The Slander against Fr. Iannuzzi committed by Emmett O’Regan of “Unveiling the Apocalypse”

Update: Fr. Iannuzzi has written his own response to Emmett’s accusations. Click here to open it.

It is my sad duty to inform you that a good and holy priest, Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, has just been publicly and gravely slandered and calumniated by a certain blogger, Emmett O’Regan of “Unveiling the Apocalypse.” Emmett has been recently making it his mission to attack and accuse of heresy anyone who believes in the Era of Peace promised by the entire Prophetic Consensus, Sacred Scripture, and Papal Magisterium — all due to Emmett’s proven erroneous interpretation of CCC 676. Although my usual approach is to merely ignore the various fits the devil throws at any good work, in this case the attacks have simply become too repeated, too deceitful, and too specific, for me to leave this one without response. I have posted my response here and I encourage anyone who has come in contact with Emmett’s writings to read it and send it to anyone else who likewise has had this contact. Thank you!

Note: I encourage anyone who couldn’t care less about all this petty squabbling instigated by Emmett to scroll down to the second horizontal dividing line a few screens below, after which I will address some actually important items!

Emmett O’Regan, operator of the “Unveiling the Apocalypse” blog, has just published a post with the title “Archbishop of Trani Confirms Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi has Breached the Moratorium on Lusia [sic] Piccaretta [sic]

Needless to say, this title — the most visible part of his post — accuses the holy priest (in good standing), Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, with both the grave sin of disobedience and crime of malicious Copyright Infringement.

Emmett proceeds to cite a letter he received from Archbishop Pichierri last month which does not even remotely — in any way, shape, or form — contain or imply this “confirmation” that Fr. Joseph has “breached the Moratorium.” All this letter states is what everybody has already known for many years: that Archbishop Pichierri has not granted anyone outside of the formal “Association Luisa Piccarreta” any authorization to speak for that organization, and that Fr. Iannuzzi is not a part of that organization.

Now, Emmett himself, in his own letter to the Archbishop, certainly accuses Fr. Iannuzzi of breaching the Moratorium! And Emmett seems to think that he has the right to assume that the Archbishop is agreeing with him by the fact that the Archbishop did not respond to that accusation. But I of course don’t need to tell any thinking person that silence is not equal to agreement.

Although I will not link to Emmett’s blog, you can feel free to go there and look at the letter for yourself. You will see, upon doing so, that Emmett’s accusation against Fr. Iannuzzi doesn’t even have the slightest basis in what the letter says.

In an additional attempt to justify his false accusation, Emmett seeks to subtly conflate an alleged assertion that Fr. Iannuzzi had stated that he had been given the authorization — and sole authorization, at that — by Archbishop Pichierri, to be the official translator/censor of Luisa’s works. I do not know where this assertion came from or what specifically it says, so I will not address it here (though I will say I highly, highly doubt it actually was made by Fr. Iannuzzi); but regardless of it, there is clearly no possible truthful way to claim that this letter Emmett just received from the Archbishop does in fact accuse Fr. Iannuzzi of breaching the Moratorium.

Therefore, considering the nature of the accusation just levelled by Emmett (that is, of both crime and sin), the fact that it is unfounded, the fact that it is blatantly false, and the fact that it was levelled with the malicious intention of destroying the good public name of someoneEmmett is guilty here not merely of the sin of Calumny, but of major defamation and libel. 

Additionally, Emmett uses even more bizarre attempted reasoning to seemingly accuse Fr. Iannuzzi of violating Canon Law by writing a book without the imprimatur of his Religious Superior and/or not having a separate imprimatur on a translation/new edition of a book. I do not know if Emmett is actually accusing Fr. Iannuzzi of contradicting Canon Law here, or if he is merely being sloppy with his language and using the phrase “contrary to” when he should have said “with due regard to.” For Emmett states that two of Fr. Iannuzzi’s works are “contrary to Canon 829” by not having an imprimatur on a new translation/edition — a Canon which simply points out the obvious, common-sense fact that one cannot provide a new version of something that had an imprimatur and assume that this new version also has the imprimatur just the same. But Fr. Iannuzzi never claimed that this was the case — at least not to my knowledge. And if he did, Emmett sure provided zero evidence of it.

