Talk:San Sebastian de Garabandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Saints San Sebastian de Garabandal is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Bias in favor of truth claims

This article assumes the veracity of the alleged apparitions at Garabandal, and ignores proper scholarship in reporting it. There is no objectivity in this article and this is evidenced by, for example, the lack of reference to the official statement of Jose Vilaplana, the Bishop of Santander, which characterised the claims of a supernatural event at Garabandal to be "non constat de supernaturalitate" ("it is not established as supernatural"). To this day, the alleged apparitions of Garabandal are not officially recognised by the Roman Catholic Church and this fact should be properly reported in the articel, along with proper citations for the information given. The final paragraph in the article--which purports to state the official Catholic position--is ambiguous and misleading and suggests, incorrectly, that there has been no official statements forthcoming on the alleged apparitions and instead insinuates, without any supporting evidence, that the "seer" Conchita has been Papally endorsed. 86.5.98.95 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is strongly biased toward the presumption that these events actually occurred as described. A more detailed treatment of skeptical concerns would benefit the article - --Gargletheape 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do anti-Catholic prejudices have anything to do with your problem with this article? Tartimarty 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the comment of 86.5.98.95 expresses the problem with the article correctly - it simply ignores all alternate opinions regarding this story. Hardly NPOV. One person here keeps posting the same rambling text, completely oblivious to all other ideas. Gargletheape 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of truth to claims

When did anyone last hear of a 36-year-old Jesuit dying of joy? Have a good read of ALL of the original testimonies, especially those associated with the mysterious involvement of Fr. Luis-Maria Andreu S.J., keep an open mind and, let's just watch and wait to see if Conchita and her friends were misleading us. My own investigations in Cantabria in the early 1990s led me to a private unofficial interview with Bishop Vilaplana's late predecessor, Bishop Del Val Gallo. Off the record he certainly believed in the supernatural origin of the events in the village and beyond. So much so he confided the "approximate year" of the all-important future events to his closest friends. NOT LONG NOW! 81.20.178.88 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affirming letter from 2007

In April 2007, Conchita sent Joey Lomangino a copy of a letter dated February 12, 2007 from Archbishop Carlos Sierra of Oviedo, the acting Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Santander in Spain to a prominent Garabandal supporter in that country. The tone of the Archbishop’s letter seems to indicate a warm familiarity with the apparitions and points to a new openness of the Hierarchy of the Church to the events at Garabandal. He also reasserts authorization for priests to go to Garabandal on pilgrimage and say Mass and hear confessions. "I want you to know that I am open to receiving and considering all information about Garabandal , and would like to continue-as long as our Holy Father wishes me to serve as Apostolic Administrator-the work that my brothers at the Bishopric have already done in reference to this subject. What I have just done is authorize the priests to go to Garabandal and hold Holy Mass at the Parish, at any desired time, and to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to anyone that wishes to receive it. I am sure the next Bishop will promote further studies to examine in depth the Garabandal events and will send the findings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. I respect apparitions and have known of authentic conversions. How can we not always feel the need to open our heart to our Mother Mary to tell her that we need her protection, her help, her courage, her hope, her faith and her love when faced with these events! I encourage you to keep maintaining such devotion toward our Mother." -Carlos, Archbishop of Oviedo http://www.garabandalny.org/ 81.20.190.244 18:01, September 28, 2007

[edit] Cleanup of talk page

patsw (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to address neutrality and cleanup

I was surprised to see what a useless article this is, and not at all surprised to see cleanup and neutrality tags on it. I'd like to propose a rewrite of the article along chronological lines:

  1. The background of the event
  2. The content of the alleged messages
  3. The initial investigation and its conclusion
  4. The aftermath presenting relevant information from reliable sources in context:
  • Affirming the declaration of "definitive negative judgment"
  • Supporting that the truthfulness and supernatural origin of the original claims.

In order for this article to be useful (and I hope, even good), it must contain a summary of the messages, and both sides of the controversy. patsw (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm passing through, doing NPOV cleanup. In this case I will agree completely with Patsw. The article is completely biased, only half written and is in overall poor condition. I will definately leave the tag, and I'd suggest a complete rewrite - I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself. Jjdon (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)