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.