Talk:Josemaría Escrivá/Archive 1

top

English is not my mother-tongue but I cannot see the relationship between parphilia and mortification of the flesh (unless in the extreme case of sadism). I think I am going to make a couple of minor modifications: starting an article with "controversial" is stating a POV right away. The article as it now stands is more controversial (in the sense that it states controversies) than biographical (which is what I expected to find). Pfortuny 19:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• "Controversial" merely means "causing controversy". Provided the controversy really exists, than it's not POV. Merely saying that he is controversial does not pass judgement. Many controversial people have been right. Lacrimosus 00:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my reversion/reversion it was truly a mistake. Pfortuny 17:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find this statement below completely ridiculous, and propose that it be cut: <<while critics have suggested that this behavior was more indicative of the paraphilia of algolagnia than sanctity.>> Josemaria Escriva has well-known critics, but I don't recall this being seriously suggested before. By all means write "while critics have suggested", but the continuation as it stands is absurd. Asoane 12:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Over a month has now passed since the comment above. Does anyone have a response, or a suggestion for the continuation after "while critics have suggested"? If not I will simply cut the phrase. Asoane 09:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Three weeks later, change finally made. I would have no objection to the preceding phrase also being deleted. Asoane 16:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

This article is unlikely to ever make the grade because of the glaring faults it contains - a Criticism section has been likely been removed (from reading below comments), and where disagreement exists between supporters and critics there is reference to 'creative' quotations - lacking any citation. I am a practising Roman Catholic, this article needs a criticism section because a great many people in the Church are deeply divided over Sgr. Escriva's life and contribution. There are also grave concerns regarding his canonisation process. I'll leave it to the committed among you to edit these shortcomings but if nothing is done I'll help out myself. A whitewashed article will be as equally glaring a fault as a criticism will be. Yet the latter contains some sense of academic integrity.Iamlondon 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

I read that his initial name was José Marí Escrib... and he changed it late in life. Is it true? -- Error 02:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)�

He was born "José María Escrivá Albás", he later joined the "José" and "María" into "Josemaría" and

added the patronimic "de Balaguer" to the "Escrivá". Pfortuny 12:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His real name is Escriva. That's the name of his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc. But because the v and the b are pronounce in the same way in Spanish many Spanish writers and bureaucrats have misspelled it. Lafem 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the accent, please, Lafem: Escriba or Escriva mans "clerk" or "notary" in Spanish, and that's why he rejected this name and changed it as soon as he could. --Uncertain 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

the surname Escriva is very posible not to be castilian. Escribá sound catalaned, but there is also the language aragonese, maybe is aragonese. Also I don't know if this one can to be "clerk" or "notary" other aragonese surnames like "Escriche" are maybe related. Anselmocisneros 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is a serious place; to use the term "Mr Whippy" is outrageous and should be removed. On the other hand, corporal mortification has always been considered as a way to purification and sanctity by the catholic doctrine, and practiced by many saincts, you like it or not. Tamus.

He had at least another name. In 1968 he applied for, and obtained, the title of Marquis de Peralta, supposedly from an obscure ancestor. It was a hotly debated action since it doesn't seem very compatible with Christian humility. (Rhus 19:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Criticism section

The second paragraph of "criticism" starts with:

He has been criticized for his attitudes towards women. On the other hand, his supporters says that through him Opus Dei have been able to raise the quality of life of many women.

Um, this really needs to say more about the criticism, who makes it, and what his (possibly alleged) attitudes are, before launching into a defense of him. Anyone? CDC (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I change the surname of Saint José María Escrivá's family because, as it is written in the article, suggest that her mother was not married (remember that in Spain wome keep their surname after marriage and that people keep both surnames; traditionally and until the 1990s it comes first that of the father and then the mother's). I hope this makes the article more balanced. --Uncertain 10:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is he really a Patron Saint?

The article lists St. Josemaria as the patron saint of Ordinary Life. But the catholic encyclopedia and several other sources don't list him as a patron saint. Are those sources just incomplete, or is he not technically a patron saint? --Alecmconroy 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia in the web, I think, was published in early 20th century, so he's probably not there. But it's probably not official, perhaps like Chicago being the "Windy City."--Nino Gonzales 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV edits

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people's non-neutral point of view edits. I don't know anything about the details of this guy's life but it's pretty clear people are adding unfounded, skewed statements about him. This is an online encyclopedia for FACTS, not vitriol; If you have an axe to grind, make your own site ka1iban 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first paragraph at least are based in real Facts. You can see this article es:Marquesado_de_Peralta#El Marquesado español de 1968 (sorry in spanish), and the book written by Michael Walsh "The secret world of Opus Dei" (1989), and the book written by Jose Luis Carandell, "Vida y milagros de Monseñor Escrivá de Balaguer" (1975). All the titles granted were published in "Boletín Oficial del Estado" All the legal text of the Spanish Goverment are there.--Heavyrock 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to add these citations to the article if they support some of the factual assertions being added. The real issue is the TONE of the additions, such as the "patron saint of Vanity", "horrible man", etc etc. These are *obviously* not NPOV. ka1iban 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

Wow, something needs to be done about this page! It's obvious the whole text comes from the Opus dei, there's not a single mention of people who met him during his life and didn't have a very good opinion on him. Once the election is over I'll be happy to work on this page and make it less POV. In the meantime I'll add the POV notice to the header, it's screaming for it!

