There are two things central to my treasured gift of Catholicism - the Eucharist and acceptance of Church teaching and dogma in all obedience and humility. Nothing in these two fundamental tenets of Catholic faith and practice have changed one tiny bit for the past 2000 years.

We live in a rapidly developing yet ever fragile world - a world in which scientists and modern day experts believe they have all the answers to fit with the modern world. Should trendy new ideas and great scientific discoveries change in some way my fundamental approach to Catholicism? Is the Church out of step because it resists resolutely bending to the ideas, wishes and whims of modern day liberalists? What ever happened to accepting Church teaching and dogma as it was passed down to us over these past 2000 years in all obedience and humility?

To my mind, turning an analysis of Church history and modern day popes into something of an artform in no way adds to the fundamental focus and centrality of the Eucharist to every practicing Catholic. On the question of the papacy, every pope that ever lived from St Peter down had human frailities - after all, we are all susceptable to the human condition. Obedience? Not all Catholics were obedient to Church teaching down through the ages. Some protested. Nothing has changed in that respect in today's world either.

Thank God for Wojtyla and Ratzinger in these times for standing firm in the face of their liberalist critics. Where would the Church be we might ask ourselves if it was swayed by every trendy new idea and belief that was ever touted by a commentator since the reign of Peter?

Noel John

Its called milking The Sacred Cows dry and still milking the teets again and again and again--even the cows are sick to death of it "Give us a break!", they moo in unison-"try the silly trendy goats for a change"--"or what about matadoring the papal bulls?"- Time for the prodigal son to return home though I dont guarantee A well attended home coming party!

Yours Sincerely,
Father John George,
St John Vianney Villa,
70 Market St.,
Randwick North. 2031
NSW AUSTRALIA.
02 93981117
email:johngeo@acon.com.au

Paul Collins's book seems to rely very heavily on his revision of the term 'Catholic' in generic terms:

1. is open to truth and value wherever it exists;
2. is inclusive and open to various cultures;
3. bridges generations and historical periods; and
4. recognises the Holy Spirit as creating the unity of the church.

But the Greek word itself means means universal, not in the sense of including a diversity of things, but in the sense of there being only one. There is only one church because there is only one God. It is not the universal church of mankind, it is the universal church of God. It's identity and unity comes from God and His revealed truth. The early church fathers used this term because they recognised that although there are many individual 'assemblies' (as the word church means) of Christians, they all belong to the one invisible and 'universal' gathering of God's people, which is 'the body of Christ', as the bible describes it.

To redefine the term Catholic and then condemn those who fail to live up to the revision is setting up a straw man in its deepest sense. It would be more helpful to deal with the term 'Roman Catholic' and how that has been understood historically, as the 'Catholic Church' is not a denomination, but a spiritual conception of the reality that all those around the world trusting in Jesus Christ are simultaneously members of the cosmic assembly of God's people, regardless of what denomination they belong to.

I would be surprised if Collins disputed Naygar's comments.

Collins' term for those four characteristics is 'catholicity' and, although I dont really know what that means exactly, Collins (along with Cardinal Avery, whom Collins is quoting) specifically use this term. Semantics is vital in these kinds of discussions, as Naygar so acutely shows.

I should add that my *review* of Collins' book draws heavily on this definition of 'catholicity'. There is a lot more to the book.

David James

David E James is correct there is a good deal of semantics at play--part of the Collins arsenal also. However the real book of Collins has to be read between the lines. Its title is "Re-creating the Roman Catholic Church in my own Image and Likeness-Musings Revisited"
This hidden tome is a compendium of his earlier musings in books and other media where many Sacred Cows are attached to the Collins rotolacter once again!

Yours Sincerely,
Father John George,
St John Vianney Villa,
70 Market St.,
Randwick North. 2031
NSW AUSTRALIA.
02 93981117
email:johngeo@acon.com.au

An interesting account of the views of Ratzinger and Collins. As someone who's neither a catholic nor a christian, I watch the antics of the catholic church with some astonishment, amusement and occasional horror. Naturally I don't find the church significant in the way you do.
I think you're right, or Collins is right, in describing Ratzinger as an apostle of certainty. Typically, such people use the word 'truth' as often as they can, presumably in the hope that church dogma will somehow transform itself into 'truth' by claiming that the two are synonymous a thousand times a day (and i've read, or tried to read, Wojtyla's papal encyclicals, where the word 'truth' is bandies about with a sickening meaninglessness). The fact is that there's nothing true about the catholic church's position on any issue, and no amount of authoritarian assertion can make it so.
On the basis of what Ive discovered so far, i would strongly contest the claim that Ratzinger is an intellectual. A facility with Latin or a number of other languages does not an intellectual make. At the very least, to be an intellectual one most explore contested truths - and I think that the truth is by its nature ever contestable. The assertion of dogma is an essentially anti-intellectual practice.

THE INFALLIBLE LUIGI
Luigi is absolutely certain of his position. his infallible evidence for his conclusion is based on his personal observation of church antics[!] and trying to read encyclicals
It seems to me Luigi unless truth is synonymous with your passionate assertions E.G,"The fact is that there's nothing true about the catholic church's position on any issue" YOU! may be indulging in what you infallibly claim the church does--JUST REPEATING DOGMA AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM--pace worldwide staff of numerous catholic universities--. the evidence for LUIGI'S infallible assertions is very 'light on the ground' and not compelling for me anyway.
meanwhile I remain a dissenter from the dogmas of luigi with all due respect. in fact by dissenting from your contestable dogmatic truths then, by your definition alone, one is an educated person.
GOOD WISHES FROM FATHER JOHN GEORGE

How very civilised, Georgie. I won't speak of you with 'due respect', as respect needs to be earned, and you earn nothing but contempt for your insecure and immature diatribe. It's great to see the catholic church continuing its downward spiral though.
Interesting that you introduce the word 'infallible' to the debate - a typically catholic term, and one that has made the church a laughing-stock to all sensible people. Bit of projection, eh?

