Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2005-2

NPOV

Something tells me that this page is a losing battle. I personally subscribe to the Wikipedia idea of balance and neutrality but I also fear that Opus Dei has both the time and resources to make this entry fit its purposes (nefarious or not). The bottom line is that unless a fairly neutral, dispassionate editor takes control, most of the entry is going to sound like a tract - peppered with the odd (usually short-lived) additions that point to dissent or controversy. It would be interesting to compare entries for other organizations (the "Moonies", "Church of Scientology", etc.) to see whether this a more general problem. Personally, I have no axe to grind one way or the other but I would like to see an entry that argues both sides of the case.

Bowfell

Recent edits have made this almost a manual for Opus Dei. The only reference to controversy in the entire article is one sentence in the introduction. I think this article needs to be trimmed down and the controversy stuff reinserted. Any takers.--Peacenik 00:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

Just studied the piece. The word controversial, criticism, allegations, suspicion and the like come out 20+ times. That stresses that Opus Dei is controversial. The criticisms were distributed to logical places. I think it's good. Readable. Janeck. The article contains 40+ external refs (most I've seen here). [unsigned]

Respectable references

I noticed that neutrality and accuracy of this article is disputed. That's a pity. This article has very good references. Dr. Berglar was a prestigious history professor of the University of Cologne. I also personally know Rodriguez and Illanes. They are leading theologians. Fuenmayor is well-known in canon law studies. Aren't there rules to determine accuracy and neutrality? After reading most of the references books here, my only comment is on Walsh. His book is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia itself defines conspiracy theory outlandish and irrational. I also have a suggestion. Please place Berglar's book under the Opus Dei Studies Section. He studied Opus Dei in the context of Escriva's life and not the other way around. Thank you.

- I'm not sure that this is all that true. For example, the first reference in the section that criticizes Opus Dei and a host of other Catholic movements is from "Catholics For a Free Choice". Now, no legitimate encyclopedia would reference them without some reservation. Catholics For a Free Choice promotes positions that are contrary to Church teaching and is incredibly controversial because of its refusal to make clear that what they teach and promote in the Catholic Church's name is not in fact Catholic teaching. Whatever side you might land on in evaluating the merits of their particular raison d'etre, what is clear is that they are not an unbiased source and are hardly worthy of being source material for a serious encyclopedic effort. Include criticism by all means -- but let's pick sources that have some credibility.

Agree

I basically agree with the two previous comments. The present structure of the article is rational and reader friendly. It has flow. A totally separate section on criticism (with counter-arguments) will have to be balanced by a praise section (with counter-arguments). That's messy and will not have the look of a serious encyclopedia article.

Still I wouldn't remove Walsh from the list. In fact, he should be quoted in the criticism parts of the article.

I also think the size is still ok given the interest on this page. There are other sites which are much, much bigger (e.g. Pope John Paul II). Rabadur 06:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV and Accuracy Policies (please do not archive)

I am placing key excerpts of the Wiki policies here so that we can more easily refer to them. I can foresee that this type of disputes can occur again in the future and some will occur just because the policies are not clear to everyone. I also placing key statements in bold to facilitate reading.

Archived - kindly link to those instead of quoting them - the page is too long as it stands, anyway. -- AlexR 11:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article assessment

From these policies, I see following things:

1. Regarding neutrality.

a) Representing both sides: I think this piece does this.

b) More space given to majority, significant and important (credible experts's) view than the popular view(#6.d): I think the present article does this. The references are mainly scholars and they mutually corroborate each other. Of course, some people might also be argue that experts's view in this case is also the popular view given the wide-support given to Opus Dei in the world-wide Catholic Church. Anyway, whatever it is, Wikipedia keeps on repeating that it is not a matter of giving equal validity --#9. Space differences can be turned around in the future if there is a change in the status of present day scholarship.

c) Good research (#7): I think there is much research done here. There are many HTML links plus paragraphs referred to in the text. What can be improved is the research on the criticisms. I think more can be done to organize them, e.g. get citations from ODAN, explain ODAN.

d) Fair and sympathetic tone: In general, this is ok. We just have to keep on looking for clearly partisan tones per statement. In the future, when people want to contest NPOV, specific statements have to be referred to; or they themselves should start editing them.

