To be fair to you, lack of an imprimatur was one of the reasons given. But it is inaccurate or misleading to imply that it was the only, or the most important, reason for the work being placed on the Index. Or to say that it was an accidental oversight.

"Confident of papal approval, Father Berti brought the books to the Vatican press. However, in 1949, two commissioners of the Holy Office, Msgr. Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P., condemned the "Poem," ordering Berti to hand over every copy and sign an agreement not to publish it. Father Berti returned the manuscripts to Valtorta and handed over only his typed versions.

Despite his signed promise, in 1952 Father Berti went to publisher Emiliano Pisani. Though aware of the Holy Office's opposition, Pisani printed the first volume in 1956, and a new volume each year through 1959.
When volume four appeared, the Holy Office examined the "Poem" and condemned it, recommending that it be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books Dec. 16, 1959. Pope John XXIII signed the decree and ordered it published. L'Osservatore Romano, on Jan. 6, 1960, printed the condemnation with an accompanying front-page article, "A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus," to explain it.

The article complained that the "Poem" broke Canon Law.

"Though they treat exclusively of religious issues, these volumes do not have an "imprimatur," which is required by Canon 1385, sect. 1, n. 2."

Second, the long speeches of Jesus and Mary starkly contrast with the evangelists, who portray Jesus as "humble, reserved; His discourses are lean, incisive." Valtorta's fictionalized history makes Jesus sound "like a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of God," or teach theology in modern terms. The Blessed Mother speaks like a "propagandist" for modern Marian theology.

Third, "some passages are rather risque," like the "immodest" dance before Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73). There are "many historical, geographical and other blunders." For instance, Jesus uses screwdrivers (Vol. 1, pp. 195, 223), centuries before screws existed.

There are theological errors, as when "Jesus says" (vol. 1, p. 30) that Eve's temptation consisted in arousing her flesh, as the serpent sensuously "caressed" her. While she "began the sin by herself," she "accomplished it with her companion." Sun Myung Moon and Maria Valtorta may claim the first sin was sɛҳuąƖ, but Scripture does not.
Vol. 1, p. 7, oddly claims, "Mary can be called the 'second-born' of the Father . . ." Her explanation limits the meaning, avoiding evidence of an authentic heresy; but it does not take away the basic impression that she wants to construct a new mariology, which simply goes beyond the limits of propriety." "Another strange and imprecise statement" made of Mary (vol. 4, p. 240) is that she will "be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy. . . " Our Lady surpasses St. Peter's holiness, but she is not in the hierarchy, let alone second to St. Peter.

Further, Valtorta did not claim to write a novel, but called herself a "secretary" of Jesus and Mary, so, "in all parts on reads the words 'Jesus says. . .' or 'Mary says . . .'" The Church takes this claim to revelation very seriously, since it has the God-given duty to discern what is or is not truly from the Holy Spirit. In Valtorta's case, the Church decided against Divine inspiration.

Finally, "Poem" is condemned for reasons of disobedience. Competent Church authority had prohibited the printing of Valtorta's work."

Extremely disappointing treatment of Valtorta by Bishop Williamson:

 Another incredibly arrogant answer.  Sounds like he's morphing into Christopher West now.  Since +Williamson is so pure, he should sit down and analyze some hard-core porn, since "all is pure for the pure, right?"  What kind of nonsense is that?  And if someone finds a joke from Our Lord about St. Peter having corrupted His Mother offensive and unbecoming of the All-Pure God, then it's because it is THEIR mind that's corrupt?  Bishop Williamson needs to retire before he disgraces himself even more.  Disgusting and disgraceful ... and extremely arrogant.  I cannot mince words.

I have spent many hours on this subject and have yet to find anything to convince me to ignore the original condemnation. I hope what I have written is of some help to you, AK.

On the Poem, to reiterate a point from an earlier thread, the Holy Office effectively repealed its 1959 censure two years later. The second edition of the Poem was approved for publication by the same Holy Office in 1961.

"Here's the history, as Steven Austen's copious PDF docuмents. In 1948, Pope Ven. Pius XII gave a verbal approval to the book, saying, "Publish it just as it is. There is no need to give an opinion as to whether it is of supernatural origin. Those who read it will understand.” If someone believes Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, this approval was the last position of the Catholic Church on the matter.

In 1959, not 56, the first edition of the book was placed on the Index, since it lacked a written Imprimatur at the time. In 1961, the Holy Office gave its approval for the second edition of the book to be published: "Required to deliver a report and some docuмentation, Fr. Berti returned four more times to the Holy Office in 1961, and was always able to deal with its Vice-Commissioner, Father Giraudo, O.P. From Fr. Giraudo he finally obtained a sentence which effectively repealed the 1959 censure on the Index. Father Giraudo stated: "We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd edition," concluding with: "We will see how the work [the Poem] is welcomed." [See pg. 14 of the PDF]. As also mentioned there, Pope Pius XII, 4 Cardinals, 14 Archbishop and 10 Regular Bishops have approved the work."

I agree with Bishop Williamson that the Poem of the Man-God is edifying and spiritually profitable to read. There is no remaining censure on the work today and there hasn't been since 1961. Please see the PDF for more details and any questions.

You're simply repeating the EXACT same errors that were refuted 2 months ago in this thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/saintly-maria-valtorta's-poem-great-spiritual-reading-for-lent-like-mcog/

You left out the EXACT same details as you did before. The same details that sink your claims that POMG was ever removed from the Index. Anyone interested can read through the thread.

If this is the "fruit" of POMG, you can keep it.

"And the eyes of them both were opened : and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons."(Gen 3, 7)
Is there not any probability for the first sin as sɛҳuąƖ on this sentence?