Jump to content

Talk:Controversies about Opus Dei/Archive 2006-1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOPV

This article is really a list of complaints without any citations or references. It does not give a sense of what the different sides in the disputes are on any of the issues that are discussed. What's happened to NPOV????


This article is about the opposition to Opus Dei. You can see some references:

In english:


About corporal mortification

Writings of ex members

Recent Articles and Programs about Opus Dei

A lot of resources

Mond.at/Opus.Dei (The Unofficial Homepage) Many sources and links

Beyond the Threshold A Life in Opus Dei By Maria del Carmen Tapia Former numerary, Chapter One

Bibliographic Guide or Opus Dei's Index In spanish

About corporal mortification

Religious Movements Homepage: Opus Dei University of Virginia

Government, Direction and Control in Opus Dei By Dennis Dubro, former numerary

Making Modern-Day Martyrs using Medieval Methods by Sharon Clasen, Former Numerary

Voluntaristic Obedience by Dennis Dubro

Writings of ex members

Recent Articles and Programs about Opus Dei

Mond.at/Opus.Dei («The Unofficial Homepage» — by a communist) Many sources and links

Bibliographic Guide or Opus Dei's Index

Seventeen years in Opus Dei by Dennis Rubro ex member and ex director.

Deception and drugs in Opus Dei by former numerary Maria

Moncada, Alberto, Catholic Sects: Opus Dei, Revista Internacional de Sociología, Madrid, 1992 by a former numerary

Roche, John, The Inner World of Opus Dei, 1982 by a former numerary

My Basic Human Rights Were Violated by a former assistant numerary Tammy di Nicola

I Was Shocked by Hidden Agendas Behind Opus Dei "Service Projects, 1993, former numerary Gonzales, Joseph,

Talking Points - Obedience in Opus Dei, 2003 (former numerary)

The vocation trap by Joseph I. B. Gonzales, former numerary, six years


In Spanish:

Index of forbidden books

Internal docs of Opus Dei

The Opus Libros website contains over 500 testimonies and books written by former numerary members of Opus Dei and others.

Tapia, Mª del Carmen Tras el umbral, una vida en el Opus Dei (Un viaje al fanatismo).Ed. B

de Armas, Isabel Ser mujer en el Opus Dei.Foca

E.B.E. (18 de mayo de 2005) La Obra como enfermedad (y a veces mortal)

Azanza, Ana. (2004)Diecinueve años de mi vida caminando en una mentira: OPUS DEI El olivo

E.B.E. (2004) La ‘Santa Extorsión’

Walsh, Michael El mundo secreto del Opus Dei Plaza & Janes

Guía para padres sobre el Opus Dei J. Garvey (extracto)

J. corbiere, Emilio Opus Dei: El Totalitarismo Catolico. Ed. Sudamericana ISBN: 9500722755[1]


Do you need anything else?

