If you had bothered to fact check, you would've found this:
Juridic Import of Subsequent Letters from Prelates
In the decades following the Index’s abrogation Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Bishop Dionigi Tettamanzi wrote letters recalling that Valtorta’s work had been placed on the Index and reiterating the Index’s enduring moral value. Other prelates wrote letters in support of the work. We will now briefly examine the juridic import of these documents.
Letters of Ratzinger
Since the abrogation of the Index the CDF has never issued a notification or decree with regard to Valtorta’s writings. However, on January 31, 1985, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a private letter to Cardinal Siri on the subject.10 A priest from Cardinal Siri’s diocese had written the CDF asking the position of the Church’s Magisterium with regard to the Poem. Ratzinger responded by writing Siri, whom he invited to share the contents of the letter with the priest concerned. The brief letter recalled the Holy Office’s decree of December 16, 1959, the anonymous article printed in L’Osservatore Romano in 1960, and the CDF’s 1966 Notification on the enduring moral value of the Index. As was seen supra the Notification clarified that the decree of 1959 no longer has any juridic value and that the enduring moral value of the Index lies in it providing input to the conscience of each Catholic, who then has the role of discerning and deciding whether or not to read a work that had been on the Index.
Ratzinger then adds something new: that “the diffusion and recommendation of [a work such as the Poem] is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful.” This statement was not made in the form of a juridic act of the CDF—such as a decree or notification (nor therefore,
a fortiori, could it be considered to be an authentic interpretation of the law. As a result this affirmation in the letter has no juridic weight.
On May 21, 1993 Bishop Raymond Boland of Birmingham Alabama, in a letter to Terry Colafrancesco, asserted that Cardinal Ratzinger had written to him on April 17, 1993 and had “asked me to inform you about the position of the Church” regarding the Poem. Boland asserted that the Cardinal wished to recall the items previously published in L’Osservatore Romano (presumably the decree of December 16, 1959, the accompanying anonymous article, and the Notification of November 15, 1966). He also asserted that the CDF had asked the Italian Bishops Conference to request of the publisher of the Poem that in any future edition “it might be clearly indicated from the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.”
The April 17 letter of Ratzinger was never made public. Even if it were made public, and if its language matched exactly that reported by Boland, Ratzinger’s letter would not have any juridic weight as its content does not contain a judicial sentence or an act of legislative or executive authority. It would rather be a letter relaying that the CDF had communicated with the Italian Bishops Conference and that this Conference communicated with the publisher of the Poem. Those communications would then need to be analyzed to determine their own juridic weight.
Current Juridic and Moral Value of the Index for the Poem of the Man-God
What then is the current juridic and moral value of the Index for the Poem of the Man-God? The Index no longer has the force of ecclesiastical law; therefore when one chooses to read, publish, or promote the Poem there is no violation of ecclesiastical law. The various letters issued by prelates in the decades following the abrogation of the Index on the subject of the Poem are not (with the exception of the imprimatur granted by Bishop Pakiam), juridically binding. Hence a Catholic is permitted to think and act in ways different from the opinions expressed therein. For example, a Catholic who believes the Poem to be of supernatural origin or promotes it as such is not being disobedient to Bishop Tettamanzi’s letter, for the letter has no juridic weight."
Source:
