Maria Valtorta Readers' Group, November 2025
“It's very clear that the statement of the DDF does not prohibit reading The Poem. [...] We can personally continue, as I will personally continue, to believe in the supernatural character of The Poem of the Man-God.”
Table of Contents
TL;DR Executive Summary
Contrary to claims by many Valtorta opponents, the February 22, 2025 DDF statement does not declare that Maria Valtorta’s writings lack a supernatural origin. Press releases and articles suggesting otherwise contain grave errors and false claims. Non-supernaturality is explicitly defined and does not apply to Valtorta’s case—primarily for reasons of form (non-compliance with the Norms) but above all for reasons of substance. Such a determination cannot currently be made by the Vatican, as no official investigation has been conducted. Moreover, the examples cited in the Norms for issuing a constat de non supernaturalitate do not apply to Maria Valtorta’s writings.The distinction between “are not of supernatural origin” and “cannot be considered of supernatural origin” reflects a deliberate prudential choice. The first is a categorical judgment; the second—the words actually used by the DDF—is advisory, allowing readers to exercise personal discernment within Catholic doctrine. Contemporary Catholics remain fully free to read, promote, and personally believe in the divine inspiration of Valtorta’s works without sin, disobedience, or ecclesiastical censure. In short, the Vatican statement does not prohibit, ban, or censure either the reading of Valtorta’s works or a personal belief in their supernatural origin.
Multiple lines of evidence—including historical, scientific, textual, and biblical verification—strongly support a supernatural origin. Pastoral encouragement from Pius XII, Paul VI, and Pope Francis reflects Church acceptance and guidance for discernment, though not yet formal recognition of supernatural origin.
Formal DDF approval is unlikely in the near term due to deficiencies in the 2024 Norms, as well as modernist influences and corruption within the DDF, notably under the controversial leadership of Cardinal Fernández. Historical evidence shows strong support by Pius XII, but also significant corruption and past errors by some Holy Office officials in evaluating Valtorta’s work, underscoring the prudence required in navigating this topic.
Given her enduring readership, widespread availability, and the absence of a binding doctrinal condemnation, the 2025 DDF statement is unlikely to significantly impede the global distribution or influence of Valtorta’s writings. Divine dictations received by Valtorta warn of punishments for clergy who obstructed or rejected her revelations, while also foretelling that her writings will one day receive universal recognition and enjoy widespread use during a future period of peace, likely corresponding to the Fatima prophecy.
For further context, see international responses from Valtorta organizations, foundations, and scholars to the 2025 DDF statement (links provided in the final section of this article).
The February 22, 2025 Press Release from the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith on Maria Valtorta’s Writings
On February 22, 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a press release regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta. This marks the first time in decades that the Vatican has made a statement on the matter. Prior to this, the most recent statement came in 1992, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith granted permission to Dr. Emilio Pisani of the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano (the publishing house for Maria Valtorta's works) to continue publishing her writings as it is without any needed modifications to the text. In a letter dated May 6, 1992 (Prot. N. 324-92), Bishop Dionigi Tettamanzi, Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference, authorized the ongoing publication of Valtorta's works for the "true good of readers and in the spirit of genuine service to the faith of the Church" (Pro e contro Maria Valtorta, 5th edition, Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, 2008, pp. 263-265). It is important to note that in each country, it is typically the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference who conveys the Church's official position on such matters.The English version of the February 22, 2025 Vatican statement is reproduced below:1
The Holy See frequently receives requests from both clergy and laity for a clarification about the Church's position on the writings of Maria Valtorta, such as her work, Il poema dell'Uomo Dio (The Poem of the Man-God), now known by the title, L'Evangelo come mi è stato rivelato (The Gospel as Revealed to Me), and other publications.
It should be reiterated that alleged "visions", "revelations," and "messages" contained in the writings of Maria Valtorta—or, in any case, attributed to them—cannot be regarded as having a supernatural origin. Rather, they should be considered simply as literary forms that the author used to narrate the life of Jesus Christ in her own way.
In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the Apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts since it does not recognize them as divinely inspired. Instead, the Church refers back to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.
Vatican City, 22 February 2025
The Grave Errors and False Claims in the Press Releases and Articles of Valtorta Opponents
Many articles and press releases from organizations opposing Valtorta have misinterpreted the DDF statement in a highly negative and factually inaccurate manner. As Fabrice-Marie Gagnant observes regarding events in France, “French-speaking media and opponents of Valtorta (e.g., Aleteia, Famille Chrétienne, La Croix, Cathobel, Don Guillaume Chevallier, French Wikipedia) were quick to circulate this statement, presenting it as a finding of non-supernaturalitate—meaning that the events are not considered supernatural—or even as a “condemnation,” which it is not.”2Valtorta defenders note that these articles were often hastily produced in just a few hours by authors unfamiliar with the story of Maria Valtorta or with the relevant Church documents and history. The French Valtorta wiki relates that one of the publications had to correct a glaring mistake: “It should be noted that on March 17, 2025, the I.MEDIA agency corrected its dispatch, apologizing for statements falsely attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, and sent the correction to its subscribers; however, few French media outlets took this correction into account.”3 We have often observed that such major, demonstrable errors are common among many Valtorta critics, as is a stubborn unwillingness to correct them when they are pointed out, though there are a few exceptions.
Valtorta scholar, François-Michel Debroise, explains: “Commenting on the strict presentation of the facts, some media relied on prejudicial arguments reproduced by imitation. For example, citing as a theological reference the opinion of a single theologian who lacks experience, a teaching position, and publications, while omitting the positions of recognized theologians with solid expertise and responsibilities at pontifical universities, cannot be considered a neutral approach. The same applies to the sources cited. Anyone can see that the statement from the Dicastery no longer refers to the Index, which has been legally abolished for 59 years. Other citations reflect a confusion of sources, which contributes to perpetuating ambiguity.”4
In the English-speaking world, a similar phenomenon occurred as in France. Many articles—often written by authors with little knowledge of the relevant Valtortian history and with minimal research—presented an interpretation of the DDF statement as a definitive condemnation, which it is not, completely ignored the numerous scholars and foundations holding contrary views, and displayed a clear and unmistakable bias.
For a more reliable and balanced Wikipedia-like resource that presents both sides—including an analysis of the so-called “definitive condemnation” thesis promoted by many Valtorta opponents—see the mariavaltorta.wiki article: Statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on Maria Valtorta – February 22, 2025. Mariavaltorta.wiki is exceptionally comprehensive, with over 1,000 articles on Valtorta written by internationally recognized scholars.
Olivier Bonnassies writes:5
The Vatican’s reservations are also tempered by other significant positions: Pope Pius XII read the work and said, “Publish it; those who read it will understand”; after her death, Maria Valtorta’s body was transferred in 1973 to the Basilica of the Santissima Annunziata in Florence; in recent years, Bishop Giulietti, the bishop of Maria Valtorta’s diocese, has celebrated the anniversary of her death with increasingly positive homilies: “What she writes, in certain parts, cannot simply be of natural origin”; and last but not least, in response to a submission by Professor Liberato di Caro (see his interview at 1:03:00), Don Ernesto Zucchini and the Maria Valtorta Foundation received from the Vatican Secretariat of State a letter signed by Pope Francis, dated February 24, 2024: “I encourage you to continue with enthusiasm your mission to make known the life of Maria Valtorta and her literary work, and all that it can offer for the good of the Church and society. Onward!”
One can also refer to the great theologians and world-renowned authorities who have studied her. For example, Father Gabriel Roschini (1900–1977), of international renown, founder of the Pontifical Theological Institute Marianum in Rome and author of 125 books, said: "The Mariology that emerges from the writings of Maria Valtorta was for me a true discovery. No other Marian writings, not even the sum total of everything 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."
Why This Vatican Statement Cannot be Considered a Negative Declaration of Non Supernaturalness (constat de non supernaturalitate)
The Maria Valtorta Foundation writes:6We know that the possible supernatural origin of Maria Valtorta’s works has not yet been fully studied by the Church, and therefore it can only pronounce itself as it has done. We promote study and research in this area, because we are convinced that, on the other hand, the origin of these writings cannot be reduced to a purely human source. We therefore seek to provide the Church with contributions— including scientific ones—so that it can investigate and determine the origin of these writings. Based on the criteria for discernment in this field, factors such as consistency with Church doctrine and the effect on the People of God must be considered: theological studies and numerous testimonies show a faith strengthened in the truths of the Tradition of the Catholic Magisterium.
Despite the claims of some Valtorta opponents, an objective evaluation of the DDF statement, the Vatican’s Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, and the surrounding evidence shows that it cannot be interpreted, proven, or justified as a Negative Declaration of Non-Supernaturalness (constat de non supernaturalitate). On the contrary, this formula is explicitly defined and does not apply to the case of Maria Valtorta—primarily for reasons of form (non-compliance with the norms) and, more importantly, for reasons of substance. Here is a summary of the reasons, which we expand on further below in this article:
1. No explicit formula was used: The DDF did not use the explicit formula constat de non supernaturalitate, which has been used by the DDF in two other cases since the new Norms published in 2024.
2. Lack of exhaustive study: The absence of an exhaustive study carried out on the writings of Maria Valtorta deprives the Church of being able to pronounce a constat de non supernaturalitate statement. No investigation, mandatory and official, has been carried out according to the four criteria required by procedural standards.
3. Norms inapplicable: Examples provided in the Norms for a constat de non supernaturalitate do not apply to the case of Maria Valtorta.
4. Prudential wording: The distinction between “are not of supernatural origin” and “cannot be considered of supernatural origin” reflects deliberate ecclesial prudence. The first formulation would be a definitive and categorical judgment, while the second leaves room for a personal assessment within the framework of Catholic doctrine.
5. Consistency with 1992: The 2025 statement changes nothing from the position communicated by the CDF/DDF in 1992.
French Valtorta scholar François-Michel Debroise writes in response to a critic of Maria Valtorta:
When Maillard, on his YouTube account, declares Maria Valtorta "condemned" in connection with the Dicastery's statement (February 22, 2025), he is making an interpretative reading. If the Dicastery had intended to say that Maria Valtorta's work was not of divine origin, it would have stated so as clearly as possible by using the official explicit formula: "constat de non supernaturalitate." There are examples of this on the Dicastery's website. [See note 1 below] This is not the case with the statement in question. Similarly, there is no reference to a diocesan inquiry, even though this is required by law. For our part, we have explained and justified that this is an appeal to the "prudential reading of human faith," which is both a right and an ancient practice for all private revelations, even those "recognized" by the Magisterium (see Cardinal Lambertini, Pius X, Cardinal Ratzinger). [See note 2 below]
Note 1: For example: The case of Mrs. Gisella Cardia, one of the two cases judged negatively according to the new Norms, explicitly indicates the final judgment as "constat de non supernaturalitate" and references the bishop's judgment. These elements are completely absent from the statement regarding Maria Valtorta.
