The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta's Writings: a Response to Certain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings: A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections Contents Introduction 1 The Question at Issue: Faith and Morals 2 The Critics and Their Criticisms 4 Objection #1: Luisa’s Writings Constitute New Public Revelation. 6 Objection #2: Luisa Claims to Describe a New Type of Holiness. 22 “Must” We Adhere to Luisa’s Private Revelation? 24 Was the Sanctity of the Saints a “Poor and Lowly Union”? 30 Is There a Higher Sanctity than the Mystical Marriage of the Saints? 32 The New and Divine Holiness as “Easy” to Receive and Live. 35 St. Thomas Aquinas and the Possibility of a State of New and 41 Divine Holiness in Man. Objection #3: Luisa Advocates Monothelitism. 44 #4: Miscellaneous Objections 53 A. Luisa Places Herself on Par with Mary. 53 B. Mary had No Human Love for St. Joseph. 55 C. It is Improper to Speak of Acting “Divinely”. 56 D. Luisa Advocates Quietism. 59 E. The Old Testament Jews Merited the Redemption. 63 Conclusion: Recalling the Proper Place of Private Revelation and Theology 65 Certification 67 The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings: A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections Stephen Patton* February 11, 1999 Copyright, Stephen Patton Introduction One of the most controversial Catholic mystics of modern times has been the Third Order Dominican, the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865-1947). She was born in Corato, in the province of Bari, Italy, on April 23, 1865, received only a first grade education, and was called to serve Our Lord as a victim soul at the age of 16. On February 28, 1899, she was given the obedience by her spiritual director to begin a diary of her spiritual experiences, which she continued until 1938: 36 notebooks which detail her intimate rapport with heaven. According to the revelations contained in Luisa’s diary, the Holy Trinity wishes to complete their work of creation, redemption, and sanctification through a “Third Fiat,” an unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Through this Third Fiat, the Holy Spirit will restore the original holiness of Adam and Eve to the earth and achieve the fulfillment of the Lord’s Prayer petition: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” The years since the opening of Luisa’s cause of beatification in 1994 have witnessed an explosion of interest in these ideas and in Luisa’s writings. In a forward to a recent English translation of Luisa’s diary, Archbishop Giuseppe Carata, Archbishop Emeritus of the Archdiocese of Trani-Nazareth, observed that souls “from all five continents” have testified to the transforming power of Luisa’s writings. “It is awesome,” he wrote, “that such abundant fruit, maturing in nations around the world, should have come forth from such a small tree planted by God here in Corato.”1 Along with the growing interest in Luisa’s writings, objections regarding their orthodoxy have also proliferated. This should come as no surprise. On their own terms, the writings are revolutionary. They describe an unexpected initiative of the Holy Trinity on the same level of importance as the creation and redemption of the universe. It would be troubling if such a claim did not evoke some caution, some questions, in the hearts and minds of * M.A. (Theology), Franciscan University of Steubenville; M.S. (Industrial Administration), Carnegie Mellon University; J.D., University of Pittsburgh. 1 Archbishop Giuseppe Carata, Archbishop Emeritus, Archdiocese of Trani-Nazareth, “Presentation of the English Edition of Luisa’s Writings,” June 8, 1995 (Jacksonville: Center for the Divine Will, 1995). 1 Christians. This certainly was the case the last time God moved in such a way, in the Redemption. God’s Second Fiat2 came even to good and faithful Jews in a way that was unexpected, and even scandalous.3 Some Jews, like Mary, received it immediately. Others, like Paul, received it only after opposing it passionately. Some never did receive it. But in light of what they knew of God, his laws, and his past dealings with them, all of them had to test the “orthodoxy” of the staggering, wholly redimensioning claims made by “this Jesus.” (Acts 2:36) We must now do the same with the enormous proposal that Luisa makes to us in her writings. God wants us to test her claims, to see if they agree with the teachings of the Church. Over the past two thousand years of the Christian Revelation, God has wanted us to keep our hearts open to gifts consistent with it, while screening out “gifts” that are not: “Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good.” (I Thes. 5:20-21) Archbishop Carmelo Cassati, ordinary of the Archdiocese of