Comments on the opinions expressed in this section and in the Papal honors section: 

 I don’t object to minority views being included, provided they are properly justified, but in this case it is just a personal opinion expressed in a work of fiction, and no supporting evidence given.  I’m not familiar with the book in question (I’ve just read the description on Amazon.com, Kindle edition).  Maybe it gives good reasons for coming to this conclusion, but that’s not apparent from the three sentences in this article.  And it doesn’t ring true to me: I don’t find the popular version (“the Catholic Church’s air-brushed depiction”) to be at all unlikely.  Furthermore, there may well have been pressure on the Pope to canonize her (“political reasons”), but surely that is normally the case: each candidate would have their fervent supporters, and this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Pope would give in to the pressure, or rather that he would canonize someone who wasn’t worthy of that honor, he might just do so sooner than he otherwise would have. 

 The controversial portion of these three sentences could be removed, with justification either that they are not properly justified (as I have argued), or that the views are only held by a small minority (as Ostap argued in 2009, see above) (if that is true).  If the controversial portion is retained, it should be qualified, e.g. “La Tourette presents a picture of Maria which she believes allows Maria to express a more challenging and likely personality than the one associated with the Catholic Church's depiction of her.”  (So I would also remove the “air-brushed”.)  Comments on these suggestions are welcome, as are alternative suggestions.