I've been reading the old testament recently - you know, God's memoirs? In it, he admits to mass-murder on a monumental scale. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, it's all there (see 1 Samuel 6:19 for one of many charming examples of the fellow's murderous intolerance). He makes Saddam Hussein look like a kindergarten teacher. Sure, all that was a long time ago, and he's been much less prepared to admit to anything in recent centuries, but there's no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity, so we'll get him one day.

Another infallible decree from Luigi
* the catholic church is in downward spiral says Luigi
[Luigi please!there are 1 billion RCs and increasing at a healthy rate. 5 million youth encircled pope john paul at a world youth day and 1.1 million youth recently cheering pope benedict in Cologne --sounds healthy to me!
It is the largest christian denomination and has outlasted numerous 'Infallible Luigis' in the past-some even joined us!
Briefly though re 1 Samuel etc horror stories. It is not strict historical literary genre so avoid 'fundamentalism' luigi--the key IMPORTANT message behind the 'camp fire' yarn used by God is[applied in your instance]--DONT MOCK GOD LUIGI OR HE WILL DEAL WITH YOU LATER dont say i didnt warn you old friend..........
ever noticed luigi how atheists cant stop raving about God?Im intrigued Luigi--how in the hell are atheists going to get God before a 'crimes against humanity' tribunal if they say he doesnt exist--NOW DONT WAFFLE ON LUIGI ANSWER IT MAN?
Keep laughin' matey
FATHER JOHN GEORGE AKA 'GEORGIE' BY BIG LUIGI

To return to the matter of Ratzinger - I think the new pope's monocultural background is no doubt a key to his sense of resolute certainty, and of the absolute rightness of catholicism. I have a Polish friend who's a staunch Roman Catholic, and when I suggested to her that she was catholic largely because she was Polish, she was quite offended, and tried to argue that her catholicism and her Polishness had nothing to do with each other! Presumably she believes that she'd be just as catholic if she was born and bred in Tokyo or Riyadh. Particular religious beliefs are clearly culturally based, even if the religious impulse is universal - much to the chagrin of those who seek genuinely to understand what human beings actually are. We have to try to account for it without falling prey to its truth-obscuring visions.

Georgie continues his rants - even using upper case to let us know he's shouting. There are no contradictions in my remarks - your god is both a terrorist and an invention. He was invented precisely to strike terror into the hearts of his followers and his enemies, and your defence of him, as one of his hired guns, is entirely typical. It might be called 'the Hermann Goering defence' - 'how dare you presume to judge me [or him] you puny insignificant little scumbags, i'm the great Goering/God/Saddam etc etc, and you'll pay for your mockery and disobedience when i rise again. Now stop trying to judge me and just bow down to me.'

luigi's latest infallible decree:
GOD IS A TERRORIST AND INVENTION
This latest decree confirms dramatically an old axiom,he who wont believe in god will go on to believe absolutely anything.
Issues raised:
*The Inventor:who is he/she, an atheist? surely not;an agnostic? nuh! he wouldnt know if he invented God or not; A sceptic? he would go mad trying to prove he didnt do it;a secularist? too dumb by far;
a psycho? now youre talking!
Credentials:the inventor must be a polyglot extraordinaire to insinuate his divine invention across mankind from darkest africa and muslim lands through asia with its gaggle of gods up to the highlands of papua new guinea and so the evangelisation continues by the ubiquitous apostle inventor--by the way anyone found the test tube or lab for this invention ?
but in fairness to luigi,he doesn't deny god exists;he just doesn't like the guy.
BUT I still prefer to believe in my God than bend to luigi's most extraordinary fulminating creed of faith indeed the blindest faith ive come across in 30 years as God's little priest in australia and a stint in asia! by the way luigi,you never mention SATAN he cant stand god either,watch him though he be crafty bugger dat pella der!
luigi got to go -will discuss god as al quaeda another time i can only handle so much of this in one session i am recovering from a debilitating stroke-semi paralysis from 2002.

So Luigi? Are you saying you reject the "truth" of the Catholic Church?
If so, how do you explain the countless apparitions, incorruptible saints (saints whose bodies have not decomposed- basically looking like they're asleep), eucharistic bread turning into flesh, and so many others...
Sceptical? Go and see some of them...

uigi's latest infallible decree:
GOD IS A TERRORIST AND INVENTION
This latest decree confirms dramatically an old axiom,he who wont believe in god will go on to believe absolutely anything.
Issues raised:
*The Inventor:who is he/she, an atheist? surely not;an agnostic? nuh! he wouldnt know if he invented God or not; A sceptic? he would go mad trying to prove he didnt do it;a secularist? too dumb by far;
a psycho [who claims he invented god]? now youre talking!
Credentials:the inventor must be a polyglot extraordinaire to insinuate his divine invention across mankind from darkest africa and muslim lands through asia with its gaggle of gods up to the highlands of papua new guinea and so the evangelisation continues by the ubiquitous apostle inventor--by the way anyone found the test tube or lab for this invention ?
but in fairness to luigi,he doesn't deny god exists;he just doesn't like the guy.
BUT I still prefer to believe in my God than bend to luigi's most extraordinary fulminating creed of faith indeed the blindest faith ive come across in 30 years as God's little priest in australia and a stint in asia! by the way luigi,you never mention SATAN he cant stand god either,watch him though he be crafty bugger dat pella der!
luigi got to go -will discuss god as al quaeda another time i can only handle so much of this in one session i am recovering from a debilitating stroke-semi paralysis from 2002

I'm sorry to hear of the indisposition of my opponent/would-be assailant. I hope i haven't given you an apoplectic fit. May your god go with you. At least you're prepared to ackowledge my infallibility, which is more than my wife is ever prepared to do.

