Are Luisa's writings approved by the Church?

Before discussing Luisa, the central misunderstanding must be removed. In the Catholic Church, “approval” covers very different realities that do not carry the same degree of authority.

Public Revelation is complete; private revelations remain possible

The first distinction is dogmatic. Public Revelation—the Revelation to which all believers owe faith—ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unequivocal: “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” (CCC 66).

Luisa's writings do not belong to Public Revelation. They fall within what the Church calls private revelations, whose status is defined in the following paragraph of the Catechism:

“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.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 67^[1]

This point governs everything that follows. Even when recognized, a private revelation adds nothing to the Creed. It can never correct the Gospel; at most, it helps the faithful live it. Asking whether Luisa's writings are “approved” in the way a dogma is defined therefore misframes the question: no private revelation, however famous—Lourdes, Fatima, the Sacred Heart or Divine Mercy—is ever “approved” in that sense.

No believer is required to accept a private revelation

A consequence follows that many people overlook: no one in the Church is obliged to believe a private revelation, even when it has been fully recognized. This is as true of Fatima as of any other case. When presenting its Procedural Norms for the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, published on 17 May 2024 and signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith restated it forcefully: even in the case of a Nihil obstat, “such phenomena do not become objects of faith — that is, the faithful are not obliged to give their assent.”^[2]

This freedom is not laxity; it safeguards the absolute primacy of the Gospel. A private revelation is offered as spiritual help, never imposed as an article of faith. The believer remains free to accept it or not, provided that faith and morals are not contradicted. The same principle applies fully to Luisa: the spirituality of the Divine Will is proposed, never imposed.

Degrees of recognition: from Nihil Obstat to canonization

It remains to understand what the Church actually does when it evaluates writings. Several instruments are available, each with a different author and scope. The article Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur explains their canonical framework (canons 823–832 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law); only the essentials are summarized here.

The lesson is constant: these acts concern lawfulness and the person; they never guarantee divine inspiration of a text. The canonical regime governing books (canons 823 to 832, detailed in Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) is clear: an Imprimatur is in no way an approval of the content, opinions or statements expressed — it is a simple permission to print, granted after finding nothing contrary to faith and morals. That precise level—and no more—is the proper standard for evaluating Luisa's writings.

A clarification about the 2024 norms

One methodological clarification is needed. The norms of 17 May 2024 cited above concern primarily apparitions and supernatural phenomena such as pilgrimage sites and public messages. They provide six possible conclusions, including a Nihil obstat that recognizes signs of the Spirit's action without ruling on supernatural authenticity.^[3] Luisa's dossier follows a different procedure: a cause of beatification, in which the same Dicastery examines the writings under a distinct framework. Yet the two approaches share the same principle: in today's Church, to “approve” a mystic ordinarily means finding that no serious doctrinal obstacle prevents devotion or the cause from proceeding—not certifying that every word came from Heaven.

The original question can now be asked with the correct distinctions. The documentary answer is clear: from the beginning of the twentieth century, Luisa's writings received a sustained series of diocesan and pontifical acts.

A body of ecclesial acts, 1898–1937

The biography published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana—Maria Rosaria Del Genio's The Sun of My Will—provides the chronology:^[4] pontifical rescripts of 1898 and 1905, diocesan Nihil Obstat and Imprimaturs from 1926 to 1937, then the Roman nihil obstat of 1994 and the Nulla Osta of 2024. The first, diocesan and papal phase runs from 1898 to 1937.

In all, this body of acts — pontifical rescripts of 1898 and 1905, diocesan seals from 1926 to 1937 (1926, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1937) — spans nearly forty years, before the Roman nihil obstat of 1994 and the Nulla Osta of 2024.PLACEHOLDER___P24_PLACEHOLDER__ Two popes authorized Mass in her home: Leo XIII, by rescript of 8 March 1898, then Saint Pius X, who extended it on 23 May 1905.PLACEHOLDER___P25_PLACEHOLDER__ These pontifical rescripts — permissions for home Mass, not approvals of books — do not canonize the content, any more than any Imprimatur does; and only the 1926 seals concern the manuscripts, those of 1930 to 1937 the printed editions.PLACEHOLDER___P26_PLACEHOLDER__ What remains is that before 1938, Luisa's writings enjoyed explicit permissions from the competent ecclesial authority: on the manuscripts in 1926, then on the printed editions.

