Common Questions and Misconceptions

1. I read that Screwdrivers did not exist at the time, yet Jesus uses uses them in the Poem
This appears to be a very common misconception, which has a reasonable explanation. While the screwdriver in its present form (forged metal) was not invented until a few centuries ago, nonetheless, it is common archaeological knowledge that a primitive form of the screw/screwdriver was common place in the 1st century. ¹ Furthermore, in many instances, Maria Valtorta uses qualifiers such as; "what looks like..." or "I think it is a..." (e.g., v1, p.223), which suggests that what she was seeing was not one would find in modern time, though it was close enough in form to use the same descriptor.

2. What about the claim that Mary asked to become a sinner?
This seems to be another common argument among critics of Valtorta. In response to this, it is important to understand that the Blessed Virgin was merely a child at the time, and thus asked the question with the simplicity of a child's reasoning (which was gently corrected by her father Joachim), out of a holy desire to exeprience the forgiveness of God.

3. But why spend time on this, when there are so many other less controversial writings?
This is a reasonable question. And indeed, there are many wonderful works by the Saints to be read as well; writings that are not as controversial, such as Venerable Mary of Agreda's; Mystical City of God, which is a masterpiece unto itself. It would be perfectly reasonable for a Catholic to choose to avoid reading the Poem thus, as no private revelation requires an assent of faith. Yet, one must consider that, if the Poem is in fact the fruit of divine action, then its spiritual benefit should be obvious.

4. Assuming the Poem is true, then how is it to be considered? A 5th Gospel?
As a private revelation, the Poem may never be considered equal to Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, but instead is judged in light of it. It would thus be an error to consider the Poem a kind of 5th gospel. Instead, it is more proper to consider it a sort of commentary to Scripture; one that clarifies and enriches, but does not add or modify any tenets of the faith.

5. Is the Poem for all Catholics, or only those more "prepared"?
It is the opinion of this author that a new Catholic (or a "less prepared" faithful) should be advised to delay reading the Poem until after proper formation in the Catholic faith has been received. The reasons for this are many and varied, but it should suffice to list the four below;

1. Those who lack sufficient understanding of the differences between public and private revelation ², will almost certainly become so attached to the Poem, that it becomes for them their only spiritual reading, neglecting authoritative writings such as Sacred Scripture, papal encyclicals, writings by the Saints, etc.. This can be dangerous, especially since the Church has not yet explicitely approved the work.
2. Those who are not properly formed in the Catholic faith, will have a tendency to read the Poem as if it is a historical re-enactment, and thus believe that what they read is exactly what occured two thousand years ago. (This error is addressed in more detail in question #6; "Why do approved private revelations contain some minor innacuracies?"
3. There may also be a subtle temptation to seek the pleasure of emotional consolation (that is; the thrill in reading a drama), rather than seeking to follow the will of God in any given moment (As St. John of the Cross noted, "let us seek the God of consolation, and not the consolation of God"). Spiritual reading is very important, but it must also be balanced with a well-rounded Catholic faith; prayer, meditation, frequent reception of the sacraments, Eucharistic Adoration, works of charity, etc.
4. New catholics may also fall into potential theological temptations. For example, those who do not understand the Church as a living organism that develops over time, may thus fall into the error of desiring to return to the life of the early Church, as if it is somehow purer or more authentic.

In brief, just as one should read Scripture with the light of the teaching Magisterium (lest he fall into the error of Protestantism, that is; everyone becoming his own pope), so also should the same be done with private revelation.