Note 2: Cardinal Ratzinger recalls this principle in his theological commentary on the Secret of Fatima (last part of the document). St. Pius X expressed it in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), section 75.
The mariavaltorta.wiki article on the DDF statement notes:7
Absence of Prior Study or Explicit Reasons
The Maria Valtorta Foundation (of Viareggio) notes in its press release of February 23, 2025, that the lack of a comprehensive study of Maria Valtorta’s writings deprives the Church of the ability to pronounce itself in any way other than it has done. It therefore considers that this press release represents a preliminary opinion ahead of the formal process.
“We know that the possible supernatural origin of Maria Valtorta’s works has not yet been fully studied by the Church, and therefore it can only pronounce itself as it has done.”
According to François-Michel Debroise, in the article he devotes to it, this press release cannot be linked to the Procedural Norms, which it ignores on several points, particularly the absence of concrete evidence in the case of a finding of non-supernaturalness. He therefore believes that this communication solemnly intends to convey something else to the readers of Maria Valtorta.
Olivier Bonnassies, in his article, notes that the Church’s last investigation dates back to 1959 with the placement on the Index, which he explains in the context of the time and highlights, with examples, as being fallible and reversible.
Overextended Understanding of the Communiqué
To treat this communiqué as an official declaration of non-supernatural origin for Maria Valtorta’s writings would indeed be inadmissible in light of the recent Procedural Norms. According to these norms:
1. The Church hierarchy no longer aims to pronounce on the supernatural character of a phenomenon, but rather to examine its content and offer a prudential reading, graded in six levels. However, this communiqué contains no prohibition on reading.
2. If, exceptionally, a judgment on divine origin were needed, only the Pope could authorize it. Nothing indicates such papal initiative here, especially as the communiqué coincided with the Pope’s prolonged hospitalization, and no extraordinary event is mentioned.
3. A declaration of non-supernatural character (still possible by the Dicastery) must be based on concrete and verified facts. No such facts are presented here, and the examples given in the procedural norms do not apply to Maria Valtorta. This position has remained unchanged for 33 years.
4. No official investigation was conducted according to the four criteria required by the procedural norms, which seek to determine:
a) whether signs of divine action are present in the presumed supernatural phenomena;
b) whether any writings or messages involved contain nothing contrary to faith and morals;
c) whether their spiritual fruits can be evaluated, or if problematic elements require purification or caution for the faithful;
d) whether pastoral promotion by the competent ecclesial authority is appropriate.
5. Investigations are to be led by the diocesan bishop in dialogue with the national episcopal conference. The Archbishop of Lucca, as diocesan bishop for Maria Valtorta, interpreted the 1992 opinion as advice for prudential reading, not a prohibition. No final report or conclusions justifying a non-supernatural judgment have been submitted.
6. The Dicastery document is a simple communiqué, without an explicit dated or sourced decision, unlike the typical notes accompanying its decisions or communiqués bearing the official “constat de non supernaturalitate,” which is entirely absent here.
NON-SUPERNATURALITY
This is explicitly defined and does not apply to the case of Maria Valtorta, primarily for reasons of form (non-compliance with the norms) but above all for reasons of substance. Here is what the norms state:
22. Declaration of non-supernaturality — In this case, the diocesan Bishop is authorized by the Dicastery to declare that the phenomenon is recognized as non-supernatural. This decision must be based on concrete and proven facts and evidence. For example, when an alleged seer admits to having lied, or when credible witnesses provide elements that allow the discovery of falsification of the phenomenon, erroneous intent, or mythomania.
At the very beginning of the text, the DDF specified:
At the same time, in some events of alleged supernatural origin, there are serious critical issues that are detrimental to the faithful; in these situations, the Church must respond with utmost pastoral solicitude. In particular, I am thinking of the use of such phenomenon to gain “profit, power, fame, social recognition, or other personal interest” (II, Art. 15, 4°)—even possibly extending to the commission of gravely immoral acts (cf. II, Art.15, 5°) or the use of these phenomena “as a means of or pretext for exerting control over people or carrying out abuses” (II, Art. 16).
When considering such events, one should not overlook, for example, the possibility of doctrinal errors, an oversimplification of the Gospel message, or the spread of a sectarian mentality. Finally, there is the possibility of believers being misled by an event that is attributed to a divine initiative but is merely the product of someone’s imagination, desire for novelty, tendency to fabricate falsehoods (mythomania), or inclination toward lying.
Regarding these latter points (which might be objected to us), it is appropriate to refer to the commentaries of the judgments that address them and do not constitute a finding of non supernaturalitate (§22).
20. Sub mandato
21. Prohibetur et obstruatur
Such facts fall within the scope of clear and effective pastoral care. They are incompatible with any unrestricted reading (as permitted by the cited ecclesiastical authorities). It is also noted that non-supernaturality is reserved for proven satanic acts of lies and falsifications, which are entirely absent in the Valtorta case.
François-Michel Debroise writes:9
Prudential Reading
This distinction between condemnation and prudential reading is essential for understanding the Church’s position regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta. A formal condemnation would carry clear dogmatic and disciplinary weight, explicitly forbidding the faithful from considering these writings as inspired in any divine manner. Yet the wording adopted, both in 1992 and in 2025, excludes such a strict prohibition.
The nuance between “are not of supernatural origin” and “cannot be considered of supernatural origin” reflects a deliberate choice of ecclesiastical prudence. The first formulation would constitute a judgment on the work itself, a definitive and categorical judgment. The second, however, is advice to readers. It allows for personal discernment within the framework of Catholic doctrine. This means that, although a divine origin is not officially recognized, it is not forbidden to read these writings for meditation or spiritual edification, provided that the interpretation remains in conformity with the faith.
This prudential approach is part of a well-established tradition, notably recalled by Benedict XIV (Lambertini, 18th century) in his reference treatise on beatifications and canonizations, where he specifies that the Church, when faced with private revelations, gives only negative approval—that is, it does not guarantee their divine origin—without rejecting them wholesale. This caution has been maintained over the centuries, from the interventions of Pius X on mystical phenomena to those of Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), who, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasized the importance of a clear distinction between public Revelation, closed with the Apostles, and private revelations, which are always subordinate to it.
Thus, the faithful who wish to respect the teaching of the Church must bear in mind that the writings of Maria Valtorta, while receiving no official recognition of their supernatural character, are not subject to an absolute prohibition. It is precisely this distinction that allows their reading within a framework of personal discernment, guided by Catholic doctrine and in a spirit of obedience to ecclesiastical authority.
Condemnation or Prudential Reading?
François-Michel Debroise notes that if the Dicastery’s intention had been to condemn, it would have used clear wording expressing its motivations. On the contrary, in the 1992 text, echoed in that of 2025, there is a nuance which, according to this commentator, is more consistent with the purpose of the communiqué: addressing the readers in both cases. He interprets it as the “prudential reading” referred to by the Procedural Norms and by the Church’s consistent tradition in this matter:
“This distinction between condemnation and prudential reading is essential for understanding the Church’s position regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta. [...] The nuance between ‘are not of supernatural origin’ and ‘cannot be considered of supernatural origin’ reflects a deliberate choice of ecclesiastical prudence. The first formulation would constitute a definitive and categorical judgment, whereas the second allows for personal discernment within the framework of Catholic doctrine.”
The communiqué states that the writings of Maria Valtorta “cannot be considered of supernatural origin” (and not “are not”).
It is the verb can (pouvoir) that is used, not the verb to be (être). And this for two reasons:
First reason: the absence of an investigation
To date, the ecclesiastical authority has done nothing since the 1940s to study Maria Valtorta’s texts or evaluate the numerous theological and scientific studies that have continued to accumulate since then. In the absence of an investigation, the ecclesiastical authority cannot provide investigative conclusions or rule on the origin of Maria Valtorta’s writings.
Second reason: the loss of legal capacity since May 17, 2024
It should be noted that since the entry into force, on May 17, 2024, of the six new Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, the Constat de supernaturalitate has been abolished. The highest degree of recognition of an unusual phenomenon is now limited to the Nihil obstat (granted to Medjugorje 104 days after the Norms took effect).
Since that date, the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Pope) can no longer formally recognize the divine origin of a supernatural phenomenon.
Indeed, the document recalls that “one should not ordinarily expect a positive recognition from the ecclesiastical authority regarding the divine origin of presumed supernatural phenomena” (cf. I. General Orientations, A. Nature of Discernment, §11), and that “neither the diocesan bishop, nor the episcopal conferences, nor the Dicastery, as a general rule, will declare that these phenomena are of supernatural origin, even when a Nihil obstat is granted. It is understood that the Holy Father may authorize a procedure in this regard” (cf. I. General Orientations, B. Conclusions, §23).
Furthermore, “it remains possible, however, for the Holy Father to intervene by authorizing, in entirely exceptional cases, a procedure for a potential declaration of the supernatural character of events: this is indeed an exception, which has occurred only in very rare cases over the past centuries” (cf. Presentation, New Aspects).
Thus, if the Dicastery had recognized the supernatural origin of Maria Valtorta’s texts, it would have violated the very norms it itself promulgated.
Finally, it should be noted that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith can authorize the diocesan bishop to declare that a “phenomenon is recognized as non-supernatural,” based on “concrete and verified facts and evidence,” such as falsification or mythomania (cf. I. General Orientations, B. Conclusions, §22). This requires an official investigation, which, in the case of Maria Valtorta, does not exist.
In the case of Maria Valtorta’s writings, the Dicastery writes “cannot” and not “must not,” which would constitute a constat de non supernaturalitate.
In summary, the Dicastery is correct in stating that Maria Valtorta’s “visions” and “dictations” cannot be considered of supernatural origin. This for two reasons:
• because it has never conducted an investigation on the subject;
• because it has no longer had the legal competence to do so since May 17, 2024.
In a letter dated May 6, 1992 (Prot. N. 324-92), addressed to Dr. Emilio Pisani (the publisher of Maria Valtorta’s works), Monsignor Dionigi Tettamanzi, secretary to the Italian Episcopal Conference, gave permission for the work to continue to be published for the “true good of readers and in the spirit of the genuine service to the faith of the Church.” Dr. Pisani relates concerning this letter:12
Our comment immediately points to the conclusion that the Work of Maria Valtorta does not contain errors or inaccuracies concerning faith and morals; otherwise Monsignor Tettamanzi would have asked the Publisher to correct or eliminate such specific errors or inaccuracies “for the true good of readers.” Monsignor Tettamanzi did not even ask that any form of expression that declares the supernatural origin of the Work be corrected, because he maintained that the only declaration that the Publisher had to make at the beginning of the volumes would be enough “for the true good of readers,” and to act “in the spirit of an authentic service to the faith of the Church”: thereby signifying that the content of the Work is sound. In fact, the Church has condemned books that are contrary to faith and morals and which did not claim to be a revelation or even inspired at all.
