They get worse by saying that Archbishop Lefebvre allowed his saintly spiritual director for Econe, Fr Barrielle, to push the Poem even though they claim it is all so disgusting. So what does that say about Archbishop Lefebvre?

+Lefebvre isn't infallible - he did many things right and some things wrong.  To suggest that he is above criticism or that he never erred is a cult-ish, anti-catholic, extremist mindset.

Puritans get everywhere I fear. They are pharisees with dirty minds.

+Lefebvre was known for his Puritanism and his dirty mind.

I would have answered sooner, but figured that few on CI really cared to pursue the truth.

What "truth" are you speaking of?  The truth concerns facts, not your opinion, so let's discuss facts.  

1.  Is the "Poem" accepted by the Church or not?  FACT:  It was on the forbidden index list for years.
2.  Is the "Poem" (or any mystical writing) 100% verifiable or believable?  FACT:  No, such things must be read cautiously, even if no error exists.
3.  Does the Church require any catholic to accept the "Poem"?  FACT:  No, not in any way.  Even the Church doesn't accept it; She only says whether or not something like this contains error.  Saying something is "free from error" is not the same thing as "acceptable and praiseworthy".
4.  Is it wrong to criticize the "Poem" (or any mystical writing)?  FACT:  No, not in any way, because such things are not required for salvation.
5.  Is it wrong to criticize the "Poem" (or any mystical writing) even if the Church has said it's "free from error"?  FACT:  No, because it's a private revelation which is unrelated to Church teaching.
6.  Is the "Poem" above criticism, or infallible, or inerrant?  FACT:  Absolutely, positively, not.  It can contain error and probably does, as pointed out already.

Yes, the indecency attributed in the Poem where none is meant or intended is truly appalling.

How do you know no indecency was intended?  How do you know that: 
1) the "Poem" was a divine message?  The Church hasn't declared it is, so how do you determine it is, apart from the Church?
2) the "Poem" doesn't have mistakes in its translation?  The Church hasn't approved any translations, so by what authority do you presume it's authentic?
3) the "Poem" isn't full of truth/error, that is, a trick from the devil?  Can the devil not appear to holy people to trick them?  We know he can and has.  

You presume this whole thing is good, in absence of ANY Church ruling and in contradiction to the fact that it was already on the "forbidden" list, much like Sr Faustina and the 'divine mercy' messages.  Until the Church approves such things, we should be cautious, just like She has shown us Her reactions to such devotions/messages like the "Holy Face" or the "Sacred Heart", which took DECADES for the Holy See to act.  Prudence dictates such action.  Your actions are too emotional.

Ladislaus has been around for years. He personifies, as I see it, the real “filth” on this forum. 

Can you be more specific?  That's quite an uncharitable accusation.  Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't make them wrong.  You're being too emotional, once again.

 I have never gotten him to declare his identity.

What's your identity?  Please post your name, address and social security # so I can do a background check before believing your posts.

You're ridiculous.

Yes, the indecency attributed in the Poem where none is meant or intended is truly appalling. Ladislaus has a dirty mind, so a perfectly harmless and beautiful event is filtered through his vilely corrupted mental faculties, and this is what you get.

I consider this a compliment coming from you, hollingsworth.

I wasn't speaking of intentions.  Perhaps Valtorta, in fabricating the accounts, didn't consider prolonged homoerotic petting and kissing of various Apostles by Jesus to be indecent, projecting her own feminine sensibilities on it.  She may not have realized that this kind of behavior among men only happens between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, since women might more innocently engage in such behavior with one another.

You see, this kind of dogmatic adherence to Valtorta, and the vitriolic defense thereof, is one of the biggest alarm bells that something is awry.  Here hollingsworth attacks me more acrimoniously than if I had denied an actual dogma.

I submit that if is you who have the dirty mind if you have no problem with the passages cited.

Even Father Pacwa, of EWTN, not know as a Puritan with a dirty mind, excoriates Valtorta.

Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't make them wrong.  You're being too emotional, once again.

Excessive emotion is to be expected of such ardent Valtorta apologists.  I could see how Valtorta's over-emotionalized Christ would appeal to feminine sensibilities, but such dogmatic devotion by a man suggests low testosterone.

Quote

Yes, the indecency attributed in the Poem where none is meant or intended is truly appalling.

 

PV:How do you know no indecency was intended?  How do you know that:

Well, because I bothered to read the entire episode.  Did you?  PV, you can believe that N.199 is a fabrication, an invention of Valtorta's confused and decieved mind.  Be my guest. But the story, real or invented, has absolutely nothing to do with indecency.  There is not an indecent suggestion in it.  Only slugs like ladislaus insert the possibility of it being so.
And is there no other CI member, besides Cebu, who will at least come to the defense of Valtorta, whether or not you believe her account.  Will not one of you timid souls at least admit that there was no evidence in it of an indecent and filthy motive? 
What about you, Matthew?  You posted the EC. Come on, man up!  Cat got your tongue?  It's your forum which assembles all these "traditional Catholics."  Do you have a special place in your heart for certified morons like Lad, Incred, and PV.?  Shameless, despicable bunch that they are.

Will not one of you timid souls at least admit that there was no evidence in it of an indecent and filthy motive?

Did I not just write that I am not in a position to judge "motive"?  I do not judge the internal forum.  I don't care about "motive"; I simply judge this stuff, objectively, to be trash.  And, as a Catholic, I am entitled to agree with the Holy Office's erstwhile judgment that it belongs on the Index.  There's no judgment of the Church which requires that I accept Valtorta as divine revelation.

Next week, Hollingsworth will be screaming that +Williamson’s new article is pro-sspx and how +Williamson is pathetic.  But this week, Hollingsworth agrees with him on “the poem”, so no negativity.  ??  So confusing.