6. Why do approved private revelations contain some minor innacuracies / conflicts?
As mentioned previously, one of the temptations among improperly formed Catholics is to view private revelations as a sort of re-enactment of historical events, exactly as they occured two-thousand years ago. This error stems from a misunderstanding of what private revelation is, in light of public revelation. In the book "The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics" (Raphael Brown, Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat), the author elaborates further;

"Next we must understand why it is possible that the writtings or revelations of some saintly mystics have occassionally contained minor innaccuracies or details which do not agree with similar accounts of other equally holy mystics. This is especially observable when their visions represent historical scenes, such as the life and death of Jesus Christ and His Mother. For instance, St. Bridgest and Mary of Agreda differ as to various details of the Nativity. Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich saw the Savior crucified with three nails, whereas St. Bridget saw four nails. And all three disagree concerning the number of years which the Blessed Virgin lived after the Crucifixion.
     "This does not mean that in each case only one mystic saw correctly and the other must have been mistaken. For, as Father Poulain very wisely explains -- and the importance of this statement for our work cannot be overstressed:  "When visions represent historic scenes...they often have an approximate and probable likeness only...It is a mistake to attribute an absolute accuracy to them...Many saints have, in fact, believed that the event took place exactly as they saw it. But God does not deceive us when He modifies certain details. If He tied Himself down to absolute accuracy in these matters, we should soon be seeking to satisfy in visions an idle desire for erudition in history or archeology. He has a nobler aim, that of the soul's sanctification, and to arouse in her a love of Jesus suffering. He is like a painter, who, in order to excite our piety, is content to paint scenes in His own manner, but without departing too far from the truth. (This argument cannot be applied to the historical books of the Bible.)...God has another reason for modifying certain details. Sometimes He adds them to a historical scene in order to bring out the secret meaning of the mystery. The actual spectators saw nothing similar...We see, therefore, that it is imprudent to seek to remake history by the help of the saints' revelations.

Therefore, we can see the geniousness in the Church's teaching on private revelation ("not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts" - St. Thomas Aquinas). God, in His infinite wisdom, understands our human weaknesses, and therefore intentionally modifies certain details in private revelations to help detach us from the material world; to raise our eyes above what is corporal, to spiritual realities; above the reconstruction of history, to the divine wisdom of God. By doing so, Our Lord also reinforces the subordinate role that private revelations have to public revelation. Furthermore, if a Catholic is not obliged to interpret certain parts of public revelation literally (such as a literal six-day creation account, with 24 hours in a day), then why is there a tendency to judge private revelation on such literal terms?

What about scientific evidence? Does any exist?
(Answer removed, due to the above information. Though there exists scientific evidence of the historical accuracy of the Poem, it is better to avoid confusing the issue and remain within the realm of private revelation as it was intended, rather than satisfying human reasoning.)

7. Can a "traditional" Catholic believe in the authenticity of the Poem?
If the Poem is indeed authentic, then its value can be appreciated by all Catholics, whether traditional or not. Granted, a large percentage of the followers of apparitions tend to be of a more "progressive" bent. Perhaps this is in part due to the emotional appeal of these writings, or perhaps it is due to a quick willingness to embrace alleged apparitions in general (sometimes in the absence of careful scrutiny). Nonetheless, this does not preclude a "traditional" Catholic from believing in the Poem (so long as "traditional" is not just Protestantism in diguise, such as sedevacantistism, and some--but not all--SSPX members). It is wholly orthodox, and in fact promotes traditional values such as the role of the husband and the wife, children to their parents, obedience and honor to ordained ministers, reverence due to the Eucharist, etc. And while they present the life of Jesus horizontally through His human interactions, they are distinctly oriented vertically as well, always pointing upwards towards greater realities more sublime to human understanding, such as His majesty and magnificence as King. There is quite a profound Marian component in the writings as well, which magnify and glorify the deeper mysteries of the faith, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the role of Mary as Queen of Heaven and sharer in Christ's suffering as Co-Redemptrix.