Trani-Nazareth where Luisa’s cause is being advanced, underscores the importance of this task. In his letter of January 22, 1998, to the authorized promoters of the Kingdom of the Divine Will, he stated that “it is the task of those who explain her doctrine to others...to reconcile it with the teaching of the Church.” His statement describes two closely related but distinguishable endeavors, the latter of which rests upon the former: first, the task of reconciling Luisa’s doctrine with Church teaching, second, the task of explaining it. The scope of this paper is limited to the first task. Certainly the work of reconciling her doctrine will, of necessity, involve some measure of explanation. But it will not require a comprehensive, systematic account of her doctrine. It is important to note why. The Question at Issue: Faith and Morals Consider how the Jews evaluated God’s revelation of himself in the Incarnation and Redemption. It was incumbent upon them to compare his words and ways in the Old Testament with what Jesus said and did. They knew that if Jesus spoke and acted consistently with God’s ways of old, he was, at least, not unorthodox. This evaluation would not definitively answer for them whether he (or John the Baptist or anyone else for 2 In this paper I will use as a shorthand Luisa’s terminology with respect to the three “fiats” of God: 1) Creation, 2) Redemption, and 3) Sanctification. 3 The fact that the Third Fiat might evoke similar responses certainly does not prove its validity. But neither does it disprove it. In fact, if we can hope for the possibility of another intervention of God in human history of such cosmic significance, we can expect that his mode of operation will be similar. For example, we can expect a radical consistency with the revelation that has preceded it, coupled with a radical deepening and redimensioning of it in surprising ways. We might also expect it to be introduced in hiddenness, through a human vessel. 2 that matter) was God’s new revelation of himself, but they would at least know that Jesus was not against God’s former revelation. This was the first and foundational question. But answering this one question positively did not resolve all of their difficulties. For example, the first converts needed to determine that Jesus’ description of himself as both “Son of God” and “Son of Man” was not against the faith they had been given by God. But merely making that determination did not give them a complete understanding of the hypostatic union. For two thousand years, the Church has been continuously and more deeply developing, explaining, and comprehending that doctrine. I must immediately clarify that the public revelation of the Incarnation and Redemption and the private revelation to Luisa, even if it is legitimate, belong to entirely different orders of authority. Acceptance of and adherence to public revelation are required for salvation and growth in holiness. Acceptance of and adherence to Luisa’s revelation, by the very terms of public revelation, are not.4 Nevertheless, in our evaluation of Luisa’s private revelation concerning God’s potential Third Fiat of Sanctification we can learn something from the first Christians’ response to public revelation, the Second Fiat. First, we learn that, before we can open our hearts and minds to this new revelation, we must make sure that it does not contradict any truth revealed by God. If it does, we must reject it immediately. Even if we conclude that it does not, we do not necessarily accept it.5 But we may. And if we do, we then proceed to understand it more deeply. Appreciating the distinction between reconciliation and explanation will be especially important, for example, when examining what Luisa has to say about “living in the divine will,” that is, allowing the divine will to become the primary agent of one’s acts while participating in all of the activity of God insofar as that is possible for a creature. It remains incumbent upon Luisa’s promoters to reconcile this notion with the Church’s doctrine on mystical union. But how could this concept ever be fully explained? Who, even among those who have actually experienced mystical union, could ever do this? “When theologians try to...they are obliged to relinquish the attempt, and to declare that this grace is so much above all human conceptions that it must be regarded as a mystery.”6 4 Even though some people rightly claim that they were raised to a much higher level of sanctity or even saved through a private revelation, public revelation is still the lone source of their salvation and sanctity. Private revelation serves only as a lens to help the individual to see more clearly and to draw saving power more abundantly from the source, which is Christ’s definitive (public) Revelation.