To Jose, the 'miracles' you presumably believe in have been dealt with time and time again by scientific analysis and none have stood up to the test. Miracles have been claimed by the religious for centuries, of course, and the essay 'On Miracles' by the great eighteenth century sceptical philosopher David Hume is still one of the best refutation of these claims ever penned. It's noteworthy, of course, that god is putatively the creator of the universe and thus is easily able to perform miracles much more impressive than the puny tricks you attribute to him. In any case none of these tricks explain why god, the apparent creator of our 13 billion-year-old universe, should reveal himself only a few thousand years ago to a goat-herding semitic tribe on an out-of-the-way planet, a tribe that just happened at the time to be craving a bit of supernatural protection against its enemies.

An important study has recently been published, showing that religious, and specifically Christian belief, is highly correlated with high crime rates and social dysfunction. The most highly secularised nations on the globe have the lowest crime rates and social problems, by and large. Funny that. Read about it here - http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1470370.htm

Luigi,thank you so much for your most touching sentiments--you have exposed your acchilles heel viz that big soft heart--I will work on that for your conversion Don't you go getting yourself upset about causing me strokes. I have been insulted by experts and lived, In fact i have officiated at their burials abd cremations, Indeed I stood at the grave of one opponent and shouted "you're not so damn smart now you secular atheist are you? no reply luigi!-yet once you couldnt shut him up withn his dead end theories![I was chaplain at rookwood cemetery for 4 years[1 million parishioners] and sent them off to their Private Judgement before the merciful but just God in their hundreds.
Anyway luigi,back to the battle for your immortal soul!
This awesome infinite all powerful god humbly became a little bub in the middle of nowhere in bethlehem so that terrified mortals like you would come with confident anticipation like the 3 wise men and pick up the baby/god and give him a big sloppy kiss and be friends so luigi kneel and make friends with your god and go to confession--you must be a baptised rc with a name like luigi
i agree with your wife you are not infallible you only think you are
and please luigi resolve those deep subconscious conflicts you project onto poor god who loves you so--god alone knows why! meanwhile i offer my paralysis etc as a penance to win you the singular grace of your conversion--forget your infallible waffle, kiss the divine baby and sleep the sleep of the just instead of typing replies at 2 am as on the other night--your poor wife! if god can reach down humbly to bethlehem then adelaide would be a cinch maaaaan!
you can call me giorgie if it helps you but dont call god goddio[only teasing]
i am after you luigi--watch it[no wonder satan hates me--no doubt the mongeral was behind this stupid stroke].
your best enemy
father john george--scourge of atheists,agnostics and heretics

Luigi, who explained to you the scientific reasons behind incorruptibility? (It has been eplained time and time again- But How?) What are these explanations? I Promise you that if you can give rock solid scientific evidence behind these cases then I will come over to your side. If you cannot, then I recommend you go investigate it yourself

By the way, just in case you're about to say "David Hume" that's insufficient. Rock solid evidence must be expressed in words by You please (I will read this writing of Hume's- I'm not brushing it aside just to avoid it, I do want to discover what atheists think, in order to understand how I can better explain things to them- so I'm waiting for scientific evidence that cancells all possibility of divine intervention in these cases of incorruptibility)

Luigi
I was so blinded by your last effusive compassion and sympatico that I totally missed your latest infallible promulgation hurled with an anathema against my mate jose. Again I totally dissent from your solemn fulminating magisterium thereby placing myself in deep proverbial
You declared that miracles have no scientific validity!
re cures at Lourdes France alone:"A Medical Bureau was established in 1882 to test the authenticity of the cures. The doctors include unbelievers as well as believers and any doctor is welcome to take part in the examination of the alleged cures. As many as 500 medical men of all faiths or no faith have taken advantage of the invitation each year" I spent many hours at uni of nsw library reading those scientificly authenticated cures with a doctor specialist on hand for further discussion
loigi i have emailed to the lourdes shrine for prayers for the conversion of luigi--so be warned we are after you eat your hearts out jehovah witnesses!--hundreds of thousands pray for those intentions at lourdes and conversions are even more spectacular than medical cures. there are numerous cures not checked by the medical bureau as the cured are too anxious to get back home and do housework and feed the family return to work or do the garden--once considered an impossibility. however there are numerous cures medically verified

hey luigi


If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it.
If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it.
He sends you flowers every spring.
He sends you a sunrise every morning.
Face it, friend - He is crazy about you!

Blame Mother Nature for the disasters Luigi--she is worshipped by the atheists!!

Jose
First you have it back the front. You wrote that you want evidence that proves a miracle didn't happen. Wrong! The burden of proof lies on those who make a claim. It's enough for me to merely say "you say miracles exist? That's fine. Prove they do!" I DON'T have to say no miracles exist. Only that there is no proof. While you're reading Hume you might also try reading J.L.Mackie's "evil and Omnipotence" found in "Philosophy: Basic readings" Nigel Warburton (ed)

Let me say though that I admire your courageous search for truth. Your willingness to challenge your faith is impressive. It NEVER pleasant to have dearly loved beliefs challenged. Yet you are prepared to do this. Well done.

Father.
Allow me to ask you this. Have you EVER considered the merest possibility that you might be wrong? Just the possibility? If you have then perhaps you should discuss the arguments Luigi presents rather than merely dismissing them.

The burden of proof lies on those who make a claim.
You are absolutely right. In fact no miracles are ever officially declared valid by the Church until they have been thoroughly and scrupulously investigated.
But, fair request, I will mention some more major modern miracles. I suppose you have heard about the apparitions at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917? These went for six months, on the 13th of each month from May, except in June or July it was on another date because the children were kidnapped. Anyway, in each apparition Mary promised to return the next month. Soon she was promising a big and memorable thing to happen in October.
Few believed what the children were saying- fair enough- and roughly 70,000 people showed up on October 13. These 70,000 people saw the famous "miracle of the Sun" where the sun spun around, changed colours , came plummeting to the Earth, lots of fancy things like that. Even people miles away from the site could see stuff from their homes. What's more, everyone was drenched from heavy rain. Afterwards, all 70,000 were stone dry.