--85.57.7.114 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reliability van validity of the testimonies of apostates is a complicated and controversial subject and should not be simplified here by selectively using quotes from the main article "apostasy". That is why I gave the section a neutrality warning. Andries 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point Andries. The only thing I can say is that this article is not a discussion of apostasy per se or about cults per se. It is an allegation and response article on Opus Dei. As a solution, may I propose that we to add in the allegations section some things which counter the selected quotes in the response section. You may choose them and I will check. Marax 07:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be all allegations (many highly tendentious) and no rebuttals. Does this really have a place in an encyclopedia of fact?--Westminsterboy 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Restoration of vandalised material has helped to restore some balance, though neither pro nor anti can claim lack of bias.--Westminsterboy 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning these NPOV tags, please note that Andries, does not like generalizations made against apostates only because he is one, and his belief that these statements by scholars challenge his own victimization narrative (that maybe truthful and sincere, but that is not the issue here as we are not judging his sincerity.) By his own admission: "[...] I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject [apostasy in cults] because I am an ex-cult member and I hate to be called a liar with regards to a very difficult experience of my life that I tried to tell in an accurate, factual way to others."[2]. So, these NPOV tags are not about Opus Dei, but about Andries himself. We have to understand and see that in almost all religions, and more evidently in non-mainstream religions, the role/allegations/narratives of critical leavers is consistently the same: a demonization of their former devotion or belief and their leaders. Note that I am not judging if they are right or wrong, but these are proven facts. In an article dedicated to the criticsm of Opus Dei, in particular to the POV of by a minority of critical leavers, a presentation of the motives, actions and psychology of the critics as discussed by scholars, are actually bringing this article closer to NPOV, and not the other way around as claimed by Andries.--ZappaZ 03:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the general sections - they are already covered thoroughly in article Apostasy and as generalizations are off-topic in this article. Here we deal with Opus Dei, not with general cult issues. I also removed the "fan-description" of Wilson by Introvigne - not NPOV. There exists lots of material referring precisely to Opus Dei and that's what should be used here, not repetitions of generalizations. Irmgard 07:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
No problems. If your attitude is of being bold and take unilateral decisions about excising text from the article that you consider irrelevant, I am doing the same. I have removed the list of allegations, and kept a short stub referring to the apostate organization.--ZappaZ 14:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Your unilateral style of deleting text because it does not fit your POV, is IMO, exasperating, unfair and unacceptable. Reverted. --ZappaZ 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That's not collaboration for a better article, Zappaz - just reverting without even reading the discussion (there's a lot more below)
The text I deleted regarding former members is text which is already detailed in the encyclopedia in a attributed NPOV form showing all opinions - it can be linked and is then one click away. What has been deleted here, is a one-sided repetition of your POV - and I did not delete it because it's not my POV, but because it is already in Wikipedia and the way it is written here is not according to Wikipedia rules. In this article, people what to read about Opus Dei, not general cult/no cult questions - which should be linked). What belongs here regarding the value of testimonies are attributed statements precisely referring to Opus Dei or former Opus Dei members.
I did invest a lot of work by exactly attributing allegations and finding references for them, I also started to sort out the theology part, to get it up to encyclopedia standards, but there are some paras where I could not find the reference or did not understand the context, so I moved them here (see below) that they can be improved. And it would be better for the article, to invest work to actual improvements which are very necessary instead of calling names. --Irmgard 07:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-cult organisations section

This section is factually innacurate and POV:

Some of the foremost professional cult research organisations like The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) and The Rick A. Ross Institute (RRI) have classified Opus Dei as a cult. With this, Opus Dei is in the same list as the Al-Qaeda, Wicca, Waco Davidians, Charismatic Pentecostals, Legionaries of Christ, Amway, Multi-level Marketing, etc. [9] Formerly called American Family Foundation, ICSA was founded in 1974 by parents who were concerned about their children who joined what they perceived as cults. These organizations are part of the anti-cult movement, which obtained an important victory when a Belgian Parliamentary Commission Report of the 28th of April 1997 officially classified Opus Dei as a sect.
  1. The Rick Ross institute and ICSA are not "foremost professional cult research organizations". That is POV.
  2. The inclusion of Opus Dei in the Rick Ross website does not mean that Ross considers them a cult. Read the disclaimer in Ross's website.
  3. The Belgian and French reports have been challenged widely as creating an atmosphere of anti-religious bias in these countries. Either you remove the specious comment, or add crticism againt these reports.

My suggested NPOV version:

Anti-cult organisations such as The International Cultic Studies Association (formerly the American Family Foundation) and the Rick A. Ross Institute (see Rick Ross) have included Opus Dei in their list of groups of interest. The Belgian Parliamentary Commission Report of the 28th of April 1997 officially classified Opus Dei as a sect. See Cults and governments: Belgium.
I removed the section - it is off-topic in this article. The groups should be mentioned with the allegations they make, not in a separate section. Irmgard 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I went over the allegations and linked them with exact references - on the other hand I shortened the one-sentence quotes of former members which are a bit "general mudslinging".

Regarding Wilson - what Introvigne says qualifies as Peacock term - I could not find what Wilson actually said. If there is a reference regarding Opus Dei from him, it can, of course, be taken up here.

