Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2009

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Opus Libros as illegal spanish link

If you want this erased, you must prove your allegation. wiki is supposed to be neutral, and right now this article is not reflecting the usual opinion of Opus Dei. Wiki most always has an "in popular culture" portion in articles, and so it is only fair to add in "the DaVinci Code" and "Breach". I understand they are critical of Opus Dei, and I am not saying they are right, but they are an opinion on the subject and it is not fair to omit them, is it? As is the article is unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.228.218 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the anti-Opus Dei cult Opus Libros called. Now, they are bombing all the Opus Dei voices in the Wiki with their link and ideas. Please, remove this spanish link in this english version. See you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.54 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those books have nothing illegal. They are, mostly, written by people who once were in the Opus Dei and who left in delusion. They are testimonies of a loose of confidence and therefore, they must be heard just as freely as any other voice. And one of those referred is writen by Luis Carandel, a very famous and important (and late; he passed away some years ago) journalist. So, let's see what kind of people is leaving this messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.186.29 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Opus in spain ,especially here in murcia, is quite honest,clear and acts to improve life in spain and here in murcia.As a member of the jewish community of murcia I see similarities in that both opus and the jews ,although one cristian the other not,receive a positive and sometimes not positive reception. .raquel samper jewish community murcia spain comunidad judia de murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.17.233 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illegal with opuslibros. It is funny that you call a web site a cult! It is pretty much like a "tu quoque" (you too) attack that is not valid as an argument. Opuslibros is a very active site in with ex-members of Opus Dei expose their concerns about the organization. If there is something illegal about it the Opus Dei should go to the Justice: if they don't do this, they are either accomplices of Opuslibros or they simple acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with the web site. See ya! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.46.224 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

biased article

this article just seems like pro-opus dei propaganda. 'Replies to criticism' is larger than 'Criticism' itself, lol! i think it will become a good article only when people that isn't biased towards opus dei help to balance its views. --189.12.115.177 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Before anthing else, you have to contend with R Davidson's comment.

Whatever steps are taken should remember the article's basic problem-- giving equal validity to statements coming from obviously biased sources (Tammy DiNicola, ex-member, and Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit) as against statements proceeding from professional journalists such as CNN's John Allen, Jr., Le Figaro's Patrice de Plunkett, and scholars like Vittorio Messori, Massimo Introvigne, John Paul II, etc. I am not saying the latter half do not have deficiencies. All I'm saying is-- weights and spaces cannot be equal. R Davidson 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss his comments here: Talk:Opus_Dei#Controversy_section

Hope this helps. Lafem 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC) The fact that people are professionals does not mean they lack bias. The fact that you are trying to imply that betrays your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.65.1 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many citations you put after it, a line like this shows bias and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is attempting to resoilve the controversy over Opus Dei in fvor of its supporters:

"According to several journalists who worked separately on Opus Dei, most of the criticisms against Opus Dei are mere myths created by its opponents," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.171.186 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the Controversies section we read:

Allen, Messori, and Plunkett also state that accusations that Opus Dei is secretive are unfounded and stem from a clerical paradigm whereby Opus Dei members are expected to behave as monks and clerics (the traditional models for sanctity) who are externally identifiable as such.

Who is identifiable as such? The sentence needs to be broken up, simplified or, at least, better punctuated so as to make its meaning clear.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Opus Dei has many left-wingers

This article is much improved since I came here. But one gripe is it routinely accepts as fact that Opus Dei are right-wing.

How about this article: http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/2245/868/

How about Wikipedia's List of members of Opus Dei?

• Ruth Kelly - Secretary of State for Transport (2007-now), Labour Party (traditionally center-left) in the United Kingdom. John L. Allen, Jr. states that she is a supernumerary member in his book, Opus Dei.
• Paola Binetti - Senator-elect in Italy (2006). A numerary member. Binetti belongs to a party -- La Margherita (“The Daisy”) -- which includes Christian Democrats, Socialists, Greens and even some ex-Communists.
• Antonio Fontán - President of the Senate of Spain in 1977-1979. A journalist who advocated free elections and trade unions, and was persecuted by Franco. He helped draft Spain's new democratic constitution after Franco.
• Alberto Ullastres Calvo (d. 2001) - Minister of Trade (1957-1965). He is one of the members of Opus Dei who were appointed by Franco as ministers (Spain under Franco). He pushed forward the so called Plan of Stabilization which brought about Spain's transition from economic autarchy to liberalization and internationalization of the national economy.
• Jesus Estanislao - Secretary of Economic Planning and subsequently Finance Secretary of the Philippines under Corazon Aquino (1989-1992), who toppled the dictatorial government of Ferdinand Marcos. A numerary member of Opus Dei, who started Opus Dei in the Philippines.
• Squire Lance - a civil rights leader, called by the Spectator, "granddaddy of Civil Rights in Obama's own Chicago." He is a Democrat.
• Jorge Rossi Chavarría was the Vice-President of Costa Rica from 1971-1974. He co-founded the National Liberation Party (PLN), a social democrat party. He was a supernumerary of Opus Dei.

