Philip Pavich Against the Poem of the Man-God

I find it very interesting.....that a person should, as they say, protesteth too loudly about something no-one has officially condemned. We see it with the Medjugorje apparitions, through the writings of such entities as Unity Publishing, where we see an earnest digging for anything resembling evidence against the validity of the apparitions. This page shows another example of an excessive earnestness to completely destroy something in a manner that completely disregards any good whatsoever. To me, this smells of evil. There is no peace or constructive/objective level-headedness in such writings and, because of the lack of objectivity, people read it half feeling they are being sold on something against their will. Thus, it breeds confusion and ill-feeling. And because of the blanket condemnation, there is no middle ground, where for example, a reasoning person can reject the bad, while retaining the good. Thus, such attempts at destruction are conceived in evil and the resulting fruits are wholly evil.

What makes it worse is that Father Pavich has, by his own admission, never read the book.

The following presents reactions to Philip Pavich's arguments against Maria Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God, followed by his actual arguments.

Go directly to his arguments

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REACTION
Source: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=apar-l&D=0&T=0

Ahh yes, Fr. Philip Pavich. I have read of his opposition to the Poem long ago. In all charity, I must say that Fr. Pavich must have been reading another book called the Poem of the Man God with an author by the same name. Because if he was reading the same five volume set that I am familiar with, he never would have made the statements that he did. For example, Maria Valtorta was
no channeller. She received visions and dictations from Christ, that is true, as other saints in the Church's history have such as Sr. Faustina. Indeed, her cause is being curently championed for
Beatification. If Father Pavich has read the complete work, he would have realized that the Jesus in Maria Valtorta's work strongly disapproved of dabling in the occult as was expressed more than once.

Anyways, these charges were easily refuted by Fr. Roman Danylak, Chancellor of the Toronto Eparchy and Consultor of the Pontifical Commission for the revision of Eastern Canon Law. He
holds a License in Sacred Theology and Doctorates in both Canon and Civil Law from the Pontifical University in Rome. He writes: "There was and is nothing morally, theologically or scripturally
objectionable, nothing that is contrary to Church teaching or is opposed to the authority of the Church in her [Maria Valtorta's] works. This was the conclusion of the several authorities that I
have adduced as well, also, of the censors of her works who were responsible for the article in the Osservatore Romano of 1960" [Therefore, even the authors who attacked Maria Valtorta's work
admit that there was nothing contrary to Church teaching in the work.]

and

"I have studied "The Poem" in depth, not only in its English translation, but in the original Italian edition with the critical notes of Fr. Berti. I affirm their theological soundness and I welcome the
scholarship of Fr. Berti and his critical apparatus to the Italian edition of the works. I have further studied in their original Italian the 'quaderni" or notebooks of Maria Valtorta for the years from 1943 to 1950. And I want to affirm the theological orthodoxy of the writings of Maria Valtorta."

and

"In concluding this somewhat lengthy exposition, I want to share some of my personal experiences. Notwithstanding various claims to the contrary, theologians of authority, scripture scholars, who have studied the Poem, confirm the accuracy of her descriptions of place, geography, her accurate knowledge of the Holy Land, etc. And we must remember that Maria Valtorta did not have the health nor the oppurtunity to study or to correlate her observations.
Reading the 5 volumes in English or the ten volumes in Italian, I was overwhelmed by her mastery not only of poetic composition, but of details, of personages, of the events in the Gospel story. I
find significant confirmation of the many characters of apostles, disciples, penitents, etc. mentioned not only in Scripture, but in the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church in the
Byzantine tradition. Her characters are not imaginary, as I suspect of the characters of the narration of another visionary and mystic, Catherine Emmerich, but real people, whose identity is
confirmed by the Fathers and the liturgical feasts of the byzantine Church... We further find in the accounts of Maria Valtorta answers to many of the scriptural questions that have been hashed and rehashed by scripture scholars and theologians for centuries, because of the Resurrection accounts of the synoptics and the Gospel of St. John. Lastly Maria Valtorta presents one of
the most vivid, beautiful, living and convincing images of the living Jesus that I have ever encountered. Countless readers have found a deeper understanding of their faith and a more profound understanding of the canonical scriptures of the NT. The Poem of the Man-God merits serious study. --- I also strongly urge that all the critics obtain and study "the Poem of the Man-God", reading it in it's entirety, and not relying on cursory impressions or the rehash of other critics."

The following authorities are cited in eccleiastical scholarship that positively attest to the Poem:

Cardinal Agostion Bea, Archbishop Carinci, secretary for the Congregation for Saints, Mons. Ugo Lattanzi; Prof Camillo Corsanego, concistorial advocate for the causes of saints; Frs. Corrado Berti, Romualdo Migliorini, Gabriel Roschini, all theologians or canonists and professors at Pontifical Universities to name a few.

In addition, Fr. Al Winshman, SJ writes in a letter to Fr. Pavich dated March 3, 1992 refuting him:

"I am distressed by the inclusion of my name in your letters regarding the condemnation of the Poem of the Man-God which you are having sent out to all the Medjugorje centers here in the US.
The paragraph in your Febuary 2 letter, for example, which mentions me as supporting your condmenation of the Poem was without my knowledge and consent, and I find it offensive in its
inaccuracy. Please, Phil, do not use my name any further in any of your materical regarding the reported revelation granted to Maria Valtorta. To clarify our day together on October 4th in Medjugorge, I indeed was very interested in learning more of your objections to the Poem and discovering what evidence you might have for your publically speaking against this work which has been a tremendous grace to many, including myself. I was anxious to get documentation, so that I might pursue it. If I seemed to "finally plead for copies of the condemnation papers' on October 4th, as you mentioned in your November 2nd 'Appeal', it was more because I felt put off until the end of the day. I was in agreement with you on the New Age material, but in disagreement with you in
seeing Valttorta's works in the way you were taking them. That day, based on the 1959 condemnation, I stopped using and promoting The Poem until I could examine the case further. I
regret now that I put my group in confusion in relaying that evening of October 4 what you had shared with me, beofre I could research it further. I certainly was not about to let this material 'trickle out through Fr. Al Winsham' as you wrote in your Febrary 2nd 'Appeal'. The meditated Rosary cassettes, in which I drew in part from The Poem were published by RUAH, for they found
nothing against faith or morals in my mediations, and videis are planned for the fall. So this statement of your Febrary 2nd appeal letter is not correct either.

When I got back to Boston, I immediately sought further information from Catholic Churchmen and prefessional theologians. It was interesting that all thsoe whom I approached who had read
The Poem were very favorable and spoke of the good fruit many were deriving from it. Those who passed a negative judgment or went back to the 1959 condemnation which was abrograted with the Index in 1966, all admitted that they didn't know anythig about the work or had not read it.

A major ecclesiastical argument I favor of Maria Valtorta's works, which you have not treated, is Fr. Gabriel M Roschii's "The Blessed Virgin Mary According to the Writings of Maria Valtorta
(1973). Fr. Roschini was professor at the 'Marianum', Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, and a well-known Mariologist and author of 130 books. He stated in 1972: '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.' Also there are very many other statements in praise of Valtorta's The Poem of the Man God given in 'Il Bollettino Valtortiano'.
"The pastoral advice which I received from an Archbiship who has read and supports The Poem comes from a statment of Pope Paul VI that we are not to keep people away from reported private
revelations except for errors in faith and morals, of which he finds none in "The Poem". A theologian put it this way to me: use Sacred Scripture as your guide: If The Poem helps your prayer, etc. use it. Certainly it is not condemned today, nor is it a matter of obedience to Church authority. Discern the fruits and be cautious of anything against the faith and morals."
...
Thus in conclusion, Phil, in light of the abrogation of the Index and the Canons regarding Private Reveleation, until the positive arguments, and they are many, in praise of the writings of Maria Valtorta are addressed and a current statement is made by the Church, I do not find it objectionalbe to read and use the works of Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God specifically, and have been pastorally advised that this is an appropriate stance within the Chuch.

Peace,
Fr. Al

This sounds like excellent advice to me. I do not have time at the moment, but Fr. Roman and others have given a point by point refutation of each of Fr. Pavich's objections. If there is
sufficient interest, I might consider typeing it by hand some weekend. In conclusion, however, I find it extremely sad that Fr. Pavich's article was ever published given that he has never, by his own admission, read the book or plans to do so. Flipping to certain passages and taking them out of context does not do much to enhance their position. I hope that everyone on this list will read "The Poem of the Man-God" (if they are interested) and decide for themselves whether Fr. Pavich's attack on the Poem was remotely warranted.

By the way, as far as I know this book was not written by auto-rithmic writing. Still, if it is written by auto-rithmic writing, Vasula's book (which is known to be written by auto writing) is also demonic ? The children at Fatima and Bernedette at Lourdes were also accused of seeing demons before they were approved. Sister Faustina was also condemned until recently. I hope we'd better let the readers decide as the Pope said.

There are many more positive attestations to the Poem of the Man God than the two negatives of Fr. Pawca and Pavich. Just food for thought...

...this labeling of Maria Valtorta's writing as channelling is pure nonsense. Maria Valtorta consiously wrote what she did. When she stated (taken out of context) "that I have no human source to be able to know what I write, and what, even while writing, I often do not understand", she was stating that since Jesus was dictating to her some of what she wrote, that the knowledge came from Jesus and she really didn't quite understand everything He told her to write. Consider, for example, if Bernadette understood what the term Immaculate Conception meant when Mary told her who she was? Was Bernadette channelling? Then the majority of Maria Valtorta's work was in describing visions that she saw. Obviously, if the visions were a fragment of her immagination, one would expect to find a basis for them in her life experience. What she is saying is that the visions were external (from Jesus) and not a figment of her immagination. Again, this has nothing to do with channelling or New Age Phenomena but old Catholic Mysticism.

I would be interested to know how Fr. Pavich's opinion constitutes "Church judgement". As stated before, the placing of Maria's Valtorta's book on the Index had nothing to do with heresy as even
the censor's of the 1960 OR article acknowledge.

Naji,

You write:

> Nevertheless, no work ever, no matter how Holy it is, can take precedence
> to the Holy Obedience to the Magesterium of the Church and the Pope. This
> Holy Obedience is asked of all the faithful without justification. It is
> unconditional. When Padre Pio was forbidden from celebrating mass for 10,
> he obeyed. Today He is blessed and many will be most likely canonized.
> The same holds for Sister Faustina.

Where did you ever get the notion that the Magesterium or the Pope wish for us not to read this book? First of all, Pope Pius XII explcitly gave his Imprimatur and wishes that this book be
published. Now, on Febuary 26, 1948 before three witnesses (Fr. Corrado Berti, Fr. Andrea Cecchin who is still alive today, and Fr. Romualdo Miglioroini - previous Apostolic Prefect to Africa)
said" "Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion of its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not: whoever reads it will understand...We hear of so many visions and
revelations. I am not saying that all of them would be true, but there can be some of them that are authentic."

Fr. Pavich scoffs at this directive from the Pontiff. Yet, on October 31, 1987, Edouard Cardinal Gagnon referred to Pius XII's action as a "type of official imprimatur granted before witnesses." Thus, remarks to the contrary notwithstanding, it is clearly canonical.

The next argument tries to accuse the publishers of being disobedient. After all, shouldn't they have obeyed the Holy Office and not published the book?

No, they might have been "disobedient" to some Holy Office commisioners, but to obey the commisioners would have meant disobedience to the Pope. These commisioners turned their backs on basic principles of book censorship by condemning it a priori or subjectively. In reality, Church officials are to examine a manuscript objectively to see if it contains any dogmatic or moral
errors - nothing else. If such errors are found, the author normally is provided with a list in order to correct them. If no such errors are found, then no condemnation is to be issued. By ordering the publishers *in secret* to turn over all the books without giving one single reason for the condemnation, violated this principle. In addition, the publishers were aware of Pius XII order to "publish the work as it is" and had a duty to obey the highest authority. Note that it is canonically true that the Pope's Supreme Rights mean that there can be no rejection of his judgements or decrees, nor appeals against them. Pretending that the verbal directive somehow didn't exist because it wasn't written does not make it right or lessen the duty the publishers had felt to obey the Supreme Pontiff.

Now, you might perhaps ask, don't we still have a moral obligation not to read the Poem since it is on the Index? If the book was placed on the Index for heresy or for erroneous teachings against
the Church, then this would be true since it wouldn't do our souls any good in reading such nonsense. However, the Poem was not placed on the list for this reason at all. It was placed on for
technical reasons which are no longer relevant such as the lack of an Imprimatur (the Church no longer requires an Imprimatur on such material). Therefore, given that the Index has been abrogated, and given that there is no heresy or erroneous teachings being taught against the Church, there is no basis to keep claiming that the Magisterium doesn't want us to read the book. As Fr. (Is he a biship now?) Roman Danylak wrote:

"The decree that abrogated the Index of forbidden books, distinguishes between those books that were placed on the Index because of their objectionable moral, theological and anti-ecclesial character, and other literature, as writings on private revelations or purported visions, that were published without prior approval of ecclesiastical authorities. The intense wish of Maria Valtorta, who disclaimed any personal authorship of "The Poem of the Man-God", other than that she was called to be an amanuensis or recording secretary, claiming that the writings were a gift from the Lord, was that the Church should approve this work. One of her greatest crosses, was that this approval was never obtained, even though the final edition of the entire corpus of "The Poem" was published in compliance with the new rules established by the Holy See. Nor was she herself responsible for the first, nor for that matter the subsequent publications."