What remains to be done, is referencing the Opus Dei Theology section - which also could be a bit shortened, there is much there which is just general agreeable remarks and quite some repetitions (e.g. Benedict XVI). --Irmgard 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Ratzinger

Could someone please sort this out with the reference used - what is quoted, what is omitted, what is said about Ratzinger, about Escriva, what's Ratzinger speaking, what's Escriva, etc. Best would be, to formulate Ratzingers idea in one's own words. As it is, I have some problems to get who is saying what in which context. --Irmgard 20:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The logic behind becoming "another Christ, Christ himself" is rooted in the following premises: Christians believe that (1) they are creatures whose substratum is nothingness; now they have the dignity of children of God in Christ, (2) Christ is the living God (their Intelligent Creator, All-comprehensive Sustainer, Sole Satisfier: I AM WHO AM himself who became a man), (3) Christ is their loving Savior ("Christ died for you. You...what should you do for Christ?" Escriva asks in a key aphorism), and (4) as Ratzinger says about Escriva's thought: "This Christ who is alive is also a Christ who is near, a Christ in whom the power and majesty of God make themselves present through ordinary, simple, human things."

And here: Who is saying that about Escriva? Does Benedict XVI refer to Escriva in those quotes? Please sort this out (and quote him only once with the same quote, if possible...) --Irmgard 20:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

The Christ-centered theology of Escriva also brought him to demand zealous apostolate from all Christians. Benedict XVI has reiterated this: "Anyone who has discovered Christ must lead others to him. A great joy cannot be kept to oneself. It has to be passed on," says Benedict XVI at the World Youth Day of August 2005 in Cologne. [3] He also told the youth: Christianity is "not a burden: it's like having wings." [4]

Lastly, Benedict XVI tells the youth: Christianity is "not a burden: it's like having wings." [5]

Context ?

Where is the original? What is the misunderstanding referred to? --Irmgard 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the roots of the misunderstanding, Opus Dei officials and supporters claim, is a miseducation on the Christian calling. The Catechism (no. 2253; 2232) says: "Parents must remember and teach that the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus: 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.' (Mt 10:37)" (italics in the original)

Catholic officials and supporters say that a basic reason why people, even Christians, misconstrue zealous apostolate for cultic behavior is that for centuries not only was the universal call to holiness forgotten, but also the universal call to apostolate: "The Christian vocation by its very nature is a vocation to the apostolate." (CCC 863 [6]). "Anyone who has discovered Christ must lead others to him. A great joy cannot be kept to oneself. It has to be passed on," says Benedict XVI at the World Youth Day of August 2005 in Cologne. [7]

Jenkins

What is the context of the Jenkins quote? Is it from his book - and in an Opus Dei context? Anti-Catholicism in general is not the subject here, we have another article for that. I checked the index of the book - Opus Dei is mentioned on one single page of 300, so it's sure not a main subject. Or is the quote from someone else who relates it to Opus Dei - if yes, who? --Irmgard 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Theology general

Statements of Opus Dei which counter the allegations should be included (actually those are mostly missing so far, there have just been a lot of general statements on theology which no one disputes. The allegations are not regarding theology but regarding cultic behavior and the few things said about that are not attributed (it's a difference if something is said by the pope or a speaker of Opus Dei). --Irmgard 07:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Irmgard

Thanks for the thorough analysis of this section, Irmgard. You are correct in stating that many points in the Opus Dei response do not have attributions. You might say that the main source is Cardinal Schonborn's article. It is a very good and it is a pity it has not been used fully. I will have to read it more thoroughly to see what are the best quotes or ideas to use. Feel free to do it yourself first, if you wish. We can collaborate. Marax 10:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Today I reordered the critique - it was focusing almost exclusively on the cult issues and former members, which is sure not the only controversy around Opus Dei, so I added some to round the picture a bit off (Küng and Martin are nice contrasts among the critics ;-) ). I did not delete any critique, just reordered it and adapted the intro to match the contents. I think it is important to show the critique as it is, especially in view of the fantastic daVinci allegations (maybe we should add a section on that, too - sort of that this is refuted by critics and supporters alike - we'd just need a ref for it). --Irmgard 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename article

How about "Opus Dei Controversies" as title? --Irmgard 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Great work. The only problem I have now (aside from having no time) is this: to lump in all controversies here (religious, political, doctrine, cult, misogyni, etc.) might be repeating the main article, most of it is an allegation and response.

