Contents

Introduction

The Question at Issue: Faith and Morals

The Critics and Their Criticisms

Objection #1: Luisa’s Writings Constitute New Public Revelation

Objection #2: Luisa Claims to Describe a New Type of Holiness

"Must" We Adhere to Luisa’s Private Revelation?

Was the Sanctity of the Saints a "Poor and Lowly Union"?

Is There a Higher Sanctity than the Mystical Marriage of the Saints?

The New and Divine Holiness as "Easy" to Receive and Live

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Possibility of a State of New and Divine Holiness in Man

Objection #3: Luisa Advocates Monothelitism

#4: Miscellaneous Objections

A. Luisa Places Herself on Par with Mary

B. Mary had No Human Love for St. Joseph

C. It is Improper to Speak of Acting "Divinely"

D. Luisa Advocates Quietism

E. The Old Testament Jews Merited the Redemption

Conclusion: Recalling the Proper Place of Private Revelation and Theology

Certification

Stephen Patton*

February 11, 1999

Copyright, Stephen Patton

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."

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 Christians. This certainly was the case the last time God moved in such a way, in the Redemption.

God’s Second Fiat came even to good and faithful Jews in a way that was unexpected, and even scandalous. 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.

[Back to Contents]

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 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.

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. 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."

Luisa wrote that the new and divine mystical union that Jesus offered to her (and, through her, to everyone else) is higher than the forms that have preceded it. Distilling and refining what she has written so as to explain how this can be will be important in the propagation of her spirituality. But it will not be necessary in answering the foundational question, namely, whether there is anything in her writings against faith and morals. In this regard, it will only be necessary to show that the form of mystical union she speaks of is not against the Church’s teachings on mystical union. And, as I will show later, the broad terms of that teaching do not deny the possibility of higher and lower forms of mystical union.

[Back to Contents]

Of the several critics of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta I am only aware of two who have published any original theological reflection: Fr. Terrence Staples and Fr. William Most. The rest seem to do little more than quote and embellish the work of these two priests. If there are others who have anything original to add to the discussion, I do not know of them, and so in this paper I will limit my response to the writings of Fathers Staples and Most.

The following is a summary of Fr. Staples’ and Fr. Most’s objections to Luisa’s writings which will also serve as the outline of this paper:

1. Luisa’s writings constitute new public revelation. This is the principal objection. We know as a matter of faith that the entire deposit of Christian doctrine has been handed on from the apostles and that "no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord." Luisa’s openly novel Third Fiat is seen as an attempt to add to the deposit of faith.

2. Luisa claims to describe a new type of holiness. This is closely connected to the first objection. "What was handed on by the apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith." To suggest that two thousand years later God would introduce a new form of holiness that would far surpass the holiness of the saints of old is taken not only as a violation of this doctrine but as a theological impossibility.

3. Luisa advocates Monotheletism. Luisa describes this new form of holiness, "living in the divine will," as the ultimate union of the human will with the divine will. To her critics, the language she uses appears to reintroduce an early Christian heresy which held that Christ in effect had only a divine will and not a human will.

4. Miscellaneous Objections. a) Luisa places herself on par with Mary: Luisa writes that Jesus chose her to serve the unique role of ushering in the Third Fiat. This is taken as an affront to Mary’s unique role and to her unparalleled holiness. b) Mary had no human love for St. Joseph. c) It is improper to speak of acting "divinely": Luisa’s new form of "divine holiness" is accused of denying the necessary involvement of human action. d) Luisa advocates Quietism: Some critics interpret Luisa’s form of mystical union as Quietism, a heresy condemned for its emphasis on extinguishing all human desire and activity. e) The Old Testament Jews merited the Redemption.

[Back to Contents]

Fr. Staples begins this objection with a summary of Church teaching on public and private revelation (with emphasis from his original):

"1. ‘The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. I Tim 6:14, I Tit 2:13).’ (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 4.)

"2. ‘Everything we need for holiness and increase in faith has been handed on from the Apostles once and for all (cf. Jude 3). What was handed on by the apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith. In this way the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.’ (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 8.)

"3. ‘And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.’ (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 9.)

"4. ‘Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church’

‘Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"’ (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #67)"

After this summary of Church teaching, Fr. Staples proceeds to quote various passages from Luisa’s writings and then shows how, in his view, each one violates Church teaching. He numbers each of these selections, and for the sake of easy reference I will generally follow his sequence of passages. For each I will begin with the selection from Luisa along with his arguments, and then proceed with my analysis. I duplicate his bold-facing. My own emphasis is in italics.

Fr. Staples’ passage #1:

Fr. Staples takes this passage to mean that "Luisa is claiming that via her ‘private revelation’ God is revealing to the entire Church the full meaning of creation and redemption. Furthermore, she is claiming that without her the redemption would remain incomplete!" What she is saying either "adds to" or "surpasses" Christ’s definitive Revelation.

My response: As Fr. Staples’ aforementioned passages from the Catechism and Dei Verbum make clear, public revelation is, in one sense, "complete." Nothing more of substance may be added to the deposit of faith. But in quite another sense Christ’s definitive Revelation is "incomplete" in that it is not yet fully explicated:

Furthermore, we recognize that we do not yet have the "plenitude of divine truth." We await the "fulfillment" of the words of God in the Church:

Therefore, it is not necessarily a violation of Church teaching for a private revelation to claim that God’s work in Redemption (or Creation) is "incomplete." We would have to examine the context: Is the intent to suggest that something was substantively missing in God’s work of Redemption, and that the private revelation is now "filling in a hole"? Or is it to suggest that his work is not yet fully explicated or fulfilled, and that the private revelation is moving us in that direction? If intended in this latter sense, it would be entirely acceptable for a private revelation to claim that God is revealing a fuller meaning to, and a more complete accomplishment of, his works of Creation and Redemption.

If the selection above, standing alone, does not clarify that Luisa means the latter and not the former, consider it in the context of these other passages in which Luisa reports what Jesus told her about his "completion" of the First and Second Fiats:

In summary, we know as a matter of faith that, in a sense, God’s work in Creation and in Redemption is not yet completed. But, as a matter of faith, we know very little about how he will complete it. We only know two things: 1) that he will do it, and 2) that he will do it in a way that does not contradict Church teaching on faith and morals. Could he possibly do it by way of the Third Fiat described by Luisa? Yes, as long as what is presented in the writings does not contradict Church teaching. And since we know that simply claiming that the First and Second Fiats are "incomplete" presents no such contradiction, completion through the Third Fiat is a possibility.

