Opus Dei: Why do they get such a bad rap?

[bear06]

Minerva:

well Annunciata, the fact that you can’t seem to admit that there could be anything wrong with Opus Dei in the slightest, despite what several other posters have said here, is cause for concern. It is not your faithfulness to the Catholic CHurch that is an issue - rather your attachment to Opus Dei, and that you can’t admit it has problems.

I think that we’re confusing two different things here. Do humans make mistakes? Of course. This doesn’t mean that the goal of OD as a prelature or OD’s spirituality is to do these things.

I don’t see why you have a problem with people privately praying that you become a member if it’s your vocation. It’s pretty much praying that you find your proper vocation in life. I’d, personally, appreciate it and I know for a fact that my mother and sister prayed for me to find this and they didn’t run out and tell me. I pray for this for my children and I can’t remember mentioning it to them.

Once again, I think their biggest problem is actually them trying not to overwhelm people with information. Sometimes that’s good for some and sometimes people want to know all off the bat. I think that sometimes, not always, this can lead to problems like you had with your friend who got you to go to a circle and things like your friends lack of knowledge in corporal mortifications. I’ve never had a problem like that in our area so once again, I’d keep in mind that people are fallible and you shouldn’t color all of Opus Dei with the faults of some.

 

[bear06]

BTW, in case I didn’t make myself clear, I don’t think there is a problem with OD, per se. I do think there is a problem with “management styles” in certain places. What people should look at is the writings of Msgr. Escriva and the spirituality of OD, not the human eliment. I’m sure this is quite the same with all orders, prelatures, etc.

 

[Augustine]

Minerva:

But that doesn’t negate the secretive things OD did. I think it is very sad that OD engages in these practices because it drives people away. OD has alot of good to offer to the world, and it would be more effective in doing so if it would reform itself in the appropriate manner.

What you call “secretive” is that they keep their practices private. Well, you haven’t disclosed all your personal routines and practices either, yet I don’t hold that against you. OD will talk about its private practices to anyone who asks. Saying that this is a covert behavior is a misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[Augustine]

chicago:

I think that you take too much from the more radicalized attacks upon the prelature, thus perhaps blinding you to the fact that less suspicious types might have something of worth to offer. Yet, I think that it is precisely this kind of sheltered stonewalling that gives some genuine concern.

So far all criticisms I’ve seen directed to OD come from ignorance about practices common to any Catholic monastic order, for example. OD didn’t invent anything that hasn’t been used by other orders with similar or different charisms.

What I do see is that many are just not cut for OD’s charisms. I myself am not. There are other 3rd orders which would perhaps fit their personalities better.

God bless you.

 

[Augustine]

First, why are all numeraries required to have or be able to obtain (and they will be required to obtain one) a college degree? Are those who aren’t intellectually gifted enough, or financially fit enough to obtain a degree not worthy of the things of Christ and Opus Dei? I would offer this is certainly an example of elitism. Exclusion is not representative of the Gospel.

What you call “exclusion” really is about selecting those with the best chances to live OD’s charisms.

Second, why are those suffering from “chronic infirmity” not allowed to become numeraries? Didn’t Christ heal the sick? Wasn’t his ministry among the sick, poor, and outcasts of society? If so, then Christ wouldn’t be caught dead in any Opus Dei house, because frankly, you’ll find none of the above there.
I think that almost all monastic orders make the same requirement, so that a person doesn’t become a burden and that the order can actually serve and dedicate its resources not to its members, but to others.

Why are the leaders in society targeted for membership, and not the “Average Joe”? Aren’t they worthy of the things of God, or is a six-figure-plus income the determining factor in who is deemed worthy? If money isn’t a factor, then why are all Opus Dei assets kept in one of a thousand-and-one different foundations and business entities, and not in the name of Opus Dei itself?
It’s their charism. Why should the elite be forgotten and left to the “secularist priests”? Someone has to do it and OD is perhaps the only one doing it. Hopefully, we’ll have less likes of John Kerry “catholics”.

All in all, your points confirm that OD’s critics regard it from a very secular perspective, without any understanding of how communities within the Church have worked for over a thousand years.

 

[Augustine]

Minerva:

My OD member friend, even after I was understandably upset to know I’d been placed on the secret St Joseph list, refused to admit that keeping such a secretive list was in anyway deceptive, unusual, or wrong.

It’s astonishing that someone would think it to be deceptive, unusual or wrong. In almost all parishes people meet the prayer intentions, yet most parishioners don’t tell the intended person of their good will about that.

 

[Augustine]

Minerva:

The fact that you can’t seem to admit that there could be anything wrong with Opus Dei in the slightest, despite what several other posters have said here, is cause for concern.

As most of OD’s detractors, you’re upset at people disagreeing with your assessment about so-called issues. You accuse OD of being something you imagine and blame it for not excusing for that.

Regretably, it’s the same attitude of many of the Church’s detractors and of the secularist media.

May God have mercy on us all.

 

[Augustine]

4 marks:

I have heard remarks from some that they are “too conservative,” and they want to “turn back the clock to a pre-Vatican II Church.”

Which displays their true color: liberal religious. They probably accuse the pope of the same defects.

The pre-VII Church is fundamentally identical to the post-VII Church. As a matter of fact, VII stresses spirituality of the faithful more than before.

 

[bear06]

I have heard remarks from some that they are “too conservative,” and they want to “turn back the clock to a pre-Vatican II Church.”

Augustine:

Which displays their true color: liberal religious. They probably accuse the pope of the same defects.

The pre-VII Church is fundamentally identical to the post-VII Church. As a matter of fact, VII stresses spirituality of the faithful more than before.

This one always cracks me up because the rad-Trads hate OD as much as the liberals. The liberals hate them because they say an abuse free mass (very reverent!) and have a profound belief in the Real Presence. The rad-Trads hate them because they say the normative mass. They even call the canonization of Msgr. Escriva “bogus”. Very sad!

 

[Minerva]

I’m not “imagining” anything about OD - what I have posted is based on my real experiences with the group. I don’t have any ax to grind - like I said earlier, I don’t think OD is a cult and I respect many of the people I met who were in it. But yes it is deceptive to target someone for membership without even bothering to tell them that you’d like them to become a member of Opus Dei. Had my friend told me at the beginning that they wanted me as a member, that would’ve been fine. But putting me on a list without my knowledge or consent is just creepy. It isn’t analogous to one’s private life, because the stuff OD was secretive about affected other people, such as my would-be numerary friend.

Once again, is it possible for a member of OD to admit that the group has done some things wrong or at least imprudently? Or is OD above criticism, and anyone who disagree is delusional or lying?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Augustine:

Which displays their true color: liberal religious. They probably accuse the pope of the same defects.

The pre-VII Church is fundamentally identical to the post-VII Church. As a matter of fact, VII stresses spirituality of the faithful more than before.

What’s so funnyy to me is that in the old days, when the Jesuits were what they oughta be, many of the same things were said about them.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Minerva:

Once again, is it possible for a member of OD to admit that the group has done some things wrong or at least imprudently? Or is OD above criticism, and anyone who disagree is delusional or lying?

This is no way to proceed. The description of your individual experience sounds like wrongdoing on the face of it. But do you have specific evidence that your experience is official OD policy? Can you give a specific case of wrongdoing by the OD as a whole?

To browbeat someone into admitting to potential wrongdoings is fishing at best and detraction at worst.

Scott

 

[chicago]

bear06:

BTW, in case I didn’t make myself clear, I don’t think there is a problem with OD, per se. I do think there is a problem with “management styles” in certain places. What people should look at is the writings of Msgr. Escriva and the spirituality of OD, not the human eliment. I’m sure this is quite the same with all orders, prelatures, etc.

Thank you for saying is a few words what I have been trying to articulate in so many!

That said, I do think that the “human element” is, nonetheless undismissible simply because we are, well, human, and that is what most people will first relate to and witness. Indeed, the irony of it all is that this is precisely the view of OD; and yet it is, quite naturally in a fallen world with weak and fallen human beings, where they have some problems, also.

 

[bear06]

such as my would-be numerary friend.

Did your friend actually join OD and was not told about the corporal mortifications? You aren’t committed to an order, prelature, etc. if you are thinking about it.

Once again, is it possible for a member of OD to admit that the group

Once again you are equating the actions of individuals with the whole club? Can you admit that?

I don’t think you’re dilusional or lying but I think you have a misunderstanding. A cooperator is not a member of OD, nor are they required to go to what you call “meetings” which most of us who know OD fairly well would call cirlces. So, your friend, who I’m guessing is only a cooperator would be wrong. Once again, even if someone told you this, this individual would be lacking knowledge. This is not a policy of Opus Dei. Can you understand what I’m saying here?

I still cannot agree that it’s wrong for people to add you to a list of names so that they can pray you find your vocation. This is just silly. Do you tell everyone you’re praying for that you’re praying for them?

So, can you tell me one official policy, rule, etc. of Opus Dei that is wrong? It may not be your cup of tea but is there one that is actually wrong? Maybe I can dispell some misunderstandings.

 

[chicago]

I may have alluded to this earlier, but to say a bit more…

I think that one of the difficulties Opus Dei faces in the U.S. is that our culture is quite different than that in which OD was founded and grew up.

Not only was OD in Spain in a situation with the Church existing under Fascist rule, but the Spanish personality is more “romantic” in nature. That is to say that it is more expressive, emotionally rooted, and in a particular way familial. That doesn’t always translate well into a U.S. culture which tends to be more rationalistic, skeptical, Calvinistic, individualistic, Ecclesiatically shaped largely by the Irish experience of a certain reservation of expression due to the long persecution of Catholics in that country where so many immigarted from.

What a lot of the problems with OD stem from, then I think, are essentially a culture and personality clash. Further, the familial nature of the organization (as well as the conditions under which it was shaped in Spain) perhaps lead to a certain defensiveness among it’s members. For they feel a very strong attachment to the group and recognize the value which it has been to them. Therefore, any criticism which they sense can become akin to saying bad things about their mother or sister and wanting to defend the family honor ;or criticizing something which has become deeply personal and, therefore, which they relate to their own nature and character. And their response, too, may resemble that which is more natural to the Romantic cultures. To someone who is not coming at things from this angle, however, it just seems odd and like an over-reaction.

 

[chicago]

Scott Waddell:

This is no way to proceed. The description of your individual experience sounds like wrongdoing on the face of it. But do you have specific evidence that your experience is official OD policy? Can you give a specific case of wrongdoing by the OD as a whole?

To browbeat someone into admitting to potential wrongdoings is fishing at best and detraction at worst.

Scott

I think that part of the problem is that even if something is not official OD policy (I don’t know if it is or isn’t in the case which Minerva describes), it would be valuable for OD to come right out and state such, even going so far as to reprimand it’s members for poor activity which makes the Prelature look bad. Or, at least, if they wish to defend their practice, they ought to honestly admit up to it and be willing to accept constructive criticism, while being open to the possibility of needed change.

When I was in Catholic grade school, the principal used to remind us that, as long as we were wearing our school uniforms (and maybe even when we weren’t - if someone merely found out where we went), we were representing the school. Perhaps not formally. But, in reality, our actions and behavior was a reflection back upon the institution.

It’s no different here or with any other institution. And when an institution is growing and under the usual type of critique which will accompany such growth (and perhaps even additional critique in certain circumstances), such as OD presently is, then it is incumbent upon them to step out and either call the person who offerred a poor witness to task or publically articulate where whatever may have poorly represented them was a personal failing on the part of an individual which they do not approve of rather than something which they advocate - or both. Of course, if the difficulty is institutional, then they need to accept responsibility for that and possibly re-examine the matter.

 

[chicago]

Augustine:

It’s astonishing that someone would think it to be deceptive, unusual or wrong. In almost all parishes people meet the prayer intentions, yet most parishioners don’t tell the intended person of their good will about that.

I think that we need to look at the nature of the prayer intention, however. What we are talking about is personal vocation. And that is something which requires a certain amount of respect.

It’s somewhat akin to a guy praying that girl X will marry him. He doesn’t really know her well, but is attracted to her. Then he initiates a relationship, but not something apparently romantic in nature; perhaps a business dealing at her workplace. He visits there regularly on business while trying to get to know her a bit and find an opening to ask her out. She, on the other hand, never realizes that this is his intent. And once she finds out, perhaps she is not flattered, but offended. She feels that he disrespected her and misrepresented the business dealings for ulterior motives. She may even think he is a creepy stalker.

The problem is that there was a lack of appropriate communincation in the first place and a misunderstanding as to what the real purpose of their interaction was. This will be all the more the case when we are talking about someone discerning something as personal as their vocation in life. If they believe that they are coming to meetings for one reason and the organization has their eyes set on the person differently with their own motives, there will be wounds as both sides will find themselves hurt over the way in which matters were carried out and resulted if things don’t go as anticipated.

Keeping things “above board” can be worthwhile, then. Is it too much to ask that a group first actually approaches the person and explaining that they like to pray that people will find their vocation in life and that they hope the person might even be open to considering their own apostolate if it is God’s Will? Then continuing, “Would you like to be placed on our list with the many others?” Such is just common respect and, frankly, would probably go alot further to make people feel truly welcomed and invited to something they find acceptable.

 

[Augustine]

I honestly don’t think that it’s necessary at all to ask someone to pray to God that His will about that one be done.

Risking sounding confrontational, you actually seem to put more importance on some arbitrary etiquette than on the grace that could come from such prayers.

 

[bear06]

If you look at what Minerva said, she didn’t say that they prayed that the she would come to realize the OD was her vocation. They prayed for her to become a member if was her vocation.

It’s like they way I pray for my children. I pray that if marriage is their vocation that they choose the person that God wants them to marry. I also pray that if God has the religious life in mind that they come to realize this. I’m not praying for them to choose religious life or marriage and I don’t really think I’ve ever informed them of my prayers.

 

[chicago]

I think that my concern, as someone sensitive to the experiences that those discerning a vocation experience (and as one who did explore the possibility of a priestly vocation as well as having friends who also did and/or spent time with convents and religious orders), is that the individual be fully respected in their discernment process and know what such entails if they are getting into it. Simply putting someone on your prayer list in the way Minerva describes violates that trust and respect, IMO. Again, I don’t see what the problem would be with simply asking the person if they would like to be added or not. Then they can either accept or decline and such ought to be accepted as their right. Anything else smacks of coersion at some level.

I have “3 R’s” when it comes to such things: “Relate, respect, respond”. In order to make any progress in true vocational development, these human elements must be adhered to well.