Talk:Opus Dei

This article was featured in Wikipedia Selected anniversaries for October 2 last October 2, 2005.

Archived talk pages and key contents

• Archive 2005-1: Corporal mortification
• Archive 2005-2: Teaching of Escriva = Opus Dei
• Archive 2005-3: NPOV = right proportion between representation of experts, Non-equal Validity, Experts' point of view, Co-existence of criticism and response, Informativeness of Images, Opus Dei in fiction, Introduction (created by Catholic Church)
• Archive 2006-1: Franco; Article structure; Introvigne and Zablocki; Cult; Allen and Introvigne in the Introduction; Love, Man and Salvation; Ultraconservative

Featured Article Candidacy: Additional Improvements and Comments

For follow up work on Feature Article Candidacy, please see:

Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions

Keep on improving: Need for order

Let's strive to keep order in the article, i.e. portions related to a section should stay in that section. For example:

• (1) Put things in their proper place. Criticism on recruitment is for sect section, while criticism on teachings should go to the teaching section. In this way we also keep the status of Good Article.

• (2) Keep the proportions of space according to the credibility of experts, according to the NPOV policy:

To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject

Also please see NOR policy, which is connected to NPOV ("The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.")

"It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources"

"Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy."

Let's keep on improving the article towards FAC. For this it is also important not to backslide. Thanks. Lafem 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Lafem. As always. Some work has to be done also with the sub-articles for FAC. Hope more people come in to help fix them up for FAC. :) Thomas S. Major 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just expanded on the views of George Weigel and on the works of Thomas Woods with his long list of top modern historians and experts on the influence of Catholicism on the West -- science, economics, arts, etc. Marax 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• (3) Maintain consistency in section structure: Statement/fact--criticism--response. I am glad, Walter, for your contribution to improve the neutrality of the statement on ductus divina inspiratione but the ending statement on Mission, strategy and characteristics should end with a clear response from the majority point of view (the most credible experts). The "goodness" of this article will depend on how consistent the article is in following this structure. Thanks. Lafem 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Lafem. Following this structure, I've combined then the two sections on "Novelty and Controversies" and "Opus Dei and Faith" into two. Marax 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say Lafem! Walter Ching 06:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the structure be statement/fact--minority pov--majority pov--neutral ending statement for those sections whose contents are disputed. Rabadur 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the intro and still can't say I understand what opus dei means. This needs a more concise definition.

Sect or prime target of secularists: integrate repeated sentences; maintain NPOV due proportions between experts

I am integrating once again the repeated sentences and improving further the NPOV of this section. I've tried to do this several days ago but my work kept on being erased, while others kept on putting it back (Thanks to you). I am now listing down why I think we should proceed this way.

1. Aside from not repeating statements, the responses are usually best placed right after the accusation.
2. This section is the perhaps the longest section in the article. Compare this to the former featured article on the United States of America. It's a much-loved nation it is true (I am one of its fans), but also one of the most vilified and attacked in the world today-- in Europe, in moslem countries around the world, in Latin America, etc. It's "criticism section" on human rights is one of the shortest sections.
3. NPOV due proportion among representative experts. There is much lopsidedness between the experts/writers belonging to the two sides of the debate. Pro-sect writers: Brown (fiction writer), Moncada, Tapia and ODAN (exes, who do not have much credibility to be experts for a serious encyclopedia). These do not have the great qualifications of Wilson ("doyen of sociologist of religion"), Introvigne (prolific scholar), Allen (journalist who has received wide acclaim for his objectivity). Perhaps the most prominent writers of the pro-sect group are Penny Lernoux and Michael Walsh, but as Introvigne states their work has "very poor scientific quality." I just added their names in this section and placed the other writers in the footnote. I don't think I am exagerrating when I say that the due proportion should in fact be 100:0, or 99:1. The agreement here is 90:10 in general but the present proportion for this section is 75:25. What I have just done is to bring the proportion to around 80:20.

