Newsletter N. 1/26 – More on the Statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

I must refer back to the Statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 22, 2025, to clarify some important points. The document states that Maria Valtorta’s writings are not of supernatural origin. This means that they have a different origin. Four possibilities are usually considered: the diabolical theory, the mediumistic theory, the theory of multiple authors falsely attributing the origin to her, and the purely human theory. Taken together or individually, these would provide sufficient explanation for Valtorta’s writings (I exclude the ufological theory because it is simply untenable, though it is worth noting that such a theory even exists!).

Demonological theory: this cannot be, because the devil does not want people to go to Jesus, whereas Valtorta’s texts aim precisely at this end.

Mediumistic theory: no, one need only read a few texts of this kind to understand the profound difference, and thus the impossibility of this hypothesis.

The theory of multiple authors: there is no trace whatsoever in Maria Valtorta’s history of such a fact (with so many sources and testimonies, some clue would have leaked out, even if an attempt had been made to keep a group of consultants secret), and none of the people close to her—not even Father Roschini—could have produced in 40 months what she wrote.

This leaves the human theory, supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: that Maria Valtorta wrote everything from her own imagination.

First, however, we must dispel any doubts regarding the authority of the person who signed the Dicastery’s statement. It is clear to us that this Church body, charged with such scrutiny, possesses all the legitimate authority to formulate any judgment on matters within its purview. The Pope, with the assistance and through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has full authority and a strict duty to intervene whenever the need to judge arises. We know very well that this kind of judgment serves the good of all members of the People of God, especially the simplest but also the most learned. To clarify, to warn, and even to condemn is their moral duty, and when this happens, one cannot but rejoice in the certainty that comes from it.

All this does not mean, however, that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith enjoys infallibility. In fact, it can also err, as has indeed happened several times in history: we cite the famous cases of the three condemnations of St. Pio of Pietrelcina (1887–1968) and Blessed Antonio Rosmini Serbati (1797–1855), which confirm how humanly possible it is for this to occur.

Thus, the basis for the Holy See’s statement derives from the written judgments issued by Father Alberto Vaccari, S.J. (1875–1965) on January 26, 1949, and by Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J. (1881–1968) on October 17, 1952, which have now been declassified and are therefore available for consultation. As I have already written (Newsletter of July 14 of this year), both clearly admit to expressing their judgment without a true and in-depth study of Valtorta’s writings. Cardinal Bea also adds, regarding the geographical and historical setting: “Here we are faced with a phenomenon that leaves one very perplexed. Upon examining the various volumes, one must note that the geographical and topographical indications, generally speaking, are accurate. And this is not merely a matter of a few names, but of hundreds of cities, villages, rivers, valleys, and mountains. There are likely few non-specialists, even among priests and theologians, who could rival the author on this point. Just a few examples. The journey through Traconitida ends at Aera (VI,837). Now, this city is known to archaeologists because of the Roman antiquities discovered there, but outside the archaeological community, very few people will know of it”. This remark is significant because it acknowledges the author’s astonishment at how Maria Valtorta could have known all these things, and offers an attempt at an explanation: “The author follows a topography that has been partially corrected by research in recent decades, but is still found in the ‘Guides’ and geographical books written fifty years ago. On the other hand, there are texts in which the topographical identification is correct, but the writer shows that she is unaware of the details.” Such claims, however, cannot be proven, because the “Guides” were not in her possession, and the list of books in the Valtorta household library serves as proof of this: therefore, the hypothesis is insufficient. 

It goes without saying that doing science means applying the scientific method. In other words, theories and hypotheses must be supported by facts, measurements, and observations that anyone can verify. When a hypothesis is contradicted by the results obtained or fails to provide sufficient explanation for those results, it is discarded, and another is sought that better fits the data. Or one remains silent, waiting for someone else to develop new hypotheses. When Kepler’s hypotheses no longer held up against the observed results, scientists followed Newton’s theories because they were more consistent with what they were discovering; then came Einstein, who developed more complete theories, with results more consistent with the facts, and even Newton was surpassed. I believe this kind of approach should also be applied to Valtorta’s writings.

So: do the theses of Father Vaccari, Cardinal Bea, and the other critics of Maria Valtorta account for the scientific data present in her writings? Definitely not. Their hypotheses do not justify the data that has emerged and been published since 2012. For example, do the Bea-Vaccari hypotheses account for the Valtortian skies? How, that is, does Maria Valtorta cite the astronomical constellations so precisely and in such perfect sequence—over 2,500 times without a single error? And how do these constellations make it possible to date the events of Jesus’ life with precision, especially during the 40 months of his “public life” (from his departure from the house in Nazareth until Pentecost in A.D. 34)? Well, the answer is always no!

The many studies, published in scientific journals and properly vetted beforehand, along with the multitude of books on the same topics, show that the assumptions of 1949–1952 (Vaccari-Bea) do not measure up to what has been discovered: much more is needed to explain “the Valtorta enigma,” and in our view, we must necessarily adopt the thesis of attorney Giovanni Palladino: “Here is the finger of God.” 

— fr. Ernesto Zucchini

[This text was automatically translated by Deepl.com – quotes included]