OPUS DEI: CRITICISM #3
ADDENDUM: OPUS OBEDIENCE IS JESUIT OBEDIENCE (and also "openness of conscience" to the superior)
I hope to show here that there's no substantial difference between those 2 conceptions of religious obedience and so that
you cannot avoid the conclusion that classical Jesuits are Fascists (It's obvious if we follow your FAQ at "6.2 Liberty").
Still more, If you read The Way 614-629 on Obedience, you'll see that it goes LESS FAR than St Ignatius, who's talking, YES,
and explicitly, of BLIND OBEDIENCE......
>well you have written a lengthy piece that compares jesuits and opus dei obedience. at least that demanded by ignatius.
unfortunately this is really irrelevant to the discussion. i have already written you that the history of the church is
full of errors and evil. i am not an expert on the topic of jesuits but i think their history was not all that glorious.
as far as i know they have some blood on their hands when taking part in the inquisition. well they where founded in the dark
middle ages something around 15xx.. but i have heard that the contemporary jesuits are totally different and are usually
rather progressive, but as i said: i am not an expert on that topic.
also it would be stupid to try to try to justify some bad things by saying: others did it too... especially when ignatius
proclaimed his thesis in 15xx and escriva did that in the 20th century..
furthermore: blind obedience is not the only thing that is component of fascism. it is just one of the points.
--It is totally relevant to our discussion, because the point is the usage of the word "fascism", not the history
of the Jesuits. I cannot believe the way you argue: since OD and SJ are alike in their constitutions, the SJ must be guilty
of something before any examination! But unfortunately for your point, the greatest inquisitors were the "non fascists"
and more democratic dominicans (OP) and franciscans (OSM), because they were placed in the historical circumstances which
had caused Inquisition courts to appear. I guess this argument from yours looks like fanaticism, from your point of view:
no consideration for the facts.
Now, perhaps you didn't want to stress the actions of Jesuits, but just say that the "errors and evil" were
their constitutions themselves; this is implied when you say that the comparison OD-SJ is irrelevant, meaning, i guess, that
the constitutions being the same doesn't matter, since the point is to know if they are bad or good. In other words you say:
if they are similar, it won't prove that OD is right but that SJ are wrong! That may be a part of our discussion but not my
point, which was, at the moment, about "fascism". That word is yours, not mine, and its your choice,not mine, to
decide not to limit yourself to saying "this constitution is good or bad for this and that reason"; YOU don't say
"good" or "bad", you say often "fascist and fascistic". Well my point is that, good or bad,
the SJ constitutions must be fascistic, a point you seem to avoid in your answer, but that is implied by it.
So it seems you accept part of my conclusion: SJ constitutions are fascistic. (me too, and proud of it, since the word
has totally changed by your usage).
See the problems? Your saying that obedience is just a point don't work, because words are conventional, and once you
decide there is a new brand of fascism, let's say, non political, not having anything to do with Mussolini or Franco (in Spain,
OD was treated as enemy by the phalangists), there is NO RULE for definition: how can you decide there will be 3, 4 or 7 essential
features to fascism? The same with communism or marxism. For some the theory of class struggle is enough to be a marxist.
We can play with the boundaries and you know it since you said that you could be said to be a leftist (why not far-leftist?),
but no more than Christ. So, the same way, one can be said a "kind of" fascist, but no more than Christ was...
Conclusion: yes, SJ are fascistic, or "kind of",or in part, like OD. Each time the word is used this must be
repeated again and again... for intellectual honesty sake. I think we agree here.
> > Last word: your last paragraph is incomplete: your must add holy tradition, that is dogmatic doctrine, and scriptures
as interpreted by the church and his authentic magisterium. I agree, however, that all depends on the word "Blind".
Our strict obedience is not the same as the blind obedience that is a particular Jesuistic-opusian thing. You're right,obedience
to supernatural church is different than that to state, because state matters are much more contingent. crusades and heresy
crimes punished by prison or death have few things to do with faith matters,since they concern political defense of some territories
and relations between criminal law, canon law, and common good in this or that historical circumstances.
>if carried out under the "doctrine" that they are theologically legal than that has to do something with
--We agree. But the relation between faith and civil law is only a general one and don't extend to particular cases (death
for heresy instead of other punishments, punishment for this and not for that, etc). Faith matters were not the direct motive
for civil comdemnation, but common good. Now, from a general point of view it is true that faith says that common good must
be respected, but this is accidental: common good has its independent principles. So if a new religion, in a particular historical
circumstance, is cause for civil war (South France, 12th century), the civil authority, not from faith principles directly,
has the right to use the law against the new religion. So the doctrine of the faith don`t say heresy is a civil crime because
it`s against the faith, but from a common good principle which itself is not a matter of faith in a direct way. So yes it
was faith matter in general, but not in particular (eg it is not faith matter to permit death penalty for theft, because revelation
says nothing about that, but indirectly faith implies pursue of common good, which is no faith matter per se.) In some circumstances,
religion is part of immediate civil common good.
Opus obedience seems at first sight 90% spiritual.
>and the other 10%? and what if you look closer? why is it necessary to make political books a matter of obedience?
--the other 10% may be simply practical-efficient: eg decision about this or that work, studies etc. I don`t see any politics
in the Way, save the doctrine of the Church, which include general political principles (natural law etc.). Then, some political
books may be against that doctrine (marxian, some liberals, etc.) So the answer is that political books are talking about
action, so about moral doctrine, and moral doctrine is linked to doctrines of faith or non-faith.
- By the way, I never heard or read anything in the opus which treat another group as Evil as much and as often as YOU
do on your site;
>i would say opus die does not see the people in other religions as "evil". i think they see them as "possible
targets for conversion to their truth..".but they do not let any doubt that they believe their view of things is the
only valid one.. and other religions are bad..
--They are no different from the catholic church, which says it is the only religion fully true, others being partially
true and false.
Jesuits have as much an esprit de corps as opus, and think they are among the best. That`s normal. I witnessed it among
religious orders. But it is true that since the council Opus has the perception and interpretation that something wrong has
happen, from which it is protected by its strong defensive system: the postconciliar crisis. Their peculiar interpretation
of post-war church makes them look arrogant, but we may also just say: they are the minority and keep their tracks. Future
will tell who`s right.
it is not my goal to "destroy" opus. it is my goal to inform people about the problems there. since i think
there are serious problems i suggest that people do not join them, but i also hope the opus dei will learn from my critique
and will change..
--you`re very naive in overestimating the strenght of your criticism.
> > You miss the point, while introducing perhaps some confusion in your position. There is no way to escape the
conclusion that people who attack opus do so on orthodoxy grounds: as yourself, they say that opus is in part unchristian,
uncatholic, off the track, that is unorthodox ("not of right opinion" from the religious point of view). If so,
their judgment must be rooted on solid doctrinal grounds.