I am not even adding to my reasons Wikipedia's Guidelines on Words to Avoid. Somebody in the future might want to argue using this. Or somebody might just be more radical and bold and trim this section to the length of the Human Rights section in the US article. Lafem 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

The "Contents" is to far down the page. --WikiCats 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation, WikiCats. I trimmed down the introduction part and lessened the size of the picture in the hope of bringing up the Contents section. I hope this move responds to your feedback. Marax 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro: "created"/"founded"

Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. --Kchase02 07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I based the principles behind the wording on Pedro Rodriguez, et al,'s work Opus Dei in the Church 1994. He said there that Opus Dei is a "self-development" of the Church, a theological or ecclesiological statement referring to the church as a whole, i.e. hierarchy and laypeople...the communion. So the word "created" refers, broadly and theologically, to all the Catholics have done to set it up-- from Escriva (Catholic priest who "founded" it, a term confirmed by the Pope John Paul II), his followers (Catholics), the hierarchy who supported him (Catholic bishops), up to John Paul II (Pope representing the entire Church) who gave the legal "dress", the prelature. Thus, after the statement on being "created", there is another statement specifying the meaning of the general term "created": that is was "founded" by Escriva and "established" by JP II. Now, from a more canonical viewpoint, the term "created" can also refer more strictly to the "erection" of Opus Dei as personal prelature done by John Paul II. The word "creation" is more understandable in the English-speaking world. I hope this helps. Marax 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "created" might have broad meaning, but to the casual visitor of the page (those simply reading the introduction) who doesn't understand how broadly that term is being used, it conveys that the church founded Opus Dei with a top-down approach. I suggest that we move "created" out of the introduction to some other part of the article where its broad use there can be conveyed to the reader. I'm open to the possibility that "created" has a broader meaning among lay Catholics than I interpret it here, but I am ignorant of its usage by Catholics generally. --Kchase02 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes to your point, Kchase02. I saw your comments just now. Some other people fixed it. I think its now alright. Marax 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Introvigne's affiliations

Introvigne's own page suggests he is associated with OD: "In the academic year 2005-2006 he joined the faculty at the Opus Dei affiliated Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome."

He has detractors on the web, but I have had a look at some of his work and it is legitimate to call him a sociologist of religion. BrendanH 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I placed this fact of his joining the faculty in a relevant footnote. This is a detail which might not be proper for an introduction. I hope you are satisfied with this move. Marax 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "not proper". The rhetorical function of the sentence is to suggest "neutral and authoritative third parties think they're not so bad", so absent a statement to the contrary it represents an implicit claim that Introvigne is neutral. Given that he has associations with Opus, it is dishonest not to mark them there. BrendanH 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I am reverting. The truth is Introvigne wrote that statement in 1994. He became a faculty member in 2005. To put the "link" (one of the words to avoid in Wikipedia) would be to mislead people that he wrote it as a faculty member in defense of Opus Dei. I agree with Marax. Ndss 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ndss, when he made the statement is not so relevant, unless you are arguing that he was objective then, but is no longer. He is not a neutral third party, and it is dishonest to imply that he is. I have changed my wording slightly to accommodate your view on the timing, but I think the original ("a sociologist with affiliations") is better. BrendanH 11:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Introvigne has been in contact with Opus Dei for many years, as a former member I have the name Massimo Introvigne in my memory. But if you want a more reliable source please consult the followink link Bollettino Romana (Opus Dei official bulletin) n.26. January-June 1995 the number cited recalls activities of the second semester of 1994 and mentions the participation of Mr. Introvigne in an Opus Dei activity. Sorry in 1994 there was only an italian version of the bulletin.

