In Defense of The Poem of the Man-God

Fr. Pacwa also declares that:

…the long speeches of Jesus and Mary starkly contrast with the evangelists, who portray Jesus as "humble, reserved; His discourses are lean, incisive." Valtorta’s fictionalized history makes Jesus sound "like a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of God," or teach theology in modern terms. The Blessed Mother speaks like a "propagandist" for modern Marian theology.

We know that the Gospels do not relate everything that Jesus said and did, because the Gospel of St. John tells us this explicitly: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (Jn 21:25). When crowds came and stayed for days to listen to Our Lord speak we know he must have said more in that time than the Gospel’s pass on, for what is written down would only take a few minutes to articulate. This is not to imply that the Gospels are inaccurate or made up, but rather that the Evangelists recorded the most important and essential words of Our Lord. The same would hold for the Blessed Mother.

I’m not sure if the phrase "always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of God," is meant to imply that Jesus in The Poem was boastful, petty or arrogant. In any case, nothing could be further from the truth—in The Poem Our Lord is humble, strong and holy, exactly how you would expect him to be. As for Mary being a propagandist for modern Marian theology, I will limit myself to pointing out that as she is the Seat of Wisdom and Spouse of the Holy Spirit, then as now. She knew who she was, as her Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55) amply demonstrates.

We read further in Fr. Pacwa’s article:

Third, "some passages are rather risque," like the "immodest" dance before Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73). There are "many historical, geographical and other blunders." For instance, Jesus uses screwdrivers (Vol. 1, pp. 195, 223), centuries before screws existed.

There are theological errors, as when "Jesus says" (vol. 1, p. 30) that Eve’s temptation consisted in arousing her flesh, as the serpent sensuously "caressed" her. While she "began the sin by herself," she "accomplished it with her companion." Sun Myung Moon and Maria Valtorta may claim the first sin was sexual, but Scripture does not.

Vol. 1, p. 7, oddly claims, "Mary can be called the ‘second-born’ of the Father . . ." Her explanation limits the meaning, avoiding evidence of an authentic heresy; but it does not take away the basic impression that she wants to construct a new mariology, which simply goes beyond the limits of propriety." "Another strange and imprecise statement" made of Mary (vol. 4, p. 240) is that she will "be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy. . . " Our Lady surpasses St. Peter’s holiness, but she is not in the hierarchy, let alone second to St. Peter.

Private revelation has never been, nor will it ever be, perfect, even when received by canonized saints. This is not because God has made a mistake or passed on error, but because what is received is received through the humanity of the seer, and as such is subject to that humanity. Those who receive private revelations may make mistakes as to its interpretation. Those who record the messages from the seers can make mistakes in recording and interpreting. To invalidate a particular private revelation you would have to demonstrate that serious errors were present, not that someone thought they saw a screwdriver when they didn’t. Maria Valtorta may have seen a tool in her vision that she simply mistook for a screwdriver (in fact, in the page 223 example given she mentions that she only "thinks" it’s a screwdriver). A visionary is a witness. They are shown something and then report what they have seen. They are not guaranteed infallibility in this regard.

I have yet to see anyone bring to light serious or consistent historical, theological or geographical errors in The Poem. It would be a great point in favor of The Poem’s authenticity if in all those thousands of pages of writing apparently misplaced screwdrivers were the most serious potential problems encountered. The reality is that the geographical detail and precision in The Poem is nothing short of astounding, especially when we keep in mind the circumstances under which it was written. The Poem was not written cover to cover chronologically, as some may suppose; Maria received the hundreds of different visions out of order, at different times over years. She would be told by Heaven where to put a particular vision, before this other vision or after that one. To have composed these all and then put them in correct order, creating a seamless work that spans decades in the lives of the characters, and includes dozens if not hundreds of different geographical locations, different seasons, and end up with the work we now have that so perfectly follows the chronology of the Gospels is miraculous. It would be the equivalent of throwing all the pieces of a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle into the air and having them land on the floor fitted together in perfect order.