>well, i do not know for other people but as for my judgement: it is based on my own understanding of things. my own
conscience as i know i have a responsibility for what i do and say. i do not believe in something just because it is "orthodox"
or not.. even thought, i would say that it is wise to carefully examine what the pope and others are teaching, i know that
the finally responsibility for my actions is my own conscience. of course, to support my arguments i point out the points
where the opus dei is in contradiction with christianity and the church. but since i know that the church has mad many errors
in history that does not mean that opus dei mustbe wrong.. it could be the other way around too..
--OK. So your criticism is from outside the church, the idea being that even if OD was totally with the church, both could
be in error, let`s say fascistic, according to your criteria. Then you cannot invoke faith, because faith is a doxa, not a
philosophy. All you can invoke is your philosophy about faith, which is no better than mine. So Opus will say it has a right
to its philosophy, since no orthodoxy can judge it. What will remain is just your philosophy versus Opus, and from a religious
point of view there is no reason to give more weight to yours; several doctrines are permitted by faith, and the Church will
simply leave Opus and yourself free, in certain limits.
Your position in secular philosophy is not untenable, but you will never score against Opus from that point of view, because
their point of reference is catholic faith and doctrine, so if you put yourself outside you loose most of the ground on which
you can criticise (logically, it is indispensable to have common assumptions to be able to discuss). It's like trying to refute
protestantism on the ground that it is capitalist or individualistic (let's say), instead of saying that it doesn't reflect
the Gospel and tradition properly: solid conclusions would be a nearly impossible task. Another example: a marxist who says
that belief in God is the result of alienation cannot have any influence on my faith, because being inside the church i accept
Christ teachings on orthodoxy ground, that is on faith (trust), which extend to church's doctrine of the present time. Any
other attitude would be a sign that I do not have catholic faith. For the same reason, if someone says religion is fascist,
there is no need of a response from a faith point of view. Again, faith is no philosophy: we trust Christ and Church (if we
are catholic) above argument. Otherwise, Religious relativism becomes unavoidable because religion cannot function like philosophy.
By definition orthodoxy is the center of all revealed religion.
Nevertheless, if we put ourselves inside church and outside your secular philosophy, it has no sense to talk about errors
of the infaillible Church about the essentials; errors were human mistakes, and circumstantial, never about doctrine of faith
(the Galileo case was not so simple and not as an error as we are used to take it; it was far more complex, considering the
circumstances and the state of the exegetic science of the times, it was a conflict between two sciences, and Galileo s opinion
was fought by a clear majority of natural scientists, etc. - above all, the mistake of the tribunal was not a mistake concerning
directly the core of doctrine of faith: you can be against Galileo and fight him without putting your salvation at risk.)
Another problem with arguing from outside is that it is difficult to assign justifiable limits to it: if Opus may be wrong
even when being orthodox or in full obedience to the Church, why Opus wouldn't also be wrong when in full obedience to the
Bible? Philosophically, Opus and Bible could be wrong. In that case also, the only thing you can say is that you trust the
But it is strangely common that it is not so, and not relatively to "historical opinions" of "some people",
but to catechism and very solid church doctrine and basic discipline, dogmas, etc. of TODAY. How a priest who takes his vows
for nothing can criticise Opus?
The obvious suspicion is that it is because of their own mistakes that they judge that opus is unorthodox, or at least
that is likely.
That's all. You try to elude the issue by transposing it 5-10 centuries ago mostly about the very circumstantial relations
between canon law and criminal law.
>all i tried to show to you is that your argument of "orthodox" does not mean anything. if you pick up the
things of church history you can support anything you want.. even murder.
--This is not true about doctrine of church. Not "ANYthing" (infanticide, polygamy etc. etc.). As I said, you
choose to argue from outside. OK. This is not the case of the majority of criticisms against Opus: they are, or they pretend
to be inside, catholics, so orthodox, they appeal to the pope or bishop against opus, etc.. THEY must pretend to be so (and
often they are not). You don't, and have a right to be outside the church by not believing this or that dogma, let's say assumption
of Mary. But being outside creates even more serious problems in your argumentation. Opus would have just to say: his arguments
are not necessarily catholic, so why really bother, since our our goal is catholic?
That won't do, as it is not central to faith. Plus, it not even accurate: as I already wrote to you, execution of criminal-heretics
were not murders but the result of regular and legal trials, approved by everybody in most countries, like execution for lese-majesty,
theft, counterfeiters, etc.Those where crimes against state, king, and common good, of which religion was a part; very often,
those men thought laws against heresies were the only way to avert civil war, an evil much worse. Death penalty was so common
because poverty of society made impossible to put in jail a lot of people.
>it is really amazing how much indoctrination have influenced you. up to a point where you try to rationalize those
crimes. so you say that "because the church was too poor to put the heretics into jail they killed them"? or what?
and that they would have had a right to put then into jail at all? face it: the church teaching has deviated very far from
the teachings of jesus christ at those times..
i mean: with your reasoning you would applaud find an excuse for thecrucification of jesus as well: it was not murder..he
had a trial before the >religious authorities of his time..and he was executed by the romans in accordance with the law...
he instigated the people..he was a threat to
--No indoctrination in there: never heard a word in Opus about that topic. The fact is that I have studied those things
and I think you are lacking historical perspective. It is common knowledge criminal law became lenient more and more. It
is ridiculous and anachronistic to say that crucifixion is per se a crime. We cannot judge those kind of death penalty for
this or that crime.
The state, not the church, was too poor, and so used corporal punishment and death rather than prison (unless you consider
prison the oubliettes, where prisoner were put to starve), for ALL Crimes, lese-majesty, thefts, etc. Death penalties MUST
be considered separately from heresy crimes, FIRST. Then, heresy crimes existed , in the beginning to avoid civil wars, then
to protect the common good, since religion was one of its essential parts in some historical circumstances.
It's petitio principii to judge crimes of the past by today's standards; law and rules of common good evolve; even if
some parts remain unchanged, like about parricide. If you say death penalty for stealing was a crime you dont understand criminal
law. Tell me, Yes or No, was death penalty for lese-majesty a crime?? No serious historian would say yes without ridicule.
We must see case by case.
No deviation from the gospel AS LONG AS the civil common good was at stake (give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar).
As for Jesus, it is a case, and his condemnation was due to sin in that case. We have nothing there to say Roman law was
wrong (let's say, death penalty, or prison, for agitators), IN GENERAL. It would be really stupid to judge Athens law by the
particular condemnation of Socrates. If you look at Luke 23, 40, the bible say, about death penalty in those years (crucifixion),
"in our case we deserved it; we are paying about what we did". And Christ answers that this criminal would be with
him today, without criticizing anything about the principle of crucifixion in those times.