2. Regarding accuracy.

a) Well-studied field: I think this is the case of this topic on Opus Dei. There are quite a number of reputable book on the matter available in libraries.

b) Citations: I check the embedded links and they match. The books, I believe, also match the text. Some books are cited without pages. This will have to be done to perfect this page.

c) Dubious sources: I think the article does not use dubious sources. Marax 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should be no more dispute. Objection was answered. The 20+ words are enough to add perception of controversy. I removed the Totally Disputed template. 61.9.41.77 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up

I am happy there is improvement in this article and dispute stopped. Keep it up. Now that rules are clear, may I suggest add more space for view of experts on Opus Dei and fascism and other issues. Please add more information from experts. Article is very useful for me. Thank you. W Ching.

I would rather not see comparisons between facism and OD. There are a number of reasons for this. For one thing it is very hard to say what facism is. That is itself a hotly debated topic. It is therefore hard to compare anything to it.

Second, they OD and facism operate in seperate spheres. While religion and political ideology may contrast, OD is in fact a radically apolitical implementation of a religion (not a religion that focuses on the personal struggle for holiness in the imitation of the hidden life of the Holy Family. Oddly, this non-involvement in politics has made it a blank slate onto which critics can project their personal political enmities. In relentlessly ideological times, like ours and like the facist Spain in which it was born, the dominant culture projects its disliked ideology onto OD. In facist, Spain OD members were accused of being communist/socialist/republican sympathizers. (In fact some were.) In our liberal (in some ways) age, in which we fear a resurgant facism (both the political left and right see this, the left in the center-right American governement and the right in reactionary Islamist governments), OD is reviled as facist/fundamentalist/reactionary. (Some members were in fact members of the Franco government).

Third, to the extent that OD does resemble facism the comparison is made on grounds such as the emphasis on discipline. Facism is choosen because it is the most negative possible association in this regard. Comparison could equally truly be made to communism [arguably worse, but popularly a bit better], the Marine Corps (generally good), or your local fire department (get up immediately when the alarm rings is a principle of both your fire department and OD, not kidding).

--Samuel J. Howard 04:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

History section

I suggest that a section on Opus Dei history be put up. This could be a section that can replace the section on Opus Dei members in leadership roles.

Reasons: 1. History section is usual for this type of topic. 2. Will help readers to understand Opus Dei better. It can be very enlightening. 3. Will deal with permanent data unlike the present section on Opus Dei members list which needs so much updating. Wiki policy states that we should avoid this latter type of data. 4. Members list section is becoming a hodgepodge of names and is a usual place for vandalism, absurd remarks, etc. Hard to keep it clean. Rabadur 22:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not hard at all to keep it clear. You underestimate the dedication with which this article is repeatedly edited. Members reinstated.67.113.3.167 05:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compromise solution

How about an intermediate solution? How about putting up another article like Opus Dei: prominent members or something like that. We can write something in the Privacy vs Secrecy portion which can lead to a reference to this new article.

By putting that list in another article, the Opus Dei article itself will contain a more scholarly tone and its size will be more manageable. This is the practice in many other articles and Wiki policy encourages it. 203.177.7.50 22:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

With much appreciation, I am grateful for more information on Opus Dei. Thank you for more expert views that they are not conected to Franco and fascism. God bless. If you plan transfer of names of Opus Dei leaders to seperate article, please try put more names. Transfer is very good. Thank you. W Ching

what a wonderful surprise!!! how different this page is! congratulations... i love opus dei and i love reading about opus dei...and don josemaria's life....it's so exciting... Belinda Gz

Ad infinitum

It's a very good idea to transfer names of members to another article. Now people can add names ad infinitum. I created a new article and transfered the data. R Davidson 02:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikify

This article is in serious need of wikification as according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. PLEASE, Please, try and remove the bolded paragraph starters (as ugly and not helpful) and at least attempt to rephrase the teachings? They read like diect copy/pastes, and that's not helpful to anybody, really. humblefool® 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed neutrality and accuracy issue

If the problem is wification, then neutrality and accuracy are no problems. Pleae check arguments on this above. Removed totally disputed template. Lafem 09:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me - those are two seperate problems - even if the format is fixed, the content is still a nightmare. Hence the template goes back in, and further removals without a significant change of content might be considered vandalism. -- AlexR