Saint Annibale Maria di Francia's Nihil Obstat, 6 August 1926

One act carries particular weight because it came from a canonized saint. Saint Annibale Maria di Francia (1851–1927), founder of the Rogationists of the Heart of Jesus, entered into relations with Luisa in the early 1910s: the date of their first meeting is unknown, and the earliest preserved letter dates from 20 March 1911. Appointed "ecclesiastical censor" of her writings by decree in 1926, he had her notebooks copied at Messina, clarified obscure expressions and corrected the spelling — without ever being her spiritual director, except for the publication of her writings. (The year 1908, sometimes cited in this connection, is in fact that of Bishop Carrano's visit to Luisa, on 23 January 1908.^[6]) On 6 August 1926, he affixed his Nihil Obstat to the first eighteen manuscript volumes of the Book of Heaven — "nihil obstat. Canonicus Annibale M. Di Francia" can still be read today, in his hand, on the last page of these notebooks; nineteen notebooks had been brought to Messina for copying, and Archbishop Giuseppe Maria Leo's Imprimatur (Sept.–Oct. 1926, authorizing publication) concerns the same first eighteen volumes.^[7] In his draft preface to the writings, dated Messina, 29 October 1926 (A Look at the Writings of the Pious Author of the Clock of the Passion) — a text that remained unpublished, itself announcing the publication of more than twenty manuscript volumes — he presents these revelations as destined to form saints of a more sublime perfection than that of any saint who ever lived.^[8]

His canonization by Saint John Paul II on 16 May 2004^[9] obviously did not canonize Luisa's work: canonization concerns a person's virtues, not books that person supported. It does, however, publicly attest the holiness and ordinary discernment of the work's principal ecclesiastical sponsor. This point is developed in Saint Hannibal Maria di Francia.

What these seals prove—and what they do not

Both sides of the distinction must be preserved. These approvals do not prove that the entire Book of Heaven is the word of God; no Nihil Obstat makes such a claim. They do, however, refute the notion that the Church always kept Luisa at a distance or considered her writings inherently suspect. Between a supernatural guarantee, which the Church never gives to a private revelation, and condemnation, which critics believe they find in the Index episode, lies a broad field: ecclesially permitted reading. Luisa's writings occupied that field from the beginning.

This is the most common objection: “Luisa was placed on the Index; therefore her writings were condemned.” It sounds forceful but is historically inaccurate. The essentials are given here; the canonical details appear in Answers to objections.

Three books, in all their editions — not the 36 volumes

Under Pius XI, the decree of the Holy Office dated 13 July 1938 did not place the entire Book of Heaven on the Index. Word for word (AAS 30 [1938], p. 318), it condemns and inscribes on the Index "libros, qui sequuntur, ab Aloysia Piccareta conscriptos et aliorum cura variis in locis pluries editos" — the books that follow, written by Luisa Piccarreta and published in various places, on several occasions, through the efforts of others — namely three printed books named one by one, in all their editions: L'Orologio della Passione di Nostro Signor Gesù Cristo, con un Trattato sulla Divina Volontà (The Hours of the Passion — all editions, including the four procured by Saint Annibale); Nel Regno della Divina Volontà (In the Kingdom of the Divine Will); La Regina del Cielo nel Regno della Divina Volontà (The Queen of Heaven in the Kingdom, circulated in French as The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will).^[10] None of the 36 manuscript volumes of Luisa's diary is named in the decree.

What the Holy Office held against the editions

The decision of 13 July 1938 — approved by Pius XI on 14 July, Proscriptio Librorum decree of 31 August 1938, published in L'Osservatore Romano of 11 September^[11] — must be read together with its reasons. According to Del Genio's biography, the L'Osservatore Romano of 11 September 1938 denounces in these books a "false and dangerous mysticism" and a Divine Will "seen in an exaggerated and erroneous manner" (pp. 155–156); and Archbishop Leo publishes that the Holy Office has made known that there is "nothing supernatural" in the facts attributed to Luisa (p. 157).^[12] Don Calvi himself acknowledges, in his preface, that he restructured the text and "substantially increased" it with new writings, declaring his wish also to make the work "correspond better" to the original;^[13] circulation speeds up without oversight and translations multiply, including 30,000 German copies sold within a few months.^[14]

These reasons are a prudential judgment made in 1938 on editions then in circulation, not a definitive dogmatic verdict: the Index itself has had no force of law since 14 June 1966;^[15] examination of the writings — including those placed on the Index — was required for the opening of the cause in 1994; and in June 2024 the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that no doctrinal error prevents their dissemination, as confirmed by its letter of 3 December 2024.^[16]

Luisa's immediate submission

Luisa responded to the decree with immediate and unconditional obedience—the exact opposite of the response expected from a self-appointed visionary: by a handwritten letter of 19 September 1938, forwarded to Archbishop Giuseppe Maria Leo and published in the diocesan bulletin, she declared that she offered her absolute, full and unconditional submission to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church, and that she disapproved of and condemned what the Holy Office disapproved of and condemned in those books.^[17]

On 28 December 1938, Luisa definitively stopped writing her Journal.^[18] She lived another eight years and two months in silence and docility, until her death on 4 March 1947—without rebellion, a schismatic group or protest. That obedience is itself an ecclesial sign of considerable weight.