"PAMPLONA (Spagna)

Studi sui nuovi movimenti religiosi all’Università di Navarra

Lo specialista italiano Massimo Introvigne ha partecipato a un seminario con professori della Facoltà di Teologia dell’Università di Navarra sulle sette religiose, affrontando vari aspetti del problema: dalle differenze tipologiche alla quantificazione numerica dei membri, dal fenomeno dei suicidi collettivi ai movimenti anti-sette. Oltre a mostrare che quello delle sette non è un fenomeno solo recente, egli ha illustrato come sia contraddittorio parlare di “sette cattoliche”."

florindo 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

BrendanH and florindo, I appreciate your points. That he is not a "neutral third party" when he wrote that has to be proven and not merely asserted. Kindly read the following piece: Introvigne answers his critics who accused him of having hidden links with Opus Dei. This article is unanswered, which makes him even more believable. Please see Basis for expertise. I also understand that he was invited to the university a year after he wrote Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement, or even during the time he was writing it for word goes around. That does not imply he was "associated" with Opus Dei when he wrote that statement, as you can read from his own authoritative denial of any links. In the same manner, John Paul II was not "associated" with Cuba when he visited the place and gave speeches by invitation of Castro, although Castro later wanted to be more associated with John Paul II. I don't want to say more things about this. Controversies are not my cup of tea, but I just want to say I am not convinced and I feel very bad that the word "dishonesty" is even being used here. Bye-bye and good luck. Ndss 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am trying out this statement which can serve as a compromise: A prolific sociologist of religion, Dr. Massimo Introvigne, who recently joined the faculty of Opus Dei's Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, stated in 1994 that Opus Dei has been for many years the prime target of secularists. They stigmatize it, he said, because "they cannot tolerate 'the return to religion'" of the secularized society.

Let's see if this is alright. In fact, I would like to thank you for inspiring me to write an article about my alma mater, the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. Thank you, BrendanH. Marax 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to Marax's formulation (apart from its length, but Wikipedia has no page limitations). Ndss, I don't mean to upset anyone, but I persist in the view that to present Introvigne (if only implicitly) as a neutral third party would be dishonest (particularly if this involved repeated reversion of mention of his affiliations). Non-neutrality does not, of course, mean that I think he is dishonest or unreliable, but does affect the rhetorical import of his quote to readers! Hopefully Marax's compromise will satisfy everyone. BrendanH 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To be sincere, I am not very well documented of Dr Introvigne works, the fallacy that I find in his argument (or at least in the way that his ideas are presented in the article) is that it appears that the opposition to Opus Dei is only from non-believers, secularists or anti-religion activists. And I think that many ex-members and people that have been in contact with them have not a very positive opinion of the institution and some of them are people that have strong religious beliefs or at least have respect for the religion in general and for the Catholic Church in particular. This fact is ignored by Prof Introvigne and I think that his ignorance about the ex-members situation makes him a non neutral source.

Of course you are more active participants of the wikipedia and you are free to place the opinion of Mr introvigne as you desire. This do not change the real facts about the true nature of some oppositors to Opus Dei: not all of them are uninformed or mendacious people. Excuse me for not having too much estusiasm for Opus Dei. Thanks for your attention. florindo 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. I didn't want to enter this discussion because I might be viewed as a non-neutral party. But I see things turned out well. Dear florindo, Introvigne's opinion is included in the article, most specially in the introduction, because he fits Wikipedia's criteria as the most scientifically qualified to discuss the sociological aspects of Opus Dei. But I also like your feedback about the lack of mention of other oppositors in the introduction such as ex-members, other Catholics, believers. After identifying their most prominent representatives (a la Wikipedia), Introvigne does discuss them quite thoroughly in his article "Opus Dei and the Anti-cult Movement", citing their works, analyzing them up to their footnotes, spelling, etc. A summary of his ideas are in the section Sects or prime target of secularists? I'll add something to the intro to do justice to what you say re these. Thank you too for your attention. Lafem 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the available evidence it seems more than possible that Massimo Introvigne has not joined the faculty of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross after all, but before making any change here I am awaiting the outcome of the discussion on Massimo Introvigne's Wikipedia page, which seems to be the source. Asoane 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful sleuthing, Asoane! Given the rules of newspaper editing, your two pieces of evidence are sufficient. The burden of proof lies on the other side. The one who wrote that Introvigne is a faculty member is an anonymous editor whose contributions to Wikipedia span 8 minutes: Contributions of 194.153.187.141

