Dear Mr. Emmett O'Regan, I received your E-mail of 21 February, 2017 in which you refer to me your studies and research on the publications of the priest Joseph Iannuzzi. Said priest does not belong to this Archdiocese and has not received any authorization, permission or mandate of any kind from me in relation to the publications with respect to [their] study and diffusion. At this moment in time, the Archdiocese and the association "Luisa Piccaretta -P.F.D.V." are involved in the preparation of the typical and critical edition of the writings of the Servant of God on the basis of which will be possible to make the necessary translations into other languages and further studies of a theological nature. In any event, all the activities of the official study at this moment are in agreement and coordinates in harmony with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints via the Postulation (Postulator). I assure you the full availability for further clarification. I cordially greet and wish you a Happy Easter. Giovan Battista Pichierri Archbishop http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/archbishop-of-trani-confirms-fr-joseph.html
I am not quite sure what to make of your post Emmett. Didn't they say that if anyone other than those permitted to publish about the writing of Luisa, it would jeopardise her cause for canonisation. So does this mean, the cause might be on hold as a result of Father Iannuzzi publishing so much information.
Hi Julia. Yes, the Archbishop of Trani explicitly stated that anyone who published any of Luisa's writings without his permission as sole copyright holder, they are damaging her cause for canonization and acting in disobedience. This is because they are being used to bolster millenarian theories by some writers and speakers, such as Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallett.
Hi Emmett, I don't follow either Fr. Ianuzzi or Mark Mallett, but isn't millenarianism condemned? I thought it was, but perhaps I am wrong. Love your blog by the way
Thanks Praetorian! Yes, all forms of millenarianism is condemned in CCC 676. Fr. Iannuzzi attempts to argue that what he teaches isn't millenarianism. But it definitely is.
Oh! I enjoy reading Mark Mallet. I haven't felt he is saying anything to get overexcited about, just a very engaging read. Ah well, sigh.
Fr. Iannuzzi's response: https://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fr-iannuzzi-response-to-mr-oregan.pdf
Hi Emmett, would be kind to explain to me the difference between Millennium and Millenarianism or is this the same thing ? thank you.
Julia, Mark Mallett teaches against millenarianism. He and Emmett have had their fair share of interesting conversations.
Emmett, I think both you and Father Iannuzzi are two fine Catholics. I would hate to see any ill will come between you over this matter. I read Father Iannuzzi's response and he seems uncharacteristically upset, even threatening to sue. I will pray that this resolves without any harm done to either of you. The two of you should meet in person. You might find that you have more in common than you think. Meanwhile, I hope everyone here offers up prayers for a happy resolution to this unfortunate episode.
Offering prayers this morning at Mass. Agree with Richard 67. God's grace and healing be with all concerned in this matter. Blessed Mother, be our Advocate.
After reading Fr Iannuzzi's response, it does appear that Emmett is guilty of libel. Perhaps Emmett simply acted rashly. But the title of this forum thread is likely to be false (it takes a statement out of context) and should be changed, if that is possible. Disagreements are allowed in the Church, to be sure. But how can the Truth be served if we do not proceed with humility, honesty and charity? Brendan Triffett, PhD www.divinewillschool.com
I have changed it. You know most of us ordinary Catholics can't tell Millenarian from a Bulgarian Donkey. I wish you folks would take your battles elsewhere.