You are right, the article is very POV. It seems a brochure.--Heavyrock 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to look for facts, not opinions... edits like the one Ka1iban points out above will not make the article NPOV. You might want to check out the discussion in the Opus Dei talk page. The issues discussed there, I think, are also relevant here:

• It seems there are more positive/neutral data about St. Josemaria than negative. Does this mean a proportional level of representation in the article or does it have to be 50/50? Equitable or equal, as they say in the Opus Dei talk page.
• In controvertial topics like this one, everything, it seems, needs to be cited. Take a look at Pope Pius XII (FA)--76 citations!--Nino Gonzales 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill tell you a story here, maybe worth of mention, maybe not. One morning, Chile's most famous holy man, that is Raúl Silva Enriquez (who is on the 500 pesos coin), woke up laughing, one of the persons who were there that morning, thinking that he might had gone mad or something asked him why was he so joyus, to what he replied "because im going to heaven, and so are you". When asked for a more specific response, he answered "because if they cannonize that er, we are all going to heaven son". True story, even with the cussing involved. Through the years ive wondered why would he would he hate Escriva de Balaguer or the Opus Dei. The cardinal himself was leftist, but a catholic cardinal never the less and a holy man of course, yet, it all seems he didnt seemed to sympathize with the Opus Dei whatsoever, and why should he?, the monetary empire of the Opus Dei is huge in Chile, with even national corporations being owned by members of the order (plus several universities, for example), and even political candidates running for elections (such as the rightist candidate Joaquin Lavin). At one glance, Opus Dei here seems to be the church of the wealthy, operating in what still could be considered a third world country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.212.183 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 June 2006

There is nothing on the division azul during the second world war. The relationship between Opus dei and Francoism is not properly underlined. Opus Dei has been very important to recreate the academic world in Spain after the civil war and the subsequent epuration of the mainly republican academic élite. There is nothing on the accuses of psychological manipulation. Overall most of the issues ar treated first from the POV of the critics of Escrivá then an apologetic view follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.156.132 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that this article is about Escriva, not about Opus Dei. -- Túrelio 07:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably should be moved to Josemaría Escrivá

My own experience researching this suggests that simply "Josemaría Escrivá" is by far the more common usage. A rudimentary google search indicates that "Josemaría Escrivá" outnumber "Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer" by about 4 to 1. Not a huge deal, but, thought I'd mention. --Alecmconroy 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Cabanes 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Name confusion

His name was never Escriba, that was a name people used to tease him about when he was young (escriba meaning scribe) I can get the reference for this if you want Thebike 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong data: unreliable source

I have never heard of the ad-orientem reference in all my readings on Opus Dei, which BTW is rather extensive.

But facts lie here:

http://www.dudasytextos.com/opusdei/memoria_beato_josemaria.htm

Algunos lectores habrán advertido que buena parte de los comentarios precedentes evocan las rúbricas litúrgicas según el rito de San Pío V, vigente hasta las reformas derivadas del Concilio Vaticano II. ¿ Qué sucedió cuando entraron en vigor esos cambios?

Mons. Escrivá de Balaguer aceptó con serenidad y obediencia la reforma, aunque los cambios le exigieron mucho trabajo: no por oposición o crítica a las innovaciones; sino porque la liturgia estaba muy integrada en su piedad, y había obtenido luces para su vida espiritual y su ministerio sacerdotal hasta de gestos que pueden parecer insignificantes en las rúbricas.

Notaba yo el esfuerzo que le suponía el cambio, teniendo en cuenta que llevaba cuarenta años siguiendo el rito anterior. Pero no aceptó excepción alguna, y me rogaba diariamente que no dejase de advertirle lo que hiciera menos bien en las nuevas rúbricas, dispuesto a manifestar su amor a la liturgia, a través del rito renovado.

Sin que hubiese por su parte el menor síntoma de rebeldía, nos comentaba a un grupo de sacerdotes en 1968: obedezco rendidamente en todo lo que han dispuesto para la celebración de la Santa Misa, pero echo de menos tantas rúbricas de piedad y de amor que han quitado: por ejemplo, ya no doy el beso a la patena, en el que ponía tanto amor -toda mi almapara que Él se lo encontrara. Pero hemos de saber obedecer, viendo la mano de Dios, y tratando al Señor con delicadeza, sin robarle nada de tiempo.