I've also been realizing that BernardH has been using argumentation techniques against Ndss: (1) he evades Ndss' strong arguments that Introvigne was neutral in 1994 by saying this: "when (Introvigne) made the statement is not so relevant, unless you are arguing that he was objective then, but is no longer.") But the present state of objectivity of Introvigne is not relevant to this issue and is not relevant in scholarly work: (See Harvard's author-year referencing. [1]which is referred to in Wikipedia's policy on citing sources) and (2) he uses ad hominem arguments ("dishonesty") against Ndss, Marax and Asoane. Yes, I agree with him that the background of the author should be given but according to the citation criteria and the date he wrote his statements. Sorry, BernardH, that's how I see your arguments. What I am saying merely looks at your arguments and not your values or your person to whom I give full respect. Lafem 08:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the term "conservative Catholic scholar" after Introvigne. That's his background in 1994 and, given my arguments above, I would presume this is enough even if he is presently a faculty member or an occasional lecturer. Lafem 08:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather ambivalent about this outcome. It is clearly better than the status quo ante but it does suppress any suggestion of particular sympathy or affiliation to OD. This might be fair but would be inadequate to the extent that such sympathy could be documented. As for ad hominem arguments, it is ad hominem to say "we can ignore that argument because X is dishonest". To make the point that it is dishonest to suppress true information is not ad hominem.

I'll think about the issue for a while, and see if I can think of a way of improving it consistent with NPOV. For instance, it may be worth quoting the critics that Introvigne is talking about. In the meantime I will leave things as they are. BrendanH 14:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi BrendanH. Thanks for acknowledging the fairness of my proposal. You are right about the ad hominem issue. I am sorry for my misreading.

Introvigne does give a course in the university, [2] although not as part of the “claustro” or the faculty itself, according to the secretary of the Pontifical University, Pablo Perez Rubio. I wrote him an email and he responded.

To examine this issue together, it is important that you respond to my first point on the relevance of his present state of objectivity to his objectivity in 1994 (as per Harvard author-year referencing). It is similar to Ndss' point: "I also understand that he was invited to the university a year after he wrote Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement, or even during the time he was writing it for word goes around. That does not imply he was "associated" with Opus Dei when he wrote that statement, as you can read from his own authoritative denial of any links. In the same manner, John Paul II was not "associated" with Cuba when he visited the place and gave speeches by invitation of Castro, although Castro later wanted to be more associated with John Paul II."

In view of the above, this is my second point: wouldn't it be more dishonest to weaken the objectivity of Introvigne's 1994 study by sheer juxtaposition by talking about his 2005 "affiliations" or connections, which actually did not exist in 1994, and IMO cannot be called such at present? I can't find a reductio ad absurdum argument right now, but I am sure there is one. ;-)

Please also keep in mind the amount of work done here to keep the introduction as a short summary/abstract of the article based on the rule on Non-equal validity: #12, #18 and #26. I see that this is also Marax's point. Thanks for your suggestions, BrendanH. Please do not misconstrue my acting as a gadfly. I have a good record of integrating criticisms into this article in consonance with Wikipedia policy. You can see #23 above, as the latest example. Lafem 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Distinction of theological/spiritual and social matters

I've recently done a number of edits which separate the theological/spiritual matters of Opus Dei from the social matters. The latest and hopefully the last is the separation of the complaints of the ex-members who are Catholics, from the sect issue, which proceeds from both Catholics and non-Catholics, and thus is more properly categorized under Opus Dei and society. I've also come up with a more neutral title, "Response of Society" to encompass the "stigmatization" of Opus Dei and the positive responses of the rest of society, an aspect that was sorely lacking. I hope this somehow addresses Lafem's suggestion and florindo's observation. Marax 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Marax! This is turning out so well, so encyclopedic. Thanks for all your work! Walter Ching 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I had to delete this because it was intensely biased and promoted the violation of civil rights by national governments. It was also posted by just an IP address, if the person in question wishes to have a valid organized debate which includes sound and valid arguments then they should at least sign up for a wikipedia account. DaBuschman 7:59 am PST, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Thank you DaBuschman. As a follow through, I erased the title and some other possible remnants of it... Marax 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro: John Paul II's summary of Opus Dei and Escriva's mission