There is also a subpage on the political issue, for info. And there is also a subpage on Opus Dei's teachings which can also contain opposition. So perhaps, just a perhaps, we should limit this article to opposition to Opus Dei religious practices to distinguish it from the other two sub-articles. What do you think? Marax 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

After a closer look at the category, I think, it will need a general sort-out of all controversy articles and sections on Opus Dei.

Main controversies we have (some mentioned in great length, others hardly at all)

  • cultic behavior (includes aggressive recruitment, etc.)
  • elitism,
  • secrecy, conspiracy
  • right-wing politics,
  • (too) conservative theology (sometimes politics and theology are lumped together)

Articles we have:

  • Teachings of Opus Dei is indeed very apologetic (not NPOV) - the only critique mentioned is "less than scintillating" which is sure not the main problem critics see with Opus Dei ;-)
  • Opus Dei and allegations of involvement in far-right politics needs some sorting out of facts and fiction and needs to be referenced thoroughly - also it should not only concentrate on the thirties but also treat present-time controversies like Cipriano and should not equalize right-wing politics with fascism (Bush is sure right-wing but no fascist, to take a non-Catholic example). There's also the factor that right-wing politics and "right-wing" theology often are alleged and defended by the same people, e.g. Küng, but not only he - this also concerns the Peru controversy. in the US conservative Christians are pigeonholed on the right and liberals are pigeonholed on the left and many people in the English Wikipedia describe this as a general fact which it isn't in the rest of the world
  • Opus Dei in society lots of general remarks, a section on politics, a bit DaVinci, the elitism allegation, which would belong here, is not mentioned, critics usually not referenced, supporters often generalized (Catholic theologians etc.). Somewhere a "See sources of criticism" but neither link nor reference. Overall article neither fish nor fowl - what is its purpose? Treating critique summarily, preventing critique?
  • Josemaría Escrivá#Criticism no references for criticism - who is saying what
  • Opus Dei#Allegations of being a cult much too long for this article
  • Opus Dei#Opus Dei in society again much too long in view of there being another article
  • Opposition to Opus Dei cult question, politics, bit theology -

I still think a "controversies" article would be the better solutions than all those split-ups - it makes it easier to give the child a NPOV name (no one disputes that controversies exist), naming the problem (cult, fascism, etc.) in the title always gives a "shaded" impression. Moreover, all those articles to contain quite some redundancies, repetitions, etc. and if this is removed, the material should have a "readable" lenght. Also "one subject controversies" make it tempting to put all opposition into one bed, which is definitely not the case: Among the critics are liberal theologians, liberation theologians, Jesuits, former members, moderate Catholics who just pinpoint a few problems, and general cult watchers.

Steps (not necessarily in sequence)

  • Create sections regarding the five main controversy areas - one subsection critics one subsection supporters each
  • Describe the controversies shortly in the general article, link to the respective sections
  • Move the respective material into the respective (sub)sections
  • Move general non-controversial remarks into a non-controversial article (e.g. what John Paul II. said in general on Opus Dei into Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders), move material not pertinent to Opus Dei in respective articles
  • The supporter subsections should take up specific points alleged - if they want to mention general points like reputation of Opus Dei in the vatican, etc. they should mention it shortly and link to this information, not repeat it in full length.
  • The critics subsections should only take up what concerns Opus Dei, not cults in general, fundamentalism in general, etc. this stuff should be linked
  • Search for references, as needed, write an encyclopedial text from the collected materials

Not opposition-related To Do I found on the way (made a wikify link in both articles)

Lots of work to do...

