Refutation of Their Second Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta's work. Here is their second listed item:

The tree of life in the terrestrial paradise is only a symbol;

See this rebuttal: How the Orthodoxy of Maria Valtorta's Work Shines Even More Brightly and Exposing the Methodological and Theological Errors of Anselmo de la Cruz: A Complete Refutation of Anselmo's Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article Entitled "A Generalized Sexual Obsession".

Then, in the rebuttal above, read the two quotes from Fr. Gabriel Roschini (world-renowned Mariologist, who is easily ten times more learned than the Dominicans in Mariology). For the sake of brevity, I will only quote only his second quotation (but I encourage you to read both of his quotations at the link above):77

Valtorta's interpretation of Adam and Eve's original sin is founded: 1) on the biblical text; 2) on some ancient rabbinical interpretations; and 3) on patristic literature (early Church Fathers in both the East and the West). It has been adopted by a fair number of famous exegetes and writers in our own time.

1. It is an interpretation founded on the text of Genesis, since it is implied or insinuated in Genesis. "Both the Bible and human experience show that pride and sensuality go hand in hand. As a reflection attributed to Saint Augustine has it, what begins in the spirit ends in the flesh. Furthermore, it seems that pride of the spirit hurls its victims into sexual permissiveness. "Whoever tries to be an angel, especially a rebel angel, becomes a beast" (Professor J. Coppens, in Ephem. Theol. Lov., 24 [1948], p.396) Eve's sin began in her spirit (the pride of becoming "like God, knowing good and evil") and consummated itself in the flesh. Adam's love for Eve was instrumental in his sin --- as Saint Augustine pointed out (De Genesi ad litteram [Concerning Genesis] 42, PL 34, 452-454).
   The matter in hand, then, is disorderly love not at all in harmony with the supreme love owed to God. Adam and Eve's love was carnal and illicit, since it did not heed God's commandment. What caused Adam's original sin was precisely an excessive love for Eve. After they sinned, "the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked," they covered themselves (Gen. 3:7; [Douay]). In other words, they were troubled and felt an imbalance in the area of sexuality: this links original sin to lust. The fact that God inflicted a greater punishment on the woman than on the man, and the very nature of this punishment ("In sorrow shalt you bring forth children, . . . and [the man] shall have dominion over you" [Gen 3:16; Douay]) seem to indicate the nature of the fault.

2. It is an interpretation founded on a few ancient rabbinical traditions (see J Coppens La connaissance du Bien et du Mal et le Péché du Paradis [The Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Sin in the Garden of Eden], Bruges, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer. 1948, p.24).

3. It is an interpretation founded on eastern and western patristic literature. Among the Eastern Fathers we find St. Justin, St. Epiphanius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. John Damascene. Among the Western Fathers: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Isidore. Among medieval writers: Alcuin, a Medieval Anonymous, St. Bernard, Hugo of Saint-Victor, Duns Scotus, and the blessed John Ruysbroek (see Coppens, op.cit.; Ephem. Theol. Lov., 24 [1948], p.402-408).
   On the other hand, Father Felix Asensio, S.J. (Tradición sobre un pecado sensual en el Paradiso? [Tradition about a Sensual Sin in the Garden of Eden?], in Gregorianum 30 [1949], p.490-520; 31 [1950], p.35-62, 162-191) expresses the opinion that none of the Fathers mentioned by Coppens, whether in the East or the West, would sufficiently prove the legitimacy of an interpretation of original sin in terms of sexuality.
   In view of a fair judgment, it is necessary to be aware of original sin's complexity (its multiple deformity), as it appears in Valtorta's writings. Pride (the desire to be like God in determining good and evil) led our first parents to disobey the divine commandments. This disobedience immediately resulted in the loss of integrity (the revolt of the flesh against the spirit) followed by sexual sin.

4. Finally, it is an interpretation adopted by a fair number of famous exegetes and modern writers. Among exegetes, there are professor Joseph Coppens (of the Catholic University of Louvain, in the two previously mentioned works) and Father Emanuel Testa, O.F.M., in [The Holy Bible], under the direction of Most. Rev. Salvatore Garofalo, Genesi (Introduction --- Primitive History), Turin-Rome, 1968, p. 307ff; p. 318ff). Among writers, there are Jean Guitton of the French Academy, in "Le développement des idées dans l’Ancien Testament [The Development of Ideas in the Old Testament]," (in La pensée moderne et le catholicisme, issue #9, Aix-en-Provence, 1947, p.89-130), and Louis Bouyer, Oratorian, in his work Le trône de Ia Sagesse, Paris, Cerf, 1957, p.21. [English Translation: Woman and Man with God. An Essay on the Place of the Virgin Mary in Christian Theology and its Significance for Humanity. London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1960, p.58.; republished under the title The Seat of Wisdom. An Essay on the Place of the Virgin Mary in Christian Theology, N.Y., Random, 1962 (Panther Books), p.5-8.]

Also see the commentary of Fr. Corrado Berti (professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959), who did a detailed and thorough and proper theological analysis of what Valtorta wrote about the question at hand. Among the things he wrote, he says:78

5. Among the plants were distinguished the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:9]. True trees, or only symbolic? True trees, and also a symbol and cause of reality or of real effects? [Valtorta] seems to lean toward true trees with true fruit, but with a symbolic import, if one observes the text...and note 9 of paragraph 26.

Hence, the Resistance Dominicans wrote a falsehood, which doesn't surprise me since I can tell from their article that they carried out a cursory, superficial analysis of Valtorta's writings most likely with a strong bias. It is also significant that they fail to mention the esteemed theologians who have studied her writings for years and provided thousands of footnotes and hundreds of pages of theological analysis, many of which dispel and address many of their groundless accusations and insinuations.