OPUS DEI - CRITICISM #1.1
Thanks a lot for your answer. I will criticise it soon, as i remain totally unconvinced by it, particularly about the
word "fascism" which is obviously manipulative, using a false transposition of concepts and a misuse of language
(using your technique, we can be justified to say that a school teacher is "fascist" without him having any of the
specific ideas of fascism).
teaching of youth is a difficult matter. young people are easy to manipulate (escriva knows that). but good teachers will
encourage individual and critical thinking in the childrens minds.
--Misses the point. teaching is just an example. The point is that all authoritarianism isn't fascist. Fascism include
a lot of other things. So there is a suspicion that the use of that word comes from other reasons...
"ultra-reactionary" is better, but is still weak as it misses the point about truth and relativity: we can say
YOU are ultra-reactionary - towards the spirituality of Opus, i.e. you oppose the changes they pursue.
changes they pursue? you mean turning the church back into the middle ages.. that a strange kind of being innovative..
--no strange at all if "innovative" is relative. We hear often that theologians want to turn back the church
to the first century.
Hitler was talking like you: everything against his revolution was conservative and reactionary, and he hated conservatives.
And even, just for the sake of the argument, if ever progress implies to return to some features of middles ages (let's
say, to please you, marriage of priests), and if opus were pursuing those progress by returning there, your opposition to
Opus would be reactionary. I'm surprised you don't see that "reactionary" is purely relative, if we want to be objective:
you just have to react to something new or relatively new to be reactionary. Opus is new. Capitalism is new in some country,
so marxists are reactionary there. You hide the real questions by using that language, like marxists who say that religion
or belief in god is reactionary. So what???
There' s also a misunderstanding about orthodoxy and discipline. - Execution of heretics were NOT murders, but consequence
of regular and fair trials, totally legal, like executions for thefts, lese-majeste, etc. Heresies were crimes against the
state and common good, of which religion was an essential part.
yes, those killings where not mindless killings by raging street-mob. no they where carefully planed murder. with lots
of theologians and the pope and the teaching of the pope involved. if you try to advocate those crimes then you are not a
christian at all. i hope i mis-interpreted your words. you would not want to advocate those murders would you? you have not
answered my question yet. would you have applauded those killings? yes or no?
--Yes AND no. I condemn them in the 20th century, I would have probably applaud them (AND YOU TOO) in those times.
And you must not isolate those heresy crimes. Think about all the death & torture sentencing for relatively small
crimes (for us): counterfeiters were boiled in water, persons hanged for small thefts, etc. Those executions are not a religious
problem, they are a much more general problem of criminal law.
To finish here for the moment, it is absolutely obvious to me that you don't know the real Opus. Readings are not enough.
Especially those of Escriva, since he wrote isolated sentences for meditation; those sentences , isolated from context ,are
very easily misinterpreted by those who have bias against Escriva.
>well lets pick your accusation. would you be so kind and explain to me where my interpretations are wrong?
like how should one interpret: #777. what would one gain from that little piece of "wisdom" by meditation? what
else but to give up the own thinking and trust the "superior" judgement of the opus dei priests? or take #339. it
advocated censorship. one of the worst things left from middle ages and authoritarian regimes. have you ever read 1984 or
fahrenheit 471? how is my interpretation wrong when they really have censorship of books? what would you
say is the spiritual gain from meditation over #339? well i could go on forever.. i would say that at least 10% or more
of the aphorisms in the "way" are harmful and have nothing to do with christianity.
it looks like you do not want to see.
--I have no problem AT ALL with 777 and 339. I hope to show that your interpretations of nearly ALL quotations are extremely
biased. I know you're sensitive about this 777 topic, but I think it's because you follow the zeitgeist too much. If you study
well the topic around 777, You 'll see that, as a lot of specialists - eg. Estruch, introduction - have noticed, Escriva took
everything about it in Jesuit constitutions and St Ignatius (poor guy, that time he will be a plagiarist! and the Jesuits
fascists!)-- I hope then you will see that something has gone wrong with the terminology. Opus is, IN A WAY, the new jesuistic
order. I will send you a separate addendum mail about that point.