What I am saying here is, of course, very clear and easy to see to any thoughtful and honest person. This is no doubt why the very first comment on this post of Emmett’s was a perfectly reasonable one: a reader of his (this was not me – I have no idea who this commenter is) wrote:

Emmett responded to this comment by citing a page with another blatant misrepresentation of an Archbishop Pichierri letter, this time written by Colin Donovan on EWTN’s website. I had intended to address this months ago but decided against it, so I will do so presently (enclosed in horizontal bars so that you may skip it if you like)


As I stated some months ago, my book The Crown and Completion of All Sanctity contained at least one substantial error. Namely, my assertion on the very last page that I would not accept invitations to speak about the Divine Will because “no lay persons are authorized to do so.” I believed this error up to the point where I was corrected on it in August of 2016.

Unfortunately none other than Colin Donovan, STL, seems to be the primary promoter of this error. This primacy is perhaps not of his choosing: it just so happens that most people who do a Google Search (the primary means of learning anything these days, it seems) on Luisa will be brought first to EWTN’s page here:  (the page on which this error is asserted).

I do not wish to place any blame on Mr. Donovan, who is a great defender of the Faith and who has done so much wonderful work. I am sure he is utterly inundated with requests to comment on issues such as these and simply did not have a chance to properly examine this issue, and instead wrote up a summary that turned out to be sloppy and wound up confusing unfounded (and incorrect) hearsay with actual norms from Archbishop Pichierri.

For on that page, in 2003, Colin wrote “Lay persons will no longer be permitted to teach publicly, either about the spirituality of the Divine Will, or regarding her [Luisa’s] life and virtues” Colin makes this statement citing the authority of paragraph 14 of this letter, implying (wrongly) that this restriction is actually contained within it.:

Please, read that letter — specifically, paragraph 14 — for yourself. As you will clearly see, it says nothing whatsoever of the sort!

Furthermore, In 2015 (also posted on that same page as an update), Colin acknowledged that the following 2012 official communique was indeed Archbishop Pichierri’s most recent statement regarding Luisa’s cause and her writings. (As of this writing it is no longer true that that communique was the Archbishop’s most recent statement. Rather, Archbishop Pichierri has continued to openly encourage the zealous study and promotion of Luisa’s spirituality). Archbishop Pichierri released an official English text of his letter; so no “unofficial” translation is necessary. Here is the official translation, posted on the official website for Luisa’s cause:

Unfortunately Colin’s own 2015 summary of the Archbishop’s 2012 communique also has unfounded assertions (or at least unreasonable extrapolation), though not as clearly erroneous as the assertions in his aforementioned 2003 summary. For in this summary Colin asserts that “any” English translations of Luisa’s writings now “circulating” are contrary to the will of the Archbishop. But, as you can see from reading the 2012 document itself instead of Colin’s interpretation of it, it is merely the publication of Luisa’s writings (in their entirety, might I add) that is prohibited. Sharing and reading them within prayer groups dedicated to Luisa is not only not prohibited, but is clearly encouraged by the Archbishop in the very same letter that Colin here wrongly summarizes. To those who may accuse me of splitting hairs with this distinction: Please consider how on Earth it is possible that any “circulation” of Luisa’s writings whatsoever would be automatically deemed contrary to the Archbishop’s directives if he himself said that the “ardor” of those who “recommend the reading of her [Luisa’s] writings” is “not only not prohibited, [but is] rather very much desirable.” Look at the letter for yourself!

Even a cursory glance and a moment’s reasonable reflection indicates that it is not those who promote Luisa and her writings that are in error, but rather Colin’s words on that page.

