Talk:Opus Dei - Definition and Overview

It would appear that it is essentialy impossible to present any view other than what Opus Dei wants to appear. It seems that they monitor this site quite closely; when something critical appears, it is removed immediately. Unfortunately, due to the open nature of the Wikipedia, it will be virtually impossible to maintain the neutrality of this topic. Matt in NYC

The founder's name was Josemaria Escriva, not "Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer": the title was an affectation.

• Why do you say that "Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer" wasn't his name. It was his name. The official page of the vatican for the canonization calls him Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. So who has a problem with reality? Even people that are memebers of the Opus Dei (like many of my friends) know that.

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the him been the Marques de Peralta, a nobility title he fought for and got from the spanish crown. Truth is the title was used by his ancestors, and that some people say that he got it restituted so that he could give it to his brother (which he actually did). well probably this should be under his name and not here.. oops..

Anyway, people, when you make comments try to sign them. thanks Cjrs 79 05:11, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) Cjrs 79 22:04, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Pope John Paul II made them his personal prelature". What does that mean?
S.

Ordinary Catholic dioceses are organized within a specific physical location; they have one particular church as their bishop's seat, and their jurisdiction is limited to their delineated geographic area -- only those Catholics living within that area are subject to the bishop's authority. Personal prelatures -- Opus Dei is the only such organization, as far as I know -- are not limited by geography or tied to physical locations; a member might live in Poland or Peru, but s/he is subject to the authority of the prelature's leader (Javier Echevarria, in Opus Dei's case) who, like other bishops, reports directly to the Pope. (Should this be mentioned in the article, or would it be better placed under a separate heading, such as Personal Prelature?) Further inspection indicates that the relevant information is available in the prelate article; I have redirected the personal prelature link to prelate.

Someone (presumably an Opus Dei supporter) has replaced the previous article text with an entirely pro-Opus Dei article. Concatenating old and new versions for NPOV editing.

As this article has been edited, it appears to move closer and closer to the position that Opus Dei is a blameless, harmless, organization. Can we re-emphasize some of the anti-Opus-Dei POV, please?

It seems to me that "re-emphasizing" the anti-Opus Dei point of view wouldn't be a "neutral" point of view.

Of course it would, if the article expresses both sides. And yes this article is seriously biased pro Opus Dei. But then devotees of Opus Dei don't like criticism, so any attempt to criticise the organisation is guaranteed to be edited into becoming a pro Opus Dei fan club. (A friend of mine who runs a bookshop once had two thirds of a pile of a book criticising the organisation vandalised by Opus Dei members. And yes they were Opus Dei members, he caught two of them, one was the ringleader who set up the vandalism and both were not so much Opus Dei members as fanatics who threated him with external damnation for stocking the book. Their method of vandalism was simple; take the book of the shell, stick chewing gum onto its side, put it back, and when it dried the book could not be opened and stank of gum. In his thirty years in the book trade, no other book about no other organisation was so systematically vandalised. But five books on Opus Dei published over 8 years were each attacked and apparently the same thing happened in other shops in other cities to the same books. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:11 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, can you tell me how the article is so biased in favor of Opus Dei? It seems someone took out all the pro-Opus Dei links and replaced them with anti-Opus Dei links. Is that "neutral"? Is that the only valid point of view? If I'm being biased in favor of Opus Dei, tell me how. If you can make a good case for it, I'll fix it. Either that, or fix it yourself.

If you take a minute to review the history of the article, you'll notice that I pretty much left untouched the clearly negative criticisms in the article.

Excuse me. My last edit said "minor changes" but I commented several things out. Why? Because they were

a) irrelevant because they were included in the criticisms section

b) saying "The Organization states" and quoting its Statutes is a subtle way of assuming malice.

c) The section on "Members" was SO BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING I decided to comment out quite a few paragraphs and redistribute it a bit.