Could God choose to introduce his work of "completion" through, and even contingent upon, the free consent of an otherwise obscure human virgin? He certainly introduced the Fiat of Redemption in this fashion. No article of faith forbids this possibility. Nowhere does Luisa claim, as Fr. Staples asserts, that "without her the redemption would remain incomplete." It is God who does the completing; Luisa merely consents to let him act through her. Jesus’ language in the passage at issue makes that clear enough: "I wish to emit the third FIAT..."

While Luisa’s writings indicate that her consent is the "first link" in God’s final work of sanctification, they also state that the ultimate end of this "completing" Third Fiat would take place after her death through the cooperation of other Christians who will also accept God’s invitation to "live in his divine will." Neither Luisa’s writings nor the achievements of her life "complete" the work of Creation and Redemption. They are merely the setting into motion of that completion. Such a method of "completing" the works of Creation and Redemption is certainly neither constrained nor explicitly prophesied by Christ’s definitive Revelation. But neither is it forbidden by those terms, and that is the critical question here.

In the following passage (#2) Fr. Staples claims that, "Luisa is saying that the ministers of the Church must receive from her the message of the Divine Will in order to fulfill God’s plan. One cannot be obligated through necessity to follow a private revelation":

My response: The issue is whether this passage implies that priests were obligated to assist Luisa, or whether Luisa was obligated to receive their assistance. Though the sentence itself is somewhat ambiguous, its meaning becomes clearer in the context of this journal entry taken as a whole, of other related passages, and of the circumstances of her life. Luisa begins this entry lamenting the fact that she alone has to bother the priests:

For most of her life, every evening, Luisa would fall into a mystical state of total physical paralysis. Only by the presence and command of a priest would she be able to come out of this state the following morning. When she first began to have these mystical experiences, she would sometimes be left in this state for days on end until finally, and often reluctantly, a priest would come. This caused her not only great physical pain, but considerable embarrassment. She did not wish to need this "assistance" but it was imposed upon her by Jesus. Additionally, Jesus insisted that she follow his requests, especially that she suffer as a victim soul, only if she received her confessor’s permission.

Luisa’s submission to the direction of priests extended to the project of her writings. From the opening line of Volume 1, the writings repeatedly indicate that whatever and whenever Luisa wrote, she wrote only under obedience to her confessors. She was to record for them whatever she experienced and received from Jesus.

In the passage cited above, Jesus seems to be saying that no other seer in history has been placed under such a strict obligation to submit her revelations and her experiences to the direction, and often to the whims, of priests. Thus, even though no-one in the Church would ultimately be obligated to believe and to follow this private revelation, Jesus still insisted that it be delivered in strict submission to the ministers of the Church.

Furthermore, even taken the other way - that priests were obligated to assist Luisa - this passage still does not support Fr. Staples’ conclusion that they were obligated to follow her private revelation. The bishop, once aware of Luisa’s condition, did instruct priests to assist her. But he merely directed them to assist a suffering soul. As instructed, she related to them the revelations she had received, and, as instructed, they received them from her. But this does not imply that these priests (or anyone else) were obligated to believe and follow her revelations.

Fr. Staples believes that in the following section (#3) Luisa claims supremacy over the Church and that she "is claiming to have received a new ‘deposit’ of faith which parallels the revelation given to the Apostles." Jesus to Luisa:

My response: It is helpful to begin by clarifying what Jesus means when he says "in the same way I have done this with you." Fr. Staples presumes that he refers to the clause that immediately precedes this statement, i.e., that Jesus is giving Luisa supremacy over the Church in an identical manner and measure as he did with his mother. But the sense of the paragraph as a whole does not support this interpretation. Jesus is more likely saying that in delivering these truths to Luisa he is acting with her in the same general manner that he acted with his mother: As he entrusted to Mary one deposit of truth (i.e., the deposit of faith) to give to the Church, so he is now giving another "deposit of truth" (i.e., a development of the deposit of faith) to Luisa to give to the Church. Both are "needed" by the Church, but in entirely different orders of need.

Jesus gave to his Mother all the "laws, precepts and doctrines that the Church needed to possess" to know and follow the binding truths of the Second Fiat of Redemption. He gave to Luisa all of the "laws, precepts and doctrines that the Church needed to possess" to know and follow the non-binding truths of the Third Fiat of Sanctification. It is evident throughout the writings of Luisa that one may freely (though unfortunately) reject the gift of this "new and divine holiness" without any fear of losing either his salvation or the measure of holiness he has attained. This is quite unlike the gift of the Redemption. If one rejects it, he rejects both salvation and any measure of holiness.

This contrast between the binding and non-binding natures of the "deposits" entrusted to Mary and Luisa respectively, also informs our understanding of the measure of "supremacy over all the Church" which each enjoys. Mary’s is absolute: applicable to the entire, essential "deposit of faith" which she gave to the Church. Luisa’s is relative: applicable only to that particular, non-essential (that is, not essential to any particular person’s salvation and holiness) deposit which she gave to the Church. At the very worst Luisa is claiming, "Jesus has given me primacy within the Church with respect to these truths which, tremendous though they may be, anyone is free to reject." This does not contradict any article of Catholic faith.

Luisa speaks many times in her writings about a new way of union with God, a new way of praying. Fr. Staples cites this representative passage (#4) from Our Lord’s revelations to Luisa:

Fr. Staples’ comment begins: "Notice here that Luisa does not claim that her teachings are in any way connected with the Tradition received." He then explains why all developments of doctrine and legitimate private revelations must be organically connected to Sacred Tradition.

My response: The problem with his analysis is that it is built upon an erroneous premise: Luisa is not claiming what he says she is claiming. She (actually Jesus) only claims that what he is disclosing to her now has never been disclosed before in the lives of the saints or in any books of doctrine. This alone does not amount to a disconnection or disassociation from Sacred Tradition. Novelty is not the equivalent of discontinuity. To prove that what Luisa wrote is against the faith, it is not enough just to show its novelty vis a vis the lives of the saints and books of doctrine. It must also be shown that the actual substance of the novelty is theologically disconnected from Sacred Tradition.