The only things that are prohibited by the Church or the Archbishop, are the following:

  • In paragraph 7: The “publication of the writings,” is condemned, which refers to their being placed in their entirety on the market for purchase and/or download. It does not prohibit the sharing and reading of the writings within prayer groups dedicated to Luisa, nor does it prohibit the publication of books and other materials which, careful to observe Catholic orthodoxy, present quotes from Luisa’s writings. Nor does it prohibit the dissemination of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will or the Hours of the Passion, both of which have had the aforementioned publication Moratorium removed.
  • In paragraph 8, it requires that “conferences, spiritual retreats, prayer meetings, etc.” be authorized by one’s Bishop.
  • In paragraph 5, it is made clear (as a reiteration of a 2007 notification), that no one “outside of the association” has been granted permission to speak on “life, thought and writings of the Servant of God” in their names. This restriction should be obvious! One can never speak in another’s name without the former’s explicit permission to do so.

Here is what that official communique does say on the flip side of the coin:

    • Necessary prudence cannot lessen the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, or of those who recommend the reading of her writings, or of those who encourage the faithful prayer for her beatification. All this not only is not prohibited, rather very much desireable
    • “Those who claim that these [Luisa’s] writings contain doctrinal errors…anticipate the legitimate judgment of the Church… [and] cause scandal to the faithful”

As you can see, it is actually the very people who publicly criticize and impute heresy to Luisa’s writings who are themselves being the scandalous and disobedient ones.

The official letter may be found here as well

Now here is the tragic irony of this all. Here is where Emmett has been a real sort of Judas to the good Archbishop.

Archbishop Pichierri wishes nothing more than to see Luisa canonized, all of her writings fully approved, and the Gift of Living in the Divine Will be known and loved so as to hasten its coming Reign.

Archbishop Pichierri no doubt knows nothing about Emmett; he doesn’t know that Emmett is a relentless, rabid opponent of the coming Reign of the Divine Will to the point that he actually accuses anyone who believes in it of being a heretic (an accusation light years beyond merely disagreeing with the Era of Peace or merely thinking it won’t happen). He doesn’t know that for years, Emmett has been tirelessly seeking out (and this is not the first deceitful approach he has tried) means to oppose Fr. Iannuzzi, the Divine Will, and the Era of Peace.

And here we have Emmett slyly and subtly seeking out the Archbishop’s own words in order to serve his own ulterior motives of opposing the very thing that the Archbishop is trying to promote.

For the Archbishop himself has (see above) strongly denounced those who claim Luisa’s writings contain errors. And the coming Reign of the Divine Will — the Era of Peace — is no mere small part of Luisa’s writings. It is absolutely essential — foundational. It pervades all of her writings. Therefore, by condemning this as heresy, Emmett is opposing Luisa’s writings in the highest degree possible, and doing the very thing that the Archbishop (whom he deceptively and maliciously reached out to) has already publicly rebuked as scandalous. Like a double agent in the midst of the Church. A true wolf in sheep’s clothing.

But the tragic irony does not stop there. In a post last month, Emmett accuses not only Fr. Iannuzzi, but any promoter of the Era of Peace (he also names Mark Mallett) of — not just being heretics. Not just being wrong on a point or two. No, but of “undermining the Catholic Faith to its very core.” That of course would include myself as well.

This accusation would be laughable if it were not so evil, untrue, and no doubt demonically inspired.

Take five minutes to read any one of the hundreds upon hundreds of posts on Mark Mallett’s blog, and you will leave that reading inspired and filled with love of Jesus Christ. You will want to pray the Rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet. You will want to go to Mass and receive Communion as often as possible. You will want to make heartfelt Confessions. You will want to fast, do works of mercy, and, in a word: become a better Catholic. You will want to do all of these things with a sense of urgency that is precisely the end for which Mark uses the Signs of the Times and the prophecies of Private Revelation. For indeed, the eschatology of Mark’s blog is exactly where it should be: tangential to and for the sake of growth in love; growth in holiness. It is not endless pseudo-academic speculation about what is coming.

