2 Opus Dei followers on trial in France

[AngryAtheist8]

Before I respond, I will play Devil’s advocate here even though I do not necessarily agree with this Magdalene Laundries given the information provided.

First, I don’t know enough information, but from what I can gather, they probably started with good intentions of rehabilitation and went south from there. Clearly, the way they finished was not appropriate from what I can see but again, I do not have enough information.

Second, and this is a general comment, not a justification of this practice, there are always two sides to a story. Sometimes both sides point to the same problem, which may be the case here, but often times one side is biased. Linking a news article is worthless since there does not seem to be any unbiased newspapers, New York Times is one of the worst at being biased, particularly against religion. In the context of your links, the article focuses on their practices of the 20th century and does not consider that it may have one time been a good thing even if I cannot understand how.

Third, and again this is a general comment, we often try to apply our moral standards to history to judge their actions. This does not necessarily apply to the Opus Dei story, but it does apply to this laundry shop. Obviously, everyone at the time thought this was a good idea and maybe originally it was fruitful in rehabilitation. The reasoning behind the organization is really what needs to be considered. Maybe in the 18th century, people actually cared about their daughters enough to try and prevent them from fornicating and everything else they tried did not work (for all I know, the laundry shop was a last resort). Today, we don’t see sex before marriage as a problem so it seem repulsive to send our daughters away for this reason. I honestly cannot believe this would be necessary to prevent your daughter from fornicating and I am not sure if manual labor would be the best solution, but then again there are details missing which is why I cannot address the practice as a whole. What I can say is that it certainly does seem to be shady.

Finally, there is a distinct difference between the laundry shop and the situation in this thread regarding Opus Dei. Namely that the girls had no choice in one situation and were often too young to have been able to choose even if allowed a choice. In the Opus Dei situation, the girl was well within an appropriate age to choose this lifestyle.

If Opus Dei were doing something similar to what is being put forward in this article and there was no denial, then something would need to be done. The fact is that they are not doing something similar to this so it is a moot point.

I will ask you again, assuming that you accept the information in the articles and on the wiki as genuine, do you approve of the practices of the Magdalene Laundries?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

To provide some details, a numerary assistant would be handled in the same way as a religious order in terms of pay. To put it in another way (albeit not really accurate from a spiritual point of view), a numerary (and numerary assistant) is a nun (or monk) of Opus Dei. The vocation is very similar though obviously the methods are different. For example, a numerary or assistant is called to a life of prayer through work while a nun may be called to prayer as work.

Also, the process to becoming a member of Opus Dei (numerary, supernumerary, numerary assistant, etc.) requires at least 18 months of study and discernment before you can officially become a member. They do not take anyone as a member until they are 18 though you can start the process at 16 and a half. These processes are well documented and from what the story tells us, they were followed but of course the story just says “she gradually chose to follow Opus Dei’s spiritual path and began working.” This gradual process took at least 18 months and serious discernment didn’t start until she was 16 and a half. You can read the book by John Allen Jr. for more information.

Here is a link to what is publicly available regarding a vocation to Opus Dei.

Once again, you could not find a more biased source than this.

 

[OchsFam]

The Magdalene scandal has been covered by numerous news organizations now, and even the Church seems unwilling to defend their practices at this point. I could link to many other news sources of course, but if you refuse to listen to any viewpoints except for those that support what you already think it would be pointless.

From what I have read the Magdalene Laundries were originally places where lower class women with nowhere else to go could turn to for shelter (similar to the shelters for battered women we have today). Former prostitutes, servants impregnated by their masters, rape victimes, and other social outcasts could go to these centers for a hot meal and some place safe to stay. Over time the Magdalene Laundries morphed into a place to send women considered desirables by the Church and Irish society (such as unwed mothers, rape victims, women who were considered too flirty, etc.). At that point the focus of the Laundries was exploiting the labor of these women and girls and making sure that they were removed from Irish society.

I guess you didn’t read my post. Oh well, not much I can do other than to repeat.

One, I do not agree with the practice given the information I have.

Two, I was playing Devil’s advocate simply because I can. Given the information you provided, I did not agree with the practice but the information you provided was not complete.

If you had provided a Church document discussing the practice, I could have been better informed and probably would not have played Devil’s advocate because the case would have been shut. Instead you provided me with the two terrible sources of information; the supremely biased New York Times and the often incomplete Wikipedia.