--Irmgard 09:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph near the end: feel free to adjust or make comments. I think it is neccesary to finish the Cardinal Hume "story", as otherwise one could get the impression that he was very opposed to Opus Dei. An alternative to the new text might be to write instead that Hume’s successor, Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, entrusted a parish church to the care of Opus Dei in March 2005. But one or the other, I think, not both. Asoane 15:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hume sure was no hard-core opponent to Opus Dei. But could you please give the source for your contribution - that's usual here. --Irmgard 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Asoane, how about the old version which says something about Hume's good relations with the prelature, having celebrated Mass in one anniversary and praised Opus Dei? It can be dug up from the older versions. After this, you can then add the Cardinal Murphy decision to close the issue. Walter Ching 02:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I now think the best option is just to include those things for which there is a good published reference. So I have deleted some of the information about Hume. But I have retained the 1998 Mass of Cardinal Hume for the 70th anniversary of Opus Dei (source: Catholic Herald, 9 October 1998), and have added the parish in Westminster which rounds the story off (source: The Times, 16 April 2005, although there are others). Asoane 15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Should the sources above be added to the references? Asoane 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag needed

I got to this article from a obscure (buried in article) link from Opus Dei. I already said the main article look more like a brochure than an actual article. This article also shows substantial bias against the critics of Opus Dei. For example:

  • "Some disgruntled ex-members also issue quite a number of atrocity stories against Opus Dei." This quote shows that the writer automatically call ex-members disgruntled, as if their criticism are wrong or unwarranted.

I have objections particularly in the "roots and sources" section. The section seem to be written heavily skewed towards denouncing the opposition in favor of Opus Dei. Also, there is scant mention of major opposition groups such as ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network). These orgaanizations' information should be included in this page. --Bud 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved section to appropiate article Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations

I have permission of ODAN

This is the response of ODAN by email:

Dear Raul,

Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) grants you permission to put the web page http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm that appears on the Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) web site on Wikipedia.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne DiNicola Executive Director


From: Raúl XXXXXXX [8] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:48 PM To: odan@odan.org Subject: I need your permission to copy some paragraph of your page


Hi, and sorry for my bad english.

I am an editor of wikipedia. Can you help me, please? see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Opus_Dei If you read the historial, I try to put some paragraph about certain questionable practices of Opus Dei. But other wikipedian, says that it is a copyviolation to put some parts of this webpage to illustrate the bad practices of the work. Your page is: http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm I need your permission to quote these paragraphs, Is it possible? Best regards Raul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.5.197 (talk • contribs) as of 03:15, 30 May 2006

Just because the original author give you permission to post something doesn't mean you can, or should. Those sections still amount to an unreferenced rant, and very possibly slander. --InShaneee 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are very subjetive. I do not understand your obssesive refusal to put the critics in an article of critics of an organization like Opus Dei by ODAN. Before reverting, you could read during a time the page of ex- members of the Opus Dei, Then you could understand that the critics are based on personal experiences.

By the way, mostly of the references are in spanish, I can put references but you cannot understand the text of the sources.

You can see some references: In english:

About corporal mortification

Writings of ex members

Recent Articles and Programs about Opus Dei

A lot of resources

Mond.at/Opus.Dei (The Unofficial Homepage) Many sources and links

In Spanish:

Index of forbidden books

Internal docs of Opus Dei

The Opus Libros website contains over 500 testimonies and books written by former numerary members of Opus Dei and others.--Heavyrock 06:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Unsigned edits by 85.57.5.197 as of 31 May 2006. --Túrelio 06:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your text dump again. You can add critisism, and if it's sourced, all the better, but simply copying and pasting large amounts of text from another website is not acceptable. This other site is not writing an encyclopedia, therefore the content and formatting of their work is not going to be up to our standards. --InShaneee 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted and then rereverted his latest changes. It looks like he cleaned it up, but I'm hardly the one to decide its encyclopedic merit. Scrap it again if you feel an utter need to. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and do that. As I said above, permission is only one of the many problems with that section. --InShaneee 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the problem with the critics of ODAN. If not I think that perhaps you are a supporter of Opus Dei.

By the way, see this, please: Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders. and this Opus Dei and civil leaders What do you think about these collections of quotes?--Guay 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)--

WP:AGF, and don't make accusations. I have no problems with the critics. As for those two pages, I agree with the tag at the top; they should both be moved to Wikiquote, though they also need a LOT more sources. --InShaneee 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly explanations of opposition: do not remove!

