I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Eliza10]

Kurt G.:

…if we are being disobedient to anyone for our trips to Medjugorje, we do not see it or feel it that way. Yes, it is a divisive issue at the moment, but it is also an ongoing event, surpassing in length anything which we have previously experienced, whether it’s authentic or not.

We must all seek our path to holiness, and that path must not be contradictory to Holy Mother Church. If you currently believe private pilgrimages to Medjugorje are contradictory to Holy Mother Church, I believe you are mistaken. I don’t know how else to say it, except God Bless Us All!

I agree! Look how divisive this thread has become. I Realize that Diane and Mike think they are doing the right thing. I am going to reread at some point and also read those posts that Mike mentioned on Medjagorie for further understanding.

I know Jesus wants us very much to be united. We need to focus on what we do agree on, which is so much, and respect where we disagree, - repsect doesn’t mean we have to back down on what we believe. I have friends I love who are very devout and are in SSPX. I hope when we talk again (they live out of town) we are able to focus on our points of agreement. I also respect them for doing what they genuinely think is right, even though I think they are wrong. I can learn a lot from their dedication, just as I can learn alot from those beleiving in private revelations I am not sure about. I can learn a lot from Diane, too, thats why I want to reread her posts and what Mike said I should read.

Jesus wants us to get along peacefully. And I know we need to preserve peace in all our relating.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Kurt G.:

Hello, Mike. Your level of forum participation looks similar to mine, we’ve both been members for a while, and our postings are few, but come in batches… probably work related, no doubt. I’ll try to make this short…

1. I really do appreciate your concern for both me and son of pio. I am sure that concern is from your heart. But rest assured, I plan and pray to stay “as Catholic as the Pope!”
2. If Diane (Lux) had hardness in her heart toward Bishops Zanic and Peric, then to make amends and repent of the hardness was the proper thing to do. During her early history there, Bishop Zanic did still have all authority over St. James parish.
3. I hope Diane is not implying that the many, many Catholic faithful who go to Medj. are being disobedient to the Church. She, and you, would be in error to suggest that. Here is why…

In 1986, Bishop Zanic took his 14 member commission’s vote ( of which only 2 were sure of authenticity) to Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF. They knew well the vote count, and still relieved Bishop Zanic, and his commission, of any more duties toward Medj.

Zanic, as the Archbishop of Mostar, was even instructed by the CDF not to offer any more public comments on the Medjugorje events. Both Zanic, and now Peric, have violated that order on numerous occasions since 1986.

In Peric’s and Zanic’s defense, I have heard that there may have been no precedence in Church history for the Vatican or similar office taking authority (over a parish issue) away from the local Bishop. But the very fact that Ratzinger and the CDF assumed to “take Medjugorje away” from the local bishop speaks a lot about what “The Church” really feels about Medjugorje.

The bishops’ list of Medjugorje supporters would be long (200 by name through year 2000, more incognito). Just as a local example, Archbishop Frane Franic, of Split diocese (right next door), had made 61 pilgrimages to Medjugorje beginning Christmas 1981. As recently as June 27, 1997 this Archbishop published a letter entitled “The Bishops did not say ‘no’ to Medjugorje!”. His aim is not to be disobedient to his Church, but to stand firm when he sees his fellow Bishop claiming a “negative” decision, rather than properly claiming “no decision”.

So, Mike, and Diane (if you’re still there), if we are being disobedient to anyone for our trips to Medjugorje, we do not see it or feel it that way. Yes, it is a divisive issue at the moment, but it is also an ongoing event, surpassing in length anything which we have previously experienced, whether it’s authentic or not.

We must all seek our path to holiness, and that path must not be contradictory to Holy Mother Church. If you currently believe private pilgrimages to Medjugorje are contradictory to Holy Mother Church, I believe you are mistaken. I don’t know how else to say it, except God Bless Us All!

It’s time the Medjugorje issue went to its own thread and I happen to have one going from some time ago with info I don’t want to have to restate. I pasted Kurt G’s post into that thread and responded.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1140009#post1140009

I have no further desire to talk about the Poem of the Man-God issue at this time based on my post above.

 

[dcdurel]

I am still amazed that people attack the Poem and Medjugorje
knowing good and well that they increase the faith of Catholics in the teachings of the Church, knowing good and well the Church permits the Poem to be published and permits people to go to Medjugorje,

while at the same time articles such as the introduction to John’s Gospel in the New American Bible, that deny the authenticity of that Gospel, (deny that it was written by the apostle John) a teaching condemned by the highest Church authorities that is the Pope’s teachings and Vatican II are passed over in silence. This false idea that the Gospel of John was not written by him is extremely harmful to the faith of Catholics. It is extremely destructive.