This explain why the pope was very careful in his declaration about the sins of the past: those were the sins and mistakes
committed by The SONS of the church, and the sins of intolerance were sins in the defence of the truth, misuses, and only
in that context or point of view. If the goal was not only the defence of the truth, but the preservation of civil good (avoid
religion wars, let`s say, among other things), then the existence of Inquisition may have been necessary - and, for instance,
the declaration of the oecumenical council of Lateran IV, no.3, which put pressure on kings to expell heretics.
That`s why the pope remained so general and never said "Inquisition, as such, was a sin". It is because the
issue is very complex, even if circumstantial ABUSES (personal sins) are common knowledge (like the burning of Joan of Arc
by Inquisition and Bishop Cauchon). The international theological commission said about the declaration: "It is only
when we will have the moral certitude that what was done against the Gospel by sons of the church in its name could have been
judge as such (against the Gospel) by them, and avoided, that ask for forgiveness...may make sense".
Opus has no problem with new truths, but inside holy tradition, that is, e.g. catechism.
what, if it turns in a few hundred years, that some parts of the catechism are errors, just as it was an error to teach
that the church has the right to kill people, or that the earth does not rotate around the sun..etc..?
--Death penalty for heresy crimes is an error now, it was not necesserely an error then. At least there's no proof of
Evolution of science - Ptolemee WAS science, not Gallileo at the time - can cause mistakes in areas not clearly linked
to doctrine of faith. Even then, in doubt, prudence must give catechism and doctrine of faith the first place, IN THE RELIGIOUS
SPHERE (without adhering to the "double truth" theory). That is, a mistake in physics would be less damaging than
a mistake in faith. Remember, the Galileo case is a long story, not clear-cut, and the curia was divided on the subject...
It could not be considered as a central catechism matter and is not in the Trent catechism. Galileo had all the rights to
his theory as an hypothesis, it was only when he began to talk about exegetical sciences that the problems began; He was
attacked by dominicans before the Inquisition twice in 1614 and was then acquitted; the 1616 trial says the doctrine is heretical,
but it`s only a partial mistake, considering the circumstances, cause the point was not only exegesis per se, but also the
authority to interpret the Gospel, which belong to the church, not to an individual catholic like Galileo, and that was particularly
sensitive just after the Reform and counter reform (Trent). In fact, the mistake consisted not in having condemned Galileo
at the time, but much more to have said his theory was `heretical`, instead of having condemned him simply because his theory
was `extremely imprudent and dangerous` from a faith point of view, which would have been true in 1616.
The sentence you criticise says "ALWAYS search", implying that what is already found has not to be searched
and that there is now an excessive emphasis on new truths. We can progress while putting more emphasis on truths already there;
it's a matter of equilibrium. And research of new truths must not be done in order to destroy old ones, but building onto
>this way we would still believe that the earth is not rotating around the sun but vice versa.. that witches should
be burnt at the stake...etc..
--No, because those things are not central to faith, are circumstantial and juridical. I'm talking theological truths,
not exegetical sciences or relations between civil and canon law. You missed the distinction.
> > As to SSPX, the reason why they are so overdefensive is that they were attacked first. But their liturgy is
on average much more beautiful than the one of their most vocal critics and their schools are among the best,their catechism
more effective and solid.
and of course they are celebrating mass at election campaigns for le pen in france.. (right with politician, spreads hate
against immigrants..) just incase you did not know: the pope ex-communicated them. (and i would say that means a lot for that
pope). that fact that you show any sympathy for that people who have turned the message of jesus upside down says a lot...
--I have no sympathy for their mistakes, I just say their schools, catechism and masses are generally of a higher quality.
Masses at political rally may be mistakes but not central at all. Better would be to ban it though. In UK, in USA they don't
do it, so it is not an essential theological issue, but a Franco-French feature. They are trapped by Le Pen because he says
he likes tradition, that's all. It seems you see everything through politics, which should be secondary.
From your point of view you have no right to use the excommunication argument - unless you argue ad hominem, but then
it is moot since I have recognised they have a serious discipline problem - , which is an orthodoxy argument - that means
nothing according to you (and remember, the message of Jesus is just the message of Jesus according to you, to your secular
philosophy, from outside). But the point is that they were not excommunicated for what they are doing very well, but for other
mistakes about the council. That doesn't prove that they are not right about a lot of things.
> > Like Wir sind die Kirche, They have a very serious discipline problem, but I think this is not why you hate
them: it is because, apart from their written discourse, they do exactly the same as the church did in 1958. Aren`t they awful
>what do they do that the church did in 1958?
--everything, perhaps more agressively: dogmatic catechism, apologetics, solemnity. What I mean is that it s totally
abnormal to condemn things that were normal in 1958. It's a naive nonsense and a sure symptom that something has gone wrong.
Condemning tridentine masses is stupid.
> > I will later criticise your very peculiar interpretations of quotations of the Way. (and of McCloskey) True,
the words of ex-members is what you have, but it is rather one-sided, as these are people who were probably not fit, not in
their proper place in Opus, like people who say negative things about the military life because this was not for them.
the important part is not that these people had a problem with the military life in opus dei, but that there is a military
life at all.
--Why? Spiritual life was always considered a combat. There is no point to ban it, as a particular spirituality (Jesuits,
Legionaries of Christ). They must be free to make this choice, which is not for everybody. You're off the track of spirituality
development... It is very strange to see Tapia (p.9) make the same mistake (another detail which casts suspicion on her perception)
: "contradiction in this book (the way) ....military language...gospel"; as military language has biblical roots.
CF. Eph. 6, 100ss about spiritual war: "armour of god...shield of faith...arrows of the Evil one...your helmet and the
sword of the spirit". No wonder St Ignatius thought in militia terms.
> > You don't consider those who like Opus, first because they usually don't talk about their happiness (I say usually;
from time to time there is an interview or an open letter of members talking about their lives in opus),second because those
with a bad experience are really vocal--that's very normal.
>well, i know there are a lot of people who are happy with opus dei. like my friend. she could not see anything bad
about it. she was brainwashed. after she woke up from that she said: "they are all angels there but somehow they seems
so mechanical to me.. they all tell you the same thing" and then she said: "i was happy there, but something seemed
to be wrong. i was not myself".
the question is: is it ethically justifiable to disturb the happiness of those people? i would say that it would not be
justifiable if it where not for the possible bad influence on church and society that the opus dei ideology could have.