That's not half of it. Amoung various things Mary said were a few promises, prophesies. She prophesied WWII, the assassination attempt of a future Pope (which ended up happening on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima), she promised the conversion of Russia if it was consecrated to her- meaning decline of communism, access to Russia for the Church and Catholic growth etc. She also promised to take two of the children to Heaven quickly, while Lucia- the third child- would have to wait longer. The two children died in an epidemic of flu or tuberculosis or something like that very soon after. Lucia lived until last year, or maybe the year before. Anyway, there were plenty of other things like that from Fatima.
Then there's the stuff at Lourdes, which Father John George mentioned earlier, all encouraged to visit and check it out- also Bernadette, the visionary of Lourdes, is incorrupt and all visitors welcome.
All this is just a fraction. No canonisation of a Saint ever takes place- for the last century or something like that- untill something like 2 miracles occur which are in response to prayers to those particular Saints. Countless books have been published about these. I recomend you find a book called something like "Cures attributed to St Josemaria Escriva" its a good one.

Bosk
you have asked if i have ever considered the possibility of my catholic beliefs being wrong/ may i first ask if you also have questioned the infallibility of your own presuppositions thus avoiding
patronising and trivialising believers--this is not a game of how mny books you may have read by the way or classic comics--we can all present impressive bibliographies in the game of 'scud references' against the opposition!!
re luigi i reponded each time with appropriate evidence[eg lourdes as well as challenges.[including 'argumentum ad hominem' and 'reductio ad absurdum' where needed
re self questioning! i was brought up as a child and young chap in an atheistic secular environment in which the church and teaching were ridiculed constantly--thus i am no stranger to atheists.
in my priestly training i visited each sunday the sydney domain with its gaggle of atheists and ilk sometimes i was surrounded by the rationalist-atheist standover merchants when it seemed i was exposing the shallowness of the atheist/agnostic infallibility
finally my 7 year plus intensive priestly training required reading hordes of literature by non catholic thinkers and philosophers from today and centuries past including a uni course in british linguistic analysis philosophy at australian national uni canberra and then psychology at uni of new south wales--with its then materialistic underpinnings and more questioning of traditional catholicism at manila uni philippines.
finally again after 30 years as a priest[door knocking,'man in the street discussions' and a stint teaching as uni guest lecturing in a materialistic commerce faculty i can assure you i have thought through hard headedly my beliefs--my philosophy lecturer insisted we start philosophy as if we were atheists questioning everything!
in short yes i have given a lot of thought to atheistic/religious challenges and issues.I VALUE MY FREEDOM OF THOUGHT and reject thought police either from stalinist atheistic materialism, cynical agnosticism or any other flavour of the month INFALLIBLE 'ISM'
SORRY FOR TYPOS--BLAME 'STROKE' REHAB!!

Father
I wasn't aware that asking a question of you was trivialising your position. If, as you assert, you have learned philosophy then you should also KNOW the utter foolishness of holding any belief as beyond question. Even your own. As to your implication that I am an athiest you are mistaken. I am neither an athiest nor an agnostic. As to your point about My pontificating - what can I say except I forgive you. I turn the other cheek. Would you like to strike that one too?

you misunderstand i dont mind you asking me questions AT ALL AT ALL i simp[y noted a patronising tone[only a passing perception which i still sense] in any case there is definitely LIFE AFTER BOSK and georgie as luigi calls me
i had already read your background email where you denied atheism etc --excellent 10/10--[see i am patronising now] i was simply responding in the context of an earlier email respondent and that i am well used to differing views attiudes etc so no need to turn the cheeck [sounds as though its been bruised enough- you offered it to an earlier correspondent also--very cheecky indeed even if a bit holier-than-thou PHILOSOPHY OF COURSE IS NOT AGAINST holding FIRMLY a position well thought out and already well questioned ----thus the point of my cv in my last posting. But i am surely entitled to comment if a comment sounds a bit over the top or patronising in other words QUESTIONING the questioner-free country mate at least it was yesterday. regards...

bosk,
don't forget to read my previous 2 posts, they were answering an earlier question of yours

Jose
A very thought-provoking argument you've given me. I'll try & address the main points. Sorry if I leave any out but the darn word limit catches up with me. First we define our terms. What are miracles? Miracles are defined as phenomena contrary to the laws of nature caused by a supernatural agent. Ok? Now lets have a look at your list.

1) Visions of Fatima. Since visions are not something happening in the real world [i.e. they are somthing that is occuring in the visionaries mind] no laws of nature are being broken so they CANNOT be classified as miracles.

Prophecies: The prophecies of Fatima that you mention [WW2, assassination attempt on the pope & so on] were only recognised after the fact. A prophecy which is recognised after the fact can hardly be said to violate the laws of nature. The only clear prophecy was the conversion of Russia which has still not occured. By the way, saying something will happen but not giving a date for it is hardly prophetic. If it happens believers claim it as a miracle, if it hasn't happened then believers can say it will happen in the future. A win either way for the believer but hardly miraculous.

The Incorruptables: Now this is something strange but there is insufficient evidence to declare that it violates the laws of nature. Why? because the only way to prove that no natural process is involved is for the bodies to be dissected. That won't happen anytime soon for obvious reasons. By the way Incorruptable bodies are NOT the sole domain of the catholic church. A buddhist boy's body was found incorruptable in 1986.

Stigmata: you didn't mention these but I thought I would anyway. These are the most amazing to my mind. But one point MUST be made. The wounds do NOT mimic the wounds of Christ. The wounds on stigmatics mimic those shown on religious paintings rather than ones that would actually have been inflicted on Jesus. Which suggests a psychological rather than a spiritual cause & therefore not miraculous.