Approved in content and exonerated in its form. This is how we can sum up the latest position taken by the Ecclesiastical Authority on Maria Valtorta’s Work. Such a position was confirmed verbally to the publisher, Emilio Pisani, in the Palace of the Holy Office at the Vatican, 30 June 1992. On that occasion, he learned that the letter of the Secretary General of the CEI [Italian Episcopal Conference] had been suggested by an office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it had been decided “on High” that the Work of Maria Valtorta could be read by everyone “like a good book.”
The Maria Valtorta Heritage Foundation wrote:13
Press Release of the Maria Valtorta Heir Foundation – March 6, 2025
The press release from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith dated February 22, 2025, “Regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta”, in fact brings nothing new on this subject.
It repeats the elements of the Italian Bishops’ Conference of May 6, 1992 (prot. 324/92), written by Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi:
“The ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ [of Maria Valtorta] cannot be considered of supernatural origin, but should be understood simply as literary forms used by the Author to recount, in her own way, the life of Jesus.”
The only novelty we can observe is in the last paragraph of the communiqué, where it is stated:
“In its long tradition, the Church does not accept apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts as normative, because it does not recognize their divine inspiration, referring instead to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.”
The fate of Maria Valtorta’s work — not being recognized as divinely inspired — is thus equated with that of all other similar texts, including the apocryphal Gospels. The only texts whose divine inspiration the Church officially recognizes are the canonical Gospels.
Even if Maria Valtorta were one day beatified or canonized after an examination of her virtues, this would not change the Church’s position on private revelations.
Indeed, the new norms of the Catholic Church of May 17, 2024 (“For Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena”) reaffirm:
“As a rule, neither the Diocesan Bishop, nor the Episcopal Conferences, nor the Dicastery will declare that these phenomena are of supernatural origin, even if a Nihil obstat is granted (cf. Par. 11, above). It remains true, however, that the Holy Father can authorize a special procedure in this regard.” (General Orientations, §23)
The only official act of the Ecclesiastical Authority regarding the major work written by Maria Valtorta is its inscription on the Index by a decision of December 16, 1959, which became obsolete with the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of June 14, 1966, stating that the Index “no longer has the force of ecclesiastical law with the censures attached to it.”
Private revelations have a well-defined role in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“[…] even though Revelation is complete, it is not completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (§66)
“Over the centuries there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. […] Their role is not to ‘improve’ or ‘complete’ the definitive Revelation of Christ, but to help live it more fully at a certain time in history […].” (§67)
Based on testimonies we receive from around the world — both from ordinary faithful and clergy — we observe that Maria Valtorta’s writings provide a spiritual reading that brings profound benefit to the Church and to the wider community, not only Christian, given the large number of conversions they inspire.
THE SENSUS FIDEI
It is defined in the following paragraph of the procedural norms:
Recognizing an Action of the Holy Spirit
Most of the shrines that today are privileged places of popular piety for the People of God have never had an official declaration of the supernatural nature of the events that led to the devotion expressed there. Rather, the sensus fidelium intuited the activity of the Holy Spirit there, and no major problems have arisen that required an intervention from the pastors of the Church.
Often, the presence of the Bishop and priests at certain times—such as during pilgrimages or celebrating certain Masses—has served as an implicit acknowledgment that there are no serious objections and that the spiritual experience had a positive influence on the lives of the faithful.
The letter of encouragement from Pope Francis (2024), just as the five pastoral catecheses of Bishop Giulietti (the bishop responsible for the cause of Maria Valtorta– 2021-2023) implicitly (Pope Francis) or explicitly (Bishop Giulietti) recognize the action of the Holy Spirit and do not oppose any doctrinal or pastoral restrictions on “popular piety” (reading and dissemination). The same applies, for this latter point, to the position of the Italian Episcopal Conference (1992) as well as to the position of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. For both Pope Francis and Bishop Giulietti, there is more than mere authorization: there is encouragement to continue.
The mariavaltorta.wiki article on the Verbal Imprimatur of Pius XII and its canonical value relates:14Progress Report on Words of Authority (2025)
A certain current of opinion believed it recognized in the press release from the Dicastery of February 22, 2025 the culmination of a radical opposition from the Vatican, first manifested 65 years earlier with the inscription on the Index. According to this view, the writings of Maria Valtorta would not be of supernatural origin and could even be harmful or dangerous.
But such a condemnation could not be linked to the new norms published in 2024 (which would make it an ecclesiastical law), in fact:
• The judgment of the Dicastery does not concern the work itself, but the way it is to be regarded.
• Non-supernaturality would entail a legal and de facto proscription, which is not indicated here.
• It would have to be motivated by serious and proven facts of deception and falsification, which is not the case.
• It would bear the official mention “constat de non supernaturalitate,” which is completely absent.
• It would refer to conclusions of the Ordinary of the place (the Archbishop of Lucca in this case), which do not exist and are not mentioned.
• And above all, such an interpretation would amount to accusing Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Lucca of having endorsed and encouraged such a harmful work, worthy of the most degrading official evaluation.
Indeed, Pope Francis, in his letter of February 24, 2024, addressed to the President of the Maria Valtorta Foundation (Viareggio), “[encourages them] to continue with such commitment [their] mission of making known the life of Maria Valtorta and her literary work, particularly all that it can offer for the good of the Church and of society. Onward!”
The Archbishop of Lucca, in his five pastoral letters (2021-2023) renders the reading of the work licit and encourages its thorough examination.
Such a hypothesis, which would implicate two pillars of the Church, seems astounding to many. Yet it is a reprise of an attitude once held by the Holy Office, pointing out the naivety of “illustrious personalities (whose unquestionable good faith was taken advantage of) who lent their support to the publication.” The wording is sufficiently ambiguous to leave it unclear whether this reproach applied to the late Pope, who had also encouraged the dissemination of this popular work.
The Conditional Imprimatur
On four occasions, ecclesiastical authorities have pronounced on the writings of Maria Valtorta.
• 1992: The Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference delivers, in a friendly tone, a pastoral advice on reading, which the Dicastery would later echo 33 years later (2025): The visions and dictations of Maria Valtorta “cannot be considered of supernatural origin, but should be understood simply as literary forms used by the Author to recount, in her own way, the life of Jesus.” This wording reflects the unchanged position of the Church to this day.
• 1993: Bishop Raymond J. Boland of Birmingham, Alabama, responding to Mr. Terry Colafrancesco who asked him about the Church’s position, stated that it was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who had requested the Italian bishops’ conference to write this letter to the Italian publisher. Whereas any edition had previously been prohibited by the Index (1959/1960) and later its reading discouraged (Card. J. Ratzinger, 1985), this time the republication was no longer proscribed but conditioned on the way it was approached (conditional imprimatur). Nothing now opposes its dissemination, except the way it might be used (substitution for the canonical Gospel). The original letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was dated April 17, 1993, and bore the reference 144/58. Professor Brodeur interprets this as a “reversal” of Cardinal J. Ratzinger’s position.
• The doctrinal commission of the French Episcopal Conference: In 2021, it “warned” against the “unrecognized” work and, in some respects, ostracized its readership.
• Finally, the Dicastery: It echoes Cardinal J. Ratzinger’s position, relayed by the Italian Episcopal Conference. It shows concern to demonstrate why the insistent request for “recognition” is canonically inadmissible. Maria Valtorta’s work is not part of the official canon of Scripture (it is “apocryphal”), which Jesus himself had declared to Maria Valtorta.
In all four cases, the intervention is motivated by the influx of requests. The readership movement is now perceptible on the scale of the universal Church. This sign of the work’s permanence and popularity is directed toward the Catholic Church and is therefore not schismatic.
The Prudential Reading of Human Faith
In his theological commentary on the Secret of Fatima (2000) and later in his post-synodal exhortation (2010), Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) reminds that the Church never gives “assent of faith” to private revelations; it only declares that they may be made public (imprimatur) and that they contain nothing contrary to faith or morals (Nihil obstat). Consequently, it is licit to accept them “with prudence.”
It is by this standard that the “prudential reading” of human faith, requested of readers of Maria Valtorta, must be understood. This is a requirement difficult for them to grasp, as they legitimately and experientially believe that this work is divinely inspired and proclaim it at every opportunity.
This Vatican Statement Does Not Prohibit, Ban, or Censure Reading Valtorta’s Works
The Maria Valtorta Foundation writes:15The DDF statement neither forbids nor discourages the reading of Valtorta’s works; it simply once again calls for the holy prudence which is necessary even when one is faced with a private revelation, which indeed requires proper discernment regarding its manner and content.
Furthermore, the statement does not pronounce on the person of Maria Valtorta, as her life is obviously linked to, but distinct from, her works: her sanctity could be recognized even without making a statement on whether her writings are of supernatural origin or not.
Finally, we gratefully recall the letter of response received last year from Pope Francis, in which he wrote:
“I encourage you to continue with such dedication your task of making known the life of Maria Valtorta and her literary work, particularly all that it can offer for the good of the Church and of society.”
We will therefore continue our activities using the Valtorta’s works, which we believe to be an “illustration” of the mysteries of Salvation, serving as an effective tool for the New Evangelization.
Dr. Miravalle identifies a deficiency in the Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, issued by the Vatican on May 17, 2024, noting that these norms do not serve the Church in the best possible way. Regarding the February 2025 DDF statement on Valtorta’s writings, he explains:
"It should be obeyed. What that means is that we are not to present The Poem of the Man-God or the writings of Maria Valtorta as if they are presently under a category of supernatural approval by the DDF. That of course is a discipline that could change next week theoretically. I wouldn't hold your breath [that it will change as soon as next week], but that's the nature of a discipline: disciplines can change." (2:09 through 3:41)
Later in the video, he clarifies the distinction between obedience and personal belief:"We should always obey the Church's discipline. In this case the DDF has come out and said this is not supernatural. Now what does obedience mean? It means we do not publicly present The Poem as if it's anything but what the DDF says at this point. So if we go around saying, 'The DDF says it's supernatural,' this is obviously disobedience. We got to grant what the DDF has stated and we should not pass on or promulgate The Poem as if it were dictated/determined/confirmed as supernatural. Does that mean that one can personally retain a faith on a private level in the supernatural character of it? Of course! The Church doesn't dictate that. We can certainly personally believe that The Poem is of a supernatural origin." (22:43 through 23:50)
Again later he emphasizes that personal beliefs about the supernatural origin of The Poem may be retained:"We can personally continue, as I will personally continue, to believe in the supernatural character of The Poem of the Man-God". (24:28 through 24:35)
He also affirms: "It's very clear that the statement of the DDF does not prohibit reading The Poem." (25:40 through 25:45)As the Maria Valtorta Readers' Group, we obey the DDF statement, while retaining our personal belief in the supernatural character of Maria Valtorta's writings. We do not present The Poem of the Man-God or the writings of Maria Valtorta as if they are presently under the category of a supernatural approval by the DDF, nor have we ever done so. We affirm that the DDF has not classified these writings as supernatural, but we hold our personal conviction that they are, indeed, of supernatural origin. We affirm other Catholics are permitted to hold that opinion as well. Moreover, we believe that, in the future (possibly decades from now), the Vatican will formally recognize her writings with the highest levels of approval possible for a private revelation, following a necessary purification and renewal within the Vatican itself.