Please could everyone here bear in the mind the need at all times to collaborate, to use helpful edit summaries, and to avoid exacerbating use of editorial comments. Charles Matthews 11:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Probably inadvertently, some major cuts and duplications have been made on the page. These edits will need to be reverted. Charles Matthews 10:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added episcopal-related information in the Timeline section. Aloysius Patacsil 04:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Removed wikification sign

After replacing the bold marks into italics I removed the wikification sign. Lafem 10:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei propaganda piece

After several attempts to rework this article for NPOV, I had to give up, since any reasonably NPOV edit involved removing almost the entire article, as this is effectively an Opus Dei propaganda pamphlet, with no critical viewpoint left. I am now going to

1. archive the current version of the article at Talk:Opus Dei/Old article version,
2. revert the article to a version before the astroturfing, and
3. suggest that a serious effort be made to incorporate any useful information added by the most recent edits in the spirit of NPOV.

-- The Anome 10:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Changes now made

I have now made the above proposed changes. I would ask everyone involved in editing this article to try to keep NPOV in mind, since this is clearly a controversial article. Note that this is not intended to be a pro-Opus-Dei or anti-Opus-Dei article, but an encyclopedia article on the known facts (where consensus exists) and attributed opinions (where consensus does not exist) regarding Opus Dei. Please take care be scrupulously fair to both Opus Dei and its critics, and to "write for the other side" as far as possible when you have a personal point of view on any of these issues.

To those who have been editing this article into a propaganda pamphlet: please note that everything you do here is logged. In my opinion, attempting to subvert Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to turn an encyclopedia into a propaganda vehicle reflects far more unfavourably on you and your cause than any concievable anti-Opus-Dei article might. -- The Anome 11:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

talk this out or ask for mediation

Since you have already removed the entire article without due consultation, I might have to request for mediation or arbitration. Of course, we can still discuss this. However, I have asked for that earlier by telling people to read the article assessment and the wikipedia neutrality policies first, all of which are mentioned above. It seems even the rules were archived. That is not fair nor logical nor decent. Please say if you want to discuss this based on the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia, and go through them point by point. If not then we go to mediation and even arbitration. Lafem 11:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome to contribute pieces of informations from, say, the current state, but the incredibly lenghly pieces from which virtually all criticism of an organisation often considered close to a cult was absent is not unacceptable. The article looked like it had been highjacked and the reversal is very much defendable.

I you find that mediation of any sort is in order, you are very welcome to require it. Rama 11:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Feel free to request mediation. Indeed, feel free to revert my edit in its entirety if you want to (just go back in the article history, and make a tiny edit to the version you like). However, you will also have to defend your reasons for wanting to keep an article in a state that is a massive violation of Wikipedia's non-negotiable principle of NPOV, which I suggest you read before going any further. I have stated the reason for my edit, and already stated that I had tried to edit the previous article towards NPOV, but found the task impossible even after several tries. Please regard my move as a good-faith attempt to get the article back on track again, not to remove all previous material. -- The Anome 11:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hang on there, don't assume that this is all done in hostility. I don't think User:The Anome needs to be told the policies - he was an experienced Wikipedian when I started to edit, nearly two years ago. I have transferred the historical timeline in from the previous version. Charles Matthews 12:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles is right. Please don't assume that we are pro- or anti- Opus-Dei. Rather, Wikipedia is strongly pro-NPOV. The previous version of the article had a number of major defects:

• it was written entirely from a pro-Opus-Dei point of view, even to the names of the subheading titles
• much of the article was not about Opus Dei: rather, it interpreted Christianity from an Opus Dei point of view, including lengthy statements of doctrine which could have been more easily provided by adding a suitable web link at the end of the article. Indeed, it did so at such great length that more mundane matters about Opus Dei were relegated to minor details, which created, at least to my reader's eye, an impression of filibustering: overwhelming all other viewpoints by sheer mass of words.
• all concerns about Saint Josemaria and Franco, entryism, etc, were airbrushed out of existence (for example, the section on Franco is entitled Gross slander and myths.)