Imagine a young apple tree that has sprouted from the seed and just emerged from the earth. If we were to search the tree thoroughly, nowhere on it or in it would we find an apple. Later, the young tree sends out a multitude of branches and leaves. But there is still no apple. Finally, one season, "fruiting buds" emerge. If we were to examine one of these, even under the microscope, we would still not find an apple. Next, the bud matures and then blossoms. But search the blossom and we will still not find an apple. At last, the blossom is pollenized, and its petals fall to the earth. What remains now, where the blossom had been, is an apple in its tiniest form. For the first time in the life of the apple tree, it has brought forth something that is both entirely continuous with the life of the tree, and yet never before seen in or on the tree. Furthermore, for the first time the tree becomes charged with a previously unseen and unimagined potency to create new life.

In this passage Jesus is not separating the new wonder of his will working in the creature and the creature acting in his will from Sacred Tradition. He is showing that it is not merely a repeat of anything that has preceded it.

eeeee

Fr. Staples’ failure to distinguish novelty from discontinuity also leads him to misjudge what Luisa has to say here about the "Our Father":

Fr. Staples interprets this passage as follows (I have taken the liberty of splitting a part of his sentence into two clauses): "Luisa clearly states that the interpretation she is giving to the Our Father (1) is without precedent and (2) is not rooted in Tradition." Even if conclusion #1 has been shown, and it is not clear that it has been, conclusion #2 has not. It neither follows as a necessary, logical consequence of conclusion #1 nor has it been shown by separate analysis to be true. For Fr. Staples to prove that what Luisa says is against the faith, he must show not merely that it has not been seen before in Tradition, but that it contradicts some aspect of Tradition. This he has not done.

Luisa’s writings do in fact show that the newness of her private revelation has its roots in Christ’s definitive Revelation. In several passages Jesus says that his present work in accomplishing the Third Fiat is intimately connected with his prior work in accomplishing the Second Fiat. More precisely, all of his work with respect to both Fiats was accomplished at the time of the Redemption. It is just that he has waited until now to open up or bring to fruition what he himself had hidden within the fabric of his definitive Revelation. The following passages point to this phenomenon of "the new hidden within the old":

For the sake of maintaining categories, I am skipping over Fr. Staples’ selections #5, #6 and #8 for the moment, but will return to them in my response to Objection #2. This following passage (#7), however, elaborates upon the charges of novelty and discontinuity that lie at the heart of this first objection:

My response: Again, Fr. Staples is troubled that Luisa speaks, in any sense, of God’s work being "incomplete." I have already shown that there is a paradox involved here: we not only can but must understand that God’s work, e.g., in Redemption, is both complete and yet not completed. With respect to Luisa’s statement that the completing of his work will come through a Third Fiat of Sanctification, Fr. Staples claims that, "This is not only absent from the deposit of faith, it contradicts it!" Again, while it is true that no explicit mention of a Third Fiat is found in the deposit of faith, that fact alone does not prove that it contradicts the faith. One must go on to show that the substance of the Third Fiat contradicts the faith.

Fr. Staples offers this test of the orthodoxy of private revelation: "the teaching given in any private revelation must be demonstrable from Scripture and Tradition apart from any reference to the private revelation itself." The teaching of Luisa’s private revelation here is essentially this: God wishes to bring to fulfillment the work of sanctification that he has begun in man. This does not contradict the deposit of faith. It conforms to it and affirms it. Scripture and Tradition have continuously taught that God will do this in us. How he will do it we do not know. What we will be like after he does it we do not know. We only know that he will do it. The question of orthodoxy is not answered by whether Scripture and Tradition indicate that a Third Fiat would necessarily be the means. The question is whether they allow for it as a possible means.

Father Staples groups the following four passages together (#9, #10, #11, #12) and then provides one general commentary for all of them.

Fr. Staples begins his commentary with a summary of these passages: "Here, Luisa claims Jesus told her that God’s greatest desire is that we adhere to this private revelation and so enter into the Divine Will."

My response: This is not what Luisa claims. Fr. Staples confuses the means with the end. Jesus indeed says in #12 that God’s greatest desire for man is that he enter into his divine will. He is enthusiastic about these writings because of their efficacy as a means of attaining that end.

The purpose or object of any private revelation is "to help man live more fully by Christ’s definitive Revelation." Consonant with that purpose, the writings of Luisa are to help man to achieve the ultimate purpose of Christ’s definitive Revelation. The writings themselves do not propose to complete that Revelation. Nor do they impose adherence upon anyone. They simply state that God, working in souls as described by Luisa, will ultimately complete the work that he has begun in man. That is his greatest desire for us, however it is accomplished.

Distinguishing between means and end is also key to understanding what Jesus says in #12 (and #13 below) about the Eucharist. The Eucharist is indeed the most efficacious source of our spiritual growth, but it is given to us as a means to accomplishing an end, "the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God." Man continuously living in the divine will "surpasses" the Eucharist not as one means surpasses another, but as the end surpasses the means.

"(I)n order that the liturgy (and the Eucharist) may be able to produce its full effects it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions..." Anything that helps to dispose and attune the will of the faithful to the ultimate purpose of the Eucharist should be encouraged. The following passages may help to clarify that Jesus and Luisa, far from depreciating the value of the Eucharist, are intending to help it accomplish its full effect in man. The divine will is "superior" to the Eucharist because it is the source and the perfection of the Eucharist. There was a time when the Eucharist was not needed (before the fall) and there will be a time when it will not be needed again (in heaven). But the divine will is the timeless foundation of everything. It always has been and it always will be.