I seriously object to the removal of the scholarly explanations behind opposition to Opus Dei. The theological explanation is a must for an encyclopedic article. The same goes for the sociological explanation.

Wikipedia:NPOV demands explanations of phenomenon that is based on experts. These have a preferred status in an indepth explanation proper to an encyclopedia. Please do not remove Messori and explanations of Catholic scholars. You are destroying Wikipedia if you do. Cabanes 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I moved the following 3 "stray" words to here because they stood for quite some time in the External Links section of the article without any visible connection to an entry: By David Ruppe

--Túrelio 09:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-mediation: proportionate balance of space

Thanks a million, Cabanes, for retrieving my previous contributions on the causes of opposition!

Since mediation has concluded on who are the experts who form the majority POV, the balance of space in this article has to change.

Right now a great amount of space is taken up by ODAN quotes. This has to change radically. The most authoritative work on this is Opus Dei and the Anti-Cult movement by Introvigne and John Allen's Opus Dei: Most Controversial Force in Catholic Church. We also have The Labelling of Certain Catholic and "Fringe Catholic" Movements as Cults by Introvigne, and of course, Messori's book which takes this up in in several chapters, specially in one titled the Dark Tale.

I will start changing some things according to these points. Thomas 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Tom. Do as you please. It's about time somebody puts order in this mess. Pradeshkava 01:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Book listing

Thanks so much Pradehkava for your support! :) Your comment is so encouraging.

I have just done a bulk of changes, and this includes converting the two long enumration of books into two paragraphs, without shortening the list provided, which for both sides of this debate is advantageous. For the anti-OD, it shows how enlightened OD is, for the pro-OD, it is a free way of warning people about what they think are books that are dangerous for the mind. :) But since we are in Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia guidelines on space use. Thomas 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Causes of criticism

Agree with points raised by Thomas S. Major. Agree with his classification of causes and disagree with unidentified editor's change of some "causes" to "responses". Causes are explanations for criticisms, whether they are offered by critics or defenders. It is best to discuss causes: they are more neutral, more encyclopedic. Encyclopedias explain.

I reduced the repetitive discussion of agressive recruitment. We must aim for summary style for each of the causes of criticism. Likewise, the short subsections should not have their own special headings. They are too short. Out of balanced proportion in favor of the majority POV, these should be reduced. Lafem 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Thomas and you and other members or supporters of Opus Dei because, you have a biased style editing article, and this is the unique article about critic between a lot of articles supporting Opus Dei. This article is about Opposition Opus Dei matter. If you and others wish to put responses to cult accusations there is an article for these responses.--85.57.20.194 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, see the Main article: Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations It is a very very large article with explanations and responses entirely against cult accusations. That is the main article. And only contains a lot of arguments supporting Opus Dei responses. In "opposition" only must be included a small part of the main article.

Opposition to Opus Dei is due only in part to cult accusations of secularists.
The analysis of the secularists that Opus Dei is applying dogma to secular society is not a response of Opus Dei supporters. The so called "negative and adverse experiences" of the ex-members are not a response of Opus Dei supporters. They are explanations or factors for secularist and ex-members opposition.
Please, sir, your edits to divine the article into causes and responses have been reverted several times by separate editors. Your point is unreasonable. Please stop. Lafem 06:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, sir, your edits to divine the article into causes and responses have been reverted several times by separate editors. Your point is unreasonable. Please stop. Lafem 06:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Separate editors are not very different editors becauses they are mostly Opus Dei members or supporters. Supporters and members constitutes a lobby whose mission are support to each other members or supporters, in order to support convenience changes.--85.57.11.153 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Charity with ex members