However, there was much useful material in that version which was suitable for use in creating a NPOV article: we seriously do want to write the best unbiased article possible on Opus Dei, and we are willing to work with members, non-members, supporters, ex-members and critics to do so.

-- The Anome 12:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

One of the problems with this article right now is people aren't honoring WP:AGF - some users are assuming others are Opus Dei cabal, some users are assuming the other users are anti-Opus Dei. AGF! :) Afterword^after-word 12:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

The secret of Opus Dei's work in society

Order from within. For those who keep on talking about the secrets of the Work, Escriva has this answer: "The secret of Opus Dei is prayer, and also work turned into prayer." If Christians are not men and women of deep interior life, souls of prayer and sacrifice, he warned the church officials who visited him during the Second Vatican Council, then instead of putting society and the family in order, they will just add their own disorder to the disorder that is already there. (Berglar 1994, p. 248) This is the same teaching indicated by John Paul II in Novo Millennio Ineunte as regards how to reach the goal of holiness: "a training in the art of prayer."

Overcoming the greatest temptation. This in turn is echoed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he reflected on the importance of Opus Dei and Escriva: "This, for me, is a message of greatest importance. It is a message which leads to overcoming what could be considered the great temptation of our times: the pretense, that is, that after the "big bang" God retired from history. God's action did not stop at the moment of the "big bang", but continues throughout time in the world of nature and the world of man...."

What holiness is. "Holiness is this profound contact with God, becoming a friend of God: it is letting the Other work, the Only One who can really make the world both good and happy. And if, then, Josemaría Escrivá speaks of the calling of all to be saints, I think that he is actually referring to this personal experience of his of not having done incredible things by himself, but of having let God work..."

Uninterrupted conversation. "From all this I have better understood the inner character of Opus Dei, this surprising union of absolute fidelity to the Church's great tradition, to its faith, and unconditional openness to all the challenges of this world, whether in the academic world, in the field of work, or in matters of the economy, etc. The person who is bound to God, who has this uninterrupted conversation, can dare to respond to these challenges, and no longer has fear. For the person who stands in God's hands always falls into God's hands. And so fear vanishes, and in its place is born the courage to respond to today's world." [1]

--06:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Revising

I've done a good deal of revising, taking out glosses and excessve quotes and pious locutions. I've moved some stuff around, like putting endorsements as part of the history and membership as part of the structure. I've taken out the headings which were badly reverential and pro-OD. One thing I really like about the article is that it doesn't have a criticisms section but addresses criticisms organically. It talks about the doctrine of OD and then about objections to that doctrine. It talks about the demands made on members and then about how those demands may be excessive or cultic. It talks about the members political and charitable activities and then about how those are seen as right wing or reactionary campaigning. So take a look around soak it in and see if you can make changes that you think improve it, rather than just reverting.--Samuel J. Howard 07:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Samuel, for working on the massive task of revising the Opus Dei article towards NPOV. I hope the various versions of this article will meet in the middle to create an excellent and well-polished NPOV article. -- The Anome 09:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not yet familiar enough with the content to have a definite opinion on the right way to go. I do think it would be an idea to move some of the personal teaching to Josemaría Escrivá. I think that is quite appropriate, and would also help in shaping this page. Charles Matthews 07:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teaching of Escriva = Opus Dei

Um, not appropriate at all. The teaching of Escriva=Opus Dei. As the founder he was responsible for formulating their charism. According to Catholic polity, they are responsible for keeping it up and are judged by how closely he followed it. We're not talking about a founder like Charles Boremmeo who was also a Bishop and did other things, Escrivas work and teaching is embodied in the doctirne of OD.--Samuel J. Howard 09:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, could the basis for that equation be made more explicit? For example it says currently The teachings of Opus Dei are essentially the doctrines of Roman Catholic Christianity transmitted and imbibed by ordinary working people. Which would need to be reconciled with your formulation. Charles Matthews 09:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, I saw that sentence and had to think about it and come back to it. Changed now. The point is that within the broad range of acceptable Catholic practices OD is not outside the boundaries. It is still distinct within them. The Cardinals and the Padres are different, but their both still baseball teams. As for JE=OD, we'll try another metaphor Margaret Thatcher is Thatcherism (except that Catholic religious movements are usually not named after their founders).--Samuel J. Howard 10:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, instead of cluttering this article, those bits and pieces (or most of the old version of the article) could/should go to WikiSource - there it does not have to be NPOV, and can be a long as it wants to be. It would make refering to it from this article soemwhat easier, too, and we could keep this article both free of what essentially seems to be unattributed quotes of the OD, and NPOV. -- AlexR 08:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a very good way to go indeed. Rama 08:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peter Berglar