In the following passage, Luisa responds to questions that had been raised by her Confessor precisely on this topic of the superiority or centrality of the divine will over the Eucharist:

Later, Luisa repeats this question, not just with respect to the Eucharist but with respect to all the Sacraments:

It is apparent in Luisa’s writings that Jesus wishes souls receiving the gift of living in the divine will to continue receiving the Sacraments, only now amplifying their efficacy into eternity, blessing all men in all ages:

According to Fr. Staples, Luisa’s writings claim to be new public revelation. He asserts: "Luisa’s writings claim to complete and surpass the revelation we have received from the Apostles. She also claims that apart from her revelations, the Sacraments and Tradition of the Church are inept to bring the faithful to the highest degree of sanctification which God strongly wills for all His children...Luisa explicitly denies that her doctrine has developed from the Tradition, rather, she insists that it is a new revelation to be given to the whole Church."

My response: Luisa’s writings do not claim to complete or surpass Christ’s definitive Revelation. Rather, they suggest that it is "not yet completely explicit," and that the Church is still "advancing toward the plenitude of divine truth." Her writings correspond to the purpose of all private revelation: "to help man live more fully by Christ’s definitive Revelation." Implicit in our Catholic belief that private revelation can help us to live Christ’s definitive Revelation "more fully," (for example, in our sacramental life), is the suggestion that we have been living it "less fully" before receiving it. Never does Luisa claim that apart from her revelation the Sacraments and Tradition are "inept." Rather, she recounts Jesus’ desire that through his revelations to her the Sacraments and Tradition may "more fully" accomplish their purpose in those who apply what they learn from her writings.

Jesus does tell her that he wants her new revelation to be given to the whole Church, but this does not make it "new public revelation" because never does he say that her revelation is to be adhered to with religious faith. Furthermore, though her revelation is new it is nevertheless repeatedly shown to be continuous with Christ’s definitive Revelation.

[Back to Contents]

Objection #2: Luisa Claims to Describe a New Type of Holiness

Closely connected to the first objection regarding new public revelation, is the objection that Luisa is introducing a new form of holiness to the Church that is neither called for by Tradition nor consistent with it. In this first passage (Fr. Staples’ #5), Jesus tells Luisa of the new holiness that he wishes to accomplish in souls through his divine will reigning in them, and, therefore, of the importance of her writings:

Fr. Staples comments: "Clearly, Luisa is claiming that only through the revelations she has received can someone attain the knowledge necessary to reach the highest degree of sanctity. Without her writings, this knowledge is simply unknown to the Church. The Church teaches otherwise: ‘Everything we need for holiness and increase in faith has been handed on from the Apostles ‘once and for all’ (cf. Jude 3): What was handed on by the apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith.’ (DV 8)"

My response: For the past two thousand years we have believed that the power of Christ now at work in us can do immeasurably more than we can ask for or even imagine (Eph 3:20). To paraphrase, at the time of the Redemption God placed within the Church a power that exceeded, and will always exceed, her understanding of it. This power indeed includes "everything we need for holiness and increase in faith." But the extent of holiness and increase of faith that that power can accomplish in us has always immeasurably surpassed what we could ask for or imagine.

It is not, therefore, a violation of the Catholic faith per se for Luisa or anyone else to come along at any point in the history of the Church with a private revelation that says in effect, "There has been something in the power of Christ at work in the Church to make men holy that she has not yet seen nor even imagined. It has actually been there all along as an unknown, that is, an unrealized potency. What I wish to do is to help the Church to see and reach a new high measure of holiness, drawing from that same immeasurable power of Christ that has been at work in her for twenty centuries, making her holy."

Of course, it would also be necessary to reconcile the terms of that holiness with the terms of the Tradition we have received. But the point is that the mere claim of a completely new holiness does not violate the Tradition. In fact, the terms of the Tradition itself tell us that we are not capable of asking for or even imagining the heights of holiness to which Christ has wanted to lift us all along. Furthermore, the very purpose of private revelation is to help us "more fully" reach those heights.

In this passage (#6) Jesus contrasts the "new" holiness of living in the divine will with the holiness that has preceded it:

Fr. Staples comments that Luisa is saying here that without her revelation, "the teachings and Sacraments of the Church as they have come to us through Scripture and Tradition are inept to bring us to the level of sanctification God desires us to have."

My response: This is not what Luisa claims. She only claims to provide a new, extremely effective means of "more fully" doing the will of God, which includes "more fully" drawing from the teachings and Sacraments of the Church and allowing them to "more fully" transform us into him. This is the purpose of private revelation according to Catholic teaching.

Following this line of reasoning, it is apparent that private revelation can and should help us, as individuals and as a Church, to become "more fully" holy, that is, to reach a "higher" measure of sanctity than we had before. If Luisa goes beyond "higher" and claims to help us to reach the "highest" level of sanctity, this is still consistent with the purpose of private revelation. "Highest" is, after all, only a subcategory of "higher." Catholic teaching allows that private revelation can help us reach both "higher" and "highest" holiness, even so as to surpass the sanctity of the saints of the past.

[Back to Contents]

But is it accurate and permissible to say that to reach the highest level of sanctity that God desires for us we "must adhere" to Luisa’s private revelation? This may be answered from three analytical perspectives: historical, subjective, and objective.

Historical analysis of "must adhere." Proving that adherence to Luisa’s private revelation is not necessary to achieve (or surpass) the level of sanctity she describes can be accomplished by showing that at least one other person did so without any awareness of her writings. That proof is easily shown in the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her level of sanctity did and will certainly forever far exceed the level of sanctity of any other creature. Luisa repeatedly describes Mary’s sanctity as both the means and the model par excellence of living in the divine will. And Mary did not have to adhere to Luisa’s private revelation to achieve it.

Regarding creatures such as herself who were born with original sin, Luisa indicates that achieving this sanctity is possible without knowledge of her writings:

Our Lord clearly indicates elsewhere in Luisa’s diary that he has given her the unique mission of explaining and spreading this sanctity throughout the world by means of her writings. But this passage seems to indicate that Jesus did not make knowledge of Luisa’s writings an absolute pre-condition for the reception of this "sanctity of sanctities." Though Luisa preceded them in initially receiving this gift, two other women, from the early part of this century, may have been among these "blessed souls." Both wrote accounts of mystical union which include descriptions substantially similar to Luisa’s, though less thoroughly explained.