Sorry to disappoint

apparitions may occur only in the mind by divine intervention or at a spatio-temporal location outside the visionary and percieved by the visionary-if god limits the vision to the mental faculties only, by an extraordinary intervention suspending the laws of nature for his own purposes-then we are still in the realm of the miraculous[not strictly speaking contrary to nature -merely laws of nature are suspended for gods purposes eg implanting a vision on the retina
By the way the mind and its perceptions are the object of numerous scientific investigations in worldwide faculties of bio-psychology in that sense it and its activities are 'realities' and in the real world of scientific endeavour as well as being 'real' verifiable subjective experiences
typos due to stroke rehab

Bosk,
Father has made a solid point there.
Also remember that there were 70,000 people there. The date was promised (October, 13th 1917). Don't also forget about them all being drenched- then stone dry afterwards.

I'll give you another good one. I apologise as it will be atrociously simplified. Guadalupe.
Mary appears to Juan Diego. Juan Diego tells the Bishop. The Bishop asks for proof. Juan goes back to the spot. Mary appears again and tells him to go up the hill and gather the flowers into his tilma (which is a classical Mexican garment- like a poncho). It's the wrong season too, but there are these flowers up there. He gathers them in his tilma and goes back down. Mary re-arranges them and sends him on his way. Juan goes to the Bishop where he lets the bottom of his tilma fall back down, the flowers falling to the floor. The Bishop and 1 or 2 others with him see the print of Mary left on the garment. So that's the rough backround.

Interesting stuff about this image.
- In the eyes of Mary are relfected the men standing in front of Juan Diego as he reveals the image.
- The stars on the garment Mary is wearing are in a pattern. NASA had a look. The pattern matches exactly the stars in the sky on that very day in that vey year. Only they are in reverse (the perspective is from above, not below).
- These tilmas are made from organic material that rots away in a few years. Still today (it happened in 1531) it is perfectly preserved without anything been done to it (and there have been scientific analyses).
- In the second half of the 20th century some clown put a bomb in front of it. The huge metal cross (in close proximity) was bent double by the explosion. The tilma was covered by a glass sheet. The glass sheet shattered into thousands of shards. Normally these high velocity shards of glass would rip a tilma to shreds. Nothing...

bosk
hagiographic studies indicate god accomodates to iconographic perceptions of the stigmatist so if [most unlikely!] I was given the stigmata the wounds would be in the wrist since I happen to follow a 19th century scientific view that Christ was nailed through the wrists
re your 'auto-suggestion' argument, the stigmatist and 20th century saint padre pio[died 1969] was badgered constantly by excessively curious 'gawkers' and eager secular scientists. To one who proposed 'auto-suggestion' at play the then exassperated padre suggested he go to the paddock and stare most intently at the monastery cow then try suggesting two horns on his head and come back and show him the 'miracle'. Of course a second 'miracle' would be needed to remove the offending horns or if not then a couple of surgical removals 'in theatre' at the nearby hospital could be arranged--saints do tend to have this 'no-humbug' sense of humour in their 'make up'

bosk

i forgot to mention that the scientist[in my last posting] never returned![probably still in the paddock eating grass]. I once completed some studies and practicum in clinical hypnotherapy out of sheer curiosity I induced somnabulism [a very deep level of self-hypnosis] of very heightened suggestibility and then suggested 'the stigmata'
of course it was as useless as the 'COW EXPERIMENT'[see previous posting] with nothing doing! I will have to wait upon Divine Intervention--a most unlikely scenario in my instance however I have physical symptomatology of 'stroke paralysis'--does that count?

bosk
a clarificaton-the stroke symptoms[mentioned in last posting] are totally unrelated to my 'stigmata experiment'--though someimes i suspect diabolical intervention behind the stroke--who knows?-[mustnt blame devil for all misfortunes] though his 'fingerprints' are all over it!!

I long ago shook the dust of the Catholic Church off my feet. Despite this, I have good memories of many delightful adherents both clerical and lay of that insitution. What worries me about Father George is that he seems to be some sort of parody of a catholic priest. He seems entirely to lack any charity in his posts; so uncharacteristc of the people I used to know and care for when I was a Catholic.

As a doctor I understand and accept the dis-inhibiting effects of a stroke...a bit like having to much to drink. As a matter of clinical interest, was the lesion frontal or thalamic? Do you have a tendency to cry easily? Do you tend to make innapropriate suggestions to others; are you actions implulsive?

Doug,
Was your choice to leave the Church due to

1)you just had enough of it all
or
2)you came to the conclusion that the Church is erroneous

(Maybe a combination)
If the second has significance, what's your reply to my previous post? (Bosk hasn't posted yet)

DrDoug
due to overuse of upper case my previous postings were rightly deleted so in short--i frown upon long distance 'anonymous' cyber- medical consultancy and diagnosis lest it be used to discredit the message by 'discrediting the messenger'[aside from dangers of misdiagnosis]-just as i would be reluctant to undertake your spiritual direction in a public forum as such matters pertain to the sacred most private'inner sanctum' in short again my 'bs' detector is sharper than ever despite traumas of strokedom! my readiness to speak the undiluted truth is seen by some as inappropriate post stroke symptomatolagy and gross bad mannersin the extreme--i am not particularly impulsive[certainly nota rev fr ivan milat or rev hannibal lector. how about your frontal lobes doc?