Dr. Peter Berglar's works are extensively quoted as a source in this article. Question: is Dr. Berglar an Opus Dei member or supporter? -- Karada 09:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that he is a German academic and biographer of the founder. Charles Matthews 10:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I just got back on line. Had to rush to an out of town work after I wrote the "discuss or ask for mediation" plea.

First, let me echo The Anome's thanks to Samuel Howard for his revision work. It takes an experienced writer to do the revision.

Second, thanks to those who assumed good faith behind the recent edits made on this article. We are new in this work and full of enthusiasm, but at the same time totally with the npov policy of this encyclopedia. That is why I was shocked when the copy of the npov policy was removed and it was supposed to aid any rational objective discussion on this controversial article. The actual policy says that: (1) there should be no equal validity and space to all viewpoints, (2) experts's view determine space and importance but (3)at the same time criticisms have to be written and researched on. Some work on #3 was done since Marax's assessment (see above): that is why I can't understand why there is still an impression that the cult section was removed when in fact is the single longest paragraph (in terms of number of lines) in the whole article. I suppose Samuel's removal of other subheadings (mass of words) solved that misimpression. But I do intend to help researching on the criticisms.

Third, am happy to see everyone's concern for producing the best article on this topic based on npov, a concern which I hope also refers to the npov policy that the article has to be based on what the experts have to say, and not what the media or popular opinion, or our own biases tell us. The npov policy says that the "trick" is to research on what the experts say then cite these. This is what this article has been doing, but going through the usual learning curve of beginners.

Fourth, I will write some more comments later on what the experts have to say, some other comments made here (e.g. transfer of quotes), etc. Lafem 13:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JE=OD=Christianity for people in the world

1. As regards the Escriva quotes, I'd go for the point raised by Samuel Howard: JE=OD as Margaret Thatcher=Thatcherism, with all due respect to those who think otherwise. The OD organization sees him and his words as the embodiment of its culture. In theology, his words are supposed to show the "charism" of the institution he founded. Just to prove this, the Church officials used Escriva’s own writings and rulebook for the Vatican's Particular Law Concerning Opus Dei.

Also,his words can add literary spice to an otherwise boring article. His basic writing technique is the "aphorism," short sentences which describe what he wants to explain. Lastly but very importantly, those aphorisms do give very important intellectual insights into the organization itself, its environment, style, culture.

That's why if the concern is about un-attributed sentences, then I will add the citations for them. If the concern is npov, then the explanation is this: Escriva is the basic expert about Opus Dei; if what he says is corroborated by other experts, then his words are totally in line with the npov policy of this encylopedia. If the concern is that some of these do not explain anything, then I'd strike those sentences out, if there is proof that they are meaningless. If there is any objection to this way of proceeding, please say it here.

2. Changes made on the teachings section.

The main argument raised is that the teaching section contained an interpretation of Christianity with lengthy doctrinal statements, rather than a discussion on what Opus Dei is all about.

This is how I would explain this matter (which Samuel somehow defended through the je=od equation.) My explanation: The mission of Opus Dei is precisely to remind ALL Christians about the universal call to holiness. Thus, (a) it's main message and the bulk of its system is directed towards explaining that Christianity itself has the internal mechanism to make this happen for those living in the secular sphere thus the discussion on the seven main features of the teachings (b) Here I'd differ with Samuel: since these teachings are supposedly for all Christians, we will have to bring back the word "Christian" in that section, a word which was replaced by "members", if we want to be factually accurate with the existing information about Opus Dei, (c) I'd also bring back the paragraph on divine filiation, because Escriva and all those who have studied OD say that this is the "foundation" of the OD teaching on Christianity. For analysts, they consider it some sort of hermeneutical key to understand OD.