1931: publication of the Journal halted

The 1938 decree did not come without antecedents. As early as 1931, following a complaint addressed to the Holy Office, publication of the Journal was halted.^[19] Luisa obeyed and stopped circulating her writings.

21 May 1938: the notebooks confiscated

On 21 May 1938, the 34 manuscript notebooks were confiscated and deposited in the archives of the Holy Office.^[20] They did not remain locked away there forever: copies were handed over to the Archdiocese of Trani in 1996 for the instruction of the cause, whose examination of the writings — including those placed on the Index — was required; and in June 2024 the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that no doctrinal error prevents their dissemination.^[21]

The Index was abolished in 1966

The legal force of the Index argument has also expired. In its notification of 14 June 1966, under Saint Paul VI, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Index librorum prohibitorum no longer had the force of ecclesiastical law, while retaining moral value as a warning.^[22] Since 1966, therefore, a formerly listed book has not been subject to a canonical prohibition in the classical sense.

Prudent measures, then re-examination: comparable paths

The most illuminating point is that Luisa's trajectory—a prudent measure followed by re-examination—is nothing exceptional: it recurs, in various forms, in several great twentieth-century mystics.

Saint Faustina's case is especially instructive. Her Diary, targeted by the 1959 notification, is now among the world's most widely distributed spiritual texts, and the Divine Mercy devotion it conveys appears in the universal liturgical calendar. In the Church, a prudent measure has never been a definitive verdict on a mystic's holiness.

Here lies the decisive and most recent answer. Beyond the earlier seals and the 1938 episode, the Church spoke again publicly in 2024.

The suspension: ambiguities, not errors

Luisa's cause of beatification — the diocesan tribunal constituted on 5 November 1994 by Archbishop Carmelo Cassati of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie, and solemnly installed on 20 November 1994 in the mother church of Corato, after the nihil obstat of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints received on 25 February 1994^[26] — was suspended. As postulator Monsignor Paolo Rizzi publicly explained in his statement of 10 August 2024, the reason was not the discovery of errors: in 2019, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, to which the spirituality, thought and writings of the Servant of God had been submitted, had pointed to ambiguities of a theological, Christological and anthropological nature which, while not in themselves doctrinal errors, required further evaluation.^[27] The distinction is crucial: the Church sought to clarify, not to condemn.

January 2024: the warning addressed to the bishops of France

It was in this context that, on 24 January 2024, Bishop Benoît Bertrand — then Bishop of Mende and chairman of the Doctrinal Commission of the French Bishops' Conference — wrote to the bishops of France: the examination conducted had not led to granting the nihil obstat for the continuation of the cause; the difficulties identified were theological, Christological and anthropological in nature; and, given possible confusion, the consciences of believers should be enlightened.^[28] The note — published in particular by the dioceses of Bordeaux and Belley-Ars — calls for presenting this spirituality "in the perspective of the mystery of glory and merciful love, so as to avoid heterodox and misleading interpretations of the Christian message."

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith's Nulla Osta, June 2024

The Postulation's enlightening replies to these observations, with the support of a theologian expert in mysticism, enabled the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to conclude that no statement manifestly at odds with the doctrine of the Church is found in the writings and thought of the Servant of God. In June 2024, it issued the Nulla Osta for the resumption of the cause, formally notified to the Postulation by the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints on 8 July 2024.^[29] Since that date, the cause of beatification has again been active.

The Curbelié letter of 3 December 2024: “no doctrinal error”

For French-speaking bishops, the clearest act is an official letter from the Dicastery replying to the request for clarification that Bishop Benoît Bertrand, chairman of the Doctrinal Commission, had addressed to it on 30 October 2024. Archbishop Philippe Curbelié, Under-Secretary of the DDF, wrote:

“As you know, in June 2024, this Dicastery granted its Nulla Osta for the continuation of the Cause of Beatification and Canonization of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta, finding no doctrinal error in her writings such as would prevent their dissemination.” — Archbishop Philippe Curbelié, letter of 3 December 2024 to Bishop Benoît Bertrand, Prot. N. 94/37 — 102675^[30]

The same letter warns, however, not against the writings themselves, but against their “uncontrolled proliferation […], often translated and manipulated with heterodox interpretations,” and against groups "sometimes characterized by an inconsiderate devotion" toward the Servant of God; to rule out any misreading, the Dicastery requires an official, typical and critical edition, with an introduction and explanatory notes.^[31]

The formula “finding no doctrinal error in her writings such as would prevent their dissemination” engages the responsibility of the competent doctrinal authority. It does not mean that every English translation is reliable, or that every popular interpretation is correct. It means that the doctrine of the original corpus, illuminated by the Postulation's replies aided by a theologian expert in mysticism, presents no doctrinal error in the technical sense. For the question addressed here, this is the most authoritative answer presently available.