--Your friend was not adapted to Opus. No big deal. Those who are don't have that alienation impression, and it is totally
preposterous to explain this by indoctrination. That is like saying everybody who likes the army he serves in does so only
because of military training and indoctrination. Tapia has the same extremely distorted and egotistical view (p.320) that
it is normal to quit Opus, that all 90 000 members would quit if only these poor people were normal, and that the ONLY (what
an incredible naivete) reason why they stay is "a range of circumstances", so NEVER divine call and vocation, and
excellence of that state of life. Opus numerarii have very well balanced minds.
Your concept of Opus ideology has the same value as your concept of Fascism. It is empty and manipulative.
Something may be add about brainwashing and indoctrination. I think that sometimes, to the external onlooker, there can
be an impression that something like those things are taking place, especially among the young numerarii. On the other hand,
mature numerarrii are perfectly normal and cannot have been brainwashed in the sense of having been reduced to intellectual
I think the explanation is roughly along those lines: Opus has kept a part of the traditional defensive system. Precautions
must be taken so that faith will be protected. So discussions and arguing may be dangerous if someone is not ready for those,
as preconciliar priests were often saying - (the same applies to books). So if we take, e.g., # 2088 of the Cathechism: "...sins
against faith: voluntary doubt about faith neglects or refuses to admit the truth of what is revealed by God or what is proposed
by the Church. Involuntary doubt is the hesitation to believe, the difficulty to overcome objections to faith..." , and
if we link this to the traditional notions of "occasion of sin" and temptations it is clear that young members of
Opus may be told not to talk about some topics in order to avoid temptations against faith, not to engage in critical discussions
until they are ready, etc,etc. This may give the appearance of not thinking by oneself. But the appearance is not necessarily
the truth: I may very well think by myself - with the help of a director - that I'm not ready to discuss sensitive religious
issues with some "dangerous" people. This attitude was very common for centuries until the council.
I think that to say this is brainwashing or indoctrination is going too far, especially if we are talking about temporary
prudential measures. On the other hand, and particularly in the contemporary western zeitgeist, this attitude as seen from
outside may easily look like unnatural or suspect.
> > You say yourself above that ALL that you have from members and ex (save me)are saying like you. I cannot believe
you're not suspicious about that fact!! There has been 200000 members, and ALL that you have is that. I don't say that Tapia
or others hadn't problems, or that Opus or its members are 100% clean, but I suspect the interpretation of problems may be
more complex than expected. People like Tapia are no more than 5 -- and even, my opinion is that she's not completely trustworthy
>from my point of view: tapia does not comment much on here experience in opus dei (have you read her book?). she only
tells facts that happened but she does not very often give an interpretation of the facts. also she does not seem
very intelligent and it seems to me she does not really understand all the problems that are associated with the opus
dei ideology.. thus i find her story very trustworthy.
--We didn't read the same book. Tapia , even if honest, is full of personal perceptions of things, interpretations of
facts.And it is unavoidable since she had a painful experience. It is obvious she began slowly to distance herself from Opus
while being an officer, and that she became rebellious. In my opinion she had quit Opus spirit long before being excluded.
It's just another case of misfitting (perhaps her mother was right in thinking it wasn t her place at all).It would be too
long to point out the little details that makes me a little suspicious about her...
> > --more about it later. We need at least 100 other Tapias. And I mean serious ex-members, with no doctrinal
problems with catholicism as such, which is not the case of most people I read on your site.
>i think the reason why there are not more tapias is that opus dei selects their members rather carefully...only where
they are sure that the members will not have problems with the ideology they accept them..
--That's true but proves nothing, cause all orders do the same. It rather confirm my point: people well adapted to Opus
find no problem. If there was really fascism (cult for Franco or Mussolini) or serious problems, there would be more Tapias.
The immense majority of very bright and balanced members see no problem. To say that indoctrination is the explanation suppose
very serious enquiry, case by case, and irrefutable proofs. Otherwise indoctrination could always be the explanation for any
religious belief whatsoever, as if by definition.
> > At the moment I trust only what I see . The best guess seems to me that Tapia-like cases are a mix of misfitting
and particular mistakes and sins of people in the institution. That would explain well the relatively small number of cases
which must be taken seriously in 70 years.Don't forget also that supernumerarii and cooperators -85% of the Work -seem to
have no problem. Let's see what the future will show.
just like you do not seem to have problems with a lot of bad things..
--This is a petitio principii, since my argument want to say that the appreciation of `bad` and `good` cannot count as
nothing the opinion of 200 000 members of Opus against perhaps 50. There is no a priori reason to accept your definition of
bad rather than that of the very vast majority of members and ex members. All that you have for doing this is your theory
of indoctrination, too simplistic and partial in my opinion. The other aspect of the argument is that all religious orders
without exception have a small minority who have quit them in bad terms, with a lot of negative criticism. Why give priority
to the opinion of ex monks who have become anti-monks, rather than to those who remained monks happily?
> > > to read in your pages "rules of the Church are not to be taken too seriously", which has nothing
to do with being critical, since a catholic can be critical only inside the church, that is, with a good deal of doctrinal
and dogmatic discipline.
Someone who criticise Christ is not christian, because faith is not philosophy, it is trust.
>criticising the church and criticising christ are not the same things:
--the 2 are linked. The church is the body of christ himself, assisted by the spirit. Its a divine institution. Those
are matter of faith. Trust extend to the church itself.
> > > i do not criticise christ. christ has not said that killing is good,quite the opposite...
> > --Again, you cannot transpose the issue 7 centuries ago, and transpose from theology to criminal law. NOBODY,
including holy church was against the "cruel" boiling of counterfeiters for crime of lese-majesty (issuing currency
was regalian privilege).
>just because everybody thought that killing those heretics was right doe not make it right.. thou shall not kill.
the truth can not be found with democratic decision.. hehe..is not that what people in conservative circles like the opus
dei always bring up against voices that demand more democracy within the church?
--Confusion about different fields. Truth in the field of civil law is linked to historical decision. Pure religious truth
is not. Plus, my argument doesn`t say it was necessary right, it says that it was not necessarily wrong - in fact we cannot
know. True, even in the juridical field, democracy is not an absolute reference, and, let`s say, laws that permitted infanticide
were wrong. But here, it is because we must make a distinction between primary precepts of natural law (which stricly apply
to civil law), and secondary precepts, which are in part circumstantial (eg. crimes of opinions, extension of liberties, harshness
of punishments, corporal or not, including legal and limited torture, etc).
There is even a biblical foundation for what I say: Christ himself used the concept of legal torture in a parable, Mat,
18, 34:"and in his anger the master handed him over the TORTURERS till he should pay...." The latin says "tortoribus",
the original greek says "basanistais", no doubt about it, it is legal torture (question). Now, that doesn`t mean
there were no limits, or that it involved mutilations; but the principle was corporal punishments by civil authorities in
order to force someone to talk the truth. Jesus(God) used this concept existing in the laws of his times without criticism...