The main problem I think behind the complaints about this article, from what I've seen so far, is what Samuel called reverential titles and pious locutions. This problem, which is a problem of "tone" and titling, is a big bulk of the neutrality issue.

So with everyone's permission, I'd try to rewrite parts of the teachings section with a more neutral tone, and get some citations from experts on the relationship of Opus Dei and Christian or Church teaching. Kindly correct the tone if it gets too one-sided. Lafem 04:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think NPOV is, in the end, attainable here. Sources are always helpful. There is still a question in my mind on how to make this more accessible to ordinary readers - our entirely lay audience. For example, 'doctrinal formation' is a technical term. Charles Matthews 07:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. I've also been thinking of that. The best layman's word to my mind is training (will change that now). And your point re keeping in mind the ordinary reader is an important key to attaining the neutral tone that the article lacks. Lafem 02:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reporting back

I have already done many edits: 1. addition of two additional sections on criticisms (mission, teaching, structure) 2. development of criticism section on secrecy 3. addition of over-all statement in introduction that opus dei is considered as one of the most controversial orgs in catholic church 4. adding of phrases to ensure npov tone in pro-opus dei sentences 5. added citations to escriva quotes 6. removed some escriva quotes 7. Lastly, I have restructured a bit the first sections to explain more clearly what I said above--od was established precisely to remind all christians of the univ call to holiness.

Please give feedback, if there is any more thing that should be done to remove the totally disputed template. Lafem

Reverted

I've reverted, I was going to try to roll back some of these things individually, but it was giving me a headache. Why all the rearrangement? Also, the attempted NPOVing resulted in some very odd suggestions that historical facts which could be considered favorable were now suggested to be "just the opinion of historians". We don't write "historians say that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 1863". The history of an organization (except for an organization that no longer exists) is less important than it's mission and ideas. The way the article was rearranged deprecated the nature of the organization in favor of its history.--Samuel J. Howard 20:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change the template to NPOV disputed, I don't think there are signigant factual disputes. If there are it can be put back.--Samuel J. Howard 20:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, Samuel, thanks for changing template to npov disputed.

You are right that the phrase "historians say" is quite awkward. I didn't put it in the original but out of fear that papragraph will be seen again as pov, I placed it there.

As regards the rearrangement, please try to understand it, by re-reading it without the phrase "historians say". The history portion is deliberately very short, just the foundational portion which throws some light on the very nature of the the organization: based on a calling, divinely inspired, grounded on human collaboration and prayer, it started in space and time ("incarnate Christianity", like the phrase "he died under pontius pilate" in the creed), it is personal and not abstract.

From there the discussion on the mission as confirmed by the Pope flows in. Also the Pope officially confirms its divine character. An important connection so that Escriva does not come out alone giving self-testimony.

From the mission (catechetical and formative), the teachings flow in, then the criticism on its mission and teachings.

Please take time to "soak it in" as you said. And I ask you to revert it back with the changes that you think are necessary. I find the research on the criticisms important for npov status. I was just trying to copy the pattern you set by making the criticism come out clearly as sub-headings. Thanks. Lafem 02:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

suggested quote

Samuel, since there seems to be acceptance that Escriva is the basic expert on Opus Dei (Thatcher for Thatcherism, as you very well said), I suggest that we put between the first paragraph history and the jpii ut sit quote, an explanation from the originator himself --who knows the charism --what he knows about Opus Dei's nature. (Its great that you are using this term). Something like:

What did he see? This is what the founder himself said about Opus Dei's purpose:

The Work was born to help those Christians, who through their family, their friendships, their ordinary work, their aspirations, form part of the very texture of civil society, to understand that their life, just as it is, can be an opportunity for meeting Christ: that it is a way of holiness and apostolate...If you want to follow Christ...,there is no need to leave the world...You don't even need to take up an ecclesiastical activity...Since God wants the majority of Christians to remain in secular activities and to sanctify the world from within, the purpose of Opus Dei is to help them discover their divine mission, showing them that their human vocation — their professional, family and social vocation — is not opposed to their supernatural vocation. On the contrary, it is an integral part of it.