Anyway, I think I am going to add some more items in the "Activities", because it is not enlightening. Pfortuny 07:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) I have reverted the previous edit, which was not a minor change, and totally changed the structure of the article. The current structure is:

• introduction: Opus Dei in its own words (holy workers for God, working for love and peace worldwide)
• introduction: Opus Dei in its critics' words (sinister pain-obsessed cult)
• pro-Opus Dei case in detail,
• critical case in detail

Please let us know what your proposed alternative article structure might be before making further changes, still less marking them as "minor edits". -- Karada 13:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) Sorry for marking it as minor (really sorry, I realized it after committing). Now I think

a) As for criticisms in the introduction... well, it is my opinion but I guess it is quite normal to postpone these things to the latter part of any article.

b) In any case, I'd rather change the "The organizatio states" to "Its aims" because that is what its statutes say and the introduction "They say" is -as you are aware- a subtle POV.

c) The section members is really boring and contains lots of uninteresting stuff (it can be summarized a lot, which is what I intended).

I want to stress that my marking it as minor was really a mistake (assume stupidity). Sorry again. Pfortuny 13:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The entry (at 30-11-03) claims that Cardinal Hume "criticised... infiltration of organisations, both secular and religious". That is not correct. His 'guidelines' say nothing about infiltration. Furthermore, claiming that they do, gives a specious weight to the allegation itself.

The entry also says Hume was a "vocal critic". This is incorrect. His guidelines, which might be taken as (implicit) criticism, end with an explicit warning precisely against taking them that way. He said and wrote nothing else that could be taken as criticism at all. Also, the guidelines make no mention of "unacceptable behaviour", so it is hard to defend the use the entry makes of that phrase.

All this will have to be edited to get the weighting right. (Edit now made)

The entry (as at 15-12-03) contains a sentence giving the names of three people in the USA who are supposedly members: Louis Freeh, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. For the record, none of them are.

The least confusing NPOV solution would be to delete that particular sentence – which I propose doing unless another simpler NPOV solution is found. (Edit now made)

All three are thought to be members (Google turns up a number of allegations); none have explicitly confirmed or denied such rumors. The stories about Freeh are somewhat credible, though Opus Dei denies them (http://www.zpub.com/un/fbi-freeh.html), but the stories about Scalia and Thomas are just tinfoil hattery: there's nothing to suggest a connection besides the fact that both Justices are, like Opus Dei, conservative and Catholic. I think it's fair to note the rumors, but it would then be necessary to state clearly that they are rumors, nothing more. (There's also a certain Opus Dei priest (http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/) who is closely connected (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/11/02/the_crusaders/) with a number of conservative politicians; if the other conspiracy theories are to be mentioned, perhaps this fellow should also be in the article.) --MIRV 19:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But Louis Freeh has denied being a member. When asked whether he was a member, he replied that the questioner had been informed incorrectly. That's quite apart from the repeated denials issued by Opus Dei, so how can the rumour still be credible? As it's a conspiracy theory it should either be called such, or simply cut out. And including 'tinfoil hattery' about Scalia and Thomas here is just absurd. The paragraph still needs redrafting or cutting in the first half, which I propose doing unless a simpler NPOV solution is suggested. Asoane 16:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling conspiracy theories what they are. If you think the rumors about Freeh, Scalia, and Thomas are crackpottery, feel free to label them as such -- though a more formal term, such as "unsubstantiated", would be preferable. --MIRV 17:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Personally I think they are fantasy. However, I doubt whether a NPOV approach can survive the inclusion of unsubstantiated rumours, even if the denials are also noted. I think you need to separate out the wheat from the chaff and eliminate the latter. The supposed membership of these three people is a good example. Asoane 17:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was a member of a religious group for ten years. The congregation was founded in Spain. The practice of corporal mortification as described in much of the literature about Opus Dei and religious orders within the Roman Catholic Church are indeed accurate. I can attest to having taken many a discipline on a Friday night as well as the daily wearing of a "chain", as we called it. The marks were real and remained with me for months after I left the convent. It people want to really know the truth, they need to merely research church history. It's all there if we are willing to look. Along with my own former congregation, I can name others. Contrarly to what the public would like to believe, it's a much more common practice than not. Members are taught to not speak of it because it is "something that the world would not understand."