By the way, the same parable uses the concept of slavery in exactly the same way.
> > So one cannot criticise - in the sense of being against - points of the catechism or catholic dogmatic doctrine:
quite the contrary, the ground of all criticisms must be in those.
>well it gets boring... again: the church mad many errors in history. even if you can not see them because you have
been under the indoctrination of groups like opus dei for too long...
--Boring yes. Errors not in the field of faith and dogmatic doctrine or those aspects of morality linked to them...
I got nothing from Opus about what I say. It is purely mine. Never heard a thing about those topics, since Im no member.
> > as I already said to you, ultra reactionary is better, but still very weak as this don't prove at all that any
sentence of Escriva is false,because even assuming that someone is strongly reactive to new things, the propositions of this
person may be all true. So ultra-reactionary is purely relative. I've just finished to read Lenin: the word reactionary is
everywhere: Berkeley, Kant , Hume are reactionaries, skeptics and religious agnostics are reactionaries because they are not
atheists, so they are against science, which is. How do you answer someone who says that religion is reactionary because the
progress of science weakens it? Youanswer that everybody react to something and so that everybody is ultra-reactionary, including
the old 18th century scientistic ideology which is reactionary toward the new progress of classical religion.
>it is really pointless to quarel about the definiton of words. reactionary is what the fascist them self claimed to
be. reaction against the enlightenment, the ideals of the french revolution and the political changes that followed..
--It is pointless only if you accept the relativity of the word: that is, that everybody is reactionary, you and I, because
we react to something. It is far from pointless if you presuppose that history has a determined direction, so that reactionary
is defined by opposition to future or progress. (in that latter meaning, fascists could not have said they were reactionaries
because they hated conservatives, were young and revolutionaries, and wanted progress, according to their nationalistic principles)
I find rather bizarre to hear from you that definition of words are pointless, since in your "Thought Reform"
you criticize Opus for its "language loading" about "liberty". So, when it's about "fascism"
, it's just pointless detail about words, but when it's about liberty, it's language loading. Very, Very strange...
Actually, there is more language loading in your use of "fascism" than in their use of "liberty" because
fascism is a more precise and narrow concept. Classical thought distinguishes between several species and subspecies of
freedoms (e.g. external, internal, psychological, moral, legal; freedom from passions, from evil, from sin, from disobedience
to christian or Opus rules or an army's rules, from Marxism, from Capitalism) and there is nothing wrong or illogical in
these concepts. We can say that we remain free while stricty obeying Opus or Church or Christ rules, because this obedience
is a consequence of a free commitment made at the beginning. So we remain free in a sense, though not in all senses.
True, Communist regimes are saying something analogue: freedom (from Capitalist exploitation, from bourgeois false and
"formal" freedom) is obedience to the party. But there is a difference here, because there was no free commitment
at the beginning, because there is no freedom (by law) to quit the country , there is police at the frontiers, there is no
free market (so that everybody is working for the state, that is for the party - the central feature of totalitarianism).
So we are talking here about different freedoms, their importance, and above all their degree.
As long as numerarii, Chritians and soldiers are obeying to fulfill their initial free commitments we can legitimately
say that they are free. Of course, if you mean freedom from rules of Opus they are not. But they are not talking about that
freedom, they're talking about the other one. This is not illogical as freedom is a very large concept - as I said Jesuits
were putting strict restrictions on external freedoms in their schools in order to develop internal freedom.
One cannot say the same about "fascism", much more susceptible of language loading...
> > As you've noticed, Escriva is talking like you when he says that these 18th centuries ideas are depassees (he
could have said ultra-reactionary).
>ok. so to avoid confusion i will stick to the word "fascism" instead of reactionary. ok?
--Then, instead of being pointless, the use of the word become either false or distorted by change of meaning (`kind of`
> > If we take catholic doctrine as a point of reference, it is very difficult to believe Opus is reactionary.But
if we look at this new aspect of opus, let's say the lay apostolate, then YOU are ultra- reactionary towards them.
>i do not criticise the lay apostolate. what i criticise is their understanding of apostolate: the way they recruit
--To know if your criticism is reactionary, we must know if opus way of recruiting is something new or original; if so,-
let`s say if they were using sophisticated psychologigal or group therapy - you would be reactionary (=opposing something
new) . This is my point about relativity put in another way.
> > WHO has decided the progress is on your side - if not only the zeitgeist and conformism?? Again, if capitalism
is new in Russia, marxists are reactionaries there. The revolution and its ideas can be reactionary, at a second level. So
the best is to let there that vocabulary and speak about the real things:let's say authority.
Second, the problem with fascism is not with words only but with reasoning,and precisely about the details on your site.
So it seems you didn't understand my argument. It runs as follow: why don't you say that they aremonarchists instead of fascists?
Or authoritarian democrats? There is no reason. Let's limit ourselves to authority. To be authoritarian is not enough to be
fascist, you have to be nationalist (and knowing this, you have to transpose from state to church, without seeing that you
cannot really do so, because a church is not a state, and is by definition much more vertical, that is, implying vertical
authority). You have to believe in cultural heritage of a people - history - that becomes incarnated in a leader, and that
that leader must not be elected.
Opus is clearly not against elections, simply I feel they think that is not a political absolute, which is true, cause
its historical. Opus in Italy don't praise Mussolini and his party at all. A fascist must be with the founder of the fascist
party, and clearly so. Now the structure of the logical mistake(limited to the authority concept):
fascists are authoritarian
Opus is Authoritarian
So Opus is fascist
In that form you cannot conclude because one of the premisses must be negative. The reason is that the 2 Ms are
Nazis liked classical art
I like it
So i'm nazi
once again: fascism includes:
authoritarian, anti-liberal, anti-communist, elitist, traditionalist,populist, etc..etc...
the dislike of the nazis for modern art (that escriva seemed to share) is just one small point that is often found in
i do not say everyone who dislikes modern art is a nazi..but adding all the little (and not some not so little) things
together makes one fascist-like.
--You don`t see the logical point. You CANNOT conclude from t is M, T is M. Unless you admit that fascist-like is not
fascist. In fact, a communist party totally internationalist and against nationalism is not fascist, just because of that,
even if that communist party would have ALL the other aspects of fascism. Fascism is first nationalism in the ethnic sense.
> Look at yout FAQ: "Fascists are this and that. Opus is that. So opus is fascist. It doesn't work. So you transfer
to the religious sphere where you must say: well, it's just a KIND of fascism, or it's a little like fascism.
>you are right here. it would be better to say that it is a kind of fascism. a special flavor of fascism. but fascism
comes in different clothes most of the time.. italian fascism was not exactly like spanish fascism which was not like austrian
fascism and which was not like nazis etc..etc.. all had some kind of differences..but there where some common "themes".
