A couple of devout Catholics, friends of mine, were telling me that one of their daughters, was recruited by the Opus Dei. They knew that she used to go to young people's meetings and they were happy about it. But some day they discovered that she didn't want to go out with boys, which she used to do very normally. When pressed by her parents she admitted that she had a vow of chastity, made in the presence of one of the Opus Dei priests, all this without her parents knowledge. The girl's father was in a rage, and went to see the Opus Dei superior and threatend him with a penal suit, since the girl is a minor.

Now I have some questions about this affaire:

1-Why the secrecy toward the parents?

2-A vow in such conditions is valid?

3-Is it true that in Opus Dei such things occur?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000

Answers

Hello, Enrique.
I cannot answer you fully, because my knowledge of Opus Dei is limited. Still, I will try. In some places, there is great prejudice against Opus Dei, which unfairly received a reputation as a dangerous, secret society. This idea began to be cured by the beatification of OD's founder, Blessed Josemaria Escriva, several years ago. OD is definitely not secretive, as they have a big, very open, Internet site (http://www.opusdei.org/), where I found the following in the "FAQ" (frequently asked questions) section:
What commitments do members make and do they make vows?
There are no vows in Opus Dei: Members make their commitments within Opus Dei simply on their honor as Christians. They commit themselves to seek holiness and to help others do the same according to the spirit of Opus Dei, which is primarily in and through their everyday work and in fulfilling their ordinary Christian duties. But here are some citations from Canon Law that may shed some light on this difficulty.

My opinion is that the girl (who probably did not make a real vow) is in good hands [Opus Dei] and that her father has reacted very improperly -- even very anti-religiously. Some famous saints have gone through the same difficulty, but I thought that such anger as this father's was a thing of the past. Some female saints have made secret vows to God before the age of ten. I would say that parents do not have a right to insist that a son or daughter go out on dates with members of the opposite sex. Please take a look at the following parts of Canon Law, which deal with minors, vows, etc., which answer part of your question.

May Jesus bless you. JFG ------------------- Can. 97 '1 A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age, has attained majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
........'2 A minor who has not completed the seventh year of age is called an infant and is considered incapable of personal responsibility; on completion of the seventh year, however, the minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

Can. 98 '1 A person who has attained majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.
........'2 In the exercise of rights a minor remains subject to parents or guardians, except for those matters in which by divine or by canon law minors are exempt from such authority.
------------------

Can. 1191 '1 A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God, concerning some good which is possible and better. The virtue of religion requires that it be fulfilled.
..........'2 Unless they are prohibited by law, all who have an appropriate use of reason are capable of making a vow.
..........'3 A vow made as a result of grave and unjust fear or of deceit is by virtue of the law itself invalid.

Can. 1192 '1 A vow is public if it is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful Superior; otherwise, it is private.
..........'2 It is solemn if it is recognised by the Church as such; otherwise, it is simple.
..........'3 It is personal if it promises an action by the person making the vow; real, if it promises some thing; mixed, if it has both a personal and a real aspect.

Can. 1193 Of its nature a vow obliges only the person who makes it.

Can. 1194 A vow ceases by lapse of the time specified for the fulfilment of the obligation, or by a substantial change in the matter promised, or by cessation of a condition upon which the vow depended or of the purpose of the vow, or by dispensation, or by commutation.

Can. 1195 A person who has power over the matter of a vow can suspend the obligation of the vow for such time as the fulfilment of the vow would affect that person adversely.

Can. 1196 Besides the Roman Pontiff, the following can dispense from private vows, provided the dispensation does not injure the acquired rights of others; 10 the local Ordinary and the parish priest, in respect of all their own subjects and also of peregrini;
20 the Superior of a religious institute or of a society of apostolic life, if these are clerical and of pontifical right, in respect of members, novices and those who reside day and night in a house of the institute or society;
30 those to whom the faculty of dispensing has been delegated by the Apostolic See or by the local Ordinary.