For what it's worth, here's what I wrote to Emmett. I'm not claiming to be an "expert" on this matter. Just writing how I see things at this point in time. <<You claim there is a discrepancy between what the Archbishop of Trani says, and what Fr. Iannuzzi says. Did you ask Fr. Iannuzzi to explain the discrepancy for you? You said would consider positing Fr. Iannuzzi's response. You can cut and paste it from here https://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fr-iannuzzi-response-to-mr-oregan.pdf I think it is important to point out that in an important sense, Fr. Iannuzzi has not "published Luisa's writings" at all! He has not produced a new translation of any of the volumes of Luisa's Book of Heaven, or of either of the other two books associated with Luisa (The Virgin in the Kingdom of the Divine Will, The Hours of the Passion). Nor has he uploaded a document or file that contains a complete volume of Luisa's writings (an old translation or "pro-document") or anything similar. If Fr. Iannuzzi has included quotes from Luisa's writings (and yes, he has) in his own publications, that is another thing altogether. I would also remind you of the spirit of the "law" (in this case, the "moratorium"). The intention of this moratorium was to prevent people from spreading false interpretations of Luisa's writings. One reason for this was inaccurate renderings of the original language in which they were written. Another reason is the absence of theologically sound commentary that would make doubly sure that Luisa's writings are interpreted in the context of the Catholic tradition. Now, as I'm sure you know, Fr. Iannuzzi learnt Luisa Piccarreta's own dialect of Italian in order to read the original texts for his thesis on Divine Will theology, and not rely on faulty translations. Second, the works that Fr. Ianuzzi has published are for the specific purpose of curbing the spread of false interpretations of Luisa's writings--which is hardly against the spirit of the moratorium! Indeed, he was encouraged to do his thesis on Divine Will theology for that same purpose. And you can hardly say that Fr. Iannuzzi (Ph.B, STB, M. Div, STL, STD) does not have enough theological training to teach others how Catholics should be reading Luisa's writings! I wonder if any of this makes you change your mind. Or perhaps there's something I'm not seeing? In Christ, Brendan Triffett www.divinewillschool.com >>
I don't like engaging in drawn out polemics. In fact I don't like engaging in them at all. But I'm involved in this one in order to defend someone (Fr. Iannuzzi) who I believe has been unjustly attacked. I paste below what I posted on Emmett O'Regan's blog (though at this point I don't know if he will actually publish my post). If I produce no further responses on this it's because I think there's nothing left to be said. And at a certain point, leaving things alone can be better. <<Dear Emmett ... I would actually be interested in reading more about your objections to Fr. Iannuzzi's eschatology (particularly on the era of peace); if you could provide a good reading list I would be grateful. I'm not in any position at the moment to respond to these objections. That said, we should distinguish between the two accusations being made here--one against Iannuzzi's eschatology, the other against his supposed breach of copyright. I was only concerned with the latter. (The fact that they two accusations are being mixed together here is cause for concern. It seems like you are launching a general attack on a person, trying to hit him by any means available). Emmett: I think you are missing something very important (and actually quite obvious) here. Let me put it like this. Your own published book, I would assume, has quite a lot of quotes from other books. Now in most cases the publishers own the copyright to these works (I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's right). I don't have access to your bibliography right now, but let's suppose one author you quote from is Jo Blogs who publishes all his writings through Oxford UP. Suppose I were to write to Oxford UP and ask them whether a certain Emmett O'Regan was given permission by them "to publish the writings of Jo Blogs." What would they say? They of course would say "no"--and by that they would mean that Emmett has no permission to publish the entirety of any volume of Jo Blogs. Now does that imply that Emmett has no right to publish a book in which there are (possibly extensive) quotes from the writings of Jo Blogs? Of course not! We have both published before, and we both know that there is no need to contact every copyright owner to ask them permission to quote from a certain author. Where I live (Australia), 10% of a volume can be copied without explicit permission, or a whole chapter, whichever is more (last time I checked). I would be surprised if that were much different elsewhere in the Western world. Don't you think it illogical and unjust that you would hold Fr. Iannuzzi to a standard that you don't hold to yourself, and that no researcher holds to either? Unless I am missing something, I really think you should retract this particular accusation. Either that, or (a) produce documents that show that you have explicit permission to "publish the author's works" from the copyright owners of all the books you have quoted from, or (b) show that Fr. Iannuzzi has breached copyright according to the normal standard, not the imaginary (and rather odd) standard you have dreamt up--for the purpose of grinding an axe, it would seem. (Maybe you don't have an axe to grind; I couldn't know. But it certainly looks like it--I'm just informing you what things look like from out here.) Good, clean theological debate is to be encouraged in the Church. But what you're attempting here is a low blow. If you have an issue with Fr. Iannuzzi's theology, that is all well and good. Debate the issue; don't attack the man. I hope and pray for a peaceful resolution in this matter. Brendan Triffett, PhD www.divinewillschool.com >>