Criticism?

A cursory line-count in the section about "criticisms of Opus Dei" shows that:

- there are 33 lines in the section;

- from these, 12 (36%) are outright praise (popes' remarks);

- 4 others are denials of charges;

- finally, 5 lines state neutral things, not criticism.

So, in the "criticism" section, 16 lines (48%) are actually praise or denial, and 5 others (15%) are "nothing", for a grand total of 21 lines (63% !!) of non-criticism!! And this is the criticism section!! (I will not comment on the global line-count, it would be overkill).

If this is NPOV, I won't like to see a biased one!

Yeah, this article is a mess. Unfortunately there are more zealous advocates for Opus Dei than knowledgeable critics of it.—Eloquence 05:44, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Balance should not be abandoned if the subject of a particular section happens to be 'criticisms'.

And I wouldn't necessarily agree that 37% criticism versus 48% defense is biased towards the defense - it usually takes more space to answer questions than it does to ask them. Asoane 20:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

from the section on The Da Vinci Code

The book was actually heralded by some Opus Dei members because it featured passages from The Way and the book was like a promotional ad for the organisation.

Opus Dei's official response to the book was negative (http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017); they thought that Brown's portrayal was full of errors, not a promotional ad. Can anyone confirm that anyone in Opus Dei had a high opinion of the book? —No-One Jones 08:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Astroturfing

I am amazed by the shameless way in which criticisms of Opus Dei, and even links to critical websites, are regualarly edited out of this article. Olny the mildest criticisms are allowed to remain (for example, that they are not conservative enough!). These edits are consistent with Opus Dei supporters going against the NPOV policy this encyclopedia relies on. Come on, Opus Dei members! Unification Church members and Scientologists can work together with other contributors under the NPOV principle, surely you can too? -- The Anome 10:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's just peer review by other contributors. Asoane 11:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...who consistently remove criticisms of Opus Dei. Wikipedia:NPOV means acknowledging all points of view. There are two extreme POVs about Opus Dei --

1. "An organization of self-sacrificing people working selflessly for the glory of God within the Catholic Church"
2. "A kinky pain-loving religious cult with links to right-wing politica and worse"

Now, current Opus Dei members assert the first. Many opponents of Opus Dei, including ex-members of Opus Dei, assert the second. The fact that these assertions are made can be reported here uncontroversially, without deciding on which one is true.

We can also report as fact anything which is agreed by both Opus Dei's supporters and detractors: they are a personal prelature of the Pope, they have a lovely big HQ building, and so on. What we should not do is put forward a picture of Opus Dei as an uncontroversial organization in the intro. It is controversial, even within the Catholic Church, where some regard it as an "entryist" organization taking the Church over from within.

I suggest the following structure:

1. Intro: Opus Dei, broad perceptions, for and against
2. Opus Dei: uncontroversial facts (prelature, HQ buiding, etc)
3. Opus Dei: views of supporters
4. Opus Dei: views of critics