Thus, extremely widespread, very harmful articles that present teachings condemned by the INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH are passed over in silence.

Articles that the Church permits to be published, which have NEVER been condemned by any infallible teaching authority, which increase the faith of Catholics who read them, are attacked, vilified and searched for the most minute error that they can find.

Why is it that works that increase the faith of Catholics are attacked, and searched for the most minute errors?

Works that are far more widespread, and are really dangerous, such as the introduction to the Gospel of John in the New American Bible, which has no redeeming value, and has its main argument that historical tradition is worthless and the Gospel is a fraud, a teaching condemned by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are passed over in silence.

Why?
I would really love to understand this type of reasoning.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

dcdurel:

I am still amazed that people attack the Poem and Medjugorje
knowing good and well that they increase the faith of Catholics in the teachings of the Church, knowing good and well the Church permits the Poem to be published and permits people to go to Medjugorje,

while at the same time articles such as the introduction to John’s Gospel in the New American Bible, that deny the authenticity of that Gospel, (deny that it was written by the apostle John) a teaching condemned by the highest Church authorities that is the Pope’s teachings and Vatican II are passed over in silence. This false idea that the Gospel of John was not written by him is extremely harmful to the faith of Catholics. It is extremely destructive.

Thus, extremely widespread, very harmful articles that present teachings condemned by the INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH are passed over in silence.

Articles that the Church permits to be published, which have NEVER been condemned by any infallible teaching authority, which increase the faith of Catholics who read them, are attacked, vilified and searched for the most minute error that they can find.

Why is it that works that increase the faith of Catholics are attacked, and searched for the most minute errors?

Works that are far more widespread, and are really dangerous, such as the introduction to the Gospel of John in the New American Bible, which has no redeeming value, and has its main argument that historical tradition is worthless and the Gospel is a fraud, a teaching condemned by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are passed over in silence.

Why?
I would really love to understand this type of reasoning.

The thread is about the Poem of the Man-God, not the NAB. You were asked earlier to start a separate thread about the NAB so that it could be discussed. I’m sure you may find plenty of people who have a problem with it as you do, but that is not the subject of this thread. I have already pulled out Medjugorje content over to another thread, how about you do the same wth the NAB?

EDIT: In fact, here it is from post #106:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcdurel
*Why is it that NO ONE complains about these introductions which are worse than any heresy, which are extremely widespread and are read by almost all english speaking Catholics, which have NO redeeming value, which do NOTHING to increase our faith, but the only influence they have is to harm our faith, allowed to go unquestioned by the same people who jump on any chance to condemn the Poem of the Man-God, though it has never been condemned by any official teaching authority, that is the Pope and bishops in union with the Pope, and has never been found to have any errors in it while at the same time it has increased the faith of Catholics around the world? *
This does not make sense to me at all. All I can conclude is that the only reason the Poem is really condemed by some is because it increases the faith of Catholics, and the introductions are NOT condemned by some people is because it decreases the faith of Catholics.

Because this thread is about the Poem of the Man-God, not about the NAB commentary. If you were to post your concerns about the NAB on a new thread dedicated to that subject, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that many of your opponents here, me included, will agree whole-heartedly with you there. You seem to think that if we don’t support Valtorta, then we must agree with the NAB and vice versa. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to mischaracterize us only so that you can claim to have discredited us. How intellectually dishonest of you.

Mike

 

[son_of_pio]

You see Lux this is why I have heartburn. Every time I read one of your posts I feel like genuflecting before your supreme greatness. I feel the more slightened now that your history has been revealed. Mind you I applaud your for your devotion but give me a break. Now we want to throw around commands about where people should post this and that. And us hell bound souls reading Valtorta should take direction from you??? Humm I am confused here. But seeing how I am I am misguided anyway perhaps you can shed some more light. But please, I beg, don’t yell for I may begin to cry.
And while I wait for a post I will be standing by my mailbox waiting for a letter from the pope excommunicating me because of reading Valtorta. Obviously that is what the Church will do to me right? Afterall they have OFFICIALLY condemned this right? I mean that seems to be what you imply since I am going against the Church right??? Now you realize if the answer is that this would never happen than you are entirely wrong. Do you believe I wil be excommunicated. Please give an answer. Keep in mind the wrong one will blow all of your previous postings into worthless words.

 

[Michael_Francis]

I am taking this opportunity to instruct all of you to post only comments on the OP’s topic. Comments and discussion on the NAB and/or anything else are out of place and constitute hijacking this thread . If you have discovered something along the way that you really feel MUST be discussed, then open a new thread of your own on that topic.

All off-topic side discussions end with this post and any that attempt to continue will have repercussions.
http://bestsmileys.com/biting/4.gif

 

[son_of_pio]

Boy this thread sure died!

 

[Eliza10]

son of pio:

Boy this thread sure died!

I think its not dead yet!

i had to say something. I know its not fun to be a thread stopper! It can stop with me, its okay. I’ve been a thread stopper before. I can take it.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You are being very hard on Lux you know. To be fair, she was very hard on us. Mike thinks we were hard on her. Particularly me I think. I don’t think I was. I am willing to admit I could be wrong about that, and I am am going to look back over my posts and see if I in fact was hard on Lux (Diane). To me, I feel as if I was extremely patient and longsuffering with Lux. But I am willing to concede that she perhaps feels she was extremely patient and longsuffering with me.

I really will go back and look at those posts, Diane and Mike. I needed to get my peace back and in my peace take care of things so I can preserve peace in my everyday affairs.

When I don’t take care to preserve my peace I don’t pray or contemplate very well.

 

[Eliza10]

dcdurel:

I am still amazed that people attack the Poem and Medjugorje knowing good and well that they increase the faith of Catholics in the teachings of the Church, knowing good and well the Church permits the Poem to be published and permits people to go to Medjugorje,
while at the same time articles such as the introduction to John’s Gospel in the New American Bible, that deny the authenticity of that Gospel, (deny that it was written by the apostle John)…Why?
I would really love to understand this type of reasoning.

We must follow the moderators prompt now and not discuss this, but I just wanted to say I got your point! It makes perfect sense to me! But the ones you were aiming it at didn’t get it before and won’t get it now anyway.

 

[trustmc]

son of pio:

Boy this thread sure died!

I just needed a breather, and to catch up on some work. Besides, Diane gave us a lot to read before moving on.

Mike

 

[Character_Zero]

In this post I would like to address the letters that Lux et Veritas has posted for us.

My uncle introduced me to Maria Valtorta, he read the Poema in the original Italian while he lived in Rome. He is as close to an “expert” in this area of anyone I know. He is a Catholic priest, and while he was in seminary he worked for a time at the Holy Office, and knew then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Anyway, I say that because I am basically pulling a copy and paste job from an email I sent him, asking about the letters that Lux posted.

So, here goes:

The first [letter] is the famous response to Cardinal Siri, who had written a cleverly worded query to Caridnal Ratzinger. R quotes the Note to the 1966 abolition " for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful. " which was the standard response given about any book that had been taken off the Index before its abolition.

Siri knew that Ratzi had no choice but to use it. Notice the words “more unprepared” (which are slightly different from the Italian original) = less educated - people with poor judgement or insufficient background knowledge. These were the people the Index was designed to protect. In the post WWII world of mass communication, the Index was deemed unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Most Reverend Eminence,

With a letter of 18 May [1984], Father …] asked of this Sacred Congregation a clarification about the writings of Maria Valtorta, collected under the title of “The Poem of the Man-God”, and if there exists any evaluation of the Church’s Magisterium on the publication in question with the corresponding bibliographical reference.

**
The Magisterium has never spoken on the matter**. The Holy Office’s authority is pastoral unless its decree (or other scriptum) specifically states that it is authorised by the Pope. IOW, the Holy Office’s decrees are to be respected because they are performing a pastoral function of the Pope. The Index has never been considered Magisterial.

On this subject I have the honor of expressing to Your Eminence – you will judge the opportuneness of informing the Father …] – that in fact the Work in question was placed on the Index on 16 December 1959

Correct.

and defined by “L’Osservatore Romano” of 6 January 1960, as “A Badly Novelized Life of Jesus.”

The Osservatore has no authority to “define” anything. This is a sneaky attempt to make the Osservatore opinion sound authoritative.

The provisions of the Decree were re-published with an explicit note again in L’Ossservatore Romano of 1 December 1961, as can be reviewed in the documentation herewith enclosed.

The Decree was rendered null by the abolition of the Index.

Since some have subsequently held that after the abrogation of the Index, the printing and diffusion of the Work in question is licit, L’Osservatore Romano (15 June 1966) had presented what was published in A.A.S. (1966) [Acta Apostolicae Sedis]: that, although abolished, the “Index” retained “all its moral value,” for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful.

Dealt with above.

…continued in next post

 

[Character_Zero]

…continued from previous post

Dear Mr. Colafrancesco:

His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in a letter which I received from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith this week, has asked me to inform you about the position of the Church

regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta called The Poem of the Man-God.

The position of the Church is that the work is not proscribed. Tell your friend to call the Nuncio’s office in DC.

The Cardinal wants you to know that the Congregation in the past has issued certain “Notes” on this subject for the guidance of the faithful and these were published in L’Osservatore Romano. [The CDF is now referring us, the faithful to that L’Osservatore Romano piece previously quoted in this long thread]

The cardinal didn’t write to Bp. Boland. He is quoting from the letter to Siri.

In the light of the recent recurrance [sic] of interest in the work, the Congregation has come to the conclusion that a further clarification to the “Notes” previously issued is now in order. Thus it has directed a particular request to the Italian Bishops’ Conference to contact the publishing house which is concerned with the distribution of the writings in Italy in order to see to it that in any future reissue of the work “it might be clearly indicated from the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it 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.”

Notice: "it might be clearly indicated not “it must be…”

They cannot be proven to be supernatural in orgin nor can the contrary be proven.

The implications of this most recent decision of the Holy See (Prot.N. 144/58 i, dated April 17, 1993) are obvious insofar as those who use, publish or sell the writings in question should know and clearly express the judgment of the Holy See as indcated in the underlined section of my previous paragraph.

Hoping that this letter will serve as an authoritative response to the question which you addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger in your letter of July 21, 1992, I am, Sincerly in Christ,
(Signed)
Most Rev. Raymond J. Boland, D.D.
Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama

There has been NO Magisterial statement about the Poem. If the Holy Office, CDF, wanted to make a statement about it, it would have done so, loud and clear. Ratzi was no wimp. He never will be.

Tell your friend to call the Nuncio or write the CDF in Rome.

Essentially, what my uncle is saying, is that the Magisterium of the Church has never said anything about Valtorta. What has been said about these works by the Holy Office is pastoral in nature, and cannot be considered infallible unless explicitly stated by the Pope.

So, for those who are arguing that the Church has infallibly condemned these works, the truth is that it has infallibly said nothing on these works.

Of course, pastoral judgements are to be respected, however they are not binding on the conscience.

 

[DreadVandal]

trustmc:

The actual verse is: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit.” (Matt 7:15-16). You seem to see only the fruit you want to see. Among the supporters of Valtorta on this thread I see nothing but the pits, to include only qualified obedience to the Church, immature appeals to emotion, side-stepping of difficult arguments, changing the subject, justification for committing sin, and avoidance of theological issues with which you disagree.

Let me put Lux’s arguments in simple terms you can understand regarding Eve, as this was also my critique of Valtorta’s book in my first post. Eve’s original sin could not have been motivated by lust because lust did not exist prior to the original sin. Yes, sex existed for the purpose of procreation, but the motivation for sex was marital love between Adam and Eve, not lust. Lust was a result of the original sin, not the cause of it.

When I originally objected to Valtorta’s depiction of Eve having sex with the serpent, it was not only because of the vulgarity of such imagery, but because the underlying lust in such an act would have been impossible. That this was “revealed” to her made me suspect the work to be of dubious origin. This is the type of subtle error against Church teaching that are ubiquitous in Valtorta’s volumes. That you and pio didn’t catch it or any other error only makes my point more clear. We cite this error frequently because it should be most obvious to even those who are poorly catechized, but apparently it is not.

Mike

Yes, Mike, my understanding was that the poem was indeed portraying Eve as having sex with the serpent (either a literal snake or Satan himself in the form of a snake). This is clearly heretical of course and rejected by all of the Fathers of the Church. It was taught by a number of gnostic cults though and I believe there is a “serpent seed” movement in protestantism today that teaches that the reprobate are in the lineage of Eve and Satan. I think they teach that Cain was actually Satan’s child instead of Adam’s. Rather interesting theory, wacko, but interesting

 

[DreadVandal]

trustmc:

I’ll have to take your word then that the serpent does not have sex with Eve, but that instead – as you mentioned on a previous post – that she allowed the serpent only to “caress” her naked body. However, even with a toned down interpretation of this event, the point is that the scenario depicts Eve’s temptation as being predicated on the pre-existence of lust. As Diane and I have pointed out before, lust did not exist before the fall.