The one and only mission of Opus Dei is the spreading of this message, which comes from the Gospel...And to those who grasp this ideal of holiness, the Work offers the spiritual assistance and the doctrinal, ascetical and apostolic training which they need to put it into practice. [2]

The paragraph that follows from here, the jpii prelature decision and confirmation follow the logic that the hierarchy is here to serve (ministrare) and to evaluate the charism. Lafem

It's pretty long isn't it?--Samuel J. Howard 19:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Insert criticisms

I think it will be good to insert criticisms on Opus Dei's mission and teachings. The step by step flow proposed seems logical enough. Origins manifest nature: dogs produce puppies. I think, though, that the proposed quote is too long. Just cut some portions in the middle and it will be alright. Marax 10:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree to putting in the foundational account with the mission. By doing this we can also cut the long section on Summary of Opus Dei's Teachings. Mission is not a teaching anyway. Teaching follows mission. R Davidson 08:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No to dubious sources

Am not favor of putting the criticisms ala hutchinson and walsh--OD as org lusting for power and money. That's trash, from tabloids. It's like putting Osama's discourses on the article regarding American democracy. Jimbo Wales wrote that we should not quote non-credible or dubious sources as part of NPOV policy. Da Vinci code section should be enough to take care of this angle. I'm ok with Hans Ur criticism section on JE teachings. It's an intellectually satisfying discussion. As regards, nature issue, just remember the four causes in philo: final cause (mission), formal cause, material cause and efficient cause (origins). R Davidson 07:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• sounds right. I suppose Estruch's Saints and Schemers can be put in the criticism section. He is a director of a sociology department of cataluna. 202.78.106.114 08:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

shorter quote

ok, ok, understood. It’s pretty long. How about this?

The Work was born to help those Christians who…form part of the very texture of civil society to understand that their life…is a way of holiness and apostolate…The one and only mission of Opus Dei is the spreading of this message which comes from the Gospel…

And to those who grasp this ideal of holiness, the Work offers the spiritual assistance and the doctrinal, ascetical and apostolic training which they need to put it into practice….

I've also found this quote from the Statutes to make the "double purpose" of opus dei given by the vatican more precise. It will be the vatican "confirmation" of the the twofold goal seen in the escriva quote:

1) to sanctify its own faithful by means of the exercise of the Christian virtues, each one in their own state, profession and condition of life, in accord with Opus Dei’s spirituality which is totally secular.

2) to bring about that persons from all walks of life in civil society (first of all, those in the intellectual professions) may adhere wholeheartedly to the teachings of Christ the Lord, and that they may put into practice these teachings in the middle of the world, by sanctifying their professional work, so that all things will be put in order according to the Will of the Creator; and to form men and women to do apostolate in civil society. (Statutes of the Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei; Codex iuris particularis Operis Dei, 2.1 and 2.2; See Fuenmayor 1994, p. 610-611)

This latter one is also long but if we are to produce a serious encyclopedia article these official sources, especially on something as core as the vatican stated mission should be quoted as is. ok, samuel what do you think? Lafem 02:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Falange was NOT Franco's political party

Quote

"Falangists, Franco's political organization"

Falange was not Franco's political party by any means. He absorbed it into his political structure after the war, and they eventually had internal breakdowns and the like. It's very weird that considering the usual levelof Wikipedia's historical articles, those related to the Spanish Civil war almost always contain grave mistakes.

Interesting article, anyway.

PS: My first contribution to a Wikipedia discussion :)

• "After Franco seized power, he united Falange with the Carlist Monarchist Comunión Tradicionalista, forming Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS (FET de las JONS)." If you look at it from this POV (from the Falange-Article), it was his party after all (as he was dictator of the whole of Spain only after the civil war) --SoWhy 14:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The irrelevance of The DaVinci Code

I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.

A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.

--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That section does not belong here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think an earlier, concise version of this section should be reinstated. It was amplified for no particularly good purpose. Charles Matthews 18:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cilice

Someone added that the cilice is almost exclusively used by Opus Dei. He probably has not visited any monasteries where nuns sell cilices of many types and sizes: for the waist, for the shoulders, for the legs, etc.

I corrected this.