Fue una temporada larga de esfuerzo. Si volvíamos a plantearle la posibilidad de pedir el privilegio, previsto para sacerdotes de cierta edad, se oponía: por espíritu de obediencia a las normas eclesiásticas, prohibió que se diera un solo paso en ese sentido. Sucedió una vez que, estando don Álvaro del Portillo con Mons. Bugnini, hablaron de la nueva liturgia. Comentó don Álvaro el trabajo que suponía el cambio para el Fundador del Opus Dei. Mons. Bugnini preguntó: "¿por qué no usa del privilegio?" Le aclaró don Álvaro que el Fundador de la Obra nos había enseñado siempre con su propia vida, también ahora, a obedecer rendidamente; "además -añadió-, me ha prohibido estrictamente que te pida nada". Mons. Bugnini suplicó que le dijera que tenía concedido el privilegio de celebrar la Santa Misa con el rito anterior. Insistió don Álvaro en que no le pedía nada, y Mons. Bugnini reiteró: "di a Mons. Escrivá que tú no me has pedido nada, porque ésa es la verdad; y añádele que te he comunicado que celebre como antes, porque tiene esa facultad". Don Álvaro le comunicó ese diálogo, y Mons. Escrivá de Balaguer agradeció la posibilidad que se le concedía. Pero, desde entonces, cuando la utilizaba, no quiso que asistiese a su Misa más que la persona que le ayudaba.

Lafem 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Read section on name confusion above, or you could chechk out the first volume of his biography written by Andres Vazquez De Prada "The Founder of Opus Dei: The Life of Josemaria Escriva : The Early Years." I don't know where this website got it's info from, but the confusion is expained early on in the book. Thebike 08:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No "Controversy" section??? Please comment.

In light of the recent portrayals of Opus Dei and its founder in the chaos and criticisms that emanated from the Da Vinci Code, I was expecting this article to reference those many criticisms. But as previous discussion topics have said, and I agree, the article is awkwardly more like a "brochure" than a bibliography. Such controversy includes:

• Vladimir Felzmann, former Opus Dei priest and friend of Basil Cardinal Hume, testified in a series of letters to the 9 judges of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints presiding over Escriva's candidacy for Sainthood, of what Escriva had once told him (Can be found in the Opus Dei and politics article).
• 2 of the 9 judges of the Congretation of the Causes of Saints presiding over Escriva's candidacy motioned for a suspension of the proceedings due to their concerns with Escriva's attitude and behavior. Later confirmed by the L'Osservatore Romano, the motions were dismissed by the senior judge.
• The many controversies that surrounded Escriva's very fast elevation to Sainthood. Exemplified by headline articles in the Los Angeles Times, entitled "Pope to Beatify Controversial Spanish Priest", 16 May 1992. And another critical, headline article in Newsweek by Kenneth L. Woodward.
• Escriva's so-called extremely excessive religous fervor in his early life, which included corporal mortification and an ominous attitude. Which is ironic considering that Escriva's article on Wikipedia contains all of his possible positive attitudes, but referencing his human nature seems absent as well.

I do not wish to highlight his critics and their criticisms like a sore thumb in the article, but it is unacceptable that they are not even broadly included in the article. I believe it is time for a complete and well-referenced section on Escriva's critics and the controversies. Please comment on your opinion. -- AJ24 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment 'criticism'.

This article is protected as though it were the Blessed Sacrament. The main editors will have no one suggest such atrocious violence as providing a reasonable criticism section! And the irony is I am a moderate supporter of the aims of Opus Dei and once almost joined the prelature.

It beggars belief that there is no such section and I can only suggest you introduce one and I'll support its existence with as many citations as are needed.

Otherwise this is blatant propaganda.Iamlondon 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It beggars belief only if a separate section is the monolithic and exclusively acceptable solution to a coverage of controversy. This article had tons of CRITICISMS in intro, section on attitudes etc. etc. etc. even before you all came in. Pradeshkava 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

btw, isn't propaganda otherwise known as misleading information? Should people who add calumnies then be thanked? Just a thought. Cheers! Pradeshkava 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Counterclaims in controversy section