It strikes me as funny that aethists are never biased but Catholics always are. What can you do:shrug:

 

[OchsFam]

Once again, you could not find a more biased source than this.

Yes, you should read an atheistic source to learn what Opus Dei practices. That makes complete sense.

That is like saying you should read the New York Times to understand what the Bible teaches and don’t read the Bible because it is biased.

 

[OchsFam]

I will ask you again, assuming that you accept the information in the articles and on the wiki as genuine, do you approve of the practices of the Magdalene Laundries?

I did answer, but I will do it again.

No.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I guess you didn’t read my post. Oh well, not much I can do other than to repeat.

One, I do not agree with the practice given the information I have.

Two, I was playing Devil’s advocate simply because I can. Given the information you provided, I did not agree with the practice but the information you provided was not complete.

If you had provided a Church document discussing the practice, I could have been better informed and probably would not have played Devil’s advocate because the case would have been shut. Instead you provided me with the two terrible sources of information; the supremely biased New York Times and the often incomplete Wikipedia.

It strikes me as funny that aethists are never biased but Catholics always are. What can you do:shrug:

I realize that this is probably futile, but since you seem to be asking for more information:

Here’s a Guardian news story about the U.N. saying the former residents at the Laundries deserve compensation: guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/irealnd-magdalene-laundries-scandal-un

Video testimony from a former resident (e.g. prisoner) at one of the Laundries who says she was abused: youtube.com/watch?v=Gbe4HqgGfB8

Here is a Times story about how the women were renamed and given numbers (a purposefully dehumanizing process) when they came to the Laundries: time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081008,00.html

And here is an article by the human rights group at Harvard about how the Irish State was complicit in using and abusing these women: harvardhumanrights.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/abuse-by-church-and-state-the-hidden-story-of-irelands-magdalene-laundries/

 

[Skeptic92]

Once again, you could not find a more biased source than this.

Yet you refuse to listen to Opus Deis practices, it takes alot of time to become a member of Opus Dei, and she knew what she signed up for, and had 18 months (atleast) to discern whether it was for her, and at anytime she could leave, joining Opus Dei does not include taking Solemn Vows (which are binding, for life) and therefore she had no obligation to stay, she could have left, yet she choose not to.

To find out the practices of Opus Dei, I shall go and talk to Opus Dei (which I have many times, they are very open), and not Richard Dawkins, just as if I wanted to find out the scientific methods of Physics, I shall go speak to a Physicist.

 

[OchsFam]

I realize that this is probably futile, but since you seem to be asking for more information:

Look, I do not know how many ways to say that I am against the practices of this Magdalene Laundries as stated in the resources your provided. I cannot comment on them throughout their history, but I can say that given what I have in front of me, I do not agree with it. I have said it at least three times.

I don’t want more information because it does not apply to the point of this thread. The two situations are not comparable from a human rights perspective which is what is in question.

On a side note, it is not that I need more articles to read, but I need something that balances the articles you provided, if they exist. The best place to go would have been the Vatican which acknowledged the scandal.

Let me reiterate that I do not agree with the practices of the Magdalene Laundries, just in case you somehow think that I do. I will also say that I will probably not reply to any other threads on this topic in an attempt to bring the thread back to the purpose of the OP since I believe this discussion to be closed and off topic unless you are going to somehow try and tie the two together.

 

[StarFireKK]

Oh yes, they do indeed have a special place in the Church.

From what I understand no woman (including nuns) is a member of the Church hierarchy.
No woman CAN be a member of the hieararchy, although they are still expected to obey it like everyone else.

That really says it all doesn’t it

You have been on this forum long enough that you should be able to speak about the role of women in the Church with a level of respectful disagreement. Your attitude is more akin to a spoiled child than a rational adult, and that attitude doesn’t do anyone any good.

How do you expect others to respect women as equals when you so obviously don’t?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, you should read an atheistic source to learn what Opus Dei practices. That makes complete sense.

That is like saying you should read the New York Times to understand what the Bible teaches and don’t read the Bible because it is biased.

No, its more like accepting that the Bible is the word of God just because *the Bible *says so.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You have been on this forum long enough that you should be able to speak about the role of women in the Church with a level of respectful disagreement. Your attitude is more akin to a spoiled child than a rational adult, and that attitude doesn’t do anyone any good.