Please cite your sources

To the person who wrote, "The fact that no fewer than 12 of the 19 ministers in Franco's 1969 cabinet belonged to Opus Dei is evidence of the organization's penetration into the highest echelons of Spain's Fascist regime" kindly cite your sources, so the statement can be checked. Your statement is presently contradicted by the research done by Vittorio Messori, an independent investigator. His conclusion is that the ministers who were members of OD all in all never went beyond 8 throughout Franco’s regime. So to have 16 at a given moment does not jive with this datum. R Davidson 11:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Article reduction; creation of other mini-articles

I am toying around with the idea of creating other articles to reduce the size of this one (now at 65 kb). I will need help though in choosing the right titles, choosing the right sections for the mini-articles, while leaving behind a short discussion on it.

Possible sections to transfer and reduce:

1) Allegations of far-right links (this is very long) New Article Title could be: Opus Dei and Allegations of Far-right Links 2) Canonization of the founder. This might have to go to the Escriva Article. 3) Timeline of Opus Dei's History (same title) 4) Allegations of cult status (this is also very long) New Article Title: Opus Dei and Allegations of Being a Cult)

Of course, people might also prefer to keep all of these sections as they presently are. R Davidson 04:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• No objections to the transfer. May I suggest that you leave a short discussion on the founder's canonization. Lafem 13:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Great idea. Perhaps we can isolate some of the conflicts that way. (Maybe get the main article undisputed someday!) --Samuel J. Howard 02:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Revert - Episcopal Ordination is an important indicator of the Geographical Influence of Opus Dei in the World

The additional information on ordinations of bishops is not important nor relevant per se to Opus Dei as an organization. They may be important for the people individually.

I disagree - this information is important as it shows the geographical extent and influence of the personal prelature in the world and how it co-exists in other diocesan territories and particular churches. I am reverting your reversion. Also, if you plan to make edits, IP 210.213.226.242, will you be so kind as to identify yourself? Aloysius Patacsil 18:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The intent of showing the geographical influence of Opus Dei is good. However, an alternative method of doing it has to be sought. I agree with the comment of Mr/Ms Anonymous. These ordinations are like career moves of these individual members. It is like putting in the history timeline the appointment of Mr. OD member in Paraguay as general manager of a rural bank and the hiring of Ms So and So as fashion model for X Agency in Japan. Remember also that the source from the Catholic Hierarchy website refers to the bishops as "Affiliated Bishops." May I suggest that the timeline of ordinations be transferred to the article on Opus Dei Prominent Members. R Davidson 00:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, R. Davidson. As you may note in the comments above, the personal prelature does its work in a humble and nonobtrusive fashion. As such, outside of the ocassional press release from the Prelature, there is a paucity of information regarding its membership and activities. I will work in the next several days on trying to broker a compromise between your suggestions and my desire to monitor objectively their presence in the world. Thank you kindly for your suggestion and patience. Aloysius Patacsil 03:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Very well, Aloysius. Thank you too for understanding. As you can see in the discussion above on article reduction and mini-articles, there seems to be a consensus to transfer the timeline, leave a very short one, and create mini-articles. I suppose we just have to keep the very basic highlights of Opus Dei History in the timeline that will remain. You are most welcome to add and enrich the section on Prominent Members or even perhaps try to write another article on Opus Dei and its Geographical Reach. That'll be great. (By the way, are you Filipino or Fil-American, if you don't mind my asking. Anyway, you don't have to answer. It's your pseudonym that reminds me of Filipinos.) :-) R Davidson 08:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also, I don't mind you asking about my background, I am part Filipino on my mother's side. I grew up speaking English and can understand spoken Tagalog, but cannot speak it. Aloysius Patacsil :-) 02:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar clean-up

I fixed a few clunky bits and added a few obvious links to other Wiki pages because I was reading the document and just couldn't help myself. The use of citations and links to other documents on this page is horribly inconsistent.

Thanks to you from everyone who have been helping out here. Please continue trying to find more time to help edit it. R Davidson 09:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Transfer of section on Support of Popes to remove "propaganda" flavor

After the encouraging comment of Samuel, I now also intend to transfer the Support of the Popes Section to a new article called Opus Dei and Catholic Church Leaders. I suppose this section is one of those parts which make people think that this is a propaganda piece of Opus Dei. I will leave behind shorter quotes in the Novelty of Doctrine Section. R Davidson 09:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)