> > >monarchy is kind of feudalism. that was not a good thing neither. sure, if you had a wise and friendly king
then it was not that bad but there was no guarantee that there would be a wise and friendly king..
--I agree totally but this is not the point of the argument, to know if monarchy is good. The point is that all authoritarians,
like the jesuits in the religious area, are not fascists, since they could be monarchists. Monarchy is used here as an example
to prove a point about the FORM of reasoning, not its matter.
Plus, If you agree they are only fascist-like, why were you saying they were fascist? This is not the same thing. The
answer is that if you say they are fascist-like, the weaknesses of your tactics becomes obvious, like if I was saying that
for many years the opus dei was part of the Franco regime. that was not just a coincidence. the ideology of escriva was
carefully crafted after the fascist model. and it is not only a thing of history: opus dei also supported the pinochet regime..
--Must see irrefutable proof about that(official documents), and not from propaganda coming from kids of the 60s. Sorry,
but it seems that in the Franco Spain it was a coincidence, cause opus was considered an ennemy by the phalangists, the authentic
fascist movement. Opus was there because its men were competent (technocrats). If Opus IS fascist, we must prove that it is
a systematic ennemy of , let s say, christian democracy, OVP, CDU, etc.
> >escriva's flavor of fascism is "fascism transposed from the state into the church". where of course
he can not be too nationalised. . in escirva's flavor of fascism the hyper-nationalism is replaces with hyper-religious-intolerance.
def: nationalism => the own country or "nation" and nothing else.
def: religious-intolerance => the own religions and nothing else.
> > --Here we are. The transposition won't work, cause the 2 areas are very different by nature. So Vatican I and
the pope must be fascists, Christ also since he said he was the truth and we had to believe it.
>christ, at least explained what he wanted to say. he used parables and he made sense. anyone who opens his heart and
his mind can understand his message. escriva on the other side does not explain his ideology. he takes it for granted. he
does not show how it would be based on the bible (except for some parts that are often more then stupid...). this is where
this obedience thing comes in handy: don't ask! believe! don't trouble your little had with all this, that would only make
you unhappy.. we know
what's good for you
--Sorry, but Christ said `my religion and nothing else`, Those who will not believe will be condemned. He didn`t used
proofs or philosophical arguments. He said `believe` because Im God. This is clearly religious fascism. That word means nothing.
In fact, Escriva argues much more than Christ did.
> > The problem with fascism is not authority, it is authority in an area of contingent decisions where authority
needs to be limited, because of the subject-matter. Religion is another subject matter were authority is THE central thing
because TRUST is itself an authority argument.
>amazing how you absorb the indoctrination. so you say TRUST is the central thing of religion. how far should that
what if you where born in a family who are members of a militant sect (waco, etc..) and they tell you that it is necessary
to trust into authority because that is what god want from them..blah..blah.. how far should this trust go? don't you think
itwould be good for those kids to have some distrust in what their environment presents to them as "the truth"?
even if it is "religious truth"?
how far should the trust go? in the case of opus dei: when it clearly shows affinity towards a particular political system?
try to think yourself in the position of the waco children. how do you want to escape that dilemma? what if you where born
in the iraq: would you march for the jihad because your religious leader tell you so? think about it. how do you find the
you say that it is with TRUST. but that strategy obviously does not help you at all. if you trust the wrong people then
you will not find the truth. and how do you find out if they are the right people without distrusting them in the fist place
and critically analyze what they say?
one strategy could be: to analyse them first an after a period of critical analysis you start to 100% trust them. but
that does not help you much neither: just because something is 90% right does not make it 100% right and in your first analysis
you might not have seen the remaining 10%. (or 60% 40% or 99% and 1% - of course with a group that praises the virtue of "discretion"
you will never be sure how many % you have already examined..)
). this way you would help to freeze a status quo that is not all that bad but not really perfect neither. that would
be in contradiction with the aim >of the church: to grow towards perfection.. all in all it does not sound like a good
sounds like there is no solution to the problem? there is: the message of jesus is not all too hard to understand. you
do not need a degree in theology to understand the core of his message. it is very demanding but if you try to live up to
it you do not need an opus dei do sanctify your work..
--I really don t see where this argument goes. To understand Christ is to believe in the truth of his propositions because
he was God (authority argument), not because he has proven anything philosophically, because he didn`t. We believe God on
trust on his person, not on his arguments (catechism 177 : "the truth, by trust in the person who bears witness to it").
That s ABC of theology. Christ was no philosopher, that s the difference.
The point you are making about the danger of trust is real, but without solution: that s the nature of religion , which
involves -like reason also - its dangers and pitfalls. In fact, what youre saying is about the MYSTERY of faith; how do we
know (!) that Christ `s religion is the true one. We just trust his person and its a mystery.
You are right about criticism, but only outside the faith and before the act of faith. In preliminary steps, we use reason,
we are careful, we read the bible about miracles, we may discover false religions, but in the end, after those acts of reason,
theres an act of faith, pure TRUST, and from now on, reason is suddenly, not silent (otherwise there would be no theology),
but within strict frames and limits.
> > And what a coincidence, you introduce another concept involving relativity(like reactionary): intolerance. Opus
follow the council here: Catholic church is the only church with the full christian message (religious truth and what is linked
that is the concept where the problem starts. the self centric view that claims to be in the position of the only truth
and all the rest only have much much less truth..or not truth at all. with an attitude like that you will never understand
other religions, because you will not really listen to them. you will always think: that you can not learn from them since
you have 100% truth yourself... with that attitude you will either try to convert them or fight them, but never understand
them. don't you think the
TRUTH maybe has more dimension then what we can see from our limited point of view? think about the parable with the
stained glass church window from my FAQ. or think of the parable of the 8 blind man examining an elephant by touching
them with their hands: and each reported back different things about the elephant: it is like a pillar, it is like a pipe,
it wriggles likea snake, etc.. (the parable comes from buddhist religion) there are different religions and on earth and no
one can easily say that one is more "true" then the other. they might just be different views on the same truth.
there might even be contradictions in this views that would dissolve when we would be able to look at it from an other perspective.
the shadow of a cup of coffee on a sheet of paper is a circle if in one case a circle, in an other case it is a square. for
2 dimensional cartoon characters living on that sheet of paper that might be a contradiction. they would argue "nothing
can be a square and a circle at the same time". another example here would be the wave/particle dualism of matter that
is found in quantum physics. our brain is just to limited to "understand" the nature of an electron. we candescribe
it with a mathematical formula but we do not do not "understand" it. sometimes we think of it as a particle sometimes
we think of it as a wave. but we know that each is just an imperfect way to think of something that has actually the nature
of being both.
if you look at buddhism: isn't it nice to see how a totally different culture with a totally different religious approach
came to almost the same ideals that we have in christianity? couldn't it be that there is something to learn from them?