Can. 1197 What has been promised by private vow can be commuted into something better or equally good by the person

who made the vow. It can be commuted into something less good by one who has authority to dispense in accordance with Can. 1196.

Can. 1198 Vows taken before religious profession are suspended as long as the person who made the vow remains in the religious institute.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 22, 2000.

Enrique,

My friend, I can see that you are worried about your friends and for good reason I'm afraid.

Check out this link for some enlightening information regarding the Opus Dei -- http://www.odan.org/whatisopus.html.

Opus Dei practices fit the profile of a potentially dangerous cult despite the peripheral appearance of Catholicism. By taking a vow of celibacy, it sounds like your friends daughters have also made a vow to join the group for life surrendering all income to the group and ultimately living in one of the Opus Dei's houses like a commune. Their practices also involve self-flagellation (inflicting oneself with pain to pay the price for sins -- something that Jesus did for us on the cross).

I pray your friends can get their daughters out of there as soon as possible.

Take care.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 22, 2000.

Here are some of the practices of the Opus Dei that cause me concern:

A comprehensive list is available from ODAN, but here are just a few:

- Aggressive recruitment using teams and staged activities. - Recruitment through the use of front groups. - Members must report regularly on the progress of their personal recruiting efforts. - Lack of informed consent. Some controls, like opening all personal mail, corporal mortification, and donation of entire salaries are not revealed until after the initial commitment has been made. - Members are often discouraged from telling their parents of their lifetime commitment to Opus Dei "because they will not understand." - The display of pictures of loved ones is discouraged, not by rule but by subtle example. - Some members have been told that if hey leave Opus Dei they may be damned and will surely live life without God's grace.

Just some food for thought. Hope it helps.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 22, 2000.

Hello, Enrique and Dave,
Having read your posts and taken a peak at the ODAN site, I find myself in a state of just slight uncertainty about the whole situation.

I don't believe that there is any way that the pope would have beatified the founder of Opus Dei if, while the latter was alive, it was an evil or dangerous organization. I have heard the founder's successor speak once, and he seemed to be a very holy man. I have heard a certain Opus Dei priest speak numerous times, and he too was completely normal.

We have to keep in mind that every religious body and organization has its enemies, some of whom can be good and helpful people pointing out what is bad about their "target." But some of the enemies can be very terrible people who would lie and exaggerate without blinking, because they are working for the "evil one." Remember that Opus Dei is totally orthodox and loyal to the pope. That automatically makes one the target of dissident Catholics and anti-Catholics of many stripes. None of the three of us knows if the ODAN people are dissidents or anti-Catholics.
Therefore, I was so very sad, Dave, to see that you appear to have assumed that ODAN can automatically be relied upon to be painting an accurate picture of Opus Dei. My previous impression had been that you are much more objective than that. Let us keep an open mind. Perhaps ODAN is 100% right in its descriptions and that Opus Dei has become corrupt throughout the world. Perhaps ODAN is 100% right about only one Opus Dei house, where abuses took place that are against Opus Dei rules. Perhaps ODAN is falsifying things left and right. It is necessary for capable people (not us three) to investigate such serious charges. At a bare minimum, out of a sense of justice, it may be necessary for one of you to send ODAN's charges to Opus Dei -- which can be done by e-mail at the Opus Dei site -- and request a reply.

If one has taken no action to determine whether or not ODAN is reliable and whether or not Opus Dei is always and everywhere bad, one would be irresponsible to enthusiastically support ODAN, sending people to their Internet site as though it contains "gospel truth," etc..

Dave, although I did not read the ODAN site thoroughly, my impression is that these words of yours are quite an exaggeration: "Opus Dei practices fit the profile of a potentially dangerous cult ..." When one thinks about the genuinely dangerous cults of our era -- particularly wherein physical force is applied -- Opus Dei seems to come out looking very mild, more like a strict club with membership that one can give up at any time, with impunity.