dr doug
my most uncharitable remarks were reserved for my archenemy the prince of darkness-satan[but dont worry he will get me back -the slimey multi faced rat[there i go again] thats not stroke i have always had it in for him. Being himself the prince of liars he has a pathological hatred of the truth

dr doug
i must send a copy of our 'dialogue' to the AMA and ask their authoritative view of such medical 'cyber-intervention' and also ask if it be a mere parody,or a legitimate well intended but misguided attempt to help me i have many other preoccupations at present so dont hold your breath waiting will send my medicare number if deemed appropriate
i am a priest of simple faith-a 'foot slogger' and 'no frills' type and today will attend in wheelchair by public transport the eucharistic procession through sydneys CBD with Cardinal Pell. I hope for a stroke-cure and then jog back to nursing home but i can 'take it on the chin' if God decides against the request for his own purposes. i ask catholics and others to pray for me[and you too luigi and doctor doug!] TAA

Fr George,
No attempt @ cyber-diagnosis was necessary or attempted (the diagnosis is a stroke). You supplied the diagnosis yourself. I was asking clinically-based questions, out of professional interest; I apologize if you found them intrusive. I am pleased that you are under good care. We share a common humanity if not faith, and as a doctor, I wish you well. You ask after my frontal lobes. As far as I know, alright. I had a "mini-stroke" (transient ischaemic attack) a while back, and the CT scan suggested that the front bits were OK! Incidentally, I'm not sure if the AMA can help you; I'm not a member. The AMA is a professional body (or trade union), and has no disciplinary power over non-members.

Fr George, isn't the assertion that you "speak the undiluted truth" (post-stroke or not) not a bit arrogant. I am sure that any mullah would assert that he speaks "the undiluted truth" of Allah.

Jose,

In response to yours of the 21st...no, a bit like Saint Paul, but in reverse. Just woke up one morning and the faith had gone, like a pricked over-inflated ballon. The scales fell from my eyes, as it were. No more self-flagellation, no more guilt, and the amazing sense of freedom that comes from accepting responsibiliy for oneself, instead of dumping it all on the Big-Guy-in-the-sky.

Doug,
the scales falling from your eyes,
does this refer to a realisation that the Church and the existence of God etc. is (to put it simply) a pipe-dream?
What are your thoughts on my post about Guadalupe(Saturday, 15 October 2005 12:37:23 PM)?

On the side, there is a common misconception about Catholic spirituality, that of it being a guilt trip and so on. I cannot agree with this, given my personal understanding, experience, and close association with numerous persons whom I regard as advanced in the spiritual life, very much part of the world, and the happiest people I have ever met.

Fr George, isn't the assertion that you "speak the undiluted truth" (post-stroke or not) not a bit arrogant. I am sure that any mullah would assert that he speaks "the undiluted truth" of Allah.
in response doug:one can speak the undiluted truth without being a raving mullah or pol pot or other extremists--no doubt there are some very good kind mullas[scholars,teachers,leaders0 on the other hand i have come across some fanatical secular atheists and lefty trendoid 'fascists' who are immoveable in their so called open flexible viewpoints--try disagreeing with them on some undiluted relative truths mon dieu![an old saying "scratch a relativist find a fascist wth DNA of adolf--pope benedict speaks of 'the dictatorship of relativism'-yes i have a whole lot of truths i adhere to and have suffered for at the hands of rigid lefty religious dissenters of so called liberal worldviews but i have also warm relationships with atheists,agnostics,secularists[who are refreshed to hear someone with convictions and not trying to sound oh so damn 'with it' and wishy washy--i have more complex relationships with trendy catholic dissenters especially if in the hierarchy--but we try!

"No more self-flagellation, no more guilt, and the amazing sense of freedom that comes from accepting responsibiliy for oneself, instead of dumping it all on the Big-Guy-in-the-sky."[doug's posting earlier! I dont know who taught you the Catholic religion but it sounds more like Grim soul destroying Jansenism to me. Fortunately due to my background I was brought up with the freedom of the children of God and the words of CHRIST:
'Come to me all you who labour and are are burdened and I will give you rest,learn of me for i am meek and humble of heart' Doug I have always taken responsibility for my own actions, as for no more guilt feelings. After my study of the guiltless sociopathic personality,i welcome a touch of rational appropriate guilt reaction[eat your hearts out Idi Amin,Joseph Stalin,PolPot,mr and mrs Cecescau and the other 'guiltless ones'including adolph[no doubt the scales had fallen from their eyes too after the Great Account was rendered at death]
re my 'cure' sought yesterday-there i was in wheelchair stuck at the bus stop sans 'procession' and no bus for handicapped arrived so i drove back to the nursing home attacked by a dog or two who think i am a motor car! but dont worry Jesus still loves me and thats all that matters
re your Early morning life-decisions they have strings attached--the critical faculties are at a low point,subconscious 'irrationalities' can dominate,best to wait till full faculties awaken[not a good time to make a decision re medical procedure,for example, let alone one's eternal salvation]i think you rejected a parody of catholicism[i shouldnt do cyber diagnosis!

David James,
You said after reading Collins' book you "don't see much to encourage you to go back", or something along those lines.

There is a book called "Dream and your dreams will fall short" by Pedro Casciaro.

It's basically a biography of a man who lived for many years with St Josemaria Escriva.
Don't let that suggest a boring story.
St Josemaria's life was nothing short of an adventure.
This book, I can promise, will cast new light upon the Church.
You may need to do some hunting to track it down but it is worth it.

doug,
if you wish to keep up to date on posts in this thread, you can use the email alerts option (can be found on this page).

Dr Doug while your decision made in an early morning hypnoidal state may by this be 'set in concrete' as an alternative to that drab guilt-ridden caricature of the catholic faith,I nonetheless urge a closer look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a sound balanced doctrinal presentation I personally have found the writings of the 17th century bishop Francis De Sales[though a trifle 'dated' in literary form] nonetheless most ediying and balanced. He was abhorred by the grim 'sour-puss' guilt-ridden Jansenists[whose ghosts can still be heard among some catholics reacting against or burdened with its poisonous doctrines of self hatred. One Jansenist, the 17th century mother superior of Port-Royal convent France, refused the good bishop De Sales entrance to the convent considering him not grim enough!--of her the saint commented "mother angelique[the superior] is as chaste as an angel but as proud as satan" By the way the poisonous doctrine of Jansenism was vehemently condemned by the church for its deplorable view of human nature as evil and other such drippy notions--Jansenists detested the hope-filled devotion to the loving and merciful Heart of Jesus. The church never quite succeded[despite enormous effort in fully ridding itself of this abhorrent heretical cancer with its tsunami-like devestation over centuries

In answer to the question, "Is the Pope Catholic?"
Yes, the Pope is Catholic.