The first is the Servant of God Conchita Cabrera de Armida. During the final years of the nineteenth century this Mexican woman began to identify deeply with the little-known interior sufferings of Jesus and Mary and passed through many trials. On January 23, 1894, she received the grace of spiritual betrothal, and on February 9, 1897, the spiritual marriage. On March 25, 1906, she received from Jesus what he called "the grace of the mystical incarnation." He told her:

Jesus described this mystical incarnation to Conchita as his "real presence." When Conchita asked him if this corresponded to the "mystical marriage," he answered:

Jesus told Conchita that this grace of the mystical incarnation was a special work of the Holy Spirit. He explained:

Having raised Conchita to this "identification of wills" with him through the Holy Spirit, Jesus asked her to spearhead a crusade of prayer in the Church for a Second Pentecost. He told her:

During the last 12 years of Conchita’s life, from 1925 until 1937, the fruits of the mystical incarnation also became more evident in the lives of those who embraced her spirituality. Conchita’s director during this period, Cardinal Luis Maria Martinez, appears to have received the grace of the mystical incarnation himself on September 21, 1927. After a painful illness accompanied by many interior trials, Conchita died a holy death on March 3, 1937. On September 19, 1959, her cause of beatification was introduced in Rome. There is no indication in her writings or in published accounts of her life that she was influenced by or even aware of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta.

The second example is the Canadian, Blessed Dina Belanger, whose religious name was Sister Marie Saint Cecile of Rome. As a religious, Blessed Dina received private revelations from Jesus in which he gave her a profound understanding of his interior sufferings. He told her that he wanted to become the primary agent of all of her thoughts, feelings, words, and actions:

Just as Jesus taught Luisa to perform all of her actions with him in the divine will, in the name of all creatures past, present, and future, so he taught Blessed Dina to pray in the same, novel way. In her autobiography she wrote:

Blessed Dina died on September 4, 1929. Again, there is no indication from the accounts of her life or from her autobiography that she was influenced by or even aware of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta.

So, there is some historical evidence that to attain the degree of sanctity and participation in the divine activity described by Luisa it is not necessary to adhere to her writings or even to be aware of them. Jesus is free to make this new and profound grace directly known to whomever he wishes and however he wishes. However, for most of us the way he lets us know is his normal way of communicating with us: by way of other human beings, either orally or in writing. Through Luisa’s writings and through those of Conchita, Blessed Dina, and perhaps others, we become aware of and then ask for the gift he is offering us. The writings then, are not the source of the gift, only the means by which we learn of it.

Subjective analysis of "must adhere." And so, as long as we understand "must adhere" in an appropriate sense, it is accurate to say that we must adhere to Luisa’s writings (as well as Conchita’s and Blessed Dina’s) in order to attain the graces described in them, and Catholic teaching allows this. It is not the "must adhere" of religious faith, that is, of the will giving the private revelation the same assent that it would give to an article of the Catholic faith. Rather, it is the "must adhere" of human faith. This operation can be illustrated on the level of the individual acting human subject.

Let us suppose that a person is already at the highest level of holiness as the saints have historically described it. As a matter of Catholic belief, that person "must adhere" to these two truths about his holiness: 1) that, regardless of the measure of his holiness, he becomes holy at all only through believing and living by Christ’s definitive Revelation that has been received from the apostles, and 2) that private revelation can help him to live by this definitive Revelation "more fully in a certain period of history," that is, it can help him draw from it more deeply and thereby become even holier than he had become before that period of history.

But how will he know if any particular private revelation can help him in this manner? "Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern (i.e., see with the intellect) and welcome (i.e., assent to with the will) in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call (i.e., truth) of Christ or his saints to the Church." In other words, he knows with religious faith that truths known with merely human faith can still help him to live more fully (and even most fully) the truths which he knows with religious faith.

Now let us suppose that this holy person comes across a private revelation in which a new and higher level of holiness is described that he has never found in the writings of the saints. He knows as a matter of religious faith that this revelation does not belong to the deposit of faith, and so he knows as a matter of religious faith that whatever assent of the will he might give to it, it will not be that of religious faith. But he also knows as a matter of faith that, though the private revelation itself is not within the deposit of faith, it can help him to live that deposit of faith more fully, and even most fully. If his intellect discerns that the private revelation can help him in this regard, then his will, with human faith, "must adhere" to it, that is, if he wants to obtain the higher holiness described in it.

This analysis can be used to show how the faithful treat Blessed Faustina’s private revelations about Divine Mercy. Did Blessed Faustina ever say that to receive the new outpouring of Jesus’ mercy, in the manner she describes, we "must adhere" to her private revelation, especially as it relates to praying the Divine Mercy chaplet and novena? In a manner, yes. His mercy was certainly available to us before the private revelation came along, but with it Jesus opened up both a new insight and a new depth into his mercy. It is the same essential mercy of his definitive Revelation, only now appreciated and received in far greater measure, but only through the adherence of human faith that we give to this private revelation.

We believe that as the Church as a whole progresses through the centuries she is "always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her." She is always moving toward an ever more intimate union with Christ. As this happens, we can expect God to choose some special people, like Luisa and Blessed Faustina, to lead us along the way:

We cannot receive (and thereby adhere to) the gratuitous gift of the more intimate measure of union with Christ that he manifests to us through Luisa (and Blessed Faustina) if we do not ask for it, and we cannot ask for it if we do not know about it. Luisa does indeed claim that the most intimate union of man with Christ will only be attained when man again fully lives and reigns in the Kingdom of the Divine Will, doing the will of the Father on earth as it is done in heaven. But it is not against Catholic teaching to make such a claim. Furthermore, nowhere does Luisa claim that her private revelation is the source of this highest sanctity, only a means of knowing about it so as to ask for it and then adhere to it:

Objective analysis of "must adhere." Our adherence to the content of a private revelation may also be prompted by and even demanded by our reason as it conducts an objective analysis of that content. If the private revelation articulates a profoundly new, logically sound insight into holiness that in fact elevates our understanding of the possible heights of holiness, without contradicting what we know by faith to be true about the essence of holiness, then our reason would oblige us to adhere to it, that is, if we wished to reach those heights. It would have prescriptive authority over us because of its descriptive accuracy. An analogy from the realm of physical science may help.