By the way. Spokesman Jack Valero said that he did not doubt the testimonies of ex- members. Then denigrate to the former members with phrases very little charitable and Christians with the suffering are unacceptable. For example phases like "redeemed Crusaders", "Very Poor Scientific quality", "atrocity stories", or similars allegations against personalities of ex members in order to denigrate your experiences are not charitable. And do not respect the suffering of all these persons. That attitude show very little Evangelical Spirit.--85.57.11.153 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks quite hypocritical to me. On one hand you demand charity and “evangelical spirit”, on the other hand you slander Jack Valero by associating the cited terms to him, though these come from completely different persons. --Túrelio 06:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I do not defame Jack. Only I am comparing the declarations of the OD spokesman with the words who denigrate testimonies of the ex- members.
Second, not hypocrítical look, but OD defines itself like a Christian organization.
This is Wikipedia, Mr. 87. It is not an ODAN website nor an OD website for its spokespersons. It is a website of prominent scholars in the field. Wilson is a prominent scholar, ergo, his thoughts are highly appropriate for this article. Redeemed crusaders is an exact scientific description of some ODAN activities. Please do not remove Wilson's photo. Thank you. Cabanes 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Charity includes fraternal correction, speaking the truth with love. :-) Cabanes 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, Cabanes not an article to attack ex members. Is an article separated some months ago from main OD article. Remember this or not? The article was separated in order to put all the critics and the claims of many persons, who suffered OD practices. Not an Opus Dei brochure. Not an article based in OD interest. Your group have many (27?) articles about OD very biased. I see that OD cannot tolerate critics, liberals, and especially ex members testimonies. By the way, Logical fallaces like Argumentum ad verecundiam and similars are very important by some OD supporters. Why are not you and your group more charitable with the psychological damage and suffering of ex members?. Damages are very very Real. Jack Valero your spokesman said to BBC that he did not doubt the testimonies of ex- members. Your arguments despise the testimonies of the ex- members, and that attitude it is not a Christian attitude. The photo must be in the main article.

I know your "fraternal corrections" styles and other questionable things. --85.57.11.153 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cabanes's is right! Nothing personal here. Plain simple wiki business. Wiki is pro-No Original Research and pro-NPOV: A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Can't do anything about that! Sorry pal. Ndss 08:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have good sources but the problem is that they sources are mostly in Spanish language. --85.57.11.153 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perottet image

This picture is obviously a perfect picture to explain Opus Dei's non-monkish character. It's perfect for the section on understanding Opus Dei's nature. The image is highly relevant in this discussion. The caption makes its connection super-clear. Somebody has been repeatedly removing this picture for no reason, except a unilateral "not relevant" comment. This is unacceptable. Please stop. Lafem 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

policy on readings and books

I added a more complete and npov description of this OD policy. I took out the bold fonts for the ratings. Don't understand why they're needed. What? are they for scare tactics or something? Arturo Cruz 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see only the OD POV very biased, intolerance, bad redaction, denigration of ex members, destroy the structure of this article. RV--Heavyrock 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think that this is very suspicious, because the revertions are about OD cricicism adding very biased quotations who demonize ex members. Remember that the matter of this article is the opposition. Not the opposition of the opposition. For responses You have a main article. Do you remember the main article who only have hundred of responses to opposition? the main article exist for a reason. Remember the reason please
One easy question for us: Do you believe (members and supporters) that OD has any negative thing? answer the question please. Later I will continue writing about important matters.--Heavyrock 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lafem gave the reason. They are valid, aren't they? Cabanes 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
One easy question...: The purpose of a talk page in Wikipedia is to discuss the article but not the attitudes or the beliefs of other users. --Túrelio 07:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes and mediation

The matter of this article is about the opposition to Opus Dei, not the opposition of the opposition. For this cause exists the MAIN article named Opus Dei: responses to cult accusations. The main article has the responses, and into the article about opposition has an extract of the responses.

OD, members and supporters are not the owners of this article, and have not privileges editing. OD, M & S have not the right of censorship about this article because your group are not the owner.

Wikireaders have the right to know widely about the negative things of the Opus Dei. OD have positive things too but for this objective already exist Opus Dei article. The structure must not hide this fact. I can see that OD members and supporters tolerate very bad the critics and the criticisms. I can see that your lobby cannot tolerate to read negative things about OD, and then the group attempts to destroy the structure of criticism and denigrating unfairly critics. I see that is a problem for your group.

Changes show an attempt of unrevealed censorship changing the structure of this article, I know many kinds of censorship, suppression of criticism or demonizing the critics and criticism.

Bold names can help to a better vision of the authors, books, statements, sentences, etc. A new style, only.