I found a good summary of Escriva and Opus Dei's mission in John Paul II's 7 October 2002 Address in Praise of St. Josemaria. I placed this in the Introduction. The old rendering somehow implied that all have a vocation to stay in the world and sanctify themselves in the middle of ordinary circumstances, which is false. Marax 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Allen's recommendations

I placed this in the footnote, a reference to Allen's statement on the misinterpretation of Opus Dei's secularity and privacy:

• ^ In his review of Allen's work, "Let There be Light" (Commonweal Oct-Nov 2005), Paul Baumann says that Allen's recommendations to Opus Dei (transparency, collaboration with liberals, institutional self-criticism) are still based on a liberal and Anglosaxon cultural misinterpretation of Opus Dei.

Given Baumann's cogent critique, and given the fact that these recommendations take up only 11 pages in his 387 page book (2.8% of the whole), I don't think these recommendations merit more than a footnote (much less a mention in the Introduction) in this short encyclopedic article on Opus Dei. Lafem 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion. Took the liberty to Npovize the statement and broke it into two. Rabadur 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Images on Opus Dei at the Wikimedia Commons

All the photos on this article are now in the Wikimedia Commons. So if anyone wants to use them in an Opus Dei article of another language, just click on the Edit this page and copy the relevant image text or whatever you call it.

You can also find the available photos here: Images on Opus Dei in Wikimedia commons

If you need help just write to me by email. You can find it in my User Talk Page: Walter Ching English. Please use the email. I rarely visit my talk page. Walter Ching 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The ones not uploaded by me have also been uploaded: The one of Antonio Fontan/Massimo Introvigne/Benedict XVI you will find here: Thomas's images (uploaded by Thomas S. Major) and the Filipino painting Cabanes' images Opus Dei

Related, orphan article

I just stumbled over Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. It's not linked from anywhere and it would be an obvious merge candidate except Opus Dei may be a bit on the long side already. There is no "See also" section, so I leave it to those working on the article to make use of this information. Rl 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In fiction

The Da Vinci Code comes to mind. It seems like they are portrayed in other fictional works. Seem worth a mention to anyone else? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No discussion of the levels of membership?

Why does this article have no discussion of the levels of membership (i.e. numenary, supernumenary, etc.)? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you read the article? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) See section "Vocation and membership" in [3]. Also, there are separate entries for supernumerary, numerary and associates. Túrelio 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code controversy

I think the article lacks the controversy between Opus dei and the Da Vinci code. the book provoked the reaction of the opus dei leaders in public for the first time. Please read time's article, "the opus dei code" it might be helpful to expand views. --Don Quijote's Sancho 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Van Biema of Time exaggerated quite a bit. Escriva had been granting interviews and talking quite a lot during his time, just see this link for example: Why Opus Dei?, Interview with Peter Forbarth (Time). R Davidson 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not biased, but favoured, perhaps?

The article seems to me to explain the criticism made of it fairly well, but its main thrust is mostly a coutering of such ideas. So criticism is made, but I feel there is a predominance of counter-criticism, being content to quote a few figures to say "Opus Dei is reactionary and right-wing", quickly followed with an elucidation as to why this is not true. Thus, both views are presented, it is true, but I personally feel the article generally discredits criticism made and concentrates on the promotion of the organisation's image. --Aquilla

A lot of "ink" has been expended on this issue. You might want to check the relevant discussions in archive 05-3 to specify where exactly is the problem. R Davidson 09:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is an Opus Dei brown-nosing.