• Felipe González de Canales is a co-founder of a system of agriculture schools and rural development centers called Escuelas Familiares Agrarias (Agrarian Family Schools) which has 30 schools in Spain and has influenced 68 other agricultural schools in other parts of the world. He is also the founder of two trade unions. He is an associate member of Opus Dei.

Even theologians who are working on social issues:

• Joseph de Torre is a social and political philosopher. He has written a number of works on social ethics and Catholic social teaching.
• Enrique Colom was a contributing editor of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church made by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. He is a member of the Scientific Committee of the Card. Van Thuan International Observatory which promotes Catholic social teaching internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo Cruz (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry

Doesn't the Opus Dei have an official position against Freemasonry ? Isn't this one of the reasons for the controversies surrounding the organization ? ADM (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opus Dei has no doctrine outside of Catholicism. Whatever Catholic doctrine says, so says OD. Lafem (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, I suppose, since most serious Catholics outside of OD will read the official doctrine on the subject (Humanum Genus) and conclude that Masonry is a very bad thing for the Church. ADM (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Opus Dei and Judaism

Among the various black legends and conspiracy theories surrounding Opus Dei, one that is especially intriguing is the relationship that its founder had with Judaism. According to rabbi Angel Kreiman Brill, Escriva's teachings are strongly rooted in Talmudic traditions about work. The Talmudic concept of work, said Kreiman, is that work is not a punishment, but man's duty, a blessing from God that allows us to fully enjoy the Sabbath and allows us to be in the image and likeness of God. [1] ADM (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the root of the Judaism,muslim and Christianity is the same (Sumer culture) then, it is not so strange that they share a lot of believed, laws and doctrines. Let's say, the Ten Commandment is almost a "second edition" of Hamurabi's code.--201.222.153.222 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, the Bible is clearly influenced by mesopotamian ethics, such as "take care of the fatherless and the widows". I think the jews got this notion in the Babylonian captivity and post-redacted it into the Bible, as fit. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sentence beginning "According to several journalists..."

In full:

According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, most of the criticisms against Opus Dei are mere myths created by its opponents, and Opus Dei is a sign of contradiction, "a sign that is spoken against."

• A few points:

• "Several journalists" is inaccurate: there are three citations, and two refer to John Allen's book Opus Dei. Una hirundo non facit ver, and two sources are not "several".

• "who have worked independently on Opus Dei". It is worth noting that one of the two is Vittorio Messori, John Paul II's hand-picked editor and collaborator (Crossing the Threshold of Hope), and his book reads more like a defence and celebration of Opus Dei than an investigation. There's no obligation for a writer to be hostile to a topic in order to investigate it, of course, and perhaps we can be satisfied with an elastic definition of "independent," but the sentence makes is sound as though this view that the criticisms of Opus Dei have been investigated and debunked by "several" investigative journalists of a more conventional kind, and that's not exactly the case.

• "Opus Dei is a sign of contradiction". Two points:

• The phrase sign of contradiction occurs, in quotation marks, in Piers Paul's review of John Allen's book, but it's not clear from the review whether he's direct quoting the book when he uses the phrase or simply referring, in quotation marks, to concept of a sign of contradiction. I haven't read Allen's book: if the phrase "sign of contradiction," which is a theological term, appears in Allen's book, would someone familiar with the book be willing to:

1. locate the reference
2. explain the context in which the phrase is used -- that is, whether Allen uses the phrase himself to characterize Opus Dei or is quoting someone else.

• In the case of Messori's, characterizing Opus Dei as a sign of contradiction is not the result of his investigation, which is how the passage makes it sound: he treats the proposition essentially as axiomatic.

• Neither source cited uses the phrase "a sign that is spoken against." Placing this in quotation marks makes it look like a direct quotation of sources, which it isn't.