To be continued...Heavyrock 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Heavyrock, for starting the changes in this article. As I assume your good faith, you can also be assured of mine, and I would presume the other people editing this page are also acting based on Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith principles. Thanks to you as well for understanding the basic principles behind this move. :)
As I explained some time ago, the changes are in pursuit of Wikipedia:NPOV and are a consequence of the completion of mediation efforts. The conclusion, which perhaps is not clear to you, is that the evidence is very much in favor of the position that authors such as John Allen, Jr. are experts who are objective, neutral and reliable for this particular topic, and thus, on the basis of Wikpedia's concept of balance, should be provided with more space. As you know Wikipedia's policy is based on Wikipedia:No Original Research. Wikipedia itself is not based on primary sources such as first-hand accounts, but on secondary sources. These refer to books and articles written by reliable writers who have studied these primary sources. Wikipedia itself, we are told, is a tertiary source.
As I explained earlier, on the topic of "Opposition to Opus Dei" there are writings of Allen, Messori and Introvigne which can be used as the majority POV for this topic, without taking out the minority point of view. I think the efforts so far have been going in this direction, i.e. adding more things from writers from the majority POV, something that was lacking previously, but keeping the basic statements of the minority POV in accordance to this status. Also it is important that these statements --whether the majority or minority-- are merely quoted, i.e. what should happen here is a mere cold attribution of statements. We really have to be in the lookout for any position that the encyclopedia itself is taking. Thanks for all your help and to everyone else's in this regard. :)
I hope we can work together with a lot of civility and peace in helping our encyclopedia improve. If you think the mediation results are not correct, I would highly encourage you to bring this up at the Arbitration Committee. I would gladly help in making that happen. Thank you once more. Thomas 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Good attempt Thomas, but you have not answered mostly of my claims. Denigrating and demonizing ex members is simply unfairly. OD has positive and negative things. That is not an opinion are facts. Perhaps OD members and supporters believe that OD has not any negative things, or in others words, the dark side. Wikireaders has the right to know all about this matter. I do not agree with last changes. Principally I do not agree with the structure. Very agressive against ex members.
When I was reading your speech your style remember me one sentence writted by Escriva in "The Way" number 397 who said: "Be uncompromising (bad translation, Escriva said "intransigente"= intransigence, is not the same) in doctrine and conduct. But be yielding in manner. A mace of tempered steel, wrapped in a quilted covering".Heavyrock 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
To be continued...
This article contains many accusations of many negatives things about Opus Dei, doesn't it? These are dark accusations: supporting dictatorships, thought control, violation of rights, no freedom. They are in the article. Bryan Wilson is a world authority, he should be in Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia, Heavyrock. Cabanes 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The information about some negative things are not entirely developed, only mentioned, and must be developed. Wikireaders have the right to know widely about all these matters. Heavyrock 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heavyrock, do you agree on how mediation ended up? Do you think Allen, Messori, Introvigne do not deserve majority status? Arturo Cruz 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The mediation about majority status was for the article "Opus Dei". First, I wish to remember and study about that mediation. Please, give me links about the mediation and results .
This article "Opposition to Opus Dei" has an objective. The objective is principally give to wikireaders a detailed and widely description of the ALL claims, ALL causes of criticism, a widely description and explanation from the point of view of the critics too. The objective is understanding the point of view of the critics. ALL causes of criticism. I see that the OD interest about criticism is to crush without mercy the critic point of view.
Responses: For responses there is a main article called Opus Dei: Responses to cult accusations. And an extract of responses can be put in Opposition to Opus Dei.--Heavyrock 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

These links might be of help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

What aspects: who, when, what, why, where, whereto, what for,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei/FAQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Opus_Dei

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=55128870

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_5#Opus_Dei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WIAGA

Arturo Cruz 06:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is a sub-topic of Opus Dei. Here you see Opposition to Opus Dei falling under Opus Dei. Alecmconroy proposed on discussing mediation that the final decision is to be applied to all sub-topics. Pradeshkava 09:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_about_Opus_Dei/Archive_2006-1&oldid=390320978"