Since God issued his First Fiat of Creation, the material universe has been continuously ordered by a complex system of unchanging physical laws. The work of physical science over the millennia of man’s existence has been to better understand and describe those laws so as to more perfectly draw from the riches of the universe. In other words, it has never been physical science’s role to "improve or complete" those physical laws of the First Fiat, only to help us to live ever "more fully" by them.

For thousands of years physical science has done this job well and we have reaped a growing abundance of fruits. But in the early part of this century, Albert Einstein discovered and described his profoundly new theory of relativity and thereby revealed to the world previously unimaginable forces of energy that could be found in the most minute particles of matter. By the integrity of its own internal logic, proven by the forces of energy it actually released when employed, his theory established the newest and highest measure of physical science. Indeed, by way of his revelation mankind entered into an entirely new era: the nuclear age.

Nevertheless his theory of relativity added nothing to the essential physical laws of the material universe. That is, the reality of what his intelligence was only then disclosing to him (and, by way of him, to all mankind) had actually lain hidden for eons within those physical laws. Even though those unimaginable forces of energy had been around us all along, only when they were finally described to us could we know about them, and only when we knew about them could we finally desire and obtain them.

Now do we conclude from all of this that to obtain from the material universe the new and highest measures of energy we "must adhere" to the "private revelation" of Einstein? Yes, but not because (or despite the fact that) the newest and highest energy came from Einstein; rather because it both 1) articulates a knowledge of that new energy that we must first possess before we can even want to obtain it, and 2) tells us how to obtain it. Thus, to obtain the highest (currently) possible forces of energy from the material universe we "must adhere" to what he has written. We can certainly choose not to avail ourselves of it, but then we are left to reap (and even to reap exceedingly well, as, for example, the Amish do) the fruits of the First Fiat of Creation using tools from a lower order of physical science.

An objective analyst of Luisa’s private revelation must get past the initial shock of her claim to set the new, highest standard of sanctity. An analyst must determine whether, by the precision of Luisa’s terms, she actually does so. In reporting what Jesus tells her, Luisa purports to be the first person to articulate, and thereby make known and available, a previously unrealized wealth of unimaginable holiness that, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has lain hidden for two thousand years, before our very eyes, within the very body of the Second Fiat, Christ’s definitive Revelation.

If Luisa actually does accomplish this articulation which no-one before her has done, she would thereby set the new highest standard of sanctity, and she would do so without contradicting or adding anything to the essential body of the Catholic faith. Once we are aware of it, if we wish to attain and draw forth fruits from that new, highest level of sanctity we, in effect, "must adhere" to it. The issue of our adherence to it is ultimately not determined by whether it comes to us by way of private revelation, but by whether it is true.

Luisa never claims that the new sanctity she describes is worthy of religious adherence, that is, the adherence of Catholic faith. For her critics to prove that it is not worthy of even human adherence they must go beyond merely showing that she claims it to be the highest of all sanctities. Because we know with the certainty of faith that "spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ," we do not immediately reject a description of a new and higher form of holiness, even if it claims to far surpass the sanctity of the saints, and even if it comes by way of a private revelation. Her critics must also prove that the terms of that new sanctity contradict what we know by faith to be true of the essence of holiness. By itself, their objection does not meet that standard of proof.

[Back to Contents]

Fr. Staples and Fr. Most interpret this selection (Fr. Staples’ #8) as Luisa speaking pejoratively of the sanctity of the saints:

Fr. Staples and Fr. Most take Luisa to mean here that all the saints before her could only achieve the "poor and lowly union" referred to in the passage.

My response: It is noteworthy first of all that this passage makes no reference to the saints. It only contrasts the high end of union with God, the "Supreme Unity," with the low end, mere resignation to it. This is not inconsistent with a Catholic understanding of the varying degrees of Christian perfection.

Secondly, is Luisa here relegating the sanctity of the saints to that lowest category, wherein a soul is "neither happy in my Will, nor does she lose her will in Mine" and where she "does not manage to enamor Me"? Just a few passages, which do explicitly refer to the saints, may help to show that she is not:

Thirdly, even if Luisa did intend the term "poor and lowly union" to include the sanctity of the saints (and I maintain that the context does not support such an interpretation), this would still not be inconsistent with Catholic teaching. As long as Luisa continues to hold that they lived as well as they could, and in a heroic and exemplary manner, the sanctity that God called them to, she would neither insult them nor violate Catholic teaching to speak of a new form of holiness that is higher, and perhaps even much higher, than what they lived. A "poor and lowly union" is, after all, still a union. Luisa is not disputing or dismissing the sanctity of those who live merely resigned to God’s Will; she is putting it into perspective.

Fourthly, the saints themselves recognized God’s freedom to reserve for others a higher sanctity than what they knew and lived. In his classic work, Uniformity With God’s Will, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri incorporates a quotation from St. John of Avila regarding the attitude of the saints toward their own holiness and of their acceptance, if not their desire, that God might call others to a still higher holiness:

To believe that "spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ" is to allow the possibility that earlier forms of union with Christ, even those enjoyed by the saints, were less intimate than later forms. (And if we can allow for the possibility that they were less intimate, we can allow for the possibility that they were far less intimate, i.e., relatively "poor and lowly.")

Finally, it is unlikely that any saint would object to the union of wills he enjoyed on earth being described as "poor and lowly" when it is contrasted with the union of wills that he now enjoys in heaven. Similarly, it would not violate Catholic teaching to claim that doing the will of the Father on earth as it is done in heaven makes other forms of earthly union with his will "poor and lowly" in comparison.

[Back to Contents]

Poulain writes in his description of the spiritual marriage experienced by the saints that "(n)o union of a more intimate kind can be imagined." Fr. Most takes this a step further and equates intellectual unimaginability with theological impossibility, that is, that we may not, and in fact we cannot, talk of a higher form of mystical union than the mystical marriage experienced by the saints.

My response: Theological impossibility does not necessarily follow from intellectual unimaginability. The power of Christ at work in us can accomplish in and through us immeasurably more than we can ask for or even imagine (Eph 3:20). Our imagination does not set limits upon the heights of intimacy with Christ to which he can lift us. Within the already unimaginable, ineffable realm of mystical union with Christ, is there not the possibility of higher and lower levels of experience? Catholic teaching does not forbid us to imagine that God could draw a creature into an even more intimate union with him in this life than that experienced by the saints in the mystical marriage.

