpreted to contain something hidden, a significant surprise for the precipitation of making conclusions.

Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that it needs resolution only to be indicative. It is communicated from authority to authority, in the character of internal service, without public transcendence.

These transcribed documents are limited to putting the caution that Monsignor Beitia expired from the publication of the Note of Bishop Puchol, which did not realize his vigilance.

The matter is situated in a point in which it was left at first.

We know that the cited Bishop had not closed the file, and with this intention he dictated his rules. The same thing actually happened, and it is the common feeling that if someone has an interest to declare, it will be heard. At least this is what is established by the official documents.

Nevertheless, in this last Note and these transcribed letters, the mind of the Bishop is seen and it is completely skeptical regarding the possible supernatural origins of the events, which does not affect reality, no matter how many he had in these final moments, this conviction is susceptible to change if the contrary is demonstrated.

Through study of the Notes, we can observe a decrease in the criteria of supernatural evidence sustained by the hierarchy of Santander. From the first note to the last, half in an abyss, Monsignor Fernández, we can almost be certain, believed; the Bishop, Dr. Beitia, doubted; and if Monsignor Puchol was skeptical the actual bishop it seemed thought more.

It is to be noted that the curve of orientation descends according to how spaced out the prodigies are. The curve is contrary to the rise that can be traced following the diffusion of the Messages; the more diffusion, the less belief in the mind of the hierarchy. We would say the same, if all of those who had received the Message had practiced it? Surely not. The movement would have been overwhelming and the fruits optimal, a motive that the hierarchy decided, creating less, to channel it although its supernatural origin was not demonstrated.

Another point to consider is the great importance of the process of the facts.

They began with the sufficient freedom so that their development was not hindered during 4 years. The rules of prudence had a benign character until 1965 when the fourth Note was given.

When it was revealed that there would be no more messages, and that the first had not been completed, the mission of the four girls ended until the day of the miracle, as is known by all.

That moment is when the notable, the surprising, and the marvelous began. Some of the girls were slow, others were repetitive, and they seemed impulsive, without knowing why. With bitter suffering, adopted by themselves, a mentality that was completely favorable and was identified with criteria, each time, less believing the supernatural state of things, was sustained by the hierarchy of Santander. They followed in all of this, and are skeptical? The girls doubt, before they were clear and now they only have clouds of life and memory; they deduced that everything had been invented by them, they didn’t oppose anything, there was no motive to give censure.

It is as if in each moment they were molded to adopt the most competent position corresponding to the feeling of the hierarchy of Santander, and, until that point, they have not found a motive for answering, such is their pristine sincerity.

From there it is a more than credible argument.

The position of the hierarchy, so skeptical, is motivated by the lack of coinciding reasons of supernatural proof; if they have not been given, it is because they are hidden until the message is complete, as a result of the infidelity of those who have received the vocation, they have not been made into believers with serious responsibility.

Already, as we have indicated before, little remains to be done. In the second Message it is clearly told to us, it is most urgent, in view of a castaway that is approached, that each one prevents a punishment on his own head and then helps others, from the moment that it is no longer possible to evade it. Urge personal salvation more, because the first is generally more popular. What should the believers in the apparitions of Garabandal do? There is some doubt about completing the Message and doing what it says. Forget the ecstasies for a moment and they complete the mission already: authenticate them.

It is necessary to bring the others to complete the recommendations of the girls, when they have to explain the beginning of our devotion. They have always recommended obedience to the hierarchy, and that they don’t want stridency to change the matter. And finally, for all of the priests who urge devotion to the Most Holy and the reformation of lives, they are the only ones who can achieve this fruit of the faithful that they have in their charge without putting everything in their desire, they will achieve it, and they will mitigate the punishment. If it is not like this, it is doubtful that it will abate around the world, since their profiles will begin to be in view of everyone.

We trust in the Bishop of Santander, and he doesn’t try to quiet the voice of heaven. What he wants it to avoid what has already happened once, the inversion of values. When he has sufficient proof, he will speak. Six years have passed, and who can suppose that this matter has become greater because of the simple taste of conserving a problem? In some manner, it is Providence that works through ways that we don’t understand, but they respond perfectly to what we deserve through our conduct.

Finally, the true propaganda of Garabandal can be made by believers; we come to indicate the practice of the Message, and to make an example of these words. If the enthusiasm of the followers is firm and communicative do not doubt that there will be something more effective than all of the propaganda, and it will have the maximum support from Our Mother in Heaven, who wants, before all (as Conchita has always told us) for us to be obedient to the Church Hierarchy.

J.G. of M.