To be fair, the “pornographic” argument has been (dishonestly imho) stretched by some. If you read the “visions” in their context, and keeping in mind the customs and culture of the time, then I don’t think anything indecent was intended or even insinuated. But I do agree that most of the details are just trivial and some I would call rather vulgar (Archbishop Lefebvre called them “gross” and “rude”). And some of these vulgar or gross details easily lend themselves to misinterpretation if taken out of context. Hence, the “pornographic” argument.
But what worries me most though is that the bishop insists on bringing this up over and over again, despite the fact that he knows very well that:
There is no obligation on any Catholic to believe these private “revelations”, on the contrary, Catholics must avoid any and all “revelations” that are not explicitly approved (or at least cleared) by the Church.
That 99% of his audience disagrees with and strongly dislikes Maria Valtorta’s “Poem of the Man God” and will not have a bar of it
That it is causing more division, and providing more ammunition to discredit the bishop and the Resistance he’s supposed to be the moral authority of.
Even if we were talking about some proven good literature, like The Imitation of Christ for example, if you see that the mere mention of it is causing more harm than good, would you not avoid the issue altogether in order to avoid the harm done? Why does the bishop persist in shoving his controversial and totally unimportant opinion down everyone’s throat? Is there nothing else that’s more worthy of our attention?
From The Imitation of Christ:
Everyone, it is true, wishes to do as he pleases and is attracted to those who agree with him.
But if God be among us, we must at times give up our opinions for the blessings of peace.