The typical critical edition: the future reference text

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith nevertheless imposed an explicit condition: the work must be published in a typical critical edition, prepared by the public association of the faithful "Luisa Piccarreta–P.F.D.V." of Corato, which carries the cause, under the supervision of the Archbishop of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie, and accompanied by an introduction and notes clarifying expressions liable to misinterpretation.^[32] That edition will be the only officially recognized edition, and all Divine Will groups will be required to use it. The Church thus distinguishes, on the one hand, a body of writings whose no doctrinal error prevents dissemination — with necessary notes on certain passages — and, on the other, the interpretive distortions added to it through defective translations or sectarian readings: the notes will have to highlight the merciful love of the Lord, "obscured" in certain pages by the historical context, and explain "certain passages or particular representations […] influenced by the language of the time."^[33][34] It calls neither for Luisa's condemnation nor for indiscriminate circulation, but for receiving the work within its ecclesial setting.

Exact canonical status: Servant of God

The precise status should therefore be stated without exaggeration. Luisa Piccarreta is a Servant of God: her cause of beatification is officially open and active. She has not yet been declared Venerable, Blessed or Saint. Her writings are not “approved” as a supernatural guarantee—no private revelation ever is—but the competent authority has found that no doctrinal error prevents their dissemination.

The practical question is likely the one readers truly wish to resolve.

Lawful reading, non-obligatory belief

In light of the evidence, the answer is clear. Yes, Catholics may read Luisa's writings and nourish their spiritual lives with them: the competent authority found no doctrinal error and reopened the cause. Yet—as with Lourdes, Fatima or Divine Mercy—no one is required to believe them. Adherence to the spirituality of the Divine Will is a free spiritual choice, never a duty of faith. Declining or ignoring these writings is not a failure of Catholic faith.

Conditions for sound reading

Lawful reading does not mean naive reading. Three prudent conditions follow directly from the ecclesial acts:

• Keep to the typical critical edition requested by the Dicastery — the only officially recognized edition — and beware of revised compilations, partisan translations and uncontrolled texts in circulation: the 34 manuscript notebooks, kept at the Dicastery, are not public and reading them remains reserved to the inquiry.^[35] This is precisely the editorial defect sanctioned by the Index in 1938.
• Read the work as a whole, not through anthologies of supposedly “shocking” excerpts torn from context. Mystical writings are judged by their overall coherence and fruits, according to the Gospel rule: “You will know them by their fruits” (Mt 7:16).
• Retain Luisa's own spirit of ecclesial obedience: receive these texts with the Church and in docility to the discernment still underway, never as the foundation of a parallel chapel.

What the approval does not yet say

Honesty requires acknowledging what the 2024 Nulla Osta does not settle. It does not declare Luisa Blessed; it does not resolve every interpretive question; it even acknowledges that passages may have been “translated and manipulated with heterodox interpretations,” which explains the need for the forthcoming critical edition. Ecclesial discernment concerning Luisa is continuing, not completed. Its direction is nevertheless clear: the Church removed the objection of doctrinal error, reopened the cause and called for a sober reception of the work. That is the opposite of condemnation.

Are Luisa's writings approved by the Church? The honest answer consists of four points:

1. No private revelation is ever “approved” as a dogma. Even when recognized, it does not belong to the deposit of faith (CCC 67), and no one is required to believe it.
2. Luisa's writings received a sustained body of ecclesial acts — pontifical rescripts of 1898 and 1905, the 1926 Nihil Obstat on the manuscripts and seals on the printed editions through 1937, the Roman act of 1994 — including the Nihil Obstat of a canonized saint.
3. The 1938 Index episode targeted only three books, in all their editions — with the 1938 prudential reasons recalled above —, not the 36 volumes; and the Index itself has had no force of law since 1966.
4. In June 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith granted its Nulla Osta, “finding no doctrinal error in her writings such as would prevent their dissemination”; the resumption of the cause was notified by the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints on 8 July 2024.

Conclusion: the writings may be read lawfully, keeping to the recognized typical critical edition and avoiding uncontrolled texts in circulation, but they are obligatory for no one. They should be received as a whole, and with the Church.

• Answers to objections to the work of Luisa Piccarreta — the complete issue-by-issue dossier.
• Luisa Piccarreta (1865–1947) — a biography of the Servant of God.
• The Book of Heaven — the 36 volumes of Luisa's mystical diary.
• Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur — the canonical framework governing approval of books.
• Saint Annibale Maria di Francia — the saint who examined Luisa's writings.
• The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — the competent Roman authority.
• The Divine Will — the heart of Luisa's spirituality.