--Rrburke^(talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rrburke for your precise comments on this issue.

Re number of journalists, please see the first paragraph here. I think only two were placed to avoid "ref bombing". :) Also, the lede is only supposed to summarize the body. So, I have added one more ( and replaced Messori with a non-Catholic writer) in case this can satisfy all sides of the argument.

John Allen talks about Opus Dei as sign of contradiction here

I agree that we should strike out the quote "a sign that is spoken against", for the reason you gave. Marax (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the term "opponents"... I would use "critics" instead. Being critical is a scientific value, not a religious one. "opponents" speaks of equal i.e. equal and opposing forces.83.40.9.227 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggested modification to the initial phrase is: According[ to several journalists, most of the criticisms against Opus Dei are myths created by its critics. 83.40.9.227 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Journalists and The Meta-issue

There are a lot of problems with this statement that multiple independent journalists have stated that that most criticisms are unfounded. You can almost take this on a word by word basis to see why:

• Multiple: No two journalists say the exact same thing. Some, for example, might agree that some criticisms are unfounded, but may not agree on precise which criticisms are unfounded, which have substance, and which are unsure. It's a bit of original research to take all these different individuals, all with unique points of view, and simplify it by saying that they all concur. That's sort of a source.
• Independent: There is no way to verify the independence of the writers in question. How much independence is independence enough? For example, we probably can agree that members of the Opus Dei, former members, or their families aren't never going to be "independent journalists". The problem then expands because Opus Dei members generally choose to keep their affiliation with Opus Dei private. The problem expands further when you consider that other members of the Roman Catholic church have strong opinions for- or against- OD, and so THEIR independence is debated too. And then, lest we forget, almost everyone has strong opinions about religion, so non-catholic commentators aren't exactly independent either.
• Journalists: A lot of journalists have commented on Opus Dei, but none have really done so as part of any journalistic establishment. In other words, their opinions represent their own. John Allen, for example was interviewed an analyst for CNN when after the death of JPII, but his Opus Dei work is connected to his CNN work-- in the same way that Pat Buchanan is a MSNBC analyst, but that doesn't make him an independent reliable source when he writes a book talking about a coming immigrant invasion that threatens western civilization.
• Most: how many criticisms need to be unfounded before it's said that most are unfounded. One could say the most common criticisms are that Opus Dei is extremely private and that it's members practice self-mortification and who lead highly regimented lives of near-total devotion to the church. Those criticisms are widely-attested and not in dispute. Alternatively, someone could claim that the most common criticisms are that Opus Dei is a nefarious organization bent on world domination that employs albino assassins. Those criticisms are widely attested to be false. Whether most criticisms are true, false, or opinion depends more on your choice of criticism than anything else.

That said, I don't really know how to go about stably improving the article beyond it's current state here on Wikipedia. It attracts as much controversy and adoration as a Scientology article, but it doesn't have nearly as much interest to uninvolved audiences, so there are substantially fewer 'independent' sources than Scientology. The best I can figure out is to try to keep fact fact and opinion opinion, and to try to pull out as much of the ebullient praise and hateful scorn as possible and sequester it in the debate section.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe much of the problem can be resolved when we consider the current wording: According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, most of the criticisms against Opus Dei are mere myths created by its opponents.

The word "independent" appears as an adverb and not as an adjective. It is their work that is independent from each other. Perhaps adding this phrase "from each other" would be part of the solution, and I believe this meaning was the original intent of the editor who used the word "independently" since the journalists referred to are from different countries, and did their own interviewing, observations, research, etc.

The word "most" is based on the actual conclusions of the books written by these journalists, Allen, Plunkett, Messori, Friendlander, Whitehouse, who appear in the article's section on Supporting Views. They discussed the usual list of criticisms and have basically come to the same conclusion that most of the criticism are not valid and are mere myths created by its opponents. And so the wording of the article is "according to several journalists", and not according to popular sentiment.

I have now added "from each other", although perhaps there is a less wordy way of saying the same thing. Thanks, Alec. :) Marax (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be using the word "separately". Marax (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NRM category

I've added the NRM cat, based on multiple RS: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. --JN466 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted that because "outside"-refs are rather irrelevant for an WP-"internal" categorization that carries a rather clear description such as Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement," use of the term usually requires that the group be both of recent origin and different from existing religions. (emphasize is mine). Besides, that sort of categorization might have been understandable or o.k. in the first few years after foundation of Opus Dei, but no longer. --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)