Lust was not the cause of Original Sin, but the result of it. Such a scenario, given its vulgar imagery coupled by theological error against Church teaching, would have more likely originated from within Satan’s mind and his darkest fantasies rather than from within a mentally ill nun like Valtorta. I point to it as evidence to discredit the Poem, not for its shock value, but because this should be an easy to understand example of erroneous Church teaching.

In Christ,
Mike

I would also add that it was the common view of the Fathers that the sin of Adam and Eve was without any kind of concupiscience and that is what made the Fall all the more horrendous. We are born in a weakened condition, so sin naturally comes as weakness but for Adam and Eve, they could not be tempted in the way we are. They would not feel the pull of desire. Rather, it was a deliberate, completely free, willful rebellion.

 

[Eliza10]

DreadVandal:

Yes, Mike, my understanding was that the poem was indeed portraying Eve as having sex with the serpent (either a literal snake or Satan himself in the form of a snake). … wacko, but interesting

Yes, its pretty crazy, but its not what is in The Poem of the Man-God. When you repeat things that you have heard without bothering to find out of they are true, you often spread lies.

For the record, there is one part of one sentence where it says that the serpent “caressed” Eve. This is the phrase pulled out of context from which the rumors are derived, which Dreadvandal repeats above.

But the rest of the context of the accused phrase makes it clear that it was a metaphorical caress.

Last night I was reading in Volume Four, and there Valtorta reports of one of the Pharisees who is accusing Jesus of “caressing the crowds” [in order to prepare them to follow him when he takes over as the new earthly king they are so afraid of]. So its clear that sexual connotations are only one of the meanings of the word caress - not all of them. It is also clear that caress used in the volumes is not always meant as a physical touch. Words can caress, and that is what the Pharisee in The Poem is accusing Jesus of doing with the crowds.

This is confirmed in the dictionary, which describes one meaning of a caress as “to touch or affect as if with a caress”. Clearly this is the kind of caress that was meant in that phrase concerning Eve and the Serpent. Just as Jesus “caressed” the crowds with his words, making them believe in Him, Eve was “caressed” by the words of the Serpent, making her believe him.

All of the commentary of Jesus and Mary in the accused section also make it perfectly clear that Eve’s sin was one of disobedience.

If you divorce the one part of the one phrase from all of the surrounding text, one could devise a case that it is saying what it is not saying, particularly if one had ill will toward the work in general, and was looking to prove one’s own theories against it, rather than reading it for what it says. But that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn’t it?

But that is what people do with the Bible all the time. Its an old, old story.

 

[Eliza10]

Character Zero:

In this post I would like to address the letters that Lux et Veritas has posted for us.

My uncle introduced me to Maria Valtorta, he read the Poema in the original Italian while he lived in Rome. He is as close to an “expert” in this area of anyone I know. He is a Catholic priest, and while he was in seminary he worked for a time at the Holy Office, and knew then Cardinal Ratzinger. …

I am anxious to hear what Lux et Veritas has to say now. Your uncle’s credentials should be enough for her.

 

[Eliza10]

Character Zero:

…
Essentially, what my uncle is saying, is that the Magisterium of the Church has never said anything about Valtorta. What has been said about these works by the Holy Office is pastoral in nature, and cannot be considered infallible unless explicitly stated by the Pope.

So, for those who are arguing that the Church has infallibly condemned these works, the truth is that it has infallibly said nothing on these works.

Of course, pastoral judgements are to be respected, however they are not binding on the conscience.

Thank you so much for emailing your uncle, a Priest who has worked in the Vatcian and knew Cardinal Radzinger at the time, and who has a “well-credentialed” opinion. Please thank him on our behalf.

I am particularly thankful for his clarifications because this thread has been so troubling to me and had begun to rob me of peace. I had to step back after what began to feel like uncharitible barages by Valtorta detractors. The excellent answers of your uncle here have restored my peace and confirmed what I know in my heart to be true.

I knew that just because i couldn’t war with words on the same level as Diane (“Lux”) on this topic, does not mean that I am automatically wrong. The truth transcends my meager abilities and the truth is not open only to those with credentials. Your uncle was able to address the specifics I was not able to address and I thank him for taking the time to do it for us.