After the Controversy section was created and the most formidable complaints and criticisms towards Escriva were admitted, several counterclaims were also later admitted. Upon viewing them I subsequently removed them from the article for two reasons: the counterclaims are not encyclopedic, and the fact that the article has been known in the past to only reflect positive aspects of the life of Josemaria Escriva and none of the negatives; creating a very biased Wikipedia article. The first counterclaim is: "'On the other hand, Alvaro del Portillo, the former Prelate of Opus Dei, said that any claims that Escrivá supported Hitler were 'a patent falsehood,' that were part of 'a slanderous campaign'. He and others have stated that Escriva regarded Hitler as a 'pagan', a 'racist' and a 'tyrant'." The reference for the counterclaim is a book written by Cesare Cavalleri, coincidentally an Opus Dei numerary. And Alvaro del Portillo himself was an extremely controversial figure, and not someone to quote if you are tring to achieve an unbiased article. But more importantly, the counterclaims seem to be a desperate attempt to disprove the previous criticisms, which are labeled as alleged throughout the section. Instead of quoting credible sources, controversial and even unknown sources are used to counter the many unproven allegations. After the counterclaims were replaced it seems necessary that more input is needed as to the Wikipedia "legality" of the counterclaims. -- AJ24 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is all about admitting all points of view, and providing space proportional to a proponent's prominence. I guess Alvaro del Portillo who has an article all his own -- a notable topic for Wikipedia -- has more prominence than Vladimir Felzmann, not to mention the scores of people quoted in the footnote, which includes non-members who say the same thing as Portillo. All in all these counter claims have a "right" to stay put. R Davidson 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-Check

Many users have brought up in the past that the article reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedic article, and it appears that many sections in the article remain that way. The "Personality and attitudes" section, which is mostly unreferenced, contains countless views of approval and praise for Escriva, with little or no mention of the alleged malevolent attitudes Escriva has expressed during his lifetime. The "Controversy" section only briefly covers the vast conspiratorial accustations against Escriva. It is also obvious that formidable criticisms and controversies are only noted in the "controversy" section and are barely mentioned in the long list of Escriva's attitudes. An NPOV-check is necessary simply because so few have taken interest in neutralizing the article. Please respond constructively. -- AJ24 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After one week of NPOV check it's clear the article will remain a POV issue until serious citation and modification is accomplished. I'm changing NPOV-Check to POV warning. -- AJ24 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since 18 months have passed with no significant further referenced matter being added, and since there is no ongoing debate on the alleged NPOV dispute, I'm removing the tag. they are not meant to be permanent fixtures. Xandar 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG

Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Parts of this article read as though the author took too much upon himself/herself in presuming to speak for the subect.

Escrivá knew he had to found something, but he was also conscious that what he was founding was not his own work, that he himself did not invent anything and that the Lord was merely making use of him. So it was not his work, but Opus Dei (God's Work).

--Beetfarm Louie 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Beetfarm Louie. Thanks. The problem is the lack of quotation marks, which I fixed now. The whole quote is taken from Ratzinger. See this [[1]. Cabanes 09:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polarizing subjects

The introduction to the article currently states that Saint Josemaria and Opus Dei "continue to be polarizing subjects among more secular members of the Catholic Church" (emphasis added). This statement appears to based on the non-neutral premise that any concern about Saint Josemaria and Opus Dei is the mark of lapsed or marginally devout Catholics. The rest of the article, which contains copious citations to points of concern raised by Catholic priests, religious, and laity, refutes that position. I have altered the sentence to read that Escriva and Opus Dei continue to be polarizing subjects "among certain members of the Catholic Church." As reworked, the sentence more accurately reflects the body of the article and is neutral. Pjb dinky 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Pjb_Dinky

Days of the week

Is their some reason for the chronology to include them? I would suggest doing so is not NPOV. Philip Cross (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You did mean in Timeline? Probably not a NPOV problem, but plain useless. --Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section altogether, as it really had nothing that belongs in this article that shouldn't be integrated into the body. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer → Josemaría Escrivá — The article has been moved to its current title without discussion or consent. For a former consent about the title see Talk:Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer#Probably should be moved to Josemaría Escrivá. The current location is wrong on two counts: first, for a modern saint such as Escriva, "Saint" should not be included in the page title. Second, his name sans "De Balaguer" is far more common than when it is included. FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, for both counts. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support, for both counts. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For consistency with other Saint biographies, for example with Mother Teresa, and with the biography article in the Saints native language (es:Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer) I propose to move Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer as Escrivá de Balaguer is his commonly used Family name. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa seems to be a bad example, because the title is not her civil name, which was Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu. The deletion of the "Saint" from the title seems to be uncontroversial so far. Concerning the "de Balaguer" part cf. Talk:Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer#Probably should be moved to Josemaría Escrivá. The simple form "Josemaría Escrivá" is by far more common, yet the complete name would comply with Spanish naming customs. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems I didn't express myself clearly. I brought up Mother Teresa only to show that Saint isn't necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that Josemaría Escrivá is unambiguous, the naming convention does not support moving to the longer Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which "naming convention"? --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, more specific: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple surnames. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the move, since there was consensus and it respects normal standards. LjL (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.