Brickbats and/or Bouquets on the

Received: 15 Feb. 2001 from Mary Clare W.

"What dreadful lies.

What blasphemy to CLAIM that Valtorta's Jesus was homosexual. I have read all 5 volumes. My conversion is testimony to that as well as many other of current day revelations including Medjugore (sic). To claim that you have read the volumes and still make this claim is utterly blasphemous.

Please stop carrying on the work of the devil.

(Signed) M.W.

Reply: 24 Feb. 2001 from John Loughnan

(Slightly edited re the "Annunciation part.)

Dear Mary Clare W.,

Thank you for your message; please accept my apologies for not having answered before now. It has been quite a busy time.

You wrote:

"Why deny God can perform miracles?"
I must confess that you have the advantage over me here! Where have I denied that "God can perform miracles"? Would you please be specific?

"What dreadful lies."
Well, Mary, what dreadful lies do you speak of? Would you please enlighten me?

"What blasphemy to CLAIM that Valtorta's Jesus was homosexual."
I agree. Certainly it IS blasphemy for Maria Valtorta to portray Our Lord in a homosexual manner!!! As a matter of fact, I have uploaded to my website the first parts of Br. James' "Critique" - (dealing with opening comments and Volume I of "Poem". I am still working on the HTMLing of Volume II - which is even more revealing. The URL is: Br. James, S.D.B.'s Critique of "Poem of the man-God"

Of course, just as one can "lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink", nor can one produce evidence and make one actually read it!

"I have read all 5 volumes."
Unfortunately, there is a big difference between "reading" and "comprehending"!

"My conversion is testimony to that as well as many other of current day revelations including Medjugore."
Yes...I noticed your post to "The Immaculate Heart of Mary Queen of all Hearts" message board at http://www.hia.net/giftstor/Secrets&warnings.html

This Forum promotes various "visionaries" such as Carol Ameche, Katie Burchfield, Conchita and Jacinta of Garabandal, Mary Jane Evans, Nancy Fowler of Conyers, Diane Lyons-Frasco, Fr. Stefano Gobbi, Sadie Jaramillo, John Leary, James McNichol, Medjugorjian "seers", Patricia Mundorf, Vassula Ryden, "Servant Son", Charlie Shattuck, Patricia Soto, Gianna Talone Sullivan, Louise Starr Tomkiel, Yolanda of Santa Maria.

Following a May 10, 1995 post of a "Message from Jesus through Vassula Ryden" - "...the three and a half years are already upon you...", you wrote:

"I now accept that the 3 and ½ year period is over. It was on the spiritual level and therefore not a humanly observable event...I still understand that (the Return of Christ) will occur before the year 2000."

Mary Clare, it is not for us to know the day or the hour. If your conversion to Catholicism is the result of these "visions", "apparitions", and/or "messages", etc. - then you have converted for the wrong reasons.

"To claim that you have read the volumes and still make this claim is utterly blasphemous."
Which simply means that you do not comprehend Catholicism. No Catholic is obliged to believe in ANY "private revelation" - not even those approved by the Church. It also means that you do not know the meaning of the word "blasphemous".

"Please stop carrying on the work of the devil."
It is the right and duty of a Catholic who does not believe in the authenticity of an "apparition" to present his findings and evidence to his fellow Catholics so that they can judge the authenticity for themselves. When one is bombarded with the pro argumentation, it is difficult to make a judgement without counterbalancing evidence.

Unfortunately, one who dares to question anything about Medjugorje and/or "Poem of the man-God" is branded as a liar, or as one "carying on the work of the devil" - as you have done, without supplying one iota of evidence to support your calumnies!!!

Finally, although I have produced enough evidence in the Valtorta/Medjugorje file you criticise (note I did NOT say READ - for I am confident that you did NOT do that), nevertheless, the HTML form of Br. James, SDB's "Critique of 'Poem of the man-God'" (4 Volumes) WILL be posted in due course to my site.

Br. James did not include in his Critique the following portion from Vol. I. Nevertheless, I have read this portion, relative to the Annunciation, at Glow Magazine

There is quoted from Valtorta's Vol. I:

"Mary begins to sing in a low voice, then She raises Her voice slightly. But She does not sing loudly. Still, it is a voice vibrating in the little room and one can perceive the vibration of Her Soul in it. I do not understand the words as they are spoken in Hebrew. But as now and again She repeats 'Jehova' I realize that it is a sacred song, perhaps a psalm. Mary is probably remembering the songs of the Temple..."

The next paragraph is as follows:
"The song changes into a prayer:['Mary' asks God to send Christ into the world; she offers herself; she repeats 'Send the Redeemer to your maidservant...Come, come, O Spirit of the Lord...Come, Prince of Peace!' F.J.L. summary.]

Comment:

1. Valtorta admits she does "not understand the words as they are spoken in Hebrew.".

2. She claims she recognizes ONE (1) of the Hebrew words her "Mary" sings: "Jehova".

3. Subsequently, her "Mary" "changes into a prayer". But it is now a language that Valtorta can understand. It cannot be Hebrew, so it could be Aramaic, Syriac, Greek or (say) Italian - which Valtorta does know!!!

4. Donald Attwater's "A Catholic Dictionary", 1958, p.9, states that:
   "Several centuries before the Christian era Jews, out of reverence, had ceased to pronounce the sacred name of God, J.H.V.H. [or Y.H.V.H. F.J.L.]...and had substituted Adonai in its stead...and Christians later misread this as Jehova.

5. Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1983, pp. 564/5 has this to say of the pronunciation of the name of God:

   "The true pronounciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it, and substituting in its stead one or other of the words with whose proper vowel points it may happen to be written, usually the name Adonai. They continued to write Yhwh, but read Adonai...The strong probability is that the name...was pronounced Yahweh... This custom, which had its origin in reverence, and has almost degenerated into a superstition was founded upon an erroneous rendering of Lev. 24:16, from which it was inferred that the mere utterance of the name constituted a capital offense...

6. If further evidence is required of proof of the Vatican's assessment of Valtorta's writings as "belonging in the category of "mental illness"(L'Ossrevatoro Romano), consider this: Valtorta speculates that her "Mary" "is probably remembering the songs of the Temple"!!! - in which, if the name of God was uttered, capital punishment would have been the fate of the utterer!!!

7. In summary: Valtorta has her "Mary" singing, in Hebrew (which Valtorta does not understand) a word which did not exist until later Christians mistakenly and erroneously used it for the name of God - but, in Jesus and Mary's time, for Jews to utter it was a capital offense!!!

   Then, for the convenience of Valtorta', "Mary" switches to a language that Valtorta can understand - very probably, to Italian!

Lord, save us from "silly women" 2 Tim. 3:6

Received from M.C.W. 24 Feb 2001

Hi John, Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at length regarding the concerns I have about your claims.

Most important of all for me is to re-read the sections which give you the impression that Our Lord as portrayed in these writings is homosexual. Can you please refer me to the pages which give this impression and explain the inference?

I too am going through a very busy time as my office has been without a secretary for nearly 2 months and I am working horrendous hours!

Thank you in anticipation, Mary

Reply: 24 Feb. 2001 from John Loughnan

Dear M C,

Thank you for your message.

However, you are "putting the cart before the horse"; you accused me of lies, blasphemy and carrying on the work of the devil.

As a matter of justice you must produce the evidence you had at the time of making those calumnious accusations or withdraw them unconditionally.

That having been done, we can then move on.

With kind regards,

Addendum March 12, 2001

Please note that Mary Clare took no notice of the statement in my "Reply: 24 Feb. 2001", wherein I informed her HOW to access the very details asked for in her "24 Feb 2001" message - by clicking on the quoted URL, which I repeat here: Br. James, S.D.B.'s Critique of "Poem of the man-God"

On March 5, I sent a notification to over a hundred people, including Mary Clare, that the completed work on Br. James' Critique was now viewable on my website. Mary Clare has still not taken the opportunity to view that information as of this date.

Received from Jim R. 16 Feb 2001

John, I just finished reviewing your web site with the updates on the "Poem of he Man God" and Medjugorje.

I may disagree with you on some things, but here you are right on.

I was outside the Catholic Church for 20 years and returned in April,1990, in October,1990,

I went to Medjugorje. It is one big money maker for those involved, it is an economic boon to that area as well as the government and tourist companys in that area. I came back kind of caught up in it, but it wasn't long until you saw the damage it was doing to parishes and people who had gone, in some ways it promotes gnosticism, they are the elite, they have the inside track, they have the answers, it has some very close ties with the charismatics and their nonsense.

Thank you for the great amount of work you put into this addition to your web site, much research and effort.

Thank you and may God richly Bless you,

Response from John Loughnan 16 Feb. 2001

Dear Jim,

Many thanks for your support. I am sure that we agree on the most important matters, and look forward to meeting you in the hereafter in the fullness of time.

I have received an e-mail message from another person who exhorts me to stop doing the devil's work (re: Valtorta and Medjugorje). This has prompted me to put on-line the original Critique by Bro. James, SDB. I will let you know when it is up. I will attach a file on Bro. James and my attempts to make contact with him. As you will see, I was advised that he subsequently became an SSPX priest, broke from them and is now living in Florida in poor health. If you have any means of establishing the full truth of the matter, I would be grateful. It would be great to have his formal permission on the matter.

Some very good sites on Medjugorje (and other "visions") are:

Rick Salbato's Unity Publishing

With kind regards and God bless,

Received from T. P.     6 Mar 2001

Dear John,

You ask for comments. I think you are overlooking one thing when attacking such phenomena as Maria Valtorta's the Poem of the Man God, Medjugorie and so on, and that is that bona fide Catholics are permitted to believe in these reputed apparitions provided they do not contradict the dogma of the faith. There is ample evidence that many souls have been considerably helped by both of the named phenomena. To attack them or to attempt to discredit them is going beyond the Pope and smacks of a kind of ultramontanism that I cannot agree with. I think Fidelity did an awful lot of harm to itself when it attacked these phenomena, and Fritz Albers (RIP) and Damien Mackey shot themselves in the foot by trying to discredit Garabandal. Their attacks did more harm than good. My advice is not to worry about such apparitions. To say the Church has condemned them is simply not true.

Take a leaf out of Gamaliel's book, lest you find you have spent your energy fighting against heaven.

God bless. And have a holy Lent

Response from John Loughnan Mar. 6, 2001

Dear T.,

Many thanks for your comments - for which I am grateful.

Before I go into further detail, I wonder if you can provide me with your justification for the statement relative to Maria Valtorta's "Poem of the man-God" and Medjugorje: "...bona fide Catholics are permitted to believe in these reputed apparitions provided they do not contradict the dogma of the faith."

What evidence do you have for saying "To say the Church has condemned them is simply not true."

Did you actually read the "Critique" prior to e-mailing me?

Did you actually read the successor of the Apostles for the Diocese of Mostar's "Criteria for Discerning Apparitions Regarding the Events of Medjugorje"? It DOES set out "The position of the Church", and, heavens to betsy! I would NOT wish to contradict the Apostle who has the power of discernment FOR THAT DIOCESE! If he wishes to delegate to a Bishops Conference or to "The Vatican", that is his business and right. BUT, are you able to tell me, Tim, when the negative decisions of the local Apostle has ever been reversed?

If they have never been reversed in the past (and you should be able to give instances where they have been), what are the chances for Medjugorje?

In the above mentioned "Criteria" Bishop Peric states:

"By stating the truth that it is impossible to prove and affirm (after some 20 years! F.J.L.) that the Blessed Virgin Mary has ever appeared to anyone in Medjugorje...let these useful tourist aims be based...not upon unsubstantiated and groundless supernatural 'apparitions', 'revelations' and 'messages'."

"The First Commandment forbids us to sin against religion by excess or by defect...false, superstitious or unbecoming methods in the worship of God; or that we worship an object that is not deserving of worship..." (End quote from Bishop Peric.)

Included under "False or Unbecoming Forms of Worship" is:

"2. If we describe fictitious miracles, visions, or private revelations IN ORDER TO FOSTER GREATER DEVOTION (emphasis added by F.J.L.), or if we attribute indulgences to prayers that have no indulgences attached in order to popularize certain prayers, we sin by excess. All these sins against the truth and purity of the Christian religion by lowering it in the esteem of men and by making it suspect of error." ("MORAL GUIDANCE", by Edwin F. Healy, S.J., S.T.D., Mag. Agg., 1943, Loyola University Press. pp. 70/1.)