Clarification on the DDF’s Reference to Apocryphal Literature
As a reminder, the 2025 DDF statement included the sentences:“In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the Apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts since it does not recognize them as divinely inspired. Instead, the Church refers back to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.”
The Maria Valtorta Foundation writes:16As the Maria Valtorta Foundation (ETS), we fully agree that the writings of Maria Valtorta are NOT an apocryphal Gospel, nor, much less, a so-called “fifth Gospel.” We have always upheld and strongly reaffirmed this truth, reminding and explaining it even to some passionate readers we have actually met. We do not know what prompted the statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, but unfortunately, we can imagine entirely inappropriate comments, which we urge all readers of Valtorta’s works to refrain from making on any occasion, whether public or private.
François-Michel Debroise writes:17
Private Revelations
Are the writings of Maria Valtorta an “apocryphal gospel,” as the statement suggests?
Yes, if one remembers that in the Catholic Church, a gospel is called apocryphal when it is not part of the canon of Scriptures recognized as inspired by God and received as a rule of faith (Public Revelation).
No, if one takes the common meaning of “false.” The Catholic canon of Scripture today includes books [such as Tobit, Judith, and 1–2 Maccabees] that, in certain historical periods—such as the age of cathedrals and monasteries—were sometimes called apocryphal [in scholarly or historical discussions, though they have long been recognized as inspired and authoritative]. [Concerning texts that are still considered apocryphal today,] we honor St. Anne and St. Joachim, unknown to the Gospels but recounted in the Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd-century apocryphal text. Likewise, the Transitus Mariae long recounted the “legend” of the Assumption, unknown to the Gospels, which the Church only formally recognized as a dogma of faith after twenty centuries of theological discussion and debate.
Holy prudence is therefore also required in a too-quick reading of information. This is why we believe in the prudent reading recommended by the ecclesiastical authority. We believe in the conviction given to us by reading this work, so authentically inspired. We believe in the constitutive freedom of the children of God, already defended by St. Paul, who submitted his revelations to the Church (Galatians 2:1-5).
The Church does not write “are not of supernatural origin” but rather “cannot be considered as such.” Why this fine semantic distinction repeated in all three formulations (1992, 1993, 2025)?
In this regard, the communiqué of the Dicastery (which no longer mentions the placing on the Index) offers an important clarification that the other documents (1992 and 1993) did not provide: “In its long tradition, the Church does not accept apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts as normative, because it does not recognize their divine inspiration, referring instead to the reliable reading of the inspired Gospels.” What the Church says, therefore, was not created specifically for this case, but simply applied to the case of Maria Valtorta.
The Church, in fact, recognizes as normative and reliable only the writings included in the canon of Scripture. The apocryphal books are not recognized as being of divine inspiration and therefore cannot serve as a norm of faith or morals, even if they may contain interesting historical or spiritual elements. By “long tradition,” they are considered as simple literary forms employed by their authors to recount the life of Christ in their own way, without the Church attributing to them any normative character. In other words, if the Church were officially to recognize the divine origin of Maria Valtorta’s work, it would make it a canonical book with universal authority. In view of its content (visions of the life and teachings of Jesus), it would cease to belong to the domain of private revelations and would instead enter that of public Revelation—something that the Church formally excludes, just as Jesus himself does in Maria Valtorta’s writings.
Does this red line—one that cannot be crossed—prevent Maria Valtorta’s work from having, within the Church, a place commensurate with its popularity and the benefits that its reading brings?
What place within the Church?
The contours of this place within the Church have begun to be outlined by Pope Francis. In his letter of encouragement to the Maria Valtorta Foundation of Viareggio (February 24, 2024), as well as in his related writings that explain it, the Supreme Pontiff attributes to these narratives the power to bring about an encounter with the living Jesus—a condition necessary for faith, as he writes in another document—and he attributes this encounter to the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis therefore does not grant it an alternative status to the canonical Gospel, but rather a major complementary status: to facilitate the encounter with the living Christ, the condition for the faith that is foundational to Christianity. In doing so, he centers Maria Valtorta’s work on the same criterion of authenticity for private revelations recalled by Benedict XVI: to lead to Christ and to public Revelation.
This pastoral approach is echoed, in his own way, by Bishop Paolo Giulietti (the bishop responsible for the cause of Maria Valtorta): Maria Valtorta’s work cannot be confused with public Revelation (in summary, the Bible), but these writings are given to the Church for its edification. Blessed Gabriel Allegra had already written this in his time.
Maria Valtorta’s work does not replace the canonical Gospel: it leads to it.
"God sends prophets to every generation, not to give a new doctrine, but to remind the faithful what they must do to save their souls" (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 174, Art. 6).
The prophets of every century are not "apocryphal." World-renowned biblical scholar, Blessed Gabriel Allegra, wrote that there is "immense distance that exists between The Poem and the New Testament Apocrypha."Maria Valtorta reported Jesus said to her:19
"[…] For this reason, it is proper to specify that the inspired writer ‘has God as the author.' […] The work which is given to men through [Maria Valtorta] is not a canonical book. But it remains an inspired book, which I am giving to help you understand certain passages in the canonical books, and especially to comprehend what My time [on earth] as the Master was like, and to know Me: I, the Word, in My words. Neither I, nor especially the spokesman [Maria Valtorta] […] say the work would be a canonical book. In truth, however, I tell you that it is an inspired book, since the instrument is not capable of writing pages that she does not even understand unless I Myself explain them to her to take away her fear."
Importantly, the press release does not prohibit or advise against reading Valtorta’s works; it simply calls for the prudence appropriate when engaging with any private revelation, which requires careful discernment of both method and content.Regarding the term normative, it should be noted that some private revelations of historical visions of the lives of Jesus and Mary have received significant approbation from the Vatican and even Popes. For example, a Pope granted apostolic blessings to readers and promoters of Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, even though, as a private revelation, it cannot be considered “normative” in the same sense as the canonical Gospels. Maria Valtorta’s revelations fall into this same category: private revelations subordinate to the canonical Gospels, yet capable of receiving approval and encouragement for reading from the Popes and the Vatican. As a matter of fact, Valtorta’s writings have been promoted by Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope Francis. We also believe that, in the future (possibly decades from now), the Vatican will formally recognize Valtorta’s writings with the highest levels of approval possible for a private revelation, following a necessary purification and renewal within the Vatican itself.
The Significant Evidence Strongly Suggests Supernaturality, Not Otherwise
Olivier Bonnassies writes:20
What is being questioned today is that the Vatican text affirms that Maria Valtorta’s visions “cannot be considered of supernatural origin,” and that she was in fact only a very imaginative novelist. Yet her 9,000 handwritten pages, written in one go without the slightest erasure, describe 750 characters—230 of whom have been verified by historical sources (as shown by the dictionary published by François-Michel Debroise and his encyclopedic website)—70 ethnic groups, 220 villages, 110 geographical sites, 150 plants, 200 animal species, 50 mineral species, and 24,000 concrete details verified and validated without errors or anachronisms by Jean-François Lavère, who has published separately on the extraordinary geography of the visions. One might argue that this could also have come from the devil, or been mixed, but how could a woman bedridden have “novelized” all that, alone, without help, by means of simple “meditations”?
Even more astonishing: the Polytechnique graduate Jean Aulagnier was able to reconstruct a “day-by-day calendar of Jesus.” From the 5,000 spatiotemporal indications contained in the visions, he succeeded in determining the date of each scene of the Gospel in our current calendar (the datings can be consulted on the website Valtorta.fr). To his great astonishment, he then found that this reconstruction was perfectly consistent with the independent calendar of lunar phases, across more than a hundred visions that describe the position and phases of the Moon. Among many other astonishing details, he saw in this “a proof, in the manner of Saint Thomas,” of the supernatural character of this unique work in the world, which, in his view, “deserves to be much more widely known.”
Arguments for a Supernatural Origin
[For those who state] that Valtorta's writings were not supernatural in origin, did they investigate to see what kind of person Valtorta was? Had they done so, they would have quickly found that she was a good, earnest, devout Catholic, an invalid who had a deep prayer life and lived according to high moral standards. They would have found that she often claimed, explicitly, in no uncertain terms that she was having visions and dictations from Jesus and other heavenly persons, and that she fully realized the gravity of her claims.
Now had her visions and dictations been mere literary forms of her own deliberate invention, she would have been an unscrupulous liar; but this hypothesis is excluded by the testimonies of all the priests and nuns and lay people who knew her.
Or what if Valtorta had been insane and had imagined all those visions and dictations and mistaken them for real mystical occurrences (and thus escaped the accusation of being a hoaxer)? This hypothesis of lunacy falls flat in the light of her daily living during the years that she wrote. Within the limits of her physical handicaps, she functioned very well: she cared for people, kept up-to-date on current world events, wrote coherent, insightful letters, and had a witty, bright, keen mind as observed by all her visitors, some of whom were Church scholars or university educated laymen.
In either case, the charge that Valtorta's visions were "simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus" seems quite amiss to say the least, as it would imply character shortcomings not found in her.
If one now moves on to consider Valtorta's visions and dictations in The Poem of the Man-God, the charge that she narrated the life of Jesus "in her own way," becomes even more untenable, from several points of view.
Theologically:
Valtorta's writings exude a great, all-encompassing breadth of knowledge and a clear-mindedness and loftiness of concepts worthy of the greatest theologians, of the Church Fathers, and of the greatest mystics. How could a lunatic or a liar produce such writings? Furthermore, she had never studied philosophy or theology either at school or on her own. The only education she had received was the average education of upper-middle class Italian girls of the early 1900s. How could she have composed her lofty writings "in her own way"?
Spiritually:
Valtorta's writings are outstandingly practical, drawing the reader to practice the Faith in everyday life. They are not in the least dry theological textbooks. They bring spirituality alive, they bring it home, to the reader's heart, by showing us Jesus intimately, personally. Many a reader has exclaimed that reading The Poem is like living with Jesus as the apostles did. As depicted in The Poem, His character – the perfect blend of warmth and reason, of mystical outlook and practical attentions, of holiness and love – has helped many a reader to reform a life of sin, to increase love for our Lord, to become holier. Jesus is portrayed in The Poem as in perhaps no other mystical work. It is quite doubtful that Valtorta could have produced such an uplifting portrait on her own, when she was the first to admit her "nothingness" and ascribed everything to Jesus.
