Let's see. This is based on Canon 1398 of the 1917 code of canon law. Here is the canon in full:

Canon 1398 (NA)
§ 1. The prohibition of books brings it about that the book cannot be published, read, retained,
sold, translated into another language, or in any other way communicated to others without
necessary permission.
§ 2. A book that in any manner is prohibited cannot once again be brought out unless, the
corrections having been made, permission is given by him who prohibited the book, or by his
Superior or successor.
Canon 139916 (NA) Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 1400
By the law, [the following] are prohibited:
1.° Original text editions or ancient versions of Catholic sacred Scripture, even of the
Oriental Church, published by any non-Catholic; and likewise versions [of these], in
any language, by these [same sort] prepared or published;
2.° Books of any writers propagating heresy or schism, or attacking in any way the basis
of religion;
3.° Books by design striking against religion and good morals;
4.° Books by any non-Catholics treating purposely of religion, unless it can be shown
that nothing contained in them is contrary to the Catholic faith;
5.° Books mentioned in Canon 1385, § 1, n. 1, and Canon 1391; likewise all those
mentioned in the cited Canon 1385, § 1, n. 2, [and] books and booklets that describe
new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles, or that lead to new
devotions, even under the pretext of being private, if they have not been published
in accord with the prescriptions of the canons;
6.° Books attacking or deriding any Catholic dogma, or protecting errors proscribed by
the Holy See, or detracting from divine cult, or arguing for the avoidance of
ecclesiastical discipline, or bringing about opprobrium on religion or the clerical
state;
7.° Books that teach or recommend superstition in general, sorcery, divination, magic,
evoking of spirits, and other things of this sort;
8.° Books that argue the liceity of dueling, ѕυιcιdє, or divorce, and those that in
discussing masonic sects and other societies of this sort argue that they are useful
and not pernicious to the Church and civil society;
9.° Books that purposely describe, teach, or treat lascivious or obscene materials;
10.° Editions of liturgical books approved by the Apostolic See in which there have been
any changes so that they are not consistent with the authentic editions approved by
the Holy See;
11.° Books that give out apocryphal indulgences or [ones] proscribed or revoked by the
Holy See;
12.° Any images or impressions of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of
the Angels and Saints or other Servants of God, alien to the sense and decrees of the
Church.

The section I am referring to is subsection 5 (emphasis mine):

5.° Books mentioned in Canon 1385, § 1, n. 1, and Canon 1391; likewise all those
mentioned in the cited Canon 1385, § 1, n. 2, [and] books and booklets that describe
new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles, or that lead to new
devotions, even under the pretext of being private, if they have not been published
in accord with the prescriptions of the canons;

And the effect on such a book is that it:

cannot be published, read, retained, sold, translated into another language, or in any other way communicated to others without necessary permission.

  Alois' prophecies are of a political nature.  Has nothing to do with catholicism, or religion in general.  Take it or leave it.

You guys get bent out of shape if some dude 50 years ago had prophecies about ww3, but you don't bat an eyelash about taking "predictions" from stock brokers or businessman.  There's really no difference. 

  Alois' prophecies are of a political nature.  Has nothing to do with catholicism, or religion in general.  Take it or leave it.

You guys get bent out of shape if some dude 50 years ago had prophecies about ww3, but you don't bat an eyelash about taking "predictions" from stock brokers or businessman.  There's really no difference. 

.

Okay, so are you saying he wasn't claiming to receive any sort of revelation about the future? I sure didn't get that impression from reading what has been posted about him on this forum. What I've seen sure looks to me like he claimed the gift of prophecy in a supernatural manner.

This is a totally different thing from a statement like, "It looks to me like the Ukraine war is going to be over within two years, based on how it's going now."

Irlmaier primarily earned his living as a professional well-digger and dowser, charging for services to locate and build wells using dowsing techniques. He also provided clairvoyant consultations, such as finding missing people or offering prophecies, for which he was accused in 1947 of illegal clairvoyance for profit; however, he was acquitted after witnesses attested to his accuracy and goodwill, with no evidence of fraud. Some sources claim he had prior convictions for fraud, though this is unverified and may stem from mistranslations or unconfirmed reports. Yes, these methods of earning a living—dowsing and clairvoyance (fortune-telling or prophecy via visions)—are condemned by the Catholic Church as forms of divination, which involves seeking hidden or future knowledge through improper, supernatural means outside of divine revelation. The Church views such practices as sinful superstitions that usurp God's prerogative over the future, potentially involving demonic influence, and explicitly forbids them under the First Commandment, citing Scriptures like Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (prohibiting diviners and charmers) and Hosea 4:12 (condemning divining rods). This aligns with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2115-2117), which rejects all divination as contrary to trust in God's providence. Despite this, Irlmaier maintained his Catholic faith and did not see his abilities as conflicting with it.
*******************************************************************************************************
What of the above is held in dispute?  Is it wrong to point these facts out?  Are they an inconvenient truth?

Irlmaier primarily earned his living as a professional well-digger and dowser, charging for services to locate and build wells using dowsing techniques. He also provided clairvoyant consultations, such as finding missing people or offering prophecies, for which he was accused in 1947 of illegal clairvoyance for profit; however, he was acquitted after witnesses attested to his accuracy and goodwill, with no evidence of fraud. Some sources claim he had prior convictions for fraud, though this is unverified and may stem from mistranslations or unconfirmed reports. Yes, these methods of earning a living—dowsing and clairvoyance (fortune-telling or prophecy via visions)—are condemned by the Catholic Church as forms of divination, which involves seeking hidden or future knowledge through improper, supernatural means outside of divine revelation. The Church views such practices as sinful superstitions that usurp God's prerogative over the future, potentially involving demonic influence, and explicitly forbids them under the First Commandment, citing Scriptures like Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (prohibiting diviners and charmers) and Hosea 4:12 (condemning divining rods). This aligns with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2115-2117), which rejects all divination as contrary to trust in God's providence. Despite this, Irlmaier maintained his Catholic faith and did not see his abilities as conflicting with it.
*******************************************************************************************************
What of the above is held in dispute?  Is it wrong to point these facts out?  Are they an inconvenient truth?

Your Grok-driven nonsense is debunked by the post right after yours.  Grok of course injects terms like "clairvoyant", which is the secular perpsective on any kind of preternatural ability.  There have been many mystics that had preternatural abilities, and this Grok-post conflates divination / clairvoyance with legitimate mystical abilities, which the atheistic Grok has for a premise.  Indeed the Church condemns "divination", but legitimate gifts from mystics are not in that category.  Seems like this faithless wonder Mat183 appears to prefer Grok to actual Catholic theology.  That's incredibly pathetic.

Have you once yet quoted an actual Catholic source for any of your assertions?  Since you've been called out on this before, seems like you're too ashamed to mention that you got this from Grok.

Your Grok-driven nonsense is debunked by the post right after yours.  Grok of course injects terms like "clairvoyant", which is the secular perpsective on any kind of preternatural ability.  There have been many mystics that had preternatural abilities, and this Grok-post conflates divination / clairvoyance with legitimate mystical abilities, which the atheistic Grok has for a premise.  Indeed the Church condemns "divination", but legitimate gifts from mystics are not in that category.  Seems like this faithless wonder Mat183 appears to prefer Grok to actual Catholic theology.  That's incredibly pathetic.

Have you once yet quoted an actual Catholic source for any of your assertions?  Since you've been called out on this before, seems like you're too ashamed to mention that you got this from Grok.

The dumbing down of society continues.  Dumb people used to quote Wikipedia as if it was the bible.  But at least Wiki had most of its general facts correct; it was just biased on the conclusions (and only for hot topics).  If you just searched a random topic, i.e. the origin of chocolate, then Wiki was probably accurate.

Now dumb people are using AI and act like it's research and 100% correct.  Even when the programmers of AI have repeatedly said that it can make up facts, as many have already gone to jail by using AI as a "source".  But dumb people don't even know the dangers (or care).  They plunge right ahead and act like they are a genius on a topic, because of AI.

This new poster doesn't even understand the terms he's debating -- prophecy, clairvoyant, divination - thus he can't distinguish between what's anti-catholic and what's not.  

I will be ignoring any and all AI posts from here on out.  It's not research, it's not factual and it's not conversation.

So, the reason that God gives these types of gifts sometimes is primarily so that the faithful, His elect, can be prepared for what's to come and also to be comforted that it's all part of God's plan, and that "God wins in the end", that it'll turn out fine.  If you're in the middle of some Three Days of Darkness scenario or some horrible Third World War, one might be tempted to despair if it were not for the fact that it had been foretold, and the information about it leaked to some extent.

In this case, if Trump does get taken out in Budapest ... that'll certainly establish Irlmaier's credibility, and then we have just a bit of time left to "duck and cover", and try to make some preparations before all hell breaks loose.

Now, I personally have always felt that 2029 would be the start of the war and physical chastisement (with V2 being the spiritual chastisement, far worse), based on Our Lady's request to consecrate Russia in 1929 (June 13) and then Our Lord likening the delay to that of the Kings of France, who 100 years TO THE DAY of Our Lord having requested that they consecrate Frances to His Sacred Heart were effectively deposed (made subordinate to the Third Estate).

But perhaps this comes before whatever events transpire in 2029.  Irlmaier said that he saw something that lasted 3 (units of measure).  He didn't think it would be long, but then from eternity 3 Years may not be long.  So perhaps another alternative timeline is that the war goes on for about 3 years, which would take us into 2029, at which point a Holy Pope would somehow be elected, who would then consecrate Russia, and crown three kings, one of them being the Great Monarch.  That could be possible.

Now, it could also be that the assassination event doesn't actually take place until 2029.  Yet, to have two situations after some great Israeli-involved Peace Deal where there's a short-notice summit in Budapest between the US and Russia ... that would be uncanny.

I would have doubted the blog post about this detail regarding the Budapest summit and assassination of the US President, except that this had been written many years ago, and I quoted it on one of these Irlmaier threads two years ago.  So it wasn't something that someone has faked when news of the Budapest summit came out and then tried to claim this prediction had been made years ago.

Too many of Irlmaier's predictions have come true to write it off as blind squirrel or broken clock luck, and, as mentioned, what are the odds of these things all coming together in a short window of time, where everyone's crying peace, Shalom! (the great "Eternal Peace" deal that the entire world hailed), and then a short-notice summit (two weeks' notice -- how often do things like that get arranged on such short notice?), then it's in Budapest (as predicted, the Bucharest alternative notwithstanding), and it's between US and Russia, and the actual US President is attending (most of them time it's some delegate, Secretary of State, ambassador, or some such)?  I mean, if Irlmaier was just making up random things, what are odds of these all coming together?  Likely astronomical.  Now, if you wanted to claim he was under diabolical influence ... apart from the fact that it would be a slander against his character for which there's no evidence, that might at least explain it, but dumb luck?  As mentioned, I cited these predictions two years ago here on CI, and the blog itself came from years before that, so its existence prior to the events is well established.  Odds are astronomical that things would line up this way.