--Buddhism is extremely different from christianity, even if we share some ascetic techniques. But the main point is not
It is crystal clear from your paragraph that either youre no more into the catholic church (you don`t really have faith,
the theologal virtue) , either you have decided to argue as if it was the case, that is from outside, as I said. It`s very
clear by your examples, which can be used in a philosophical argument but have nothing to do with supernatural faith. Christ
was God, not Buddha, nor anyone else, that s a part of faith. So the plenitude of religious truth is there, and anything from
outside is true (from
a dogmatic point of view) only if it says the same thing. Your position is a very old relativistic and syncretic heresy,
that is, another religion than that of Christ-catholicism, and it confirms my worst suspicions about the habitual ennemies
That`s for the main point.
Now, for the less substantial point, it is not true that Catholic truth makes one less able to understand other religions;
that is just a case by case matter, and hold only for some people. We can very well understand nazi doctrines or marxists
doctrine even if we believe that liberalism or democracy are the last words in politics: nothing stops us to understand an
error as an error.
Otherwise you would be saying that we must sacrifice truth in order to better understand errors, an untenable intellectual
position and a reversal of priorities.
P.S. Another sign that you're off the track of Catholicism and even of main Protestantism can be seen in your "Thought
"Doctrine Over Person
To show that this point is not valid for real Christianity, I think it is sufficient to mention that it was the Christian
philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who is usually seen as the founder of existentialism - the antipode to totalism. His idea is
that the single person and his conscience in front of God is what counts. "
Well, this is pure individualism and doesn't consider the fact that Christ has founded a Church (divine institution),
an assembly; catholic belief is the belief of a Church, not of an individual. Amazingly, Kierkegaard was seen as totally unorthodox
by his own church: he too was arguing from outside! It is of no use to quote him as an existentialist-antipode to totalism,
since this antipode can be also unbalanced and leading to solipsism, egotistical and antiecclesial attitudes.
> > Opus gives courses on oecumenism ,
>haha..you mean like mccloskey... of course they give courses on oecumenism to indoctrinate people into believing it
means what they want it to mean.(compare furrow #339). it is not that opus dei is against oecumenism it is just that everyone
else has a different (and what they thing: a wrong) understanding of such terms as "oecumenism", "democracy",
.. can you say "new-speak"?
--So you have no right to say they are AGAINST oecumenism or don`t care about it. You must add precision to your vocabulary.
So the truth is that they have oecumenism, like you, even if different from you.
> > They criticise without any aggresivity the mistakes - heresies - they see in protestantism,: this is only catholic.
>well it happens there are right wing people among protestants as well.. i once saw how an opus dei member took part
in a discussion on a protestant web board. (he was a former member of that protestant group before he converted to opus dei,
so he had an excuse for being there. he made friends among the conservative part of the group, tried to make friends with
the important part but did not hesitate to defame those "marxists" who did not share his opinions..
--So, again, you must admit they are not against protestants, but only against SOME protestants. Precision, man. The
meaning of "right wing or left wing " is not clear to me. Opus is rather classical than conservative and was severely
attacked by conservatives during all its history. Plus, don`t forget, that vocabulary- like "reactionary" - is purely
relative: left wingers are
conservatives of some old ideas about the nature of progress, etc. etc...
> > They are no more intolerant than Christ, who fought idols.
>what kind of idols do they fight?
--let`s say, to please you, among other things, the uncritical adoration of "modernity".
> > More about it with my look at your interpretations of the Way. To say , eg., that christ and church have enemies
is true, and doesn't imply the ennemies are churches. Plus, you have to consider that the tridentine church up to the council
was highly defensive.
>as i said: there are many bad things in the history of the church. that does not serve as an excuse to preserve them.
--This is not the argument. It is that when you consider Opus you must do this in a historical way, considering the church
from 1928 to 1962, when , for example, the Way was written. For that matter, same thing about the interpretation of what is
> > --Same logical mistake. T is M, t is M. It's a lot more obvious that Escriva didn't like Voltaire because he
was an ennemy of the church and of all revealed religions, and not an always honest one, not because Voltaire was moderne.
>he mentions his name in the context of "liberal". and the opus dei is highly anti-liberal even today. martin
kugler, chief information officer of opus dei in austria did not make a secret out of that in a recent article. it is also
obvious from how the opus dei behaves towards people who do not share their views of e.g. sexual moral. (like mccloskey calls
for legal discrimination of homosexual people..)
--Misinterpretation. Liberalism is not the context but an added phrase in the proposition, and with an "OR":
"Voltairianism or discredited liberal ideas of the 19th century" (Voltaire=18th).
Opus is no more antiliberal than catholicism; depends on the meaning of "liberal". For Opus, and all classical
philosophy, liberty is just a mean, good (virtue) is the end.
About homosexuality and prostitution and pedophilia and pornography, we have the right to be more or less liberal according
to the circumstances of the common good. But there is a moral (natural law) aspect in civil law, because one of the functions
of law is education, that is producing good men. So evil or antinatural conduct must have some limits. Homosexuality ( or
bestiality, even if we can say that there is a proto-friendship-love between humans and some animals) cannot be put at the
same level as heterosexuality.
> > Not liking Voltaire doesn't even imply not liking the Revolution.
To return to the logical mistake, I don't like the revolution and the church don't like it, not because we are fascists,
but because it was in part against the church and religion in themselves (not only for political motives), and mostly because
the philosophy behind it (Rousseau) is dangerous and incomplete. It sees the human nature from a liberty standpoint, instead
of right reason and natural law of the classical philosophy, and the only limit to liberty is liberty of others, instead
of being the objective and
virtuous good, personal and common. So virtues of good man come second after liberty; so its much more difficult for law
and social life to have their proper goals as seen from a classical (Aristotle) point of view: producing virtuous men for
the common good. In short for the church natural law and duties toward virtues come first, not liberty, which is a mean of
There is also supernatural law, for believers.
In very short this is the problem about the french revolution, no fascism in there.
>again it is amazing to see how you have absorbed the indoctrination. i will give you a short explanation of where
your error is:
freedom in the liberal sense goes like you recognised it: it ends where th freedom of the other person begins. the church,
historically had problem with that but since vatican II it respects that freedom. furthermore it is not just an invention
of the french revolution but it has always been a basis of the juridical system.