Finally, in April of 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly gave his approval to read the book thus shutting down this whole line of reasoning.

Of course, I can't change your mind for you but thought I'd give you another side.

THE ARGUMENTS OF FR. PHILLIP PAVICH

The following material was assembled by Fr. Philip Pavich OFM, St. James Church at Medjugorje, Yugoslavia. Oct 4, 1991. In a appeal to all Medjugorje Centers on Feb 2, 1992, he asked that it be circulated.

Condemnation of the works of Marie Valtorta by Pope John XXIII:

In a letter [Prot. N. 144/58] to Cardinal Giusepe Siri, Archbiship of Genoa, dated 31 January, 1985, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, revealed the following facts in reply to the request from F. Umberto Losacco, O.F.M. Cap. from Genoa for "a clarification about the writings of Marie Valtorta and whether there existed an
evaluation of the Magisterium of the Church about the publication in question with the corresponding bibliographical references". With the letter to Cardinal Siri, he sent photo-copies which revealed the following facts:

1. In a Decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Wed Dec 16, 1959, the anonymous 4 volume work "THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD" was ordered to be added to the Index of Forbidden Books. His Holiness POPE JOHN XXIII, Fri Dec 18, 1959 approved and commanded the condemnation to be published. The decree was then promulgated by the Holy Office Jan 5, 1960.

2. The official Vatican newspaper "Osservatore Romano" on the following day Wed Jan 6, 1960 published an article entitled "A Life of Jesus Badly Fictionalized" [Una Vita di Gesu Malamente Romanzata] summarizing the investigations of the Cardinals of the Holy Office who are responsible for protecting the faithful in matters of faith and morals.

3. When the Italian publishers, in blatant disobedience to this solemn decree, issued at the highest possible level of the Roman Catholic Church planned a new 10 volume edition revealing the name of Maria Valtorta, the "Osservatore Romano" on Dec 1, 1961 published a warning to the faithful that this planned work "has no scientific value, repeats the same material contained in the 4
volumes already condemned by the Holdy Office Dec 16, 1959 [A.A.S.vol.LII {1960, p.60}] and therefore must retain the same condemnation according to Can. 1399 of the Code of Canon Law."

4. Cardinal Ratzinger also sent a copy of an article in reference to the publication of the planned 10 volume second edition which further explained the extremely serious objections to the works. Although there is no source cited for this article, he considered it important enough to be sent to Cardinal Siri. The last paragraph of the article states that the second edition is "a vain and useless expectation: the "phenomenon" has already been examined scientifically and placed in a well known category of mental sicknesses, and the facts added to the second edition do not change the nature of the work which evidences being a mountain of childishness, of phantasies and of
historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere, through the presence of a flock of women in the company of Jesus. On the whole it is a heap of pseudo-religiosity. Therefore, also for the second edition the judgment of the Church to condemn it retains its validity."

5. In a "Notification" of June 14, 1966 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith abrogated the Index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his letter of Jan 31, 1985, "After some people claimed that the printing and distribution of the works in question would now be permitted, the "Osservatore Romano" published that "the Index of Forbidden Books keeps `all of its moral authority' and therefore the distribution and recommendation of the work [Poem of the Man-God] is considered improper when its condemnation was not make lightly but with the most serious motivation of neutralizing the harm which such publication could inflict on the more unwary faithful."

This "Notification" was later published in a Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Nov 15, 1966. In response to the question whether canon 1399 forbidding Catholics to read books on the "Index", as well as canon 2318 which stated the penalties against violators of the laws of censure and prohibition of books, still retained their force, the Decree answered negatively as to the force of church law, but positively regarding the retention of their validity as to the moral law which totally forbids the dilution of faith and morals. [Acts of the Apostolic See, 1966].

In conclusion, this means that Pisani Publishers, the same Italian publisher which has monopolized all language publications of the POEM OF THE MAN-GOD since the late 1950's, has been deliberately deceiving the Catholic faithful in knowingly disobeying the laws of the church even before those laws were changed, and has brazenly been distributing these condemned works to a devout but unsuspecting Catholic Faithful despite the efforts of the highest authorities of the Catholic Church to warn the faithful that those same laws still retain their moral authority and that the works of Maria Valtorta should be avoided by sincere and conscientious Catholics.

Moreover, they have knowingly deceived Catholics by printing a `bogus' Supreme Pontificial Imprimatur of absolutely no value, but which the unknowing reader considers authentic. To add insult to injury, they slander Pope John XXIII and the former Holy Office as a "modernist clan", which "managed to put the first 1956-1959 edition on the Index", and legalistically claim that the condemnation juridically affects only the first edition, though the Vatican clearly pronounced that it applies to the second. Then they put forth a silly claim this `Master Edition' was approved by the `commissioner' of the Holy Office in 1962, as if his authority could surpass the previous highest possible level condemnations. They add offense to Cardinal Ratzinger by claiming that "This
great work is now read around the world in many languages, Modernists still fighting it"!!

On April 10, 1991 the Yugoslav Bishops Conference stated, "the faithful.. .require attention and pastoral care...so that in Medjugorje...a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary would be promoted in agreement with the teachings of the Church." Every sincere devotee of Our Blessed Mother will want nothing less. Here is an excellent opportunity to put into practice a true Catholic spirit of obedience and total submission as She would have us do.

What's wrong with "Poem of the Man-God"?
Maria Valtorta: Her grave mental illness and condemned writings
by Philip Pavich O.F.M.

Praised by Jesus and Many! Please let me share with you why it is so important to listen to the wisdom of the Vatican's condemnation. After living in the Holy Land for 11 years, I was personally never interested in reading the "Poem." I was simply indifferent to it. Then through confession of many pilgrims in Medugorje, I started receiving a whole collection of various "new-age" and trance channeled books of all types including `gospels' and `lives' of Jesus. One was the 4 lb., 2000 page URANTIA BOOK with a beautiful 700 page life of Jesus channeled by a group of spirits called the "Midwayer Commission." I thought, "this would be "fun" to read, much better than 4400 pages of Marie Valtorta!"

The thought then struck me that I should "check out" Valtorta. Being an old seminary teacher, I went to the introduction (gray pages) of Vol. 1. It was devastating! It described her as a "mystical writer" (p.IX) with all the symptoms of channeling, with `dictation' and `visions' which were out of her
control. "I can affirm", one of Valtorta's declarations reads, "that I have no human source to be able to know what I write, and what, even while writing, I often do not understand." (p. X) That meant one of two possibilities: it was either supernatural by God's Spirit or partly preternatural by a deceiving evil spirit. As I read on, it became more clear that is was the second. She knew that the chruch, Jesus' Mystical Body on earth, was not going to approve what "Jesus" Himself had written! "Why would the `dictating' Jesus be at odds with His Mystical Church Body on earth?" I asked myself.

The answers were clear. Emilio Pisani, the publisher, who wrote this introduction tried to cover up her serious psycholtic condition by piously claiming that God must have accepted the offering of her intellect as a sacrifice of reparation for the Church's "blocking" of the work. In other words, she went insane! She was driven by a compulsive mania to write on any available piece of paper, "Jesus I confide in You" which at times whe computed in terms of indulgences obtained. That hardly seemed the peaceful soul one would expect to find after writing 15,000 pages of intimate visions from Jesus! She developed echolalia, a schizophrenic reaction in which "...She progressively spoke less, to the point of limiting herself to the mechanical repetition of a greeting, or of the final words of a phrase addressed to her, frustrating all attempts at dialogue." The accusing words that follow then made it clear to me indeed that she was hosting a destructive decieving spirit. "She never asked for anything, and she allowed herself to be fed like a child.
When interrogated because of some serious circumstance regarding her writings, [of which there are many and I will quote a few later] she responded briefly and exactly, as if temporarily shaken out of her state of incommunicability."

To me this meant that the same spirit which had channeled all the 15,000 pages now broke through in what looked like a "lucid moment" but was really just the same evil spirit speaking through her mouth. I was then convinced that I would find very serious objections, indeed, if I began to look into the writings themselves. Before doing that, I was even more certain of what I would find by what I read on p.XII, the true title of this work.

We were never led to use the true title of which `Jesus revealed'! "THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AT IT WAS REVEALED TO LITTLE JOHN." No Catholic would ever have even looked at the books had they realized the truth! Why was the title so deceptively "fixed" to read THE POEM OF JESUS and the THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD? But even that proved to be the correct erroneous title for this condemned work. Never in 2000 years have we called Jesus the MAN-GOD? He is always for us the GOD-MAN, the second Person WORD OF GOD that became MAN. This mistake is far more revealing and serious than appears at first sight. It is standard to all eartern religions, and "new-age" doctrine, that each man can gain the Christ consciousness. This `Jesus' then was just another MAN who became GOD, like you and I can do! Of course this is very false!

The final proof was the bogus claim, "Nevertheless, it is a "gospel" which neither subsitutes nor changes the Gospel..." That is completely false because we have only four inspired canonical gospels. And I found numerous places where it changed. distorted, and lied about the Gospel. Then I started my search for falsehood in the text itself and found abundant proof of the error
I had expected. I shall only cite a few.

1. Vol.1, p.40 #7. "The Word puts His wisdom on His mother's lips". The wisdom which the Word puts on his 3 year old mother's lips is ludicrous in its blasphemy. "...I must be a virgin? I must...I want Him to love Me, His maiden, because of the virginity which will make Me somewhat like His beloved Mother...' Please note that virginity in Mary means sinlessness and would not just make her `somewhat' like his mother. Then comes the `wisdom':[compare Judas Vol.5, p. 641].
"I would also like to be a sinner, a big sinner, if I were not afraid of offending the Lord...Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?" At St. Ann's shock she goes on, "...I mean to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Saviour. Who is lost, is saved.[like Judas?] Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Saviour to receive His loving look. That is why I would like to sin, but not to commit a sin that would disgust Him. How can He save Me if I do not get lost?" (p.40). This `wisdom' is the heresy of apokatastasis and will later by applied to
Judas. Suffice it to say for now that any sincere Catholic is revolted and disgusted by such blasphemy in the mouth of Our Immacualte Conception even at age 3. Moreover, she had already received the most `loving look' possible from all eternity when the Father chose her on the very pages of Genesis 3:15. What a mocking lie that she could improve on that look and "win" God's loving look through wanting to be a big sinner! Yet, `Jesus' defends this `wisdom' as being from Him on p.41 and 42! So this `Jesus' is exactly what I had expected, a false and deceiving spirit like all the other false Jesus's in the new-age books.

2. Vol.1, #52. Jesus at the Wedding at Cana. In the real Gospel of John we read, "Women, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come." John 2:4 [literally in the Greek, `What to me and to you, women? not yet is come the hour of me'. Now remember the lying boast on p. XII, `neither substitutes nor changes the Gospel'. It is exactly what happens before your
eyes. "Women, what is there still between Me and You?" The words "My hour has not yet come" are totally deleted! On p. 283: "Jesus explains the meaning of the sentence to me. That word `still', which is omitted by many translators, is the key-word of the sentence and explains its true meaning." This is all lies.

We now hear this mendacious `Jesus' say that the true Gospel is wrong and this fiction gospel is right! He invents the word `still' not in the Greek NT, and then proceeds to give a total phantasy exegesis on the falsehood: "That "still", forgotten by most, meant this..." Another lie! It ws never
forgotten, it simply never existed! "That is the sense of that short but so full of meaning "still" (p.284). Where is the explanantion of the omitted NT words, "My hour has not yet come?"

3. Vol.5 #565...Judas of Kerioth is caught stealing. This bad fiction pasage reveals a terrifying and raging Jesus `the judge' before `Judas the demon' on p.222 who barely holds back thrice cursing Judas ..."with an efort of self-control that makes His whole body temble" p.223, who judges Judas," in a
low but dreadful voice...Thief! hief! Thief! ...Like Barabbas. Worse than him." breathing "that word on his face as they are now very close to each other." Remember Jesus said, "If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I do not come to judge the world but to save the world." John 12:47. It's tatally false to describe Jesus as the judge during his time on earth. Our Creed says "he will come to judge the living and the dead". Only at the end of the world will He judge! and irreversably!

More fiction and falsehood is on p.224 where Judas accuses Jesus: "It is I, only I, who must not accept the offerings of pilgrims. Because you do not want me to touch money." But the real Gospel of John 13:29 says: "A few had the idea that, since Judas held the common purse, Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the feast, or to give something to the poor." Also, John 12:6: "..he was a thief. He held the purse, and used to help himself to what was depositied there." Judas could have never accused Jesus of not letting him touch money!

Marie Valtorta has Satan entering the heart of Judas during this fictitious scene, p. 225. But on p. 507 at the Last Supper where John 13:27 says, "Satan entered his heart". Marie Valtorta is completely silent on Satan and even skips the whole passage in her commentary! Jesus is also blamed for tricking Judas into betraying Him on p. 506. "Take it, Judas. You like this." "Thank
you, Master. I do like it" and unaware...he bites the accusing bread... Jesus: "Well, Now that I have made you happy, go!" Judas: "I will obey you at once, Master. Then I will join you at Gethsemane. You are going there, are You not? As usual?" Jesus: "Let him go. He and I know what must be done." Yet Judas doesn't realize that Jesus has given him the curse in the morsel of
bread. Now instead of describing John 13:27: "Immediately after, Satan entered his heart," it is completely omitted from description in the very place where it belongs! Hardly E. Pisani's boast on p. XII!

4. Vol. 5, #606 ...The Spiritual Distress of Mary. The whole passage from p. 630 is insulting to Mary. On p. 631 she utters "O cruel hyenas joined to Satan, ...why have you not crucified Me with Him? Were you afraid of committing a second crime? ...And what was it for you killing a poor women, since you did not hesitate to kill God incarnate? Have you not committed a second crime? And is letting a mother outlive her murdered son not `the most nefarious crime?" This angry feminist Mary says letting her live was a worse crime than killing God incarnate!!

On p. 636 Mary is begging dead Jesus to protect her faith from Sata who "is crushing it in his coils to strangle it...and now with with his hooked poisonous teeth he is piercing the flesh of My heart paralysing its throbs, its strength and warmth. God! God! God! Do not allow Me to be distrustful! Do not allow doubt to freeze Me! Do not let Sata be free to lead Me to despair! Son! Son! Put your hand on My heart. It will drive Satan away." This is simply not our Mother of Faith! It is a blashpemous denigration of our Virgin most faithful, Queen of Martyrs!

5. Vol. 5, #607 The Return to the Supper Room. In this chapter so insulting to Mary and Jesus, it is very obvious that the raving hysterical Mary on p. 640 simply can not in any way be the Mother of all Mankind!!

"They are all killers, all of them!.. Go away! Go away!..I do not want to see anybody any more.. In every man there is a wolf and a snake. `Man disgusts and frightens Me...'

That `cannot' be the Mother of the `whole' human - male and female - race speaking! Rather a man-hating woman who goes on to demonstrate that she is in fact a type of `eco-feminist' as she would be called in today's new-age jargon. Then like the `witches' and `starhawks' of today's creation spirituality she prefers the stars to noisy human beings as her companions `because they come
from God! - implying that disgusting, frightening men do not come from God!

"Leave me here under these quiet trees, on this flowery grass... before long the stars will begin to shine...they have always been his friends and mine.. yesterday evening they kept us company in our lonely agony.. they know so many things...they come from God...oh! God! God!

The stars are personified and humanized as companions, friends who come from God, while disgusting man is de-humanized and rejected by the Mother of mankind! A vicous blasphemy of Mary and all mankind!

But that's not all. "The "Seat of Wisdom" is then presented as having lost her way and has to be conviced by the wise persuasion of the more wise Magdalene "who finds a reason capable of bending the Sorrowful Mother to obedience" (Vol. 5, p.641) and is reminded that she herself said:
"It will be easier for Him to rise, if He is free from these useless bandages [as if mere rags could restrain Him!] I (Magdalene) say to you: "If we succeed in being united in the faith in His Resurrection, He will rise earlier. [Than what? more pelagianism] We will evoke Him with our love...Mother, Mother of my Savior, come back with us, since you are the love of God, to give us this love of Yours! Do you want poor Mary of Magdala to get lost again, after He saved her with so much pity?"

The words "since you are the love of god" are fully erroneous. This is again the new-age divinization of Our Blessed Mother. But she gets a hold of herself and, convinced by Magdalene's false logic, `bends' "No, I would be reproached for that. You are right...". The Seat of Wisdom is bent with her reasoning! More insults to our Blessed Virgin Mary! But much worse is now to come!
Again Vol. 5, p.641.

"I must go back.. and look for the apostles...the disciples...the relatives...everybody...And say...say: have faith. Say: He forgives you... Whom have I already told so? Ah! The [Judas] Iscariot..I will have to...yes, I will have to look also for him... because he is the biggest sinner..." Mary remains with Her head bent on Her breast, trembling as if She wer disgusted, and then She says: "John, you will look for him. And you will bring him to Me. You `must' do that. And I `must' do that. Father `let also this be done for the redemption of Mankind...'".

This is the heresy "apokatastasis" - the final restitution of all, including Satan. Condemned in 553 but very current in modern new-age thinking, it means: Everybody gets saved! Similar to "universalism" in modern Protestantism, no one is excluded from heaven! And, of course, THERE IS NO HELL! It's also bad Christology. The Divine Mary will by her forgiveness perfect that which Jesus failed to do - namely redeem ALL mankind. The logic is clear. If Judas, the biggest sinner remains unforgiven, then mankind, of which he is a part, is not redeemed. By forgiving the biggest of all sinners, then no smaller sinner will thereby be excluded and ALL MANKIND WILL BE REDEEMED BY MARY! Was this the new Mariology that the Servites Fr. Berti and Fr. Roschini were so zealously trying to establish? Malignant stuff indeed! I was convinced!