Even Scientifically:
Even scientifically: Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God exhibits an uncanny accuracy with regard to the archeology, botany, geography, geology, mineralogy, and topography of Palestine in Jesus' time, an accuracy commended by various experts in those fields. Yet, given her lack of education and reading in those fields, and given the fact that she never traveled to Palestine, how could she have given accurate descriptions of places she never went to and never read about in any detail?
Finally, from the literary point of view:
Finally, from the literary point of view: Valtorta wrote on the spur of the moment, without preliminary plans, without rough drafts. She wrote fast – over 10,000 handwritten pages in three years – with great consistency of thought and purpose, in masterly Italian combining the highest achievements of the Florentine style of the 1930s with the vividness and spontaneity of common folks when they are quoted. Few writers throughout the history of humanity have been that good and that prolific in that short a period of time; perhaps none of these wrote without rough drafts. Yet, she was bedridden and subjected to frequent physiological crises and down-to-earth interruptions by her relatives or neighbors. How then could she have written so well, when most writers crave solitude to be able to write?
When one ponders the theological and spiritual loftiness of Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God, as well as its scientific and literary remarkableness, in the light of her average education, lack of health, and in the light of her speed, accuracy, and greatness of achievement, how could one seriously entertain the thought that she accomplished all that without supernatural help? When one also ponders her personal lifestyle as a generous victim soul who practiced the virtues heroically, when one also ponders the sufferings which she daily offered to the Lord, then with all due respect, how could [anyone] casually dismiss her claims to supernatural visions and dictations without a public full-fledged investigation into her case?
• Proof by Astronomy (Such as Detailed Astronomic Observations Over the Course of Hundreds of Pages in Her 1940s Visions that a Purdue University Professor of Theoretical Physics Testified Are Remarkably Consistent with Her Dating System and that She Could Not Have Predicted or Verified Without a Computer)
• Proof by Geography and Topography and Archaeology (Including Her Describing Palestine and Over 350 Geographical Locations in the Holy Land with a Level of Precision in Multiple Fields that She Could Not Possibly Have Known Without Modern Electronic Scholastic Resources or Access to an Extensive Collection of Books/Atlases in the 1940s that Eyewitnesses and Common Sense Confirm She Did Not—Nor Could Have Had—Access to and Which Itself Arguably Would Have Been Insufficient to Complete Her Work)
• Proof by its Knowledge, Depth, and Eminence in the Theological, Exegetical, Mystical, and Mariological Fields (Which Many World-Renowned Trustworthy Theologians Say Exceed Anything They Have Ever Read)
• Proof by Her Detailed, Exact, and Often Unparalleled Knowledge of the Political, Religious, Economic, Social, and Familial Situation—as Well as the Dress—of the Ancient Jewish, Samaritan, and Roman Peoples that Astound Even World-Renowned Biblical Scholars
• Proof by The Poem's Unquestionable Expertise, Deep Knowledge, and Exhaustive Information in Such a Wide Variety of Theological and Scientific Subjects, and the Fact Almost 15,000 Handwritten Pages of Such Was Written in Only 3½ Years Amidst Her Unusually Severe Physical Condition and Illnesses and Even Though She Lacked the Learning, Resources, and Books Required to Write a Work a Tenth as Profound as This
• Proof by the Extraordinary, Unprecedented Way in Which it Was Written, Compiled, & Put Together (Such as the Fact that 166 Out of the 647 Chapters Were Written Out of Order, and She has Jesus Ministering in Over 350 Named Locations and Traveling Over 4,000 Miles in Six Different Cycles Across Palestine, and Yet Jesus and All of the Other 500+ Characters are Never in a Place Inconsistent with Either the Story Line or the Timing and Distance Necessities Required for Traveling, and There is Not One Person, Place, or Thing Out of Place)
• Proof By the Writing's Extraordinary Purity, Holiness, Loftiness, and Eminence Among the Writings that Exist in the World
• Proof (or a Substantiating Factor) by Research that Shows that The Poem is Not Based on (or a Mere Expansion of) any Known Gospel Manuscript Standard, Version, or School of Critical Thought, Something Expected if a Work of This Magnitude, Detail, and Accuracy Had Been a Mere Human Effort
• Proof (or a Substantiating Factor) in How The Poem Resolves Many Problems in the Gospel Accounts Which Scholars Have Struggled with For Years (Including Apparent Contradictions Between the Different Gospel Accounts and Apparent Errors or Inconsistencies Within the Same Gospel Account), and How It Furthermore Corrects Certain Misunderstandings and Translation Errors that Have Been Perpetuated Throughout the Centuries
• Proof (or a Substantiating Factor) by the Fact Maria Valtorta's Visions of Christ's Passion Perfectly Match Detailed Findings on the Miraculous Shroud of Turin that Recent Modern Scientific Tests Have Revealed Decades After Her Writings Were Published and the Fact Her Writings Foretold Something Amazing About the Veil of Veronica Which Has Been Scientifically Proven for the First Time Decades After Her Death
• Proof (or a Substantiating Factor) by its Perfect Correspondence to the Ancient Liturgical and Patristic Tradition of the Ancient Catholic Byzantine Rite of the Church
• Proof by the Testimony of Countless Trustworthy Clerics, Authorities, Experts, Scientists, and Pious Lay Faithful and the Tremendously Good Fruits Produced in Individuals and in the Church as a Whole
• The Valtorta Enigma: A Fictionalized Life of Jesus? by Jean-François Lavère (Official English Translation)
• Literary Fiction or Ancient Astronomical and Meteorological Observations in the Work of Maria Valtorta? published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Scienze e Ricerche (Science and Research)
• A Mathematical Analysis of Maria Valtorta's Mystical Writings published in the peer-reviewed journal Religions, published by the Swiss publisher MDPI
Will the 2025 DDF Statement Quelch the Spread of Valtorta’s Writings?
Taking into account historical data, artificial intelligence predicts: “It is unlikely that the 2025 DDF statement will significantly impede the global distribution of her writings.”
We asked ChatGPT, “Considering that the first edition of Valtorta’s primary work was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, yet still spread worldwide with hundreds of thousands of readers and was translated into dozens of languages, what is the likelihood that the early 2025 DDF statement about Valtorta will stop her writings from spreading?”
Its response:
The likelihood that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (DDF) 2025 statement will halt the global spread of Maria Valtorta’s writings appears low. Despite the Vatican's declaration that her works are ‘literary forms’ rather than supernatural revelations, Valtorta's writings have a long history of widespread distribution and continued popularity among certain Catholic communities.
Her principal work, The Poem of the Man-God, was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1959. However, it was translated into numerous languages and has been read by hundreds of thousands worldwide. The Index was abolished in 1966, and since then, the book has been freely available. Notably, Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI both encouraged its reading, and even Pope Francis expressed support for the Maria Valtorta Foundation in 2024.
The 2025 DDF statement does not carry the weight of an infallible pronouncement but is a disciplinary clarification. Some Catholic groups argue that it implicitly supports the right to read Valtorta's works, as it neither condemns them nor affirms any errors of faith or morals within them. Additionally, the statement lacks the explicit constat de non supernaturalitate judgment, which would categorically declare the writings non-supernatural.
Given Valtorta's enduring readership, the widespread availability of her works, and the absence of a binding doctrinal condemnation, it is unlikely that the 2025 DDF statement will significantly impede the global distribution of her writings.
As mentioned above, Pope Francis wrote an explicit letter of encouragement to the Maria Valtorta Foundation in Viareggio, stating: “I encourage you to continue with the same commitment your mission of making Maria Valtorta's life and literary work known, especially all that it can offer for the good of the Church and society. Onward!”
Venerable Pope Pius XII reviewed Valtorta’s writings, ordered their publication, and resisted efforts to have them condemned.
Pope Paul VI also showed support for Valtorta’s writings, as Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.L., S.T.D., explains:22
The extensive Mariology contained in The Poem was also the subject of a 400-page study written by arguably the greatest Italian mariologist of the twentieth century and Consultor of the Holy Office, Rev. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. In a letter of January 17, 1974, Father Roschini received the congratulations of Pope Paul VI for his work entitled, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. The letter from the Secretary of State notes, “The Holy Father thanks you wholeheartedly for this new testimony of your respectful regards and wishes you to receive from your labor the consolation of abundant spiritual benefits.” Neither the papal benediction granted by Pope Paul VI nor the papal congratulations issued through the Secretary of State would have been granted to a text based on a series of private revelations which were “forbidden” or declared “doctrinally erroneous” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Archbishop Giulietti, who is the bishop of the diocese of Maria Valtorta, has also been supportive of her work. On five separate occasions he expressed support for Maria Valtorta and her work.
François-Michel Debroise writes:23
The Pastoral Stakes
The four official statements on the writings of Maria Valtorta (1960, 1992, 2021, 2025) all emphasized the growing popularity of these texts. Reactions range from dismissive hostility, to collaborative reception, to a neutral attitude. The readership of Maria Valtorta is now a recognized and multifaceted movement that radiates across the countries where the 30 languages into which these writings have been translated are spoken. The French-speaking readership is the largest and most active, as the doctrinal commission emphasized in 2021:
“The dissemination of Maria Valtorta’s writings has intensified for at least the past two years. In addition to the faithful who nourish themselves with these texts, one encounters priests who spread these writings, reading groups of Maria Valtorta whose activities are in some places announced in parish bulletins. Associations and websites distribute on a large scale emails commenting on the Sunday Gospel using texts by Maria Valtorta.”
An empirical estimate places the “engaged” French-speaking readership of Maria Valtorta’s writings between 50,000 and 80,000 people. This figure may seem modest or significant depending on the point of comparison chosen with other movements. It should be noted that this expansion, which has continued for nearly seventy years, is not explained by media support—quite the opposite, as recent events demonstrate—but by the intrinsic strength of the work itself. This dynamic invites a deep dialogue between ecclesial structures and readers, in order to foster better mutual understanding. The challenge will be, for some, to admit that it is not possible to deviate from a general rule on private revelations, and for others, to admit that one can legitimately hold the personal conviction of an authentic gift from Heaven.
Experience demonstrates it: the spiritual and pastoral fruits of Maria Valtorta’s writings are tangible. They are reflected in vocations, conversions, and renewed engagement within the Church, all realities that cannot be attributed solely to the author’s narrative talents. The Catholic Church is the primary beneficiary. The readers, far from forming a structured group, constitute a constant flow of the faithful, some of whom feel called to engage in Church ministries or the priesthood. This phenomenon, although widely observed for decades, remains little studied.