I was finding Lux’s protestations “loud” in my ear, yet, not reaching my heart. The fact that what she had to say did not “feel” right to me was put down by her - I was over and again accused of “Protestantism” by her for this. Also my recourse to my feelings was called childish by Mike.

In spite of the namecalling and in spite of Lux’s insistence that she had the final and expert opinion on the Vatican’s judgment of The Poem of The Man-God, and that I was in grave disobedience for not believing as she believed about it, which she insisted was the *right *way to believe, I still didn’t feel like what she had to say was all true as she thought it was. “Feelings are to be ignored!” chorused Mike and Diane. But my “feelings” or intution, are where God has spoken to me in the past, and i was not about to ignore that. There had to be more to this, and I am thankful that your uncle provided it.

“My sheep know my voice” said Jesus, and this was my main defense. This was ignored by Mike and Diane, apparently, as niether of them commented on it.

Will your uncle’s commentary here also be ignored by Mike and Diane, as it does not have to do with subjective feelings and intuitiion, and addresses the very letters that Diane has built her case on?

 

[Eliza10]

Also I am hoping to hear from Trustmc (mike) about what he thinks of the commentary that Characterzero’s uncle, a Priest, wrote in regards to the letters that he was so supportive of Lux quoting from so many times here in this thread.

Mike was supportive of Lux’s theory that the Vatican had ruled on The Poem of the Man-God, and that those who still believed in the validity of this private revelation are in rebellion of the Church’s teaching on it, and guilty of “Protestantism”. Or immaturity.

 

[bear06]

OK, I’ve been on vacation so I’m really backlogged on reading this one. Here’s a good article on the “Poem”:
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/valtorta.txt

The plain fact is some of the facts in favor are incorrect and the series itself is historically inaccurate. So, if we are to believe that Valtorta was just Christ’s “secretary” then she was a pretty bad one because I doubt Our Lord is lacking in historical knowledge. If she just wrote something down incorrectly than how much of it is incorrect.

Besides this, the “Poem” has sparked disobedience from day one. I’d hope by the time you supporters get to vol. 5, p. 73 you would realize that someone has a twisted view of Christ.

Here’s some other articles I would suggest:
jloughnan.tripod.com/critique.htm
jloughnan.tripod.com/valtmedj.htm
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=515
catholicculture.net/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3365
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea3.asp

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Eliza, “Lux” has moved on from discussion of this topic as there is nothing more to say. However, I will address a few things from what Characer_Zero has posted.

Also, I truly apologize if you are offended by my tone. On the other hand, I cannot compromise what I feel is true in order to appease anyone. I will take some points made by this priest-uncle of Character_Zero and call attention to a few things:

Quotations from the Ratzinger letter are in Blue, the priests quotations in red, my responses are in black.:

Point1

The first [letter] is the famous response to Cardinal Siri, who had written a cleverly worded query to Caridnal Ratzinger. R quotes the Note to the 1966 abolition " for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful. " which was the standard response given about any book that had been taken off the Index before its abolition.

Siri knew that Ratzi had no choice but to use it. Notice the words “more unprepared” (which are slightly different from the Italian original) = less educated - people with poor judgement or insufficient background knowledge. These were the people the Index was designed to protect. In the post WWII world of mass communication, the Index was deemed unnecessary and potentially harmful.

1. Point well taken that the letter was to Siri. While the name is blocked out it is easy to think the letter as going to Boland.
2. At one point the priest statest that “If the Holy Office, CDF, wanted to make a statement about it, it would have done so, loud and clear. Ratzi was no wimp. He never will be.” In that statement above he contradicts this one by indicating Ratzinger had his hands tied.
3. I’m not sure what the original was to mean if “more unprepared” did not indicate less educated, or people with insufficient background knowledge. There is no substitute and maybe he is saying that it is these things. I can see where Ratzinger may be ok with scholars looking at the text, and even devating amongst themselves. However, I cannot see the casual Catholic, without the educational background readin this text - not in light of the strong comments even by priests today, such as Pacwa, and Groeschel, among others. So, now I’ve got the credentials of these two men, going up against another priest. Once again - the reading and dissecting of specifics belongs in the court of qualified scholars and as long as there is tension at that level, I would not be reading this text.
4. Furthermore, unless I missed it, I do not see the most important part of that paragraph addressed aside from the “more unpepared” wording. The underlined portion carries heavy weight for me. To say that Cardinal Ratzinger would give us this statement only because it was protocol doesn’t wash with me.

that, although abolished, the “Index” retained “all its moral value,” for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful.