Talk:Maria Valtorta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On the Index[edit]

Noted that the book was placed on the Catholic Index in 1959, and did not receive an imprimatur.

Actually the book and its translations do carry imprimaturs from several Bishops. The Wikipedia page has a link to the imprimatur of Bishop Danylak.

Factual Accuracy[edit]

Regarding the factual accuracy box, please clarify exactly the items that you are disputing. As I read it, the article never said that the book has "permission" from the Church, but that the index that once prohibited the book was abolished. The debate as to what that means continues. As the article says:

Valtorta followers argue that this in effect nullified the suppression of 1959 since the Index no longer existed after 1965. Others view the abolition of the Index as not reversing the Church's opinion of the work.

The article never claims that the "Church" has given permission. At the moment it seems that it is anyone's guess what the Church position is unless someone manages to corner some Church official on a Rome street and question them. And I doubt if one would get an answer even then. There are a few Bishops and Cardinals that suppport the book and have provided imprimaturs, but the Holy See as a whole seems to want to keep quiet. After Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi's letter, the Church has remained silent, as the article said. If the Holy See wanted to, they could just type up a letter tomorrow and order everyone not to read the book - they have enough stationary anyway. They do not seem to want to do that.

If you have a reference to the contrary, please provide it. I would be interested in seeing it. I will be glad to remove or reword any specific items whose factual accuracy you are disputing. Else the factual accuracy box needs to be removed. Thank you History2007 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing more research on this and am realizing how controversial it is. Part of the controversy, though, appears to be that there is a lot of misinformation b.c. the Valtorta publishers are making exaggerated claims on their website that the Catholic Church disputes through their websites. And there is some confusion as to the initial papal reaction, which was not written. I'm compiling some research and have ordered a book through inter-library loan. There are very few books available that focus on Valtorta (none at my university, the largest library in the state), according to some keyword and subject searches I did. So give me a week or so to get that together. You will notice that in the article here, most of the body is not cited with specific citations, an obvious contradiction to Wikipedia general policy. Carinamc (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I will be glad to learn more about this topic as the discussion continues. The fact is that this "is" a controversial topic and the original "papal approval" was probably questioned by many people because a "papal ban" was placed on it by a 2nd Pope. You may also be interested that I realized the support for it may have come from the somewhat liberal Cardinal Augustin Bea who had the ear of Pope Pius XII so to speak, for he was the Pope's confessor. The opposition probably came from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani who was super conservative and who also banned Faustina Kowalska's work. Interestingly enough I later realized the two Cardinals were not exactly best friends and Cardinal Bea was the main obstacle that stopped Cardinal Ottaviani at Vatican II [1]. So it seems (but there is no proof I could find) that Cardinal Ottaviani waited for Pope Pius XII to die, then presented the next pope with a paper to sign to ban Valtorta.
But anyway, one point you make that is valid is that there need to be plenty more in text citations to make the article more Wikipedia friendly. But that just requires routine editing and once I have some free time I will do that. But the heart of the arguments will remain the same: The book was on the index, the index went away, the Holy See is now keeping quite and Valtorta's followers (including various Bishops) keep reading the book, although there are some people who are still angry about the book. There is really no way to dispute these basic and simple facts. It is just a question of presenting them with references.
However, there is one thing that is clear in all these debates. Valtorta's work is such that many people will read it with or without Church approval. In fact they were publishing and reading it while it was on the "forbidden index" decades ago, and they seem intent to keep reading it. I must say that personally, I found this very long book hard to put down once I started reading a few pages. It is a "very unusual" piece of text (the most unusual I have seen to date) and as a hardened scientist who questions everything, I have no explanation for why it is so hard to categorize it. In any case, I look forward to seeing your references. Please post them on this talk page, for it is on my watch list. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


My edit about the numerous references to horseshoes was deleted, but I'm still pretty certain that it was a historical innacuracy of Valtorta to place them in the Holy Land in the first century. A reference to a mule's iron shoe by Catallus suggests that shod animals were known in Rome at least by the first century BC, however, from my rather brief research into the subject, there does not seem to be any literary or archaeological evidence whatsoever that animals were shod in the time and place Maria Valtorta's work is set. The reference in episode 326. to hot-shoeing appears to be unquestionably anachronistic, but I'd be grateful if a more knowledgable party could weigh in.

These are some of the episodes where shod animals are mentioned:

25. The Presentation of the Baptist in the Temple. St. Joseph's Passion, 102. Cure of Johanna of Chuza near Cana, 160. From Naphtali to Giscala. Meeting with Rabbi Gamaliel, 247. At Bethlehem in Galilee, 288. The Sabbath at Gerasa, 315. Jesus' Farewell to the Two Disciples, 326. Evangelizing at the Border of Phoenicia. and 330, The Cananean Mother

Horseshoes, not muleshoes, are explictly mentioned (not as shape comparisons to roads, etc.) in episodes 288. 326. and 330.

The archaeological collection at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem does not include a single animal shoe at all, and I haven't had much luck with some brief Google searches for archaeological sites in Israel turning up even one horseshoe or muleshoe. Josephus in his "War of the Jews" does not once mention horseshoes, for whatever that's worth. Considering the fact that shod animals are mentioned liberally (and literally) throughout The Poem Of The Man-God, it appears to be an anachronism. But again, I'd be very grateful if anybody more knowledgable about this area has any information about animal shoeing in Israel, so we can determine whether their numerous mentions in The Poem Of The Man-God is anachronistic or not. RugTimXII (talk) 020:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The good news here is that it appears that you have read the Poem. Congratulations on that - it is a long book. I will look further at the items you mentioned above by tomorrow, but you do have a technical "Wiki-problem" here. If any of the equestrian items you have consulted do not relate to Valtorta, then your statement will be WP:OR in any case because it will be your own reasoning. I am sorry but that is how Wikipedia works. One other side note to mention if you are looking at these issues is that in those days iron was a precious commodity and when a horse/mule died the iron was not left on it, but pulled if there, melted and re-used, so it would be hard to fin those in many cases. And by the way, the lack of evidence is no proof of non-existence. It may be that evidence will be found in 50 years, so there is an argument from silence therein as well. And as you well know, argument from silence has been repeatedly used against the Paulien Epistles, and been criticized in turn, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, episode 25 says that the donkey lost a shoe, but not that the shoe was nailed, etc. The same with episode 102. So again, we do have a WP:OR issue here. We can not debate that between us. And to be upfront, this is really nitpicking. If this is a major issue for the criticism of the Poem, then the critics must be really out of ammunition. Given the 5,000 pages of theology laden text is this an issue? Mule shoes....History2007 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the theology, though I think there is a lot of debate about that too. That's a shame about the WP:OR issue. I think if there are any historical inaccuracies in the poem they are probably important, especially since so many people think Jesus was sending Valtorta visions of these details. You're right about the argument from silence, but I'm not sure it means the argument shouldn't be taken into consideration. Thank you so much for your time and consideration on this subject. RugTimXII 20:15, 6 October 2012
You are welcome. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Injury year[edit]

The intro and Early Life sections, citing the same source, differ as to when she was struck on the head. Which is correct? -Rasd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)