For example, consider the nature of mystical union experienced in this life by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Can we say that it was higher than the mystical marriage experienced by the saints? This is an important question because Luisa never claims that living in the divine will is a higher form of mystical union than Mary’s. I think we can easily say (indeed we must say) that Mary’s union was higher than the mystical marriage of the saints, but then we have to determine whether it was higher in essence (i.e., not even rightly described as "mystical marriage" anymore, but something else much higher) or only in degree (i.e., still essentially "mystical marriage," but a manifestation of it so elevated beyond the saints’ as to be virtually unrecognizable as such). If it was only higher in degree, then Fr. Most’s concerns are vanquished because Luisa’s new form of union would likewise be, after all, still within the boundaries of mystical marriage, only to a new and higher degree, that is, above the highest saint’s but still below Mary’s.

Now if Mary’s union was higher not only in degree but also in essence, we must then determine whether this was so only because of her uniquely immaculate conception and participation in the hypostatic union. In other words, does Catholic teaching prohibit us from supposing that God, at his good pleasure and in his good time, could extend not just to Mary but also to other creatures, in this life, a form of mystical union with him that is not only higher in degree than the mystical marriage of the saints, but also different in essence from the mystical marriage of the saints? Would our Catholic faith forbid that we who in every other regard look upon Mary as "our pattern of holiness" should not do so in this one as well?

Let us apply these questions to Luisa’s new and divine mystical union with a couple of examples. Many saints have attempted to describe experiences of mystical union with Christ in which they intimately participated in and even re-lived Christ’s human sufferings. But to what relative degrees did they experience these things? Might some have been "higher" than others? Does Catholic teaching put a cap on the height? Would Catholic teaching, for example, prohibit us from supposing, as Luisa suggests, that by Christ’s free gift he could have lifted Mary, and now other souls, to such an intimacy with his sufferings that they would share in them at his own deepest interior level, that is, where his humanity did not just suffer in obedience to his divinity but actually suffered divinely, thereby amplifying the efficacy of his sufferings transtemporally and universally? Would it violate Catholic teaching to suggest that no saint had ever experienced this before? Would it violate Catholic teaching to call this an essentially higher form of mystical union than what they experienced and not just a higher degree of it?

Luisa also suggests that, by God’s free offer and the creature’s free consent, he wishes, for the first time since Mary, to lift creatures, while they are still in this life, into an intimate union of prayer within his own eternal act. In this union they are asked to pray on behalf of all creatures who have ever lived or ever will live, making reparation for and mystically, divinely re-doing all of the acts which we creatures have owed to the Father since our fall but which we have not done. Does Catholic teaching forbid us from imagining the possibility of such an experience, however impossible it would be to describe with theological precision the new mechanisms of union between the soul’s will and the divine will that would take place within that experience?

To be sure, comparing and contrasting Luisa’s accounts of living in the divine will with accounts of the mystical marriage presents a fascinating theological project. But for the limited purpose of reconciling Luisa’s writings with the teachings of the Church such an endeavor is unnecessary. All that matters in this regard is to determine whether the new union that Luisa describes, whatever it is, is consistent with essential Catholic doctrine regarding mystical union with Christ.

I summarize this doctrine as follows: 1. The mystical union must have its essential source and perfection in Christ’s definitive Revelation. 2. However intimate the union is, it must not suggest that the human creature ever becomes anything ontologically other than a human creature. 3. However intimate the union is, it must not compromise (but actually perfect) the free co-operation and assent of the human will. Applying these to Luisa’s writings:

1. Though Christ is only now opening up this new and divine holiness to man, Luisa still connects it essentially to Christ’s definitive Revelation. This concern is addressed above in Objection #1 on new public revelation.

2. References to humans as "creatures" and God alone as the Creator appear throughout the volumes. Passages which might initially appear to suggest otherwise, that is, that upon entering the divine will the creature’s ontological identity is actually, metaphysically destroyed and the divine essence assumed, are addressed below in my reply to Objection #3 on Monothelitism.

3. Luisa never suggests that the free assent and co-operation of the human will are either unnecessary or ontologically destroyed while a soul is living in the divine will. Passages which have been taken to suggest otherwise are also addressed below in Objection #3 on Monothelitism.

Within these three broad, essential parameters, the teachings of the Church place no other limits upon the mystical union that humans may experience with Christ in this life.

[Back to Contents]

Criticisms have been leveled by both Frs. Staples and Most against passages such as the following from Luisa’s writings which suggest to them that this new and divine holiness is too easily obtained, with souls having only to desire it to vault past the sanctity of the saints of old:

My response: To truly "desire" to live in the divine will one must first have some understanding of that state. Luisa says that for a soul to enter into and remain in the divine will it must make a firm commitment never, even for an instant, to live by the dictates of its own will operating independently of God’s will. What great work must have already taken place within any soul before it could even begin to say, and continue to say, in truth, that it "desires" such a state? But once the soul had reached that point, could we not say that all it would need then would be to desire this union, that then it would be simple enough for God to lift the soul into it?

After all, the saints themselves have described their experiences of entering into mystical union with Jesus, as being, essentially, effortless. They certainly had to first dispose their wills to be in union with his, but as they did this it was God who lifted them into the mystical union. As for wanting to avoid, if it be God’s will, all the "efforts," "battles" and "long paths" endured by some to reach the entry point of mystical union, even the saints themselves have desired this. As St. Therese of Lisieux put it:

Jean-Pierre de Caussade, in his eighteenth century classic Abandonment to Divine Providence, also describes the ideal way of holiness as not being arduous:

Of course, we also understand that however "easy" in one sense it might be to become holy, it is certainly quite difficult and painful in another sense. Our human wills do not easily give themselves over to the dominion of the divine. We must daily crucify our inclinations toward autonomy and rebellion. It might be attractive and even easy to desire in the abstract to be martyred for Christ. But to hand oneself over to a murderous mob actually beating on one’s door would surely be no easy matter.

