A few reflections from someone who used to regularly attend Sunday Mass at an OD staffed parish…
Their bad rap seems largely due to the fact that they are perceived as old fashioned and a step backwards by the progressivist Catholics. (Ironically, the hardline trads don’t particularly like OD, either, thinking them too progressive.) The fact that OD seems to connect with and make progress among the laity probably bothers them, also. I suppose that some are rubbed the wrong way by OD’s emphasis on working with the elites in society. Finally, they suffer from the growing pains and misunderstandings which have traditionally accompanied young, dynamic Church movements with unique perspectives. The Franciscans and Jesuits had the same problems, for instance.
Much of the difficulty, however, is based more upon the fact that many people haven’t actually interacted with OD and just hear the tales which make the group seem strange. The distrust of OD, then, is largely developing into an urban legend boogeyman more than anything.
Now, that said, I agree that a lot of these problems are at least partially self inflicted. OD often either hasn’t communicated certain things well (if at all) or just plain acts in a way which isn’t sensitive to the particular needs of the culture in which they exist. They need to reasonably adapt to the circumstances in which they function today rather than merely holding stringently to that which was developed for another time and culture. That is not to say that they in any way need to chage or deny their charism. And I respect that part of it which focuses upon keeping things more personal and not overly “Churchy” or “braggart”. However, I do believe that they need to be more responsive to the accusations of secrecy such that they may enable, foster, and encourage a greater openness and possibly eschew certain practices (like what was described above by Minerva). If they are not openly forthcoming and willing to readily discuss some things, then people will think that they do have something to hide and are some sort of secretive groups of which one ought to be distrustful. When OD was a small movement, it may have been well enough for them to exist only in quiet, going humbly upon their way. But they now have a VERY public persona and must be able to deal with this reality appropriately.
They also need to make clear to the general populance that members of OD are fallible, sinful human beings like everybody else and will sometimes act in unbecoming ways. It seems that while a lot of the problems which brings them criticism are institutionally fostered, many of them are also little more than individual members doing stupid things. This then reflects badly back upon the prelature as a whole, seeing as how it may be the only and most direct experience which someone has with OD. The actions of an OD member (or the failure to freely offer the fact that they are associted) will be emphasized in the mind of the average Catholic as somehow representative of the whole. The general Catholic populance needs to be helped to understand, therefore, that not every screw up by an OD member is necessarily representative of the will of the Work; while OD must understand that certain things which they encourage might actually be leading to these problems and that they, therefore, need to amend their own practices, while reprimanding (perhaps publically) those OD members who do offer a certain hurt or scandal to the greater faithful, even if it is only due to a personal fault of their own.
If OD, however, merely remains too parochially focused, insular, and defensive; not open to appreciating the legitimate concerns of those who are not their members, then they will quite understandably be perceived as cultic by some and approached with caution and reservation. They will ultimately only be furthering the problem if they fail to adequately respond and adapt to the criticisms.
), and been to a recollection. All of it is perfectly non-spooky.
And God Bless You, Annunciata