The care of the right to religious freedom devolves upon the whole citizenry, upon social groups, upon government,
and upon the Church and other religious communities ... All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred
rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion.
or:The human person is to be guided by his own judgment and to enjoy freedom. (Dignitatis Humanae)
or:Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person,every type of discrimination, whether social or
cultural, whether base on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary
to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally
you see: the church respects the freedom of the individual. the second point of course is: that the message of jesus does
demand much much more then just not to interfere with the freedom of the other person (e.g. not to kill him, beat him, steal
from him..). he wants that we love each other and help each other.. etc.. but that is in no way a contradiction to
the liberal freedom. it is just and additional demand on how christians should make use of their freedom. with just the liberal
freedom one could do a lot of things with his live and engage in any kind of selfish behaviour that would not be christian
but would be within the limit of the liberal freedom. but the concepts of freedom and the demanding message of jesus are in
no way mutually exclusive. the demand that i should help my neighbour does not mean that i should violate his freedom
nor does it violate my freedom. christian behaviour can exists in the bounds of this liberal freedom and it should and
the church recognised that.
it is also very misleading if you suggest that the french revolution did not care for the common good. after all they
had some very high ideals that are now commonly accepted. even by the church. (brotherhood of all man, equality in rights,
.. ) isn't it a bit strange that the advancement of the teaching of the church comes from the people that the church first
thinks are their enemies? think about it.
--French revolution, inasmuch as it roots everything in liberty, don`t care for the common good in the sense of virtue
and natural law: its "good" is no more the complete "good", because it implies that outside society, man
has a right to be bad. To put it simply, there was no good or bad or duties for Robinson Crusoe before the arrival of Friday
(for instance, he had a right to suicide).
If we are strict, prostitution is no more bad, either, personally or socially, if the commercial transaction (free contract)
is well done, etc. etc.
That was not a basis, but a part of judicial classical systems.
Your interpretation of the council is wrong, and amazingly, is the same than that of Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, to whom everybody
tried to explain that the liberty of Dignitatis Humanae was NOT the same as that of the french revolution, so not the same
as that one condemned by Pius IX. The council was very prudent about that and very cautious to avoid the trap. That`s why
in the catechism there is a reference to Pius IX : 2109 "the right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited
nor limited only by
a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner`".
And DH itself 7-8:
"civil society has the right to protect itself against possible abuses committed in the name of religious freedom....
This must be done...in conformity with the OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER... These principles....are required too for the necessary
protection of public morality." "There are many who, under the pretext of freedom, seem inclined to reject
all submission to authority and to make light of the duty of obedience....This Vatican synod urges....to educate men who will
respect the MORAL ORDER....lovers of true freedom..."
We can see here, but it`s obvious in all the council and catholic documents, that the limit of freedom is not only the
freedom of others, but natural law rooted in eternal law. "Objective moral order" is much more than freeedom in
a contractual-social theory, and a sure sign that the council didn`t fell in the trap. That`s what is mean by true freedom,
a freedom to do our duty, not only towards others but also toward ourselves according to natural law.
So, despite the circumstantial evolution and the partial convergence, the principles that are at the roots of DH are totally
different than those of the liberal philosophy, which loathe the concept of natural law.
Remember also, as Soljenitsyn said, that revolutions killed a lot of people, let`s say monarchists, because those people
were against liberty! Rousseau, Social Contract IV 8, said that the only negative dogma in his new Civil religion would be
the fight against intolerance, but then he said that the non-believer in the dogmas should be banished, and then "if
anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death".
Here you have a clear example of a religion totally linked to common good.
> > > to be able to understand my criticism, it is also important to know where i stand. so if you want to categorize
me as a "leftist" then you> can do so,but then i would ask you to show me where my position is more "leftist"
then jesus position.
> > --In the current discussion, i don't care if you're a leftist and I never said so; quite the contrary, i said
it wouldn't lead anywhere. And I don't see where we are more fascists or rightists than Christ, who said, -Imagine- he was
God himself - Hitler didn't go as far. Plus, don't you think there were good christians among italian fascists, or absolute
monarchists? Remember, democracy is a way to chose representatives, it's not God.
>there might be good christians among monarchists or even fascists, because people could be stupid so they do not see
the problems associated with some political questions, but still the same people could be good people, in the sense that they
sincerely try to follow christ. i do not know if escriva was evil or stupid and it is not up to me to judge about that, but
when it comes to the point of spreading his ideology, weather it was created by being stupid or by being evil i have to speak
--Your theory about fascism-like leads nowhere. Plus you forget all the evils of leftism: marxism, communism, materialism,
> > You're right about the examination of their ideas. My perception of those is different.
They want Christ and God having an "influence". But all apostolate is an influence. The church tries to influence -convert
- the poors, who can have a lot of power one day, etc. The only real question is: are the means of apostolate illegitimate?
There's a fine line there and it's not as easy to find as you may think. I don't think they use influence in a coercive manner,
more than by the example of their lives andgood work. They repeat us: if you have an exemplary life, if your work is as perfect
as possible, if you have true charity, your collegues at work may see God in this. etc.
>yes. i agree.
but the influence of the persons who have been indoctrinated with the political ideology of opus dei will probably go beyond
what you suggest. support for franco and pinochet are just 2 extreme examples... you>are right. it is a fine line. but
opus dei seems to have stepped way over>that.
--I consider that unproven. Support for Pinochet or Franco
must be judge according to the time period and the circumstances. No absolute political rules in troubled times. We remain
free about that, especially in the years 1936 and 1973.
> > Political goals cannot
be interpreted otherwise than being social teaching of the church.
don't make me laugh. that is probably
why mccloskey writes:
The complete integration of the Church with the American system of government and culture, the juxtaposition
of the Cross and the Flag, also resulted in an identification of some of the leading elements of the clergy and laity with
a leftist statist political agenda which alienated a significant portion of the working class laity. This over-emphasis on
social problems at the expense of spiritual ends threw large numbers of the faithful into confusion.>(note: "over-emphasis
of social problems").
also they did all they could to get ride of the liberation theology.. or when carmen tapia asked
her superiors why they did not do more work for the poor she get as answer: "that is the task of others.." etc..etc..
--This is circumstantial stuff. They are very involved in social projects of all kinds. McCloskey thinks the Church is
too close to politics: it`s an irony that you are against him, because you seem to be against political goals for the Church!
Plus, he doesn`t say he`s against social stuff, he just says there`s too much of it and that it causes spiritual negligence.
Perhaps also that the social implications must be party-neutral (in USA), in contingent matters not pertaining directly to
natural law (e.g.economics, as opposed to divorce or abortion)
> > They don't work
for having new catholic kings, even if they don't oppose that; but they work for natural law and virtue, like the council,
things that are only indirectly catholic and must apply to all (eg. fighth against pornography and for justice). I never saw
anything else, but i'm open to all new facts. I think it is close to impossible to catch Opus because all the texts are obviously
spiritual and not about politics, or at the very least they can be interpreted so.
>as much spiritual
and as less political as the way and the furrow etc..?