If these writings lead to the Gospel and to the Church whose doors the readership knocks upon, it is essential to respect the source without underestimating it or trying to suppress it. The immersive experience of The Gospel as It Was Revealed to Me does not announce another Gospel; it leads to it. Far from contesting it, it reinforces its historical authenticity—which is rare. It is not a novelized version, but an illustration of perfect orthodoxy. This work thus stands out from all the “Lives of Jesus” through the typological reading it proposes, in accordance with the recommendations of Dei Verbum. One finds in it, without contradiction or omission, the 373 narrative units of the canonical Gospels—called by Jesus himself “the Eternal Gospel” in the dictations to Maria Valtorta—as well as profound and living references to 87% of the 1,334 chapters of the Catholic Bible, harmoniously integrated into the beauty of the text.
It is therefore a true spiritual pilgrimage through time and space, offering a striking encounter with the living Christ and giving these writings a unique place. It is therefore not surprising that bishops, such as those in China, have requested the translation of this work in order to make it a powerful tool of evangelization.
Some Other Important Considerations: Deficiency of the New Norms and Errors of the DDF in the Past
Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.L., S.T.D. (Licentiate and Doctor of Sacred Theology), Chair of Mariology at Ave Maria University, president of the International Marian Association, and professor of Theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, released a video on March 12, 2025, offering a theological analysis of the Vatican's press release regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta. You can view his video here: Mary Live with Dr. Mark Miravalle - Maria Valtorta and the Vatican: Theological Analysis.
In his talk, he notes a deficiency in the Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, issued by the Vatican on May 17, 2024. He believes that these norms do not serve the Church in the best possible way.
The DDF issued Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena on May 17, 2024. These new 2024 norms constitute a major change from the former 1978 guidelines, which had been in place for nearly half a century. The following articles provide an intriguing perspective and deep-dive on these revised norms and why there are concerns:
• "Time Bombs" Within the New Vatican Norms for Supernatural Apparitions
• Neo-Modernism & the DDF's New Apparition Guidelines
Please note that the first article is divided into six parts, and you will need to click on "Go to Part 2," "Go to Part 3," etc., at the bottom of each section to read the entire piece.
The DDF Statement and Its LimitationsAs discussed earlier, the Vatican has not pronounced a final verdict on the supernaturality of Maria Valtorta. Nevertheless, many opponents of Valtorta may misread the February 22, 2025, DDF statement, making it important to remind people of past errors of the DDF and the office’s historical fallibility.
The Vatican congregation responsible for matters of doctrine, faith, and safeguarding Catholic teaching has undergone several transformations:
• 1542: Established as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition
• 1908: Renamed the Holy Office
• 1965: Became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)
• 2022: Renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)
For clarity, references to these bodies will use Holy Office/CDF/DDF as appropriate.
The 2025 press release from the DDF regarding Maria Valtorta’s writings is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium; it is a disciplinary clarification, not a formal teaching on faith or morals, and does not carry the authoritative weight of encyclicals or catechetical texts.
Historical Errors of the DDF and Its PredecessorsThe Holy Office/CDF/DDF has made notable mistakes in the past:
• The erroneous declaration that Saint Padre Pio's stigmata was "not of supernatural origin," along with the multiple censures of him.
• Placing St. Faustina Kowalska's writings on the Index of Forbidden Books, a decision later reversed with her canonization.
• Condemning works of St. Thomas Aquinas in 1277, a decision eventually annulled.
• Placing Venerable Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God on the Index for three months after a 14-year review, later vindicated by Pope Clement XI, who issued two decrees strictly prohibiting its future inclusion on the Index. In the past century, two Popes affirmed her work, even extending Apostolic Blessings to its readers and promoters—actions far removed from the initial judgment of the hierarchy.
• Condemning St. Joan of Arc on 70 false charges, later annulled by a papal nullification trial 25 years afterward; she was ultimately canonized roughly 500 years later.
• During the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, revising the Index of Forbidden Books led to the removal of approximately one thousand books, illustrating the fluidity of such judgments.
There is also historical evidence that the Holy Office made a bad decision (a mistake) in placing the first edition of Maria Valtorta’s work on the Index for a time.
Internal Corruption and Opposition in Valtorta’s CaseIn an ironic twist, just 26 days before the DDF's statement on Maria Valtorta's writings, the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints declared Luigia Sinapi "Venerable." What makes this particularly relevant to the case of Maria Valtorta is Luigia's revelation of shocking corruption within the Holy Office. Certain individuals within the institution sought to undermine Pope Pius XII's support for Valtorta's writings through deceit, manipulation, and intimidation—culminating in a physical assault and an attempted rape against Luigia herself. She met with the Pope on several occasions to discuss the writings, which he wanted to see published. Luigia's unwavering persistence, combined with her close spiritual relationship with the Holy Father, played a pivotal role in exposing the internal conflicts that, tragically, after Pius XII's death, led to the tarnishing of the work's reputation and the indefinite delay of its formal Vatican endorsement. Read more here: Vatican Declares Luigia Sinapi Venerable in 2025: The Mystic Who Challenged the Holy Office's Opposition to Maria Valtorta's Work and Met with Pope Pius XII About Valtorta.
Supporting this testimony, newly leaked documents from the Vatican's 1940s dossier on Maria Valtorta reveal that her opponents within the Holy Office failed to engage her writings seriously or fairly, often relying on secondhand summaries and misinformation. This negligence significantly undermines the credibility of their criticisms, reinforces the case for a renewed, objective evaluation of her work, and casts serious doubt on the foundations of the recent statement issued by the DDF. However, given the level of corruption present within the Vatican in our time, we must honestly acknowledge that such a reevaluation may not be possible until God purifies His Church—a phenomenon foretold in numerous prophecies by approved Catholic mystics as a necessary precursor to true renewal within the Church.
Need for a Fair and Thorough Evaluation of Maria Valtorta and The Case for Supernatural InspirationThe Holy Office should have conducted a fair, thorough, and objective evaluation of both the person of Maria Valtorta and her writings. To our knowledge, no such comprehensive investigation has yet taken place. Were the evidence examined honestly and rigorously, we believe it would reveal that Valtorta was a profoundly holy individual and that her writings exhibit all the hallmarks of supernatural inspiration.
Over the decades since their publication, the substantial scientific and historical evidence supporting the divine origin of her works should have been carefully studied, vetted, and verified, and subsequently promoted to affirm their authenticity. Such a process would parallel the Church’s meticulous examination of the hundreds of scientifically documented miraculous healings at Lourdes, which reinforced the claim of divine inspiration behind the Lourdes apparition and its messages from Our Lady.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: "God sends prophets to every generation, not to give a new doctrine, but to remind the faithful what they must do to save their souls" (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 174, Art. 6). We believe that Maria Valtorta was indeed one such prophet.
Relevant Dictations and TestimoniesFor historical context, key dictations received by Maria Valtorta provide insight into opposition to her work:
• Christ on Free Will Opposition to The Poem
• Christ Speaks on Publishing The Poem of the Man-God
• The Eternal Father to Pope Pius XII on The Poem and the Church
These dictations suggest that part of the opposition from some members of the Holy Office at the time may have been driven by envy, pride, and other disqualifying motives. As noted earlier, the newly declared Venerable, Luigia Sinapi, personally encountered this.
For further context, the e-book Maria Valtorta Summa & Encyclopedia referenced earlier includes a chapter titled "Testimony of Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M. on Maria Valtorta, Her work, and His Dealings with Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office Concerning Valtorta's Work."
Also of interest, Maria Valtorta claimed to have received a dictation from Pope St. Pius X, in which he described how he would have responded to her revelations. She reports that the saintly Pontiff said:24
"O blessed one! If I were on the throne of Peter and they told me that there was a creature who had become a 'voice' after having been a 'voluntary cross,' I would not leave you in this anguish. But I would have comforted you with my blessing, reading the blessed pages on my knees."
This disposition closely mirrors Pope Pius XII’s own reading of her work and his subsequent desire to see her writings published, and aligns closely with the sentiments and statements expressed by Blessed Gabriel Allegra regarding Maria Valtorta’s writings during the 1960s and 1970s.
Should Valtorta Supporters Have Hopes of a Formal DDF “Approval” Any Time Soon?
Consider François-Michel’s article: “Publish the Work as It Is” – 76 Years of Ecclesial Discernment on Maria Valtorta
This brief but insightful article by François-Michel Debroise traces the Catholic Church’s evolving response to Valtorta’s mystical writings—from early controversy and censorship to the current pastoral encouragement for thoughtful engagement. Covering the pontificates of Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, it provides a clear account of the Church’s pastoral engagement with Maria Valtorta’s writings. Highlighting the role of the sensus fidelium—the spiritual intuition of the faithful—the article shows how her work can serve as a resource for deepening faith. Following the guidance of these popes, readers can: with Pius XII, understand whether the work is "of extraordinary origin or not"; with Benedict XVI, discern, guided by the Church, "what in these revelations constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints"; and with Pope Francis, transmit "all that it can offer for the good of the Church and society."
However, if one were to examine whether Maria Valtorta’s writings were to gain the highest level of approval on the level of other private revelations such as Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, etc., two things would first be required:
- The New Norms would have to be revised again or a Pope would have to exceptionally approve it under the current Norms (which he has the power to do).
- Corruption within the Vatican would have to be decreased.
Regarding point #1, see the previous section above for a discussion of the Norms.
Regarding point #2: given the current corruption and internal difficulties within the Vatican, it seems unlikely that a proper and impartial evaluation of Maria Valtorta and her writings will take place before a broader reform or renewal within the Church occurs. This evaluation would be a requisite requirement for a formal approval.
The cleric Pope Francis appointed as the new head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) in 2023 is Cardinal Víctor Manuel "Tucho" Fernández. Cardinal Fernández has been at the center of various scandals and concerns. His controversial views and actions have raised questions about his orthodoxy and suitability for such a critical position within the Church.Key concerns include:
1. Erroneous and Controversial Theological Views: Cardinal Fernández has been associated with progressive theological positions that deviate from traditional Catholic doctrine. His views on issues like marriage, sexuality, and the role of women in the Church align with a liberal agenda inconsistent with Church teaching. For example, he is a known supporter of the Amoris Laetitia document and is widely believed to have been its ghostwriter. This document promotes sacrilege by directing that adulterers be absolved and given the Eucharist in circumstances where they knowingly and willingly persist in the practice of adultery. It also contains heresies such as the affirmation that acts that violate divine commandments in grave matters can nevertheless be morally good and acceptable to God, and that in some circumstances, adulterers do not sin by committing adultery.
2. Support for Revolutionary Ideas: Cardinal Fernández has endorsed ideas that are problematic within the context of Catholic orthodoxy. His embrace of views that downplay traditional Catholic morality, particularly on sexual ethics, has raised significant concern. Some of his public statements and writings are perceived to align with secular and progressive ideologies rather than Catholic teaching.
3. Promotion of Clerics with Questionable Records: Like Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernández has been accused of supporting or promoting clerics with questionable records, including those involved in abuse scandals or who hold views contrary to Church teaching. This includes the promotion of clergy who have been associated with moral failings, causing concern about his judgment and approach to Church governance.
4. Criticism for Alleged Mismanagement of the Church's Response to Abuse: As a close ally of Pope Francis, Fernández has been linked to the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse crisis. Some critics argue that, like the Pope, he has not done enough to address the problem with sufficient transparency or accountability, further tarnishing the Church's moral authority.
5. Public Statements and Controversies: Cardinal Fernández has made various public statements that have sparked controversy, particularly in the areas of morality and doctrine. These statements have led many to question his commitment to defending traditional Catholic teachings, especially in light of his new role at the DDF, which is responsible for safeguarding Catholic doctrine.
To further highlight concerns about a cleric like him making judgments on matters such as Maria Valtorta's revelations, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, one of the most powerful figures in the Vatican, wrote a book in 1988 on spirituality and sensuality that describes illicit sexual activities. According to an article in the Catholic World Report, the book speaks about illicit sexual activities done in a way "without being guilty," approvingly links themes of sexual arousal to people's relationship with God, and includes alarming content, including a description of a sensual scene involving a 16-year-old girl and Jesus. These elements are not only blasphemous, but utterly unbecoming for anyone to write, especially a consecrated priest. Additionally, quoting from the article:25
This is not the first time Fernández has faced scrutiny for sexually explicit texts. Last year, his earlier 1995 book "Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing" resurfaced, which also contained erotic themes. He also defended that book, saying at the time that it was "a pastor's catechesis for teens" and "not a theology book."
In mid-December 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is led by Fernández, published a declaration that permits priests to impart "spontaneous" pastoral blessings for "same-sex couples" and other couples in "irregular situations."
Given that the DDF is led by a modernist cleric, and Valtorta's writings stand in opposition to modernism (and in some cases expose corruption within the Church's hierarchy), it is reasonable to conclude that the DDF would not conduct an objective, thorough, or faithful investigation into her work and one based on sound Catholic teaching and principles. A modernist cleric, by definition, cannot accurately judge whether something is in line with the Catholic Faith, as modernism fundamentally contradicts traditional Catholic teaching. Additionally, modernism tends to downplay or deny the supernatural, making it impossible for such a cleric to properly assess whether a work originates from a supernatural source. Therefore, any judgment issued by such a cleric should be viewed with suspicion.
A helpful analogy would be imagining a soccer referee who has altered the rules of the game. Rather than adhering to the official rules of soccer, this referee believes players should be allowed to use their hands anywhere on the field or that goals should be worth different points depending on the team. If this referee then claims to judge whether a play is "in line with the rules," their judgment becomes unreliable because they are not using the actual rules as a standard. Similarly, a modernist cleric, who does not adhere to the traditional understanding of the Catholic Faith, might claim to be declaring what is in accord with it. However, their judgment is unreliable because modernism, by its nature, distorts or undermines key aspects of the Faith. Thus, their assessment of what aligns with Catholic teaching is compromised and untrustworthy, just as the referee's assessment is invalid due to the change in the rules.
Some historical insight is also helpful because there is a history of some prelates within the Holy Office (now called the DDF) being erroneous and misguided on this matter. In an ironic twist of events, just 26 days before the DDF's statement on Maria Valtorta's writings, the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints declared Luigia Sinapi "Venerable." What makes this particularly relevant to the case of Maria Valtorta is Luigia's revelation of shocking corruption within the Holy Office. Certain individuals within the institution sought to undermine Pope Pius XII's support for Valtorta's writings through deceit, manipulation, and intimidation—culminating in a physical assault and an attempted rape against Luigia herself. She met with the Pope on several occasions to discuss the writings, which he wanted to see published. Luigia's unwavering persistence, combined with her close spiritual relationship with the Holy Father, played a pivotal role in exposing the internal conflicts that, tragically, after Pius XII's death, led to the tarnishing of the work's reputation and the indefinite delay of its formal Vatican endorsement. Read more here: Vatican Declares Luigia Sinapi Venerable in 2025: The Mystic Who Challenged the Holy Office's Opposition to Maria Valtorta's Work and Met with Pope Pius XII About Valtorta.
Also see: Newly Leaked 1940s Holy Office Documents Prove Pope Pius XII Defended Maria Valtorta's Writings and Encouraged Their Publication.
The article above explores new insights brought to light by a 2025 publication that sheds significant light on Pope Pius XII's efforts to protect the writings of Maria Valtorta amidst fierce opposition from certain members of the Holy Office. In his French-language book, Maria Valtorta, Dossier du Vatican (Maria Valtorta: The Vatican Files), Alexis Maillard selectively discloses four previously unpublished documents from the Holy Office's extensive dossier on Valtorta.
Among other revelations, these documents show that the opponents of Valtorta were so poorly informed and misled that they appeared to believe her writings had been secretly and fraudulently composed by the Servite religious order—not by Valtorta herself. The very foundation of their attacks was thus built on a falsehood. Additionally, the notorious anonymous letter published on January 6, 1960, in L'Osservatore Romano—which accompanied the announcement that the first edition of Valtorta's work had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books—was largely based on an earlier anonymous article written by Fr. Alberto Vaccari, S.J., and published in a Jesuit journal. According to the Vatican dossier, Fr. Vaccari openly admitted he had not read Valtorta's work "in its entirety, in depth, except for a few parts" (p. 55), and that he had based his judgment primarily on summaries.
These facts make it abundantly clear that many of Valtorta's critics within the Vatican failed to engage her writings seriously or fairly. This negligence significantly undermines the credibility of what became a decades-long smear campaign against what many believe to be a supernaturally inspired work.
To learn more about ongoing corruption within the Vatican today, please consider the articles published on the following websites:
• Video: Deep state infiltration | How the U.S. may have hijacked the Vatican
Not only many Catholics, but also numerous sincere non-Catholics, including Charlie Kirk, can clearly see the shipwreck caused by corrupt Catholic clergy from the top down in modern times.
The Fate of High-Ranking Clergy Who Rejected God’s Gift
Question: Have clerics of the Catholic Church received punishment from God as a result of rejecting and attempting to hinder the publication of Maria Valtorta's revelations?Answer: This is not something we can know with certainty. Only God knows all, and at the General Judgment, when all is revealed, at that time everyone will know the answer to this question. However, Maria Valtorta reports receiving divine dictations which describe some specific punishments. These are not likely comprehensive and exhaustive of all such instances.
This dictation references the "sudden death of the seven," asking, "Why has there been for so long resentment and blindness against My great Gift of love and My dearly beloved instrument? Did the sudden death of the seven serve in no way as a warning to My new enemies?" We recently learned more about one such possible individual. Apparently, on Holy Thursday night, Father Mariano Cordovani, Master of the Holy Palaces, theologian of the Secretariat of State, a minor head of the Holy Office, and principal opponent of Valtorta's work, died unexpectedly from a sudden paralysis, without even having had time to say a last prayer. See this article for more details. As of now, we have no further information regarding the identities of the other individuals, though Italian Valtortian scholars with access to primary sources available only in Italian, as well as other sources of information, may know more.
The article on Venerable Luigia Sinapi, referenced earlier, reveals disturbing actions by certain members of the Holy Office during Maria Valtorta's lifetime. It details their efforts to undermine Pope Pius XII's supportive stance on Valtorta's writings, involving a troubling mix of subterfuge, dishonesty toward the Pontiff, and acts of intimidation—culminating in an attempted rape against an individual who would later be declared "Venerable" by the Vatican in January 2025. This person had boldly confronted the Holy Office over its opposition to Valtorta's work and had met with Pope Pius XII on several occasions to discuss the writings. These insights offer vital context for understanding the dictations that follow below.
This dictation speaks of certain clerics who will expiate in Purgatory, due to their pride and envy, which led them to hinder the work. Christ, through Maria Valtorta, says:
For all these souls who could not be saved through the fault of these haughty, envious clergy, they will have to render an account to Me, and expiate the bad use they made of the free will that I had given them. Not only that, but they are enlightened, supported, guided with the proper charisms which the priesthood confers on every minister of the clergy, and which are so much the more ample and powerful, the greater their religious rank and theological culture. The higher their office and culture, the more severe also [will be] the chastisement for their fault. It is I Who say this to you, Maria. Ah! These shepherds of souls who forbid the wholesome pasture to the sheep and the lambs, and do not themselves do anything to save them when the sheep have strayed and are in danger—what faults they commit, what sorrow they give Me!
In vain will they later, in the particular Judgment, invoke then My pardon, My Mercy! I can only answer them: "I gave you bread and the water of life for whoever was hungry and thirsty, and you rejected Me and My gift. Now I reject you. Go and expiate, each of you in proportion to the sin you have committed. You did not want to recognize Me in the work. Now, I do not recognize you. Go. I am Mercy, it is true. I am Charity, it is true. But I am also perfect Justice. And now I make My Justice act, this alone, since while you were in life you rejected Me: Mercy and Charity. Nothing justifies your actions and obstinacy toward the work. Hence, nothing can change My Divine judgment. Go and expiate!"
Another thing for which I cannot forgive any of you, and which you must expiate: your lack of truth toward My instrument. You have always lied with her and to her—she, poor creature, a teacher of truth for you. Expiate this too, because there is never too much expiation for one who obstinately wrongs another. What mercy could I give any of you, if you never had mercy? Go and expiate.
I am always He Who rebuked the guilty of the Temple. I do not change. You must all expiate like them. They expiated later—after My Death, Resurrection, and Ascension—with the loss of everything: Temple, power, wealth, country, and even material and spiritual life.
"And since it is five years now that I have been wounded unceasingly with unjust actions toward the work, I have halted the flow of Divine Wisdom which I wanted to pour again into you, [Maria]—My cistern of love and of grace for souls—by giving you the explanations of the Apocalypse, of the other Pauline Epistles, and of those of Peter, James and Jude of Alpheus. All the apostolic letters."
Before He halted the flow of divine wisdom, we were still fortunate enough to receive a thorough commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, which remains a remarkable and invaluable insight.Further, in this dictation Maria Valtorta reports that the Eternal Father states that the Catholic Church is, in a sense, being handed over to her enemies in the human element of the Church. This situation is increasingly visible in contemporary times.
This dictation continues with Christ describing how souls will be lost—souls that might have been saved if the clergy had properly investigated and promoted Valtorta's revelations. As a result, some of these clerics, who by all appearances were otherwise faithful and orthodox, and who did much good during their priestly lives, will remain in Purgatory until the end of time:
"These, too, will expiate till the end of the ages their sins of haughtiness, envy, spite, injustice and, above all, their lack of charity towards their neighbor—that is, toward you [Maria], and toward all those souls who, through the work, would have found faith again and, hence, Life and eternal Salvation."