These few passages show the falsehoods and blasphemous heresies from Vol.1. to Vol. 5! Private claims and expert theologians notwithstanding, from alpha to omega this is indeed evil channeled "doctrin of demons" as St. Paul call it 1 Tim 4:1. "The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some will turn away from the faith and will heed deceitful spirits and things taught by demons
through plausible liars..." I told Fr. Tomislav Pervan that from my search, the "Poem" had to be false. A pleasant surprise! He agreed with me and informed me it had been condemned by Pope John XXIII in 1959 and that Cardinal Ratzinger had repeated the validity of the condemnation as late as October 1985. He also provided me with copies of the Vatican papers of condemnation.

I puzzled over what to do about this discovery and over all the people being deceived. When Fr. Al Winshman finally pleaded for copies of the condemnation papers on October 3, 1991, I thought it was time to summarize them on a "fact sheet" and send them to all the Medjugorje centers, so that it would not trickle out through Fr. Winshman, who had been thoroughly convinced by what he
say anad talked to his group that night for several hours, saying he would have to cancel the orders he had taken from them. I thought people were going to be angry and well, let them be angry at me, and not at Fr. Winshman, who was already upset enough by having to face this unpleasant truth. He expressed his relief that he would not be investing a considerable sum of money in promoting meditation videos on these false Valtorta revelations.

Then Oct 17th, I wrote Fr. Mitch Pacwa SJ and sent him all the Vatican condemnation papers to forwarn him before the Chicago Medjugorje Conference in case they would perhaps choose not to sell the books in the Conference bookstore. I am very grateful that Fr. Pacwa then went to work on his article, researching more of the history, and the plainly deceptive advertising omissions of CEDIVAL and Prof. Brodeur!

Since Cardinal Ratzinger explained that the Index of Forbidden Books "retains all its moral force", though abolished in 1966, it is very clear then that we do not have the moral option to read books which the solemn teaching authority of the Church has cleary said are dangerous to our faith and morals. It is true there is no longer a law against reading private revelations, but always `with the assumption that they are not against faith and morals.' Now that we know the Church has spoken about this work, we can say we have the right to read it!

Cardinal Ratzinger made a similar type of clarification regarding membership in a Masonic lodge even though the Masons are no longer mentioned explicitly in Canon 1374 of the new 1983 Code of Canon Law. (dfr. The Declaration "Quaesitum est" On Masonic Societies, The Sacred Congregation for the Docrtin of the Faith: 26 Nov 1983: A.A.S. 76 (1984) p. 300. In that declaration he states that the negative position of the Church on membership in Masonic societies remains
unchanged, and that "the faithful who belong to Masonic societies sin grievously and cannot take Holy Communion." He also added that local church authorities do not have the power to make a decision about the nature of Masonic memberships that would not be in harmony with this declaration. Similarly the clarification given on the Index keeping its full moral force although it was legally abrogated (A.A.S. Nov 15, 1966) excludes the moral option to read a solemnly condemned work!

Just as we would not rationalize or justify our way into joining the Masons, so too, we should not disobendiently claim the right to read the solemnly condemned GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO LITTLE JOHN!. We all said we would obey the judgment of the Church. Now that there is a perfect chance to do just that, why be content with empty "lip service"? This applies to all of us. "Who hears you, hears Me. Who rejects you, rejects Me" Jesus said of his apostles. Neither theologians nor private opinions can override the teaching authority of the Church but are themselves judged by the Church's magisterium! It's time to obey the wisdom of Pope John XXIII. To quote St. Augstine, "Roma locuta, causa finita!" "Rome has spoken, the case is ended!"

What better opportunity for her children to put into practice the very spirit of their Blessed Mother, "Do whatever He (His Church) tells you!" "Behold the "slave" of the Lord, let it be done to me according to `Your' Word!" Anything else is simply unworthy and shameful behavior for a child of her who was blessed because she believed that everything said to her would be fulfilled. Would our Blessed Mother not be deeply saddened when so many or her children are being deceived by writings that actually denigrate and blaspheme Jesus and His own Virgin and sinless Mother? Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, we trust in you.

Fr. Philip Pavich OFM St. James Church, 88266 Medjugorje.