If this has been true for all other forms of sanctity, it is all the more true for the sanctity of "living in the divine will." If some passages from Luisa’s writings suggest that it might be the easiest of all sanctities to enter into and live, many others suggest that it is the most difficult. Furthermore, the necessity of the virtues is never removed as they are deepened, perfected and finally absorbed into the divine will.

This is the attitude that Luisa began with in Volume 1 and which she never "graduated from" as she progressed in the divine will. It was both the necessary precondition and the permanent foundation for her progress. In the divine will we do not escape our duty to perfect ourselves in virtue. Achieving and maintaining complete detachment is also presupposed:

Again, even after Luisa received the mystical marriage, nowhere in the succeeding volumes does Jesus ever rescind the need for detachment as Luisa progresses in her life in the divine will. Furthermore, it is a matter of increasing measure, not a one-time decision:

Willing and joyful acceptance of humiliation and mortification are also of essential importance to living in the divine will:

Jesus connects the importance of continuously living in and growing in the virtues to what he did in his own humanity:

Far from being done away with, the virtues are "consummated" as one lives them in the divine will. Indeed, unity with God is the perfection of the virtues:

In the following passage Luisa wonders herself whether in the intensity of her desire for Jesus and Jesus alone she has forgotten about perfecting the virtues. Jesus assures her that in entering into him and "relinquishing" all of the virtues, the virtues are in fact perfected:

Though intensity of desire for Jesus is a prerequisite for living in the divine will, one need not have absolutely perfected the virtues beforehand. Upon entering and living in the divine will, however, the virtues will - indeed they must - be perfected:

If anyone can speak to us with spiritual authority about the high degree of virtue necessary for entering and living in the divine will it should be Blessed Father Hannibal Di Francia, Luisa’s extraordinary confessor and an advocate of the new sanctity she described. He wrote:

Lest anyone be tempted to pride or spiritual laziness because this new sanctity surpasses the sanctity of the saints, consider that the former only surpasses the latter because the new presupposes attainment of the old:

A number of other passages support the fact that constant heroic virtue is presupposed for living the divine will:

Moreover, the difficulty of conquering one’s will so as to live in the divine will is not accomplished once and for all but is a daily, ever deepening and life-long decision. In fact, the soul must be on continuous guard lest she "backslide" into letting her will have dominion again:

And yet, despite her repeated references to the intensity of the demands that Jesus places upon the soul who wishes to live in the divine will, Luisa nevertheless wrote in a letter:

Thus, Luisa re-iterates the paradox of sanctity itself: The same Jesus who demands that his would-be follower "renounce himself and take up his cross every day and follow me" (Lk 9:23) also says to him, "my yoke is easy and my burden light" (Mt 11:30).

[Back to Contents]

Luisa writes that God wishes to pour out his grace and love upon mankind in such new and profound ways as to usher in a new era of sanctity. Fr. Staples cites the following passage from St. Thomas Aquinas to prove that there is no "possibility of the coming of a ‘new era’ before the Second Coming":

My response: Fr. Staples first of all has not shown that this theological commentary of St. Thomas has been adopted as a rule of faith by the Catholic Church. No parts of I-II, q. 106, for example, were included in the Catechism. Until it can be proved that what St. Thomas has written here must be believed by the faithful de fide then at best it has only the persuasive authority of its own theological correctness, not the absolute authority of doctrine. And if it does not have the absolute authority of doctrine then it is not a measure of the orthodoxy of Luisa’s writings.

Secondly, it has not been shown how the new state of holiness that Luisa has written about violates the understanding of "state" that St. Thomas refers to in the second sentence above. It is the "state" of the New Law which "is chiefly the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ." The thesis of I-II, q. 106, a. 4, from which Fr. Staples excises this quote is, "Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?" In other words, St. Thomas is questioning whether the New Law of the indwelling grace of the Holy Ghost will be done away with and be replaced by another "state" before the end of time. Everything that follows this question, including what has been excerpted by Fr. Staples above, is ordered toward responding to this fundamental question.

In his answer, St. Thomas says simply that "the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world." He then elaborates. "The state of the world may change in two ways. In one way, according to the law..." This was the case when "the state of the New Law succeeded the state of the Old Law..." But this will not happen again since "no state of the present life can be more perfect than the state of the New Law..."

But then he shows the second sense of "state" in which we can believe in the possibility of change. I will quote this paragraph in full, including, in bold-face, the part excerpted by Fr. Staples:

We can thus accept the possibility, indeed the certainty, in this life of new "states" within the one continuous state of the New Law even if we cannot accept the possibility of a new state other than the state of the New Law. The critical question, then, is whether the new and divine state of holiness which Luisa describes is a new state within the state of the New Law or whether it is something other than, that is, outside of or beyond, the New Law.

Fr. Staples has shown no passage where Luisa claims that this new and divine holiness "does away with" the New Law (of the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit founded upon faith) or "succeeds" it as a more perfect state. There is none. Rather, she claims that in new and profound ways God is bringing forth fruits that for twenty centuries have been held unseen within the state of the New Law. As was demonstrated above, Jesus tells Luisa that his work in the Third Fiat is essentially the unveiling of graces he had already obtained for us in the Second Fiat.

Is it against Catholic teaching to speak of an era of a "new and divine" holiness which God desires for all mankind? On the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Rogationist Fathers by Blessed Fr. Hannibal Di Francia, spiritual father to Luisa as well as promoter of her writings and spirituality, Pope John Paul II not only accepted this new state of holiness in man as possible, but he said that it was indeed what the Holy Spirit wished for all Christians as they enter into the third millennium:

Frs. Staples and Most have not shown how this "new and divine" state of man’s holiness, first written about by Luisa, then ratified and promoted by Blessed Hannibal, and recently referred to approvingly by Pope John Paul II, violates either the teachings of the Church or the theological opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas.

[Back to Contents]

Fr. Staples believes that the union of the divine will and the human will spoken of by Luisa is essentially a reiteration of the early heresy of Monothelitism condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681. Fr. Staples begins with this summary of the issue:

Fr. Staples then quotes all of DS 556-59, Ecumenical VI (against the Monothelites) - Definition of the Two Wills of Christ, and then begins to show how these teachings are contradicted by Luisa’s writings. The following are some excerpts from these sections of DS in summary of Church teaching on the matter: