The danger of private opinion on Garabandal

BISHOP LINDSAY, November 22, might have said "I do not believe in Garabandal. This is my private opinion and I urge you to follow it".
Fine, but some simple fellow might answer "You are wrong. I will not follow". Unbearable. How to persuade him that Garabandal has been condemned by the Church? Why not say so, within a mishmash or irrelevances, mis-statements of fact, and personal interpretations? Harsh words? We shall see.
The ordinary rule of evidence is that one is not required to prove a negative. It is for Bishop Lindsay to prove what he asserts. Condemnation requires a firm judgment in unequivocal terms, made by the appropriate authority, within the Magisterium. From a bishop, it will be evidenced by a Nota. Where are the Notas?
The four girls did not ask to see Bishop Puchol, Conchita did — the others were summoned next day. Their denials were not a "final statement", three of them recanted later. But evidence, even if contradictory, is for the court to assess. This court is the Bishop of Santander, not the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle.
The material submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was hardly enough to need four days examination, let alone four months. The Sacred Congregation declined jurisdiction, and its diplomatic encomiums, having nothing to do with the case.
One source of logical error is to glide, unnoticing, from one meaning of a word to another. `Open' has several meanings, and is so unnecessary in this context that it is a pity it has been used at all. Bishop Lindsay makes play with the question of openness, and stresses the Sacred Congregation's lack of plans to. re-open.
So long as His Lordship offers only his own commentary he may expect the rejoinder "We do not want your irrelevances. We do not accept your innuendo and interpretation. We are not interested in your private opinion. Where are the Notas?"
Des Lyons 8 Kerria Road, Risdon Vale, Australia