If Cardinal Ottaviani (who's invaluable work during the sessions of Vaitcan II as conservative watchdog helped to restrain the liberal European Bishops alliance) had read the volumes in full and did not allow himself to become polarized by the growing conflict from the threat of marxism (under a new euphemism, the "cultural revolution"), he too might have seen merit of these works, and would not have tolerated the anonymous letters in L'Osservatore Romano, ⁶ one of which called the Poem a "moutain of childishness"--a most peculiar claim, since even an atheist can admit that its content is more than merely indiscernible ramblings of a delusional woman. It is a brilliantly written narrative--written in the same tradition of private revelation as Catherine Emmerich or Maria Agreda--that keeps perfect track of Jesus, Mary, and over five-hundred characters, none of whom are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the words of Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini, who Paul VI praised for his commentary on the Poem;

"I must candidly admit that the Mariology found in Maria Valtorta's writings, whether published or not, has been for me a real discovery. No other Marian writing, not even the sum total of all the writings I have read and studied were able to give me as clear, as lively, as complete, as luminous, or as fascinating an image, both simple and sublime, of Mary, God's masterpiece."

8. What is L'Osservatore Romano? And why did it publish anonymous letters?
L'Osservatore Romano ("The Roman Observer") is the Vatican’s newspaper, which was founded in 1861 for apologetic reasons, and, according to the Vatican website, to be "deliberatly polemical and propagandist".⁷ In 1929, the newspaper relocated to within the premises of the Vatican, yet still operates as an independent entity. Strictly speaking, the newspaper is not authoritative in and of itself. Any authority it contains is dependent on whether it accurately reports information/events within the Roman Curia. While its purpose is objective reporting, it is nonetheless subject to the same dynamic as any lay run organization, which may or may not be influenced by the politics of the time.

9. Some Valtorta promoters argue that "nothing God reveals is insignificant", and thus conclude that private revelations should not be judged to a stricter criteria than public revelation.
By now, the reader should immediately be able to detect the false reasoning behind this argument, an argument which is so common among the likes of Karl Rhaner and other so called 'modernists'. While it is true that nothing God reveals is insignificant, it is also true that God instituted the Catholic Church as a teaching authority on earth, to guide and direct the faithful in all matters concerning divine truths. It is thus necessary for Catholics to obey the Catholic Church in all her teachings, including assent to the subordinancy of private revelation to public revelation. The Church teaches us, that, while the later is authenticated on its own merit (by virtue of being part of the Deposit of Faith), the former is not. ⁷ As such, one can never have the same degree of certainty of private revelation as with public revelation. And in fact it would be imprudent to presume that we as fallible individuals can judge a private revelation absolutely authentic when even the Church does not go this far in her approval of them ("worthy of belief" is not absolute belief).

10. Why does the Church sometimes act against those whom She later canonizes?
It would seem that, at times, the Holy Spirit permits such trials to happen to the Saints; that their holiness and heroic virtue may be revealed through such extraordinary trials and tests of obedience, and to gain further merit for the sanctification of the Church. When Holy Office condemned Padre Pio in 1933, removing most of his priestly functions, the saints quietly accepted his cross in humble obedience (he would later be restricted again in 1961). Such an example underscores the respect due to the Church, despite the weaknesses of some men who populate it (coincidentally, pope Pius XI, who reversed the ban on Padre Pio, stated; "I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed"). Similarly, Saint Faustina experienced many such trials, which did not end with her earthly passing. Her writings too were condemned by the Holy Office, yet later vindicated by yet another pope, Pope John Paul II (thank God for the popes!). As time moves on, we can observe a gradual turning of perception by church officials toward Maria Valtorta's works, which, in recent times has become more positive. Perhaps one day our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI may echo the same sentiments as Pius XI. Only a full and thorough investigation will vindicate her work.

To read parts of the Poem online, you may do so at the following address; www.valtorta.org

NOTES
1. The History of the Screw according to various sources, Wikipedia [link]
2. Apparitions/Private Revelations, EWTN Expert Colon B. Donovan; [link]
3. Library of Congress, Washington D.C. [homepage]
4. Gamaliel's Interview, published in the Archko Volume [for background]
5. Holy Shround of Turin, Catholic Encyclopedia [link]
6. L'Osservatore Romano, Anonymous Letter, printed Jan. 1960, and 1961
7. Vatican Website, [link]
8. [2]
8 . Opt Cit. p.1 [see note 2]