These words are particularly striking when considering that the clerics mentioned here were orthodox, unlike figures like Cardinal Fernández and many modernist prelates in the Vatican. The former clergy did not promote modernism, sodomy, or heresy as far as we know, and they remained faithful to Catholic dogma and Church practices. The severity of this dictation, however, suggests that even their failure to support Valtorta's revelations will be met with stern judgment. This other dictation is even sterner.Lastly, in this dictation, Our Lord speaks of how He remains a "sign of contradiction" (Luke 2:34) even in our time, and affirms that those who mock or obstruct His divinely appointed work—given to aid the many in great need—will face severe punishment in the life to come:26
What signs do they still want? You, whose life is a sign. A sign that is ever stronger the more you move towards your liberation from this earthly prison.
It is a sign for those who want to see. For those who don't want to see, no sign would have any value except to be a temptation and a condemnation. "If they don't believe in Moses and the prophets, they won't believe one who rises from the dead to give them a sign; the sign they ask for in order to believe." [Luke 16:31] It's an old story!
I don't know what greater sign you could give than those of your life and your past and recent behavior. For those who do not want to believe not even the appearance of the Risen One was useful. Let them talk. You will give a sure sign and they will also give one. I know it. You: a sign of life in God. They: a sign of life in the flesh of Adam. This is because the flesh of Adam is sinful, if not in the desire of the flesh, then in the other two desires. These are the worst and most serious because they are less controllable and because they are the desires of the higher levels of man.
How many will be condemned for having acted badly against you and the work! As the work is mine, it is a sign of contradiction like Me, a blessing for those who accept it, but condemnation for those who mock it or even block it.
You, being the little Christ, are like Me. I was an object of contradiction. However, remember what the Baptist said of Me, "His winnowing-fan is in His hand; He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn in a fire that will never go out." [Matthew 3:12] My winnowing-fan is My inescapable and perfect judgment of every creature and their actions. Not on how they seem in their deceitful appearance, but in their secret truth.
Weeds, which when they grow and flower seem more beautiful than wheat, will not enter My granary; only the chosen wheat, vainly mortified by the weeds which gripped it in their tendrils while decorating themselves with useless flowers and the poisonous seeds of those flowers which were only superficial. The wheat will enter my granary. That is my true servants. Those who do not have a flashy appearance, but are all good grain; flour for hosts. They will enter My house, my eternal Home. As "hosts" blessed in eternity, they will see those who ground them under the millstone of their unjust authority suffer and cry out, "Why didn't we recognize the Lord? Why didn't we accept His 'little ones' in His Name? Why didn't we give them that sip of justice which they begged us for?"
However, judgment has been given and everyone will have what they deserve, and nothing will change it. I tell you, for some it will be an eternal judgment. For others it will last for centuries, then they will have forgiveness because they will have atoned for it.
However, not one of those who reject Me — whoever rejects the work rejects Me, and whoever blocks the work blocks Me, and whoever denies this Bread of My Word to the fainting crowds sins against the double love to Me-God and to his neighbor — but not one of those who acts badly against the work will escape a harsh punishment. You will know the names of your main enemies because I will show you first their death and the manner of it, then you will see them in the place where they will atone for their sin.
Our Lord’s Prophecy of the Triumph of Valtorta’s Revelations in a Future Era of Peace
Our Lord’s Prophecies on the Triumph of Maria Valtorta’s Writings
For an in-depth look at Our Lord’s prophecies regarding the future triumph of Maria Valtorta’s writings during a period of peace, watch the video below.
International Responses from Valtorta Organizations, Foundations, and Scholars to the 2025 DDF Statement
Read the international responses to the DDF press release below:
Note: Except for the last item, these resources are in French or Italian. Use your browser’s built-in translation, Google Translate, or ChatGPT to read in English.
- Valtorta.wiki entry: Statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on Maria Valtorta – February 22, 2025
- François-Michel Debroise (maria-valtorta.org): Comments on the Communiqué of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 2025
- François-Michel Debroise (maria-valtorta.org): Maria Valtorta: A Spiritual Discernment to Continue, Not to Close
- Maria Valtorta Heritage Foundation (CEV linked, Isola del Liri): Statement on the 2025 DDF Press Release
- Maria Valtorta Foundation (Don Ernesto Zucchini, Viareggio): Commentary on the 2025 DDF Press Release
- Edifiant.fr (Fabrice-Marie Gagnant): Analysis of the 2025 DDF Press Release
- Olivier Bonnassies (La sélection du jour): Great Visionary or Exceptional Novelist?
- Dr. Liberato de Caro, Fernando La Greca, and Dr. Agustín Giménez González: Response to the 2025 DDF Statement – Watch the video (English translation starts at 5:55)
References
1. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Press Release Regarding the Writings of Maria Valtorta, February 22, 2025. Accessed March 5, 2025.https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250222_comunicato-scritti-valtorta_en.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 1 in the Text
2. Fabrice-Marie Gagnant, “Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi : Maria Valtorta,” Edifiant.fr.
https://edifiant.fr/dicastere-pour-la-doctrine-de-la-foi-maria-valtorta/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 2 in the Text
3. “Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi sur Maria Valtorta du 22 février 2025,” Maria Valtorta Wiki, accessed November 3, 2025.
https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Communiqu%C3%A9_du_Dicast%C3%A8re_pour_la_Doctrine_de_la_foi_sur_Maria_Valtorta_du_22_f%C3%A9vrier_2025
Original wiki article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original wiki article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 3 in the Text
4. François-Michel Debroise, “Commentaires sur le Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi du 22 février 2025,” Maria-Valtorta.org, March 17, 2025.
https://www.maria-valtorta.org/ValtortaWeb/073.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 4 in the Text
5. Olivier Bonnassies, “Maria Valtorta, grande visionnaire ou romancière exceptionnelle,” La Sélection du Jour, 14 mars 2025.
https://www.laselectiondujour.com/maria-valtorta-grande-visionnaire-romanciere-exceptionnelle
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 5 in the Text
6. “Commento,” Fondazione Maria Valtorta, February 22, 2025.
https://fondazionemariavaltorta.it/commento/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 6 in the Text
7. “Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi sur Maria Valtorta du 22 février 2025,” Maria Valtorta Wiki, accessed November 3, 2025.
https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Communiqu%C3%A9_du_Dicast%C3%A8re_pour_la_Doctrine_de_la_foi_sur_Maria_Valtorta_du_22_f%C3%A9vrier_2025
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 7 in the Text
8. François-Michel Debroise, “Commentaires sur le Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi du 22 février 2025,” Maria-Valtorta.org, March 17, 2025.
https://www.maria-valtorta.org/ValtortaWeb/073.htm
Original article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 8 in the Text
9. François-Michel Debroise, “Commentaires sur le Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi du 22 février 2025,” Maria-Valtorta.org, March 17, 2025.
https://www.maria-valtorta.org/ValtortaWeb/073.htm
Original article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 9 in the Text
10. “Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi sur Maria Valtorta du 22 février 2025,” Maria Valtorta Wiki, accessed November 3, 2025.
https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Communiqu%C3%A9_du_Dicast%C3%A8re_pour_la_Doctrine_de_la_foi_sur_Maria_Valtorta_du_22_f%C3%A9vrier_2025
Original wiki article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original wiki article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 10 in the Text
11. Fabrice-Marie Gagnant, “Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi sur les textes de Maria Valtorta (22 février 2025),” Edifiant.fr.
https://edifiant.fr/dicastere-pour-la-doctrine-de-la-foi-maria-valtorta/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 11 in the Text
12. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, 2008, pp. 263–265. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 12 in the Text
13. Fondation Héritière de Maria Valtorta, “Communiqué de la Fondation Héritière de Maria Valtorta,” 6 mars 2025.
https://mariavaltorta.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Communique-de-la-Fondation-Heritiere-de-Maria-Valtorta-6-mars-2025.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 13 in the Text
14. “Imprimatur verbal de Pie XII et sa valeur canonique,” Maria Valtorta Wiki, accessed November 3, 2025.
https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Imprimatur_verbal_de_Pie_XII_et_sa_valeur_canonique
Original wiki article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original wiki article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 14 in the Text
15. “Commento,” Fondazione Maria Valtorta, February 22, 2025.
https://fondazionemariavaltorta.it/commento/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 15 in the Text
16. “Commento,” Fondazione Maria Valtorta, February 22, 2025.
https://fondazionemariavaltorta.it/commento/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 16 in the Text
17. François-Michel Debroise, “Commentaires sur le Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi du 22 février 2025,” Maria-Valtorta.org, March 17, 2025.
https://www.maria-valtorta.org/ValtortaWeb/073.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 17 in the Text
18. “Benoît XVI et Maria Valtorta,” Maria Valtorta Wiki, accessed November 3, 2025.
https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_XVI_et_Maria_Valtorta
Original wiki article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original wiki article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 18 in the Text
19. Maria Valtorta. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, January 28, 1947, pp. 335-37. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 19 in the Text
20. Olivier Bonnassies, “Maria Valtorta, grande visionnaire ou romancière exceptionnelle,” La Sélection du Jour, 14 mars 2025.
https://www.laselectiondujour.com/maria-valtorta-grande-visionnaire-romanciere-exceptionnelle
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 20 in the Text
21. The Valtorta Newsletter, No. 7, Summer 1993. Maria Valtorta Research Center, 31 King St. West, #212, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 1N5, pp. 5–6. Also quoted online here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230528151202/http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Chrchval.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 21 in the Text
22. Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God", April 15, 2006.
https://www.valtorta.com.au/Valtorta-Miravalle.php
Originally posted at: https://web.archive.org/web/20180721102639/http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2006/04/in-response-to-various-questions-regarding-qthe-poem-of-the-man-godq/
Original article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 22 in the Text
23. François-Michel Debroise, “Commentaires sur le Communiqué du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la foi du 22 février 2025,” Maria-Valtorta.org, March 17, 2025.
https://www.maria-valtorta.org/ValtortaWeb/073.htm
Original article's references not reproduced in this article; for its own references, see the original article.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 23 in the Text
24. Maria Valtorta. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, February 8, 1946, p. 185. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 24 in the Text
25. "Cardinal Fernández Responds to Uproar Over Sexually Explicit Book," Catholic World Report, January 8, 2024.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/08/cardinal-fernandez-responds-to-uproar-over-sexually-explicit-book-i-certainly-would-not-write-that-now/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 25 in the Text
26. Maria Valtorta. The Little Notebooks. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, October 3, 1949, pp. 201-202. ISBN-13: 9788879873833.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 26 in the Text