Now I have no idea what Emmett’s own personal spiritual life consists of, nor is it my business. But the contrast between his writings and Mark’s are like night and day. This is why it is absurd in the highest degree to hear someone like Emmett accuse Mark Mallett’s writings of “undermining the Catholic faith to its very core.” Spend five minutes reading any of Emmett’s tomes and you are left, not with any holy affections whatsoever, but with a spinning head full of a multitude of disjointed facts that Emmett struggles to put together into some sort of Eschatological prediction that he hopes to take credit for.

When I cautioned, in my last post, against the writings of those who preach an Eschatology of Despair, and look at eschatology as if it were some massive Jigsaw Puzzle to be mastered by their own cunning, instead of a mystery to listen to from the mouths of the prophets whom God is blessing us with here and now, it was precisely writings like Emmett’s Unveiling the Apocalypse that I had in mind.

Now you might wonder why I am so insistent upon this; so insistent upon the orthodoxy of the Era of Peace and so adamant in refuting the erroneous arguments against it. What are my motivations?

It is simple: if we do not believe it is possible, we will not pray for it and work towards it, and its coming will be long delayed, to the grave detriment of countless souls.

Jesus says this very clearly to Luisa (March 20th, 1932): “[The] Second necessity, more indispensable than the first, in order to obtain this Kingdom:  it is necessary to know that one can have It.  Who can ever think of a Good, desire it, love it, if he does not know that he can obtain it?  No one.  If the Ancients had not known that the future Redeemer was to come, no one would have given it a thought, nor prayed, nor hoped for salvation, because the salvation, the sanctity of those times, was fixed-centralized in the future Celestial Savior.  Outside of this there was no good to be hoped for.  To know that one can have a Good forms the Substance, the Life, the nourishment of that Good in the creature.  Here is the reason for the so many Knowledges about My Will that I have manifested to you-that it may be known that they can have the Kingdom of My Will.  When it is known that a Good can be possessed, arts and industriousness are used, and the means to obtain the intent are employed.”

This Kingdom is going to come. The greatest petition of the greatest prayer (Thy Will be Done on Earth as It Is in Heaven) will not go unanswered. The Era promised by countless revelations will not wind up being mere wishful thinking.  It has been decreed, and God will not change His mind, any more than He would have changed His mind about Redemption when He promised that in Genesis 3:15. And yet, woe to those who choose to make themselves an obstacle to this Decree. For they do incalculable harm not only to themselves, but to all those unfortunate enough to be their hearers.

As you can see, my motivations are clear, honest, and I am completely open with them.

On the contrary, one can only wonder what on earth Emmett’s motivations — and those of his ilk — are.

  • They cannot honestly be concerned that the anticipation of the Era of Peace will turn its believers toward secular messianism, because such people are in no danger of looking to creatures for the very thing that Jesus continually promises will come only from Himself.
  • They cannot honestly be concerned that those who anticipate the Era of Peace will not sufficiently be focused on Heaven, for these people are, demonstrably, among all those in the entire Church, the very ones who are the most focused on Heaven — above all Luisa herself (who was totally fixated upon Heaven).
  • They cannot honestly be concerned that these people will somehow turn against the Church, for among all those groups in the Church you will not find any more devoted to Catholic orthodoxy than those who, in response to Luisa’s (and others’) writings, await an Era of Peace.

So what are their motives?

Well, one need not know he works for the devil to, in fact, be doing just that. And the devil is a silent master at working through people’s irritations, frustrations, pride (e.g. defending an opinion just because you’ve always defended it and don’t want to be seen as wrong), vanity (e.g. always looking for more clicks on the blog!), and downright blind and passion-driven malice.

No, I do not hesitate to say that it is the Devil who is the primary opponent of the Era of Peace, and that he willingly enlists anyone he can to serve his own ends. For consider this: if this Kingdom is coming — and indeed it is — then who would despise and fight against its coming more than Satan?