And who would be closer to the "truth"?
The Pope?
Or cafeteria-catholics who pick and choose what is healthy for their souls, such as going to Mass according to their whims?

Jose,
Sorry to be a bit late with a response; ISP was "down" last (Tuesday) night. In what follows, I mean no offense. If Guadaloupe works for you, then go for it. Even when I was a practising Catholic over 20 years ago, I was minimalist Marian. I was never able to understand why a woman, the information about whom in the Bible, could be written on the back of a DL envelope, has become by the early Twentieth Century almost equal to God/Goddess. Even then, I found Mariolatry cloying, saccharine, over-sentimentalized, puke-making, and pretty close to heresy. One of the most delicious "theological" ironies of recent years was that Johannes Paulus Secundus, had to be talked out of declaring Mary as "co-redemptrix" with Christ by none other then the Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger!
Doug

Jose, I have had to break my reponse up in to parts becaus of the word restrictions. As for Escriva; I am currently reading Carroll's book "Opus Dei", but have not got into it far enough to make a comment. What was concerning about Escriva's canonization, was that he was one of so many saints churned out by JPII, like sausages out of a machine, thus devaluing the whole process, and the people thus elevated to the altar. I found it intersting also, that the number of "miracles" required for a saint, have had to be reduced, as the Church has been finding it more difficult of late, to find doctors, both Catholic and otherwise, willing to support claims of miracles. Talking about books, I am a bit concerned that this thread which started out about Paul Collins book, has degenerated into a conversation between you, me and the good Fr John! I hope the moderator is indulgent. I have already read Collins' book, and found it an easy read, and very valuable for understanding what has been going on in the Church (and the Vatican) during the last un-lamented pontificate. I make a distinction between the Church and the Vatican, even tho' the latter thinks it and the Church are synonymous. The Vatican, is of course, a highly dysfunctional institution, which has become obsessed with power and control. Individual and collective experience, as well as mythology and art demonstrate that power and control are inversely proportional to the capacity for love (eg Richard Wagner's "Ring" cycle). I see no love from the Vatican, only a neurotic need to keep everything under control.
Thanks for the opportunity of a reply. Kind regards, Doug.

doug
your last posting was surely a great big abreaction leaving you feeling therapeutically much better no doubt as is the case after most emotional abreactions-though the content of abreactions is often coloured by distorting volcanic-like verbal outpourings('dysunctional',puke-making' 'cloying' 'saccharine''neurotic','loveless','obsessed','un-lamented''power' control 'mariolotary' 'sausage'etc)
i find your reaction strong on emotional trauma and weak on content--classic standard left wing diatribe[presented under the rubric of infallibility but weak on content-detail-i would certainly prefer you as my medico than my barrister I need more plausible solid detail to get my teeth into--however given your latent festering hostility no doubt all my syllogisms and 'reductios'will fall on deaf ears as"a man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still"
Dont erupt again but i am sending a prayer email to lourdes shrine in my battle for the souls of douggy and luigi--i hear the volcanic eruptions starting again at this marian intrusion

doug re collins' 'skills' see below -an excerpt critique on earlier work
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Observations on
Papal Power: A Proposal for Change in Catholicism's Third Millennium
Fr. Paul Collins, M.S.C.
(Harper/Collins Fount Paperbacks, 1997)
I. Object

The book is primarily a critique of papal primacy and the ordinary magisterium (cfr. p. x; p. 59). The author uses the term "papalism" to refer to the contemporary exercise of the papacy, defining it as "the conflation of all teaching authority, with an exaggerated notion of primacy" (p. 3). He claims that the contemporary papacy distorts the structure of the Church as it has been traditionally understood (p. 29). As a solution, the author proposes a more democratic model for the Church: "there is a true sense in which the Church is a democracy ... a democratic model is much closer to New Testament forms of the Church" (p. 191).

II. Method

The author launches his critique from "a historical and practical perspective" (p. 5). However, he appears to read Church history out of context, looking for proof texts to support his thesis that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is not rooted in Divine Revelation but in secular political models. In addition, the book contains not a few historical inaccuracies.

The author's use of theological sources is slanted, drawing from like-minded theologians, but failing to cite those who oppose and refute them

[doug there is more critical detail--the above is an excerpt]

Doug, (I likewise do not intend any offence)
Looking briefly at Guadalupe, I don’t go for it because it works for me; rather it worked for NASA, and the whole thing about the bomb- it can only be miraculous.

Anyway, regarding devotion to Mary,
Yes, there are not many words in the Bible about her, but these words are significant. See how an archangel behaves towards her compared with ~towards Zachariah. Also in Revelation, the woman who is the mother of Christ in the vision is also the mother of “all believers, who are also her children”. The relationship between a believer and Mary is filial. It is important to realise that worshiping Mary is just as wrong as worshiping animals, we only worship God and we honour Mary as Mother of God (Jesus is God) and our mother.