Note that I'm being scrupulously fair by stating the OD cases before the criticism, at both levels. If you take out mention of criticism at the top, the casual reader won't read down the page to see it covered in detail -- which would be misleading. -- The Anome 11:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your fellow contributors both remove and add depending on the facts of the matter. In the previous version before your changes both POV you mentioned were clearly stated and referenced. There is no need to patronise users of the Wikipedia, as your final sentence appears to do. Asoane 12:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The table of contents - at the top of the article! - clearly shows that there is a criticism section. The "casual reader", should he want to read criticisms, can click there. There is no need for criticisms in the introduction. Quodlibetarian 12:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope that we are all "fellow contributors" here, regardless of our differences of view. Please don't simply revert my edits before making changes: instead, discuss changes here if we are having problems coming to a consensus. As well as throwing out big edits you didn't like it also had the effect of removing tiny edits like the addition of the word "controversial" in the first sentence; something which I would regard as unexceptional. [1] (http://www.google.com/search?q=controversial+%22opus+dei%22) I'd also question the citation of CESNUR as an authority: it's hardly an uncontroversial organization itself. [2] (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c10.html) -- The Anome 12:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Until recently I used to propose alterations here first as you have just suggested, but with little effect. The direct methods of the anti-POV were more effective. However, having just removed a paragraph I would like to float an idea with you. A simple reference to criticisms in the opening section might be reasonable, but what is causing the problem is the insistence on specifying what they are, thus repeating them. Maybe an acceptable compromise is a balanced sentence at that point which says that Opus Dei has been criticised, and 'see below'. Asoane 14:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hope we can work together, even though we have quite different opinions. I agree, we don't need to repeat ourselves. Here's what I want to do, in the first instance:

In the "criticism" section:

• far more details of the "cult" criticism, and allegations of links to right-wing politics
• explicit, detailed, mention of the practices of self-mortification, and Saint Josemaría's personal self-mortification in particular, within the criticisms section, and only a mention of this in the intro

In the intro:

• a brief reference to both of these, without going into detail

In the first sentence:

• to keep the word "controversial"

At the same time, I hope you will have noticed that I have not removed any positive comments about Opus Dei, although I have added attributions to some of them as being the views of Opus Dei supporters, and removed the passive voice where appropriate.

-- The Anome 15:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For my taste,

1. the "right-wing politics" is empty of true content as it is now. Either delete or include real allegations.
2. Saint Josemaria's mortification etc... ought to be included in his article, and here just comment it (as he is supposed to have said that his followers must not imitate him in that aspect... any source for this?). I doubt -doubt- this is worth appearing in the introduction of this article, but this is just my oppinion.
3. It is obvious that it is controversial, so it should be stated in the introduction unless we find a better wording (however, almost any organization is controversial, so this word is losing its sense and becoming a weasel term, for my taste).
4. There was an inquest at the Italian Parliament which should appear in the article (at least one country took the "cult" and "secret" allegations seriously, made an inquest and found they were not true...). I have not the proper sources, but it may be enlightening.

BTW I changed the "made a saint" for "canonized" because saints are not made...

In any case, the article is, for my taste, too verbose (even garrulous).... Pfortuny 07:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Anome's proposals might be workable :-)

My comments are:

I concede 'controversial' of course, but not as the very first word of the description. I propose to put instead it in the table of contents, so section 4 is to be called 'Controversies'. The word 'controversial' also appears in the third paragraph of the intro, so it would not be missing from the opening text.

On points by Pfortuny:

It is true that members of Opus Dei do not imitate St Josemaria's mortifications, so I propose to add in brackets that members do not imitate him in this.

The Italian parliament investigated Opus Dei in 1986, and cleared it of being a secret society. So I propose to add that, simply at the end of the relevant section (this could be said to cut both ways, but it is information).

Apart from the changes above I propose to make only the following minor modifications:

1. To rename section 4.5 'Other criticisms', and sort out that section, which is really a mixed bag.

2. To reorder the points in the 'Other criticisms' section, moving the criticisms from ultra-conservatives to the end of the section. The section would begin: Some critics have alleged that Opus Dei was looked upon with suspicion (etc).

3. To simplify a response to say that supporters state that men and women are equal in Opus Dei, with half the leadership positions being held by women.

4. To remove from the 'Catholic politics' section near the end the claim about several prominent members in the judiciary and law being members. This is not really a removal, because it appears almost verbatim already in the 'secret society' section. It is merely the repetition that is to be removed, while the follow-on about reports in the Boston Post is to be kept.