Unless you specify your objections, the NPOV template is not acceptable. I will try to remove some phrases which can possibly appear promotional. Rabadur 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a number of neutral endings for certain sections. Rabadur 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it's not so much the specific phrases that make the difference here, it's the structure. When one follows the traditional dialectic of thesis and antithesis, postulating that Opus Dei is 'X' then offering counter-evidence to refute it, the latter is is generally considered the more convincing, and argumentatively carries the most weight. So just by countering each claim as it comes, one has the feeling the second argument is the stronger. It may be that in this case it is correct, and in any case it's not really worth the monumental effort it would take to reformat the discussion or find other pieces of evidence. Maybe if someone finds a really convincing work, it could be integrated, much as the work of John L. Allen, Jr. has, in order to balance things out. Aquilla

More space and last say for most credible experts, e.g. Allen

I see your point, Aquilla. It's been discussed a number of times in the past. In a nutshell, Allen's work in fact confirmed what the editors see as the majority pov, the pov of the most credible experts, which Wikipedia says should be given more space. For this article, it also meant giving it the last say, as Allen did in all his "question marks." I agree that it would take another monumental effort of research to overturn the structure. I'd say it would demand research work surpassing Allen's 300 hours of interviews, done by someone whose reputation for objectivity at least equals that of Allen, for it to be convincing enough to disprove Allen's conclusions. Until that comes along, this article will just have to accept its fate of always being suspected of favouring OD (which also happened to Allen). Anyway, thanks for your feedback. It's been helpful. Rabadur 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanctity per se may sound promotional; experts talked highly of OD

The problem with this topic is this: it is about an organization that sells sanctity, so to speak. And sanctity is about being good, values, virtues. These are things that sound promotional per se. And coupled with this, the reputable experts (Allen, Introvigne, John Paul II, Ratzinger, Messori, John Paul I, many Cardinals, etc.) have spoken highly of the organization. So when one suppresses points from these experts, it might also be viewed as non-neutral or favouring the critics. It’s damn if you do, damn if you don't. That's the problem. However, let me say, I agree with the moves of Rabadur. They're a fine balancing act. Lafem 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag without explanation is akin to vandalism

For info. I reverted an attempt by 82.69.113.120 to put the NPOV tag and warned him that his edit is akin to vandalism unless he pinpoints what he's disputing. Ndss 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"This entire article is an Opus Dei brown-nosing." This article is clearly written by a leading member of Opus Dei, and is surely pure propaganda, with opposing viewpoints being mentioned only to be dismissed out of hand. 70.224.48.177 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) David Harley

This is based on NPOV policy; Messori like Allen was also suspected of being pro-OD

The Italian press accused Vittorio Messori of being an apologist of Opus Dei, of doing propaganda for Opus Dei. His fault was to say in fewer words what John L. Allen, Jr. explained in a volume packed with details and facts. Allen's exhaustive and painstaking research showed that people use terms such as "propaganda", "cult", "right-wing," without careful assessments. BTW, "propaganda" is all about information which deceives the reader. In contrast this article continuously cites reputable sources.

This article strictly follows Wikipedia:NPOV policy: "A good way to help building 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....The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources."

Please be fair to the people who worked on this. To call their work propaganda is simply unjust. Thomas S. Major 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proganda = misleading information

The truth is Johann Hari, Walsh, Lernoux, Tapia, Hutchinson do not even make the grade of being "sources of comparable reputability" compared to John Paul II, Ratzinger, Allen and Messori. But they are mentioned here. By what Introvigne and O'Connor wrote about Walsh's unscientific work, it's Walsh's text that counts as propaganda. Propaganda = misleading information. Rabadur 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ending statement for Opus Dei

Hi Turlington. I saw your move to erase the ending statement at Opus Dei. I agree with you that the statement sounded awkward. I've been doing some work yesterday to ensure that each section which is controverted ends with a neutral statement. I checked out the former neutral ending statement of early January 2006 (see [4]) and I've been thinking of a new one. What do you think of: Due to Opus Dei's controversial nature, any approach to it, whether it is taken from a stand that it is God's revolutionary Work, a conservative political force, or something else, will have to contend with many opposing issues. What do you think? Rabadur 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the lost link to the Opus Dei and politics Wikipedia page with the standard caption:

For a more detailed discussion, please see Opus Dei and politics.

Nice to see you again, guys! --Uncertain 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)