With kind regards and God bless,

Received from T. P. 7 Mar 2001

Dear John,

You have caught me at a very busy time. I simply do not have the time and resources to answer all your questions. To the first, you will find it in canon law. A version with reliable index should lead you to it.

Sincerely, in the Hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph

Response from John Loughnan Mar. 7, 2001

Dear T.,

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate that you would be very busy at this time.

Please be assured that I did not lightly ask those questions; I do, in fact, possess (and consulted prior to writing the questions) "The Code of Canon Law" and the "Index to The Code of Canon Law". The Index has one only entry under "Revelation" [which does not mention anything about "Private Revelation"], and NO ENTRY in respect of "Private Revelation".

On the other hand there are several (6) entries under "Obedience" - including Can.212 #1 and #3.

In other words: I believe that a Catholic who does NOT believe in a particular "private revelation" has an obligation to alert "bona fide Catholics" as to his reasons so that they have sufficient information to make up their own minds - without being overwhelmed by emotional propaganda, and always being obedient to the local bishop.

May I suggest a visit to Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem., on the matter.

His personal website is: Fr Joe Horn's website Please note, Fr. Joe's new URL will be http://www.holyjoe.net

I would have had less reason to dispute your statement had it read something like:

"...Catholics are permitted to believe in these reputed apparitions provided they do are in conformity with the dogmas of the faith. They are also permitted to disbelieve them, but not to disbelieve anything in them which conform with the dogmas of the faith. Any "private revelation" which has not been approved by the appropriate Church authority may yet prove to be bogus or, even, diabolical - and must therefore be approached with great prudence and caution."

I would even add (from Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.:

"On the other hand, believing in 'apparitions' that have been actually condemned (e.g. Bayside, Necedah, Garabandal, Medjugorje, etc.) is foolish and may jeopardize one's eternal salvation."

Addendum March 10, 2001

The facts of the matter regarding Garabandal are, I suggest, far from the position espoused by T.P. above, as may be seen from the file on Garabandal at Rick Salbato's "Unity Publishing". Garabandal file

There appears to be an unfortunate trait among many disappointed "apparitionists" (seekers after "signs", "visions", and "messages") to negative decisions from the local authority - the bishop of the relative region - by treating them as if they are flawed and to be spurned and ignored in favor of the judgement of the alleged "seer"

This is the case in instances such as Mamma Rosa of San Damiano, Mary van Hoof of Neceda, Vassula Ryden of Switzerland, Medjugorje, Bayside, Garabandal, and others.

In the instance of Garabandal, T.P. above has written an appologia FOR that alleged phenomenon, acknowledging that:

"...succeeding bishops of Santander...signed a series of 'Notas' which cautioned the people against, giving any credence to what was happening there - that in fact, they denied that anything supernatural was occuring...[but that] we know that at the beginning a 'Commission' was established to examine the events, but that this Commission approached its task with its mind already made up, already determined to reach a negative judgement..."

Furthermore, "...the Bishops did what they could to sweep Garabandal off the map...we know too, with a moral certainty...(that the Third Secret of Fatima) concerns the great apostacy..."

"We know, however, that the events of Garabandal...have been ignored by the Church at large...and hostilely repudiated by those whose task it was to investigate and interpret them."

As to Conchita saying, on June 3, 1963: "Now only three remain...only three popes remain...the Virgin told me...The Virgin didn't tell me 'the end of the world,' but 'the end of the times'.", T.P. interprets as being an end to the times of the Vatican Council II era..."It therefore seems most probable that what Conchita is referring to, even though she does not understand it, is the end of times associated directly with Vatican Council II."

That Council was a mirror of the treatment of the Garabandal events - "At Garabandal we saw countless scenes of frantic activity, much of it seemingly pointless, and all of it seemingly fruitless; we see contadictions, denials, deceit, the insufferable behaviour of bishops, priests and laity, especially those who attempted the marginalisation and deliberate corruption of those whose lives and actions demonstrated their closeness to God."

He adds: "With respect to the story of Garabandal, it needs to be bourne in mind that another prophecy was made; namely, that something would happen which would lead to an almost total loss of faith in the events which took place in 1961-65."

There is nothing new here - for it has all been said before by Veronica Lueken of Bayside and her supporters. T.P. even has the Baysiders and other apparitionist dissidents as recommended links on his own website. Here are some of the recommended links on his website:

On the Coming Great Chastisement and Personal Salvation

Prophecy from Our Lady of the Roses

Are the Bayside Apparitions Condemned?

Of course, the Baysiders say "No" they haven't been condemned - because the bishop "didn't have the power; didn't do the right thing", etc. Well, Veronica Lueken is now dead and has experienced her personal judgement. R.I.P.

T.P. writes nothing negative about unapproved and condemned "visions", "apparitions" and "messages", but DOES write:

"I think you are overlooking one thing when attacking such phenomena as Maria Valtorta's the Poem of the Man God, Medjugorie and so on, and that is that bona fide Catholics are permitted to believe in these reputed apparitions provided they do not contradict the dogma of the faith. There is ample evidence that many souls have been considerably helped by both of the named phenomena."

I will not hold my breath while awaiting a response to all of my questions above of Mar. 6, 2001!!!

In the meantime - Read All About It; the Great Warning at Garabandal:

From: Rick Salbato's Unity Publishing The Warning Flight

"The '101 Foundation - Queen Peace Flight to Moscow' was brought about by 'alleged' messages from certain mystics. These messages claimed that by bringing the Official Fatima Statue and the mystics (six) to Moscow, the great conversion would take place. It was besides the fact that Lucia of Fatima said the Consecration was completed in 1984 and Mary would keep her promise. The flight was a fiasco in many ways, even causing $20,000 damage to the greatest sacramental in the modern world. [We have a report on this flight that everyone should read and never forget.]

Apparently, they did not learn. Before this flight [101] was even off the ground, these same mystics were saying that the 'Great Warning' of Garabandal would take place on Holy Thursday, April 13, 1995.

They packed many many airplanes at over $2000 per seat. In Garabandal there were between 15, 000 and 20,000 people packed on the little mountain against the orders of the bishop. Over one hundred Spanish policemen were needed.

Fourteen days later, they published an apology.

'I wish to apologize to any and all for the inconvenience caused by an erroneous prediction of the great miracle on Holy Thursday, April 13, 1995.'

People were screaming for their money back. There was no miracle, there was no accomodations, everything was a mess, almost as bad as Jim Jones. They assured people that they still had their money but they went on to say how many financial problems they had, and asked that they have mercy. They went on to say that Mary has asked us to perform acts of penance, and they quoted 'Garabandal, San Damiano, Medjugorje, Akita, Venezuala, Rowita, and Father Gobbi,' [All but Akita are false or partially false.]"

There were several further exchanges and then a lull, followed by a message asking the same thing, on March 17, from the same computer IP. This time it was signed by Amy P. So, I deduced that Mary Clare W. and Amy P. were the same person. Nevertheless, I replied, sending an ASCII resume of the sensual sections which, I presume, were the basis for Br. James and his proofreader declaring that "Valtorta's Jesus is homosexual"! Amy P. replied that she did, indeed, use Mary Clare's computer whlie on a visit to her, and that they shared the same concerns.

Accordingly, when I completed the HTMLing of the file now known as Maria Valtorta's portrayal of the "SENSUALITY" of Jesus I sent it to Amy P., requesting that she show Mary Clare. I also pointed out that I was still awaiting an apology from Mary Clare for accusing me of being a liar, a blasphemer, and doing the work of the devil.

I am happy, therefore to publish the following exchange:

From: Mary Clare W.......
Subject: Apology
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001

Dear John, I am very sorry. Please accept my unconditional apology.

Sincerely yours, Mary Clare.

And, my reply:

Dear Mary Clare,

It takes a tremendous amount of courage and humility to apologise.

With the greatest of joy I accept your apology and in return wish you every blessing from Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and His and our Blessed Mother Mary for your future.

With thanks and kind regards,

John