Regarding the immodest dance, is this not merely demonstrating an unfortunate reality of mankind’s situation? Was Roman society at the time of Christ a moral, modest and pure society? It is not at all unlikely that immodest dances were sometimes performed at Roman ceremonies or parties. All that passage does is report something that Maria Valtorta saw. Scripture contains many examples of much more serious impurity than that. But if God deemed it necessary to include in Scripture, it was good that it be included. Same with The Poem. Though the description might affect someone very sensitive to that sort of thing, as might some Scripture passages, it does not contain an amount of detail that would warrant condemning it as grossly inappropriate.

It is true that Scripture does not say the first sin of Adam and Eve was a sexual one, but it also doesn’t clearly define what it was. It’s been generally agreed that the description of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit is a symbol of their sin, of their disobedience, not the actual material object of their sin. The Church has never formally taught what that sin was, so though one is free to disagree with the belief that it was sexual in nature, one cannot claim that belief to be an error.

Hesitation about Mary being referred to as the second-born of the Father is unwarranted. This term, and its accompanying theology, has a long history within the Church, especially in the Franciscan school of Mariology. In reality, the title describes Mary’s role as the New Eve, the new Mother of the human race, Co-redemptrix with Christ. It describes her eternal predestination with Christ before all creation. The Church teaches that the Incarnation and Mary’s divine motherhood were eternally decreed by God in one and the same decree of predestination; (1) thus there is a real truth, and a deep one, in saying Mary is the "second-born" of the Father. Both Jesus and Mary were willed and loved by God in the same instant and before all other persons were willed and loved, and as both were to be the immaculate and sinless parents of all the redeemed, of the "new creation," it is absolutely correct to say they are the first-born and second-born of the Father, for they preceded all, not in time but in intent. There is no new Mariology here, only a very old one. If someone were to find difficulties with this title what would they make of the term "Mother of God"?

The quote about Mary being second to Peter in the hierarchy was misunderstood by Fr. Pacwa, or the author from who he is quoting. Here is the actual passage (spoken by Our Lord to the Blessed Mother):

"During the time that you will remain on the earth, and you are second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy, he being the head and you a believer, but first as Mother of the Church having given birth to me, who am the Head of the Mystical Body, do not reject the many Judases, but assist and teach Peter, my brothers, John, James, Simon, Philip, Bartholomew, Andrew, Thomas and Matthew not to reject, but to assist."

Looking at this passage carefully one will see that Our Lord is not placing Mary second in command in the Church hierarchy, he is reminding her that even though Peter surpasses her in terms of the running of the Church—and that is what her being "second" here means: it is being used in the sense of "lower," or "after," not "number two in position"—she, as Mother of the Church must be a mother to that Church, including the popes and apostles. She must mother them and teach them the way of holiness. It is as Mother of the Church that Mary is above Peter, not in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Church herself declares Mary to be the Queen of Heaven and Earth. In terms of her holiness, her position within creation and God's plan of salvation, she is higher than Peter (or any other pure creature). Our Lady is the Mediatrix of All Graces, so any grace that Peter or anyone else received was received through her. It is a common tradition among saints and theologians that during the early Church period the apostles and others would go to Our Lady for guidance and advice. In this passage Our Lord is merely preparing her for her future role.

Towards the end of his article Fr. Pacwa mentions the Index once more:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, present head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—formerly the same office that condemned the "Poem" (2)—informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the "Poem’s condemnation:

After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L’Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that "The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution."

More recently (April 17, 1993, Prot. N. 144/58i), he wrote:

"The ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in the work, "The Poem of the Man-God," are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin."

An Index that no longer exists can’t retain any force at all, moral or otherwise. If this admonishment means one should be cautious in reading something that was once on the Index, that is valid, at least until you find out why it was on the Index. Notwithstanding, an Index that no longer exists is not binding on Catholics in any way. It was the Church herself that abolished that Index, and when they abolished the Index they abolished the canonical authority of that Index—and it’s moral force—and gave the faithful the freedom to decide what they would or would not read. The Church no longer has a list of books Catholics are forbidden to read, and having recourse to that non-existent Index to infer that a certain book should not, or can not, be read is simply an invalid argument. The Church does not forbid Catholics from reading any book. Catholics are allowed to read The Poem of the Man God. And it should be noted that though it is asserted here that Cardinal Ratzinger "informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the Poem’s condemnation," nothing stated here by Cardinal Ratzinger is actually a condemnation.