The changes to be put through presently. Asoane 10:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) To say that Opus Dei is a secret society only because it does not reveal its members is crazy. I mean, I think no religious organization would do that. Andries

Please be objective when stating who supports an opinion

When some concept is defended by members and many non-members, please do not simply state "members" say, because it is completely misleading. Thanks. Pfortuny 15:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories

Why does this have to clutter the main Roman Catholic category as well as RC Lay Societies and RC Prelatures? Can't we just take it out and leave it in the subdirectories like most other Catholic topics (eg Benedictines or St Patrick's Cathedral)?

JASpencer

Yes we can, and I have done so. If something is part of a subcategory, it doesn't need to be in the higher-level categories as well. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Controversial How could it not be valid to call Opus Dei controversial Do a google search on Opus Dei and 4 of the top five pages are critical of Opus Dei. It is unsupportable to disagree that Opus Dei is controversial according to any dictionary definition.

--Peacenik 01:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look a few lines up: we had this discussion before. The entry already calls Opus Dei 'controversial' several times. It does so in the intro. It has a great big section called 'controversies', so it even appears in the index. But not as the first word of the description. Asoane 16:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know, but someone removed it from it's agreed place in the intro. That is what I was commenting on. --Peacenik 21:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's still there in the third paragraph, where it settled back in July. It was removed from the first paragraph on 25 November, but presumably only because someone had added it in there earlier the same day. Asoane 16:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe split it ?

Maybe splitting the article into a Pro Opus Dei and Anti Opus Dei stands and ask people to restrain from editing the other's article ?, I studied for 9 years in an Opus Dei school in Venezuela and I can tell first hand that they are not a harmless institution. However for some people I've met they think it is and currently serve as numeraries, maybe splitting it would make it better ?

Dementia Manifested

It upsets me that The Church, or a sect of The Church would not only turn a blind eye to self mortification, a practice as demonic as the Iron Maiden or the Rack of Inquistion time, but induldge in it, promote it, INFLICT IT!!!'' SICK, SICK, SICK.

I suppose indulge, and promote can be argued, but not inflict! --Peacenik 00:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prominent Opus Dei Members

If we have names of "confirmed" Opus Dei members, should they be added? Admittedly, the only one I can find right now is Ruth Kelly, the new United Kingdom Education Secretary, which is hardly prominent internationally, but The Times confirmed here [3] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411905,00.html) that she is a member. Her general scientific views have been attacked but not her membership of Opus Dei. --MJW 23:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I am not a supporter of Opus Dei, I do not have a vendetta and think people should not be harrassed because of their membership of Opus Dei. However, I think it is okay to list known members of Opus Dei as long is there is clear and documented evidence of their membership. --Peacenik 00:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly certainly has links with Opus Dei but membership has not been confirmed by either Kelly or Opus Dei. Her brother, Ronan, is a member and she has attended meetings of the group. My hunch is that she is a suporter rather than a numerary, but that is only a hunch JASpencer

I find this article to be scandal mongering. No proof is presented for many of the charges made and hashing up gossip should not be the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Should all the spurious charges against John Kerry be put in an encyclopedia? This very much resembles the antiCatholic slurs prevalent on the 19th century.

You pick a bad example. Wikipedia does indeed report quite a few spurious charges against John Kerry. JamesMLane 05:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly

How a far right group like Opus Dei can infiltrate New Labour is a good sign of the extent to which they have degenerated. They will be recruiting from the BNP next.

"Blessed be pain. Loved be pain. Sanctified be pain. . . Glorified be pain!" (Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei The Way, 208).

The idea of putting someone with such backward views on gay people (for example) in charge of the education of our children is disgusting.

(this contribution by Derekmcmillan)

I thought the gay community would be against people being discriminated against because of their beliefs about sexuality. This language sounds very like what was being said about gay teachers forty years ago. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just so everybody is aware, user 66.20.28.21 is subject to a decision by the arbitration committee banning him from making POV edits, or edits to specific articles. This is not one of the prohibited articles, but any POV edits area subject to restriction. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)