Regarding St Josemaria and Opus Dei, in order to make an informed judgment, I recommend you meet some members. I know about half of the members who live in Sydney, and it would be no trouble to give you an address or phone number, although not in this thread. My email is joseph_howard@hotmail.com
I also recommend you read St Josemaria’s biography

JG & Jose; trying to condense my response to avoid word restrictions, & not necessarily in order. No offense (again) Jose, but why on earth would I want to meet members of Opus Dei? In any case, I am in Perth, not Sydney; you Sydney-siders think that the axis of the universe runs through the coat-hanger (a la Paul Keating). JG, the word is hypnogogic, not hypnoidal, but keep the word in your dictionary, it rhymes with adenoidal; you could use it in a poem sometime! Jansenism was certainly evident in the Australian Church in the fifties, when I grew up, this distortion having arrived with the Irish - there seems to less of it about now, thank Goddess! (Shades of Pascal & Port Real). JG, I know about abreaction first hand, having done some psychoanalysis over 20 years ago. Your fatuous attempt to call my earlier response an abreaction bears no relation to the real thing. JG, I no longer have a neurotic need for “certainty”, and definitely no need to shore up an over-inflated ego by claiming I posses the (totally unverifiable) “undiluted truth”. Your quote from a Vatican Congregation; in Mandy Rice-Davies (or was it Christine Keeler’s?) words – “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” The Catechism of the Catholic Church; OK, but should I read the Koran and the Buddhist sutras at the same time for balance? Or Ron L Hubbard’s Scientology nonsense as well? Look, JG, I got in to this discussion because, given my remembrance of all things & people Catholic (mostly good), your posts were and remain uncharacteristically un-Catholic, festering with hostility, particularly to all things “left-wing”, and initially I thought you must be presenting your self as a priest, fraudulently. Or perhaps, in the Jungian sense, you are projecting your archetypal Shadow. That’s it for now,” no further correspondence will be entered into” (313 words).

Doug, (still no offence)
Don't want to write, well at least you can read.
The reason I thought you might choose to meet members of Opus Dei (on earth) is, I got the impression you were doing research- and all good research draws from both primary and secondary sources- and when you spoke of not being yet able to make a judgement due to your not being far into a certain book, I thought this judgement would be more accurate if you met some members.

And you spoke about the importance of wide reading. I'm sure you would agree then that wide reading about Opus Dei would prevent rash judgement, rather than just the one book you're on now.

Anyway, I don't think the universe even has an axis- Sydney is just the place where I am at the moment, hey maybe I'll come to Perth one day.

Jose, spot on. Most of the stuff one reads about OD is negative, even Paul Collins called the organization "reactive". The Carroll book promises to be a bit more balanced. I am interested in politics generally. Politics is about who gets what,why, when and how (and those who don't, and why they don't - money, privelege, power &c &c). And politics occurs in the secular as well as religious spheres - hence my interest, which is, incidentally, purely personal, not professional.

Doug
The molten lava from the abreactive volcano definitely outdid itself. with a broadside tirade against Sydneysiders, the harbour bridge and even Paul Keating[and then last but not least the 'unpriestly' over-inflated priest[actually i have lost 65Kilos in 3 years] a 'parody-priest' who just will not agree with you as do your lefty priest friends--great lot of good theyve done for you on this issue--though they are obviously really nice relevant meaningful guys who tell you what you want to hear--otherwise 9 on the richter scale.....
Anyway sit down on your psychoanalytic couch with a good cuppa and monte carlo and put your feet up. I on the other hand will brush off the molten dust from my black archconservative cassock and go seek in my wheelchair another lost sheep in the thickets since you have broken off all diplomatic communications in one mighty volcanic seismic eruption--ash everywhere! and i have seen some mighty churchquakes in my 30 years of priesthood here and in philippines
regards to the Goddess 'Christine Keeler'[your authority on 'obiter dictas']..

doug
a parting salvo! Since reading some years ago 'the Decline and Fall of the Freudian empire by Hans J Eyesenck[also his encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology] i have wondered about Jungian and Freudian insights and their therapeutic praxis and the need to subject their fundamental psychoanalytic insights to the scorching scrutiny of experimental and scientific methodology of the behaviourist schools--lest Freud and Jung be uncritically accepted just because the psychoanalytic guru gaggle approves[based merely on anecdotal sacred tradition and dogma]-perhaps this scud may entice you a jungian psychoanalyst of 20 years experience out of your self imposed 'exile'.
yours
the 'over-inflated' priest["oh not him again", he murmers!]

Doug,
Aristotle wrote some good material about politics and the like. His book, Ethics, is a good starting point to get an idea of his exegesis on that area.

the following relates to my posting of october 7 above:
Officially Proclaimed
Italian Woman Cured of Heart Trouble in 1952
[ROME, NOV. 15, 2005] - An archbishop in Italy has officially proclaimed the "miraculous cure" of a long-suffering woman who went to the shrine at Lourdes, France, in 1952. [all indicates the willingness of the church to accept only well investigated miracles subject to medical scrutiny.

The patient, Anna Santaniello of Salerno, now 94, suffered from childhood from a cardiac malformation, declared incurable by doctors.

At age 40, her health deteriorated severely and, despite the opinion of her doctors and family, she decided to travel to Lourdes.

Her malformation hindered her ability to walk and speak clearly. It also caused cyanosis in her face and edemas in her lower extremities.

Salerno's La Città newspaper explained that the patient said she could "scarcely breathe anymore" and told her brother that "my last desire is to go to Lourdes," where she arrived "alive but on a stretcher."

Restored

Nuns lowered her into the pool and "the water was freezing," Santaniello recalled.

"But I immediately felt something boiling in my chest, as if my life had been restored to me," she said. "After a few seconds, I got up on my own and began to walk, refusing the help of the stretcher-bearers, who looked at me in disbelief."

On her return home, Santaniello asked for an appointment with a well-known cardiologist, who "told me I didn't have anything, that I was very healthy and that he couldn't understand all the certificates and examinations that had previously been made."

Santaniello has returned on subsequent occasions to the Marian shrine at Lourdes to offer her service as a volunteer in assisting the sick.

She and her family and friends attended the ceremony to proclaim the miracle, held in the John Paul II Metropolitan Seminary in Pontecagnano.