The official position of the Church is still pending, as Garabandal has neither been positively approved, nor negatively condemned. The Vatican has yet to make a public pronouncement, likely because the Church is awaiting to see if the prophecies will be fulfilled.
At the local level, the Bishops of Santander have not affirmed supernatural origin, but also have been careful not to condemn Garabandal either;
Bishop Eugenio Beitia, of Santander, 1965
"we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation either in the doctrine or in the spiritual recommendations that have been publicized as having been addressed to the faithful, for these contain an exhortation to prayer and sacrifice, to Eucharistic devotion, to veneration of Our Lady in traditional praiseworthy ways, and to holy fear of God offended by our sins. They simply repeat the common doctrine of the Church in these matters.”
Bishop Juan Antonio del, of Santander, 1992
"The previous bishops did not admit that the apparitions were supernatural, but to condemn them, no, that word has never been used."
The Church has a very strict and precise terminology for judging alleged apparitions (very few apparitions are officially approved). According to the norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, alleged apparitions are classified in one of three categories;
1. Constat de supernaturalitate -- It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate -- It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
3. Non-constat de supernaturalitate -- It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
Garabandal has been classified in the 3rd category, Non-constat de supernaturalitate, meaning; it is not certain/confirmed that the events were of supernatural origin.
Even though the Church has not given official approval yet, a Catholic may in good standing believe in the events at Garabandal (see section; "Reasons to Believe").
But what about Cardinal Seper's Letter? [Link] ...
What about Bishop Vilaplana's Letter? [Link]
There are some who argue that Garabandal has been condemned, based on a poor English translation of a 1993 letter from Bishop Jose Vilaplana [see Response to Bishop Jose Vilaplana's Letter], or a misapplication of a 1973 letter from Cardinal Seper [see Response to Cardinal Seper's Letter] . Such claims are unfounded, as the previous links will show. The local ordinaries have been very clear to avoid condemnation. In fact, the Bishops allow private pilgrimages to Garabandal--a typical practice when an alleged apparition has not yet been approved or condemned. The Church will allow private pilgrimages, but discourage official diocese/church pilgrimages. Such is the case with Garabandal (in contrast to Bayside, for example, which has been condemned and consequently forbids pilgrimages).
||Our Lady Comes to Garabandal (Conchita's diary, with extensive commentary and eye witness accounts)
|by Joseph Albert Pelletier
Three Popes and Garabandal, Geoffrey A. P. Groesbeck
The Church's True Position Regarding Garabandal Geoffrey A. P.Groesbeck
The Warning -- Our Upcoming Damascus Gabriel Garnica
Garabandal, and the Church's Criteria for Approval, Colin B. Donovan, STL (EWTN Expert)
Apparitions and Private Revelations, Colin B. Donovan, STL (EWTN Expert)
Interview with Joey Lomangino, Mother Angelica (EWTN), 1995
Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations
Articles, Interviews, and Testimonies
Additional articles may be found here.
Videos & Media made available by: Catholic Webcast and Garabandal Archives