How do you expect others to respect women as equals when you so obviously don’t?

On what basis (if any) do you make this claim?

Has it occurred to you that its* because *I respect women that I have a problem with the idea that their not good enough to have positions in the Church hierarchy?

I’m a man, from a purely selfish perspective, why would I care what restrictions the Church places on women?

 

[StarFireKK]

On what basis (if any) do you make this claim?

Has it occurred to you that its* because *I respect women that I have a problem with the idea that their not good enough to have positions in the Church hierarchy?

I’m a man, from a purely selfish perspective, why would I care what restrictions the Church places on women?

I’m sure you do believe that your “defense” of women is because you have respect for them. I based my comment on the fact that the only women you appear to respect are those that agree with you.

You seem to think that all of us Catholic women have swallowed kool-aid and are incapable of thinking for ourselves. You point out the differences in the roles of men and women in the Church acting as though we aren’t aware of them. You seem to forget all the Catholic wives, mothers and nuns had a CHOICE in how they live their lives. They aren’t forced into these roles, and for the most part, they can walk away from those roles.

Most of the roles for women in the Church require humility, sacrifice, obedience, and a lot of love. Women don’t become nuns because they aren’t allowed to become priests. They become nuns because they wish to serve the Glory of God. Wives don’t submit to their husband because they are incapable of making their own decisions- they do so because they understand the importance of a love for their husband and the structure of a family unit.

It isn’t that we don’t KNOW better, it is that we don’t agree it IS better.

In light of the allegations that started this whole thread. If the girl is telling the truth, a great wrong as been done to her. But we don’t have all the facts. We have one article that for the most part only told her side of the story. That’s why we need to let the court decide if there was any wrongdoing.

As for your purely selfish reasons…I’m sure you do love, respect and care for women. I’m sure you do want the best for them and believe that it would be a better world where women are not mistreated. I agree with you. But part of that world must include the right for a woman to decide for herself what principals she wants to live by.

As for the restrictions of the Catholic Church…you obviously have a beef against religion. I get the feeling you are trying to use those restrictions to undermined the Church as a whole.

 

[Protector]

AngryAtheist8;8413544] There is a perfectly good reason for making more of an issue of the Catholic Church (or similar religious groups) engaging in illegal and exploitative practices like this than say a corporation.

I agree, but your comments seem to indicate that you have already judged the case on the basis of no more than a newspaper report, and knowledge of previous misdemeanours of other “…similar religious groups”

The reason is that the Church claims to be THE moral authority, so when the Church does the opposite of what it preaches, its more than a simple case of hypocrisy, its casting doubt on the Catholic Church’s own self-proclaimed reason for existing (for if the Church cannot serve as a moral authority, what purpose does it have at all?).

All of this is true, but the “purpose” is not changed, or made of no effect by the alleged (or proven) crimes of a minuscule percentage of its’ members. If the charges against the two members of Opus Dei are proven then I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church will deal with those responsible in a just manner.

Protector.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m sure you do believe that your “defense” of women is because you have respect for them. I based my comment on the fact that the only women you appear to respect are those that agree with you.

You seem to think that all of us Catholic women have swallowed kool-aid and are incapable of thinking for ourselves. You point out the differences in the roles of men and women in the Church acting as though we aren’t aware of them. You seem to forget all the Catholic wives, mothers and nuns had a CHOICE in how they live their lives. They aren’t forced into these roles, and for the most part, they can walk away from those roles.

Most of the roles for women in the Church require humility, sacrifice, obedience, and a lot of love. Women don’t become nuns because they aren’t allowed to become priests. They become nuns because they wish to serve the Glory of God. Wives don’t submit to their husband because they are incapable of making their own decisions- they do so because they understand the importance of a love for their husband and the structure of a family unit.

It isn’t that we don’t KNOW better, it is that we don’t agree it IS better.

In light of the allegations that started this whole thread. If the girl is telling the truth, a great wrong as been done to her. But we don’t have all the facts. We have one article that for the most part only told her side of the story. That’s why we need to let the court decide if there was any wrongdoing.

As for your purely selfish reasons…I’m sure you do love, respect and care for women. I’m sure you do want the best for them and believe that it would be a better world where women are not mistreated. I agree with you. But part of that world must include the right for a woman to decide for herself what principals she wants to live by.

As for the restrictions of the Catholic Church…you obviously have a beef against religion. I get the feeling you are trying to use those restrictions to undermined the Church as a whole.

I have a couple points I would like to address:

First, if you think that respecting women translates into automatically agreeing with them you have a very different definition of the term than I do.

Secondly, while women in the modern Western world may have a choice regarding whether to be a wife or mother, or whether to obey a husband, there have been many times and places where women had no real options (such as most of the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world today). If anything, women being treated with respect and given real choices seems like the exception rather than the rule from a historical perspective.

Third, I don’t have to undermine the Church as a whole, Catholics (including priests) are perfectly capable of doing it without my (or any outsiders) help

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I agree, but your comments seem to indicate that you have already judged the case on the basis of no more than a newspaper report, and knowledge of previous misdemeanours of other “…similar religious groups”

All of this is true, but the “purpose” is not changed, or made of no effect by the alleged (or proven) crimes of a minuscule percentage of its’ members. **If the charges against the two members of Opus Dei are proven then I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church will deal with those responsible in a just manner.**Protector.

I personally have a lot of doubt on that point.
It brings to mind the case of Cardinal Law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

 

[StarFireKK]

I have a couple points I would like to address:

First, if you think that respecting women translates into automatically agreeing with them you have a very different definition of the term than I do.

I never said you had to automatically agree with women to respect them. I said you don’t show respect to women who disagree with you. I based this comment of the obvious contempt and mockery in your posts when you discuss the roles of Catholic women. You cannot mock what I hold sacred and then say you respect me- it just doesn’t work that way.

Secondly, while women in the modern Western world may have a choice regarding whether to be a wife or mother, or whether to obey a husband, there have been many times and places where women had no real options (such as most of the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world today). If anything, women being treated with respect and given real choices seems like the exception rather than the rule from a historical perspective.

What a lovely strawman. How does the fact that traditionally women have not had a right to make their own choices in life change the fact you can’t seem to speak respectfully about the choices Catholic women do make?

Third, I don’t have to undermine the Church as a whole, Catholics (including priests) are perfectly capable of doing it without my (or any outsiders) help

So they are. But you asked for my speculation as to what other motive you could have had for the arguments you were making. That was uncharitable of me and I shouldn’t have thought it much less stated it. My apologies.

 

[Protector]

No offense taken, although it seems to me that you were playing word games to avoid the real issue of what Opus Dei is being accused of.

And there you have it, “…** issue of what Opus Dei is being accused of.”**.

They have only been accused of the “crime” at this point, so a continuation of the debate along the line that you have taken is a little unfair, especially when you seem to be turning the focus of the Forum in the direction of more serious matters.

Protector.

 

[Protector]

AngryAtheist8;8415056] I personally have a lot of doubt on that point.
It brings to mind the case of Cardinal Law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

You raise a valid point, but as a non-Catholic I do not feel qualified to respond to this post. Suffice it say that I hold the Catholic Church in high esteem, and I am convinced that Pope Benedict XVI is doing everything within his power to redress the wrongs of the past. The following link is but a small sample of the present dialogue between the CC and Catholic congregation in Ireland, www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Irish-child-abuse-scandal

Protector.

 

[Protector]

= Protector: If the charges against the two members of Opus Dei are proven then I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church will deal with those responsible in a just manner…

AngryAtheist8;8415056] I personally have a lot of doubt on that point.

It brings to mind the case of Cardinal Law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

You raise a valid point, but as a non-Catholic I do not feel qualified to respond to that statement.

Suffice it say that I hold the Catholic Church in high esteem, and I am convinced that Pope Benedict XVI is doing everything within his power to redress the wrongs of the past.

The following link is but a small sample of the present dialogue between the CC and the Catholic congregation in Ireland,

www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Irish-child-abuse-scandal

Protector.

 

[chevalier]

I hope the thing gets explained. I don’t like the attacks on that woman here in this thread. If what she says is true, punishment is deserved, along with civil compensation.

I don’t like the defendants’ comment that this is essentially a labour law dispute, nor do I like the rhetoric that she chose to do whatever she did.

If the woman is lying, she has a defamation and false accusation lawsuit plus criminal prosecution to face (or, more likely, is a sick person in nead of psychiatric aid). If she’s saying the truth, somebody else should be facing criminal charges.