Methodological and Theological Errors of Anselmo de la Cruz is Dangerous & Unacceptable for Catholics:
A Summary of the Refutation of Anselmo's Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article
Entitled “Poem of the Man-God: Dangerous & Unacceptable for Catholics”
Theological Errors and Incompetency, Methodological Flaws, Distortions and Misrepresentations, Lack of Objectivity, and Ignorance on the Subject
He is Writing About: How Anselmo de la Cruz’s Anti-Valtorta Article Lacks Substance and Credibility and Stands Completely Refuted
By Stephen Austin, January 2016Please Note: This present article is just a succinct summary/overview of the full refutation of Anselmo's article. The full refutation can be viewed here. The purpose of this summary is to provide a shorter article for those who want it. This article is also available in Spanish.
In his article, Anselmo makes subjective judgements about Valtorta’s work that are contradicted by many very learned and balanced theologians who have expressed a contrary judgement to the one Anselmo posits. Anselmo’s accusations and subjective opinions are not supported by relevant and irrefutable proofs, let alone by clear, unmistakable moral and theological criteria, as is shown throughout my refutation of his article.
As is demonstrated in the full refutation of Anselmo’s third article, every single supposed example and “proof” he has given in his articles attempting to demonstrate errors against faith and morals in Valtorta’s writing are all proven to be false, based on methodological flaws, or are a clear distortion or misinterpretation of the text, or, in some cases, is based on his ignorance and incompetency in certain theological areas such as his arguments concerning Original Sin.
Anselmo makes several sweeping generalizing statements. The specific examples he brings up to try to “prove” his unfounded thesis fail to support his thesis when examined properly. If Anselmo de la Cruz was prosecuting Valtorta’s work in court, the judge would have grounds to declare mistrial. Anselmo makes statements about Valtorta’s text that are factually incorrect and cannot be substantiated when the text is examined closely. An examination of the actual text shows that these affirmations are false and their affirmation in his article can be classified as academic dishonesty. Anselmo not only often leaves out relevant context in his articles, but also fails to include the necessary theological principles and distinctions necessary to correctly analyze what Valtorta actually wrote. Thus, his article twists and misrepresents Valtorta’s writings and is not a fair and valid objective analysis of what is actually written. When her writings are read in their proper context and all of the aspects are properly considered, the passages are always morally and theologically correct, and they have been declared as such by many competent theologians and ecclesiastical authorities who are far more learned than Anselmo and who employ an honest, thorough, and correct methodology in analyzing her work, with a scholarly level leagues above Anselmo’s article. All of this is presented in my full refutation.
This article by Anselmo presents so many irregularities that it is difficult to understand how it can be accepted in Catholic milieus, including traditionalist ones. Because of the theological errors and methodological flaws it contains – and other adjoining negative aspects – it is difficult to understand how it could be accepted by traditional Catholic media outlets, such as Tradition in Action, while at the same time, they claim they are a quality apostolate and publisher who fact check all of their articles and only include articles with solid theology and sound arguments. As someone once said to me who read my refutation of Horvat’s anti-Valtorta article (the latter of which is published on Tradition in Action’s website): “I am blown away. I find TIA [Tradition in Action] sometimes a bit too stuffy at times, but I did not think that they would have done such a poor job on the Poem.” Well, they did it again with Anselmo’s embarrassingly poor articles. (See my e-book for the refutation of Horvat’s anti-Valtorta article).
In Anselmo’s, Horvat’s, and TraditioninAction.org’s “witch hunt” against Valtorta, based on their faulty presumptions, poor theology, and – I might daresay – unsubstantiated paranoia that Valtorta’s writings are some sort of anti-Catholic conspiracy – I’m afraid that they are guilty of the same exact thing that some of the pre-Vatican II Holy Office officials were guilty of in wrongly condemning and censuring St. Padre Pio five times prematurely based on bad information.
Traditional Catholics are justified in sharing the sentiments and theological opinion of SSPX seminary professor Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called “our model spiritual guide,” the former of whom declared, “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”1 Fr. Barrielle’s position is also shared and substantiated by leading pre-Vatican II theologians who are more learned than most priests and layman (including this critic), especially in the areas needed to judge mystical writings, and who furthermore studied it in much further depth (not to mention that many of them actually personally knew, investigated, and communicated at length with the author of the work in question). These theologians also exhibited a healthy open mind free of presumption and prejudice, humility, and a healthy understanding of and balance in the area of emotions and affections, all of which served to make their theological examination of the author and her work all the more credible, trustworthy, and objective.
It is well known that the saints and the Church have historically more clearly explained or defined Church teaching when presented with objections of skeptics, critics, or heretics – thus making the truth shine even more brightly. In like manner, I am pleased to use this critic’s objections to more clearly show the strength of the Valtortian position and that it is worthy of faithful Catholics of good will to read her work, to benefit from it, and not only recognize that it is free of error in faith and morals, but also has accordance with Sacred Scripture and tremendous spiritual benefit for Catholics for generations to come. God works all things together for good. Just as God uses heresy to bring about a greater clarification of true doctrine, so God can take the misguided conclusions of critics to show forth the truth of the complete orthodoxy of her work and its great benefit to souls of good will.
The Pharisees and scribes rejected Christ because they did not want to know the truth. They did not want to be “confused with the facts.” I hope my e-book will serve humble, honest Catholics of good will who want to know the truth about this private revelation and this great gift of God for our generation. Heaven indeed did not waste its time in giving this great gift! “Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies; but test all things, and hold fast that which is good.” (The Great Apostle St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 1 Thessalonians 5: 19-21)
Click here for the full refutation of his article: A Complete Refutation of Anselmo's Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article Entitled “Poem of the Man-God: Dangerous & Unacceptable for Catholics”.