Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2010

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

NPOV on Pop Culture

There's a definite bias in the Pop Culture section. Personally, I neither like Opus Dei or the Dan Brown book, but the section leans heavily towards Opus Dei support and "debunking" a fictional story. Also, it lacks any other references in popular culture. I couldn't give any examples, but I've seen Opus Dei show up numerous times.76.179.235.134 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other references in popular (and middle-brow) culture. Two come to mind: The title character's prelate in Graham Greene's Monsignor Quixote is associated with Opus Dei; and the mother of the Antonio Banderas character in Almodovar's Matador is a member. In both of these texts, the characterisation of Opus Dei is negative. In the first instance, excessive dogmatism is imputed; in the second, Opus Dei's influence is seen in the protagonist's extreme sense of guilt.

degreezero 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? The Popular culture section is so biased I have never seen anything like it! Under The DaVinci Code it pretty much debunks it. The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction, no need for propaganda. I don't know much about Opus Dei, and I assumed that a lot of the points in the DaVinci code were just there for a good story. Now seeing this article I know at least one thing. Obviously Opus Dei is not an organization that wants to allow the honest information gathering. Let people make up their own mind. No one is saying don't express your opinions, but the time and place must be correct. The Pop Culture Section is not for your opinions on the correctness. Its just a place to list where the thing appears in Popular culture. There is no space to give a for and against list for every entry. Its just making Opus Dei look bad to be so zealous. If you put an against opinion, it must be balanced pointing out all the possible ways the Davinci Code could be correct. No doubt the history is not accurate, but a lot of the opinions given hold a grain of truth. I think this wiki article proves that Opus Dei is very protective of its reputation, and willing to suppress the views of others in an unfair way. Also,many reputable scholars believe that Mary Madalene and Jesus had a relationship. I don't think its true, but I don't really think anyone knows given the info we have. This, however, is not the place for that debate, so lets just not have any opinions under the entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't think that debunking a myth constitutes an unfair bias towards Opus Dei. That the DaVinci Code misportrays Opus Dei is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. And since the purpose of the article is to convey facts, there's no problem. Pianoman123 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) The point is not the accuracy of" the DaVinCi code". Its a portrayal in the popular media. Its a work of fiction, so it is not held to any standard. Th point is it exists, and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.228.218 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Exactly. If you want to have a pro and con opinion page under it, then I guess we can, but it has to be both. ,,

I am immediately removing the statement that " The alleged misdeeds of Opus Dei are all the myths furthered by their opponents". Im sure that some of their "misdeed" are indeed conjecture, but unless we are talking about a specific accusation, this is not a statement of fact. If someone wants to put up a case for some specific thing they were accused of, go right ahead. Otherwise, leave that statement OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the fifth paragraph of the introduction has a cleverly hidden, unreferenced biased interjection.

"Members and people who have knowledge of Opus Dei activities however agree that this is not the truth."

There is no citation for this statement and it's clearly someone's opinion. In my opinion, this entire article leans way too much to the side of justifying Opus Dei to not be tagged; however, I am new to editing anything in Wikipedia and don't know how to tag it as biased. If someone would like to explain this to me or do it themselves I'd be appreciative. Jjm340 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the problematic statement. It looked like a not-so-neat vandalism to me. The present balance of biases was established after years of tug-o-war. A slight vandalism can tilt the precarious balance towards one side. Thanks for bringing it up. Lafem (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglican Church

From what I can understand, Opus Dei regards the Anglican Church not as a Church at all, but as a mere "ecclesial community". I think that this is based on something said by Cardinal Ratzinger before he was made Pope. Yet Pope Paul VI referred to the Anglican Church as, "our beloved sister Church". Are we to believe that Paul VI was wrong? Millbanks 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And this has what to do with the article? Please find a different forum for Pope bashing. IrishGuy ^talk 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the expressed opinions of Opus Dei, which is what the article is about. The article is very pro Opus Dei biased as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pope Bashing"??!! Come now, Pope Paul VI referred to the Anglicans as "our beloved sister church". That's certainly a point in his favour. And why would anyone want to bash him for that? Certainly I wouldn't. If you think that as a member of the Church of Ireland I am anti-Roman Catholic, you are very wrong. Here in the South, and to an increasing extent in the North, our two churches enjoy cordial relations - thank God. As for the relevance of my point, see below. Millbanks 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally to what IrishGuy wrote, where is the reference for your claim Opus Dei regards the Anglican Church not as a Church at all? -- Túrelio 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This was from a letter I saw in The (London) Times when I was in England in the late nineties. I took it up with Opus Dei by e-mail and they confirmed it. When I asked about Pope Paul VI's comments, I did not get a reply. Would you like me to contact them again?Millbanks 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Opus Dei's take on the Anglican Church is not relevant to this article, since Opus Dei does not have any doctrine other than the Catholic Church's and the Pope's. This discussion would better be placed in Roman Catholic Church. :-) Walter Ching 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But I have in fact contacted Opus Dei about this. Let's see how they reply. Millbanks 08:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)83.71.86.115 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't help as it violates WP:NOR if it's not published elsewhere. -- Túrelio 08:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the letter to The Times WAS published. But you are right. The reply I got was that, "We follow what the Pope says". When I asked if that included Paul VI, I repeat, I did not get an answer. I'm not sure if the RC Church has formally invalidated what Paul VI said. Certainly the quote has disappeared from the Ampleforth Collge website, where it was used in relation to the school's Anglican pupils. It is also a valid point that this discussion might be better placed on the RC discussion page, but I raised it here since I learnt of it via a letter from Opus Dei. Millbanks 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, better shift discussion to RCC page. Cabanes 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Opus Dei, not at all to my surprise, have failed to reply to my e-mail, I'm happy for this to be shifted to wherever. Millbanks 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It now looks as if Pope Benedict has answered my question. We "are not a church in the proper sense", he tells us. I wonder if Pius VI was aware of this. Millbanks 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Pius VI was aware. I think he just was speaking non-technically and charitably. In Lumen Gentium, which was a document of Vatican II which he presided over, the distinction was already made in paragraph 15 between "Churches" and "Ecclesiastical Communities".Toddev (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Churches have valid orders due to apostolic succession, see Coptic, Armenian or Orthodox churches. The Anglican Church is not recognised by the Catholic Church as having apostolic succession, thus they lack valid orders and therefore the sacraments. The sacraments are an elementary part of what it is to be a Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.155.52 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)