Very few Catholics in our current day practice self-flagellation or other heavy physical penances -- but regardless of the number, you can be sure that they are not doing these things "to pay the price for sins," the motivation you attributed to them, Dave. (I simply don't know how you could have written that, if you have never spoken to them to hear them explain their motivations. This too seems so lacking in objectivity.)

All orthodox Catholics -- including members of Opus Dei -- believe that payment of the price for sins was, as you put it, "something that Jesus did for us on the cross." But this belief does not preclude penitential practices, ways of expressing sorrow for one's own sins or for the sins of others. The concept of suffering in union with the sufferings of Jesus is biblically based. St. Paul wrote to the Colossians: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church." He also wrote (in 1 Cor 9): "... I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." [This is also one of countless New Testament verses that also refutes the false doctrine of "eternal security."]

Oh, well, enough food for thought, I hope.
God bless you both. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 23, 2000.

John,

I agree that if I were a reporter or someone serious about researching the Opus Dei (or anything else for that matter), than I certainly would take a much more objective point of view and do a lot more digging before jumping to conclusions, but we're talking about these girls and what they are being drawn into. If I were the father, there's no way I would sit patiently while I thoroughly interviewed and researched this organization. They've already done several things that would raise a red flag to me as a father and those things are consistent with what I read on the ODAN website. No more evidence would be needed before I would act -- no way. Pull the girls out, THEN do your research. If you later decide to allow them back in, do so with full understanding AND will full access to the Opus Dei's proceedings and inner workings. They have no business soliciting committments from minors without their parental consent and direct involvement. To be honest John, I'm rather surprised at your quick defense of their actions.

With regard to corporal mortification, while I have no idea how widespread these practices were, but I have read interviews of several nuns who lived in cloistered convents years ago and have spoken to those who have direct knowledge of the practices (though they did not experience them as victims). Having been raised a Catholic, actively served for years in the Church and attended a Catholic university, I had a great deal of exposure to the inner workings of the Church (the things nobody likes to talk about). My friendships included a number of priest, brothers, and nuns. And I learned a lot -- probably too much. Among the things I learned, many nuns lived in conditions that could only be described as inhumane. In addition to being used to satisfy the sexual desires of a number of priests (all in the "service of the Lord"), they also endured hours and days being literally tortured in the name of conquering the weaknesses of the flesh or to offer up a sacrifice for those in purgatory, that their pain was paying their price into heaven. There is no possible explanation you could offer that would come close to justifying what went on. And I know you're going to post a strong rebuke for my saying these things, but they are the truth, so I stand by it.

And your characterization of Paul's statements as justifying corporal mortification is a tragic misinterpretation. He also said he died daily, are you going to claim that he literally, physically died and was raised again each day? Of course not, Paul was using these descriptive phrases to characterize the very real battle that is waged to conquer the desires of the flesh and to live for Christ, but the battle is not carnal, but is spiritual as he himself proclaimed. Do you honestly believe the interpretation you gave???

I'm sorry for being so harsh, but I'm a bit shocked to be honest.

Better sign-off before I say more.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 23, 2000.

"And I know you're going to post a strong rebuke for my saying these things, but they are the truth, so I stand by it." [D. Bowerman]

No, Dave. I won't post a strong rebuke. At this point, I am past the point of being upset at you, for I have reached the point of "pity."

Some of the things that you read and were told when you were younger were totally false, while others were so rare as to be not worthy of mention. It is unfortunate that you were so young and naive as to swallow that stuff with wide eyes, blow it 'way out of proportion, and allow it to be one of the elements that deceived you into leaving the true Church.

The bitter irony of this thread and of your responses is that ...
(1) you, as a lapsed Catholic, are very possibly the one in deep spiritual peril -- not the young lady inside Opus Dei, and ... (2) you have probably been much more a victim of brainwashing than the young lady will ever be -- though you fear for her! [When I refer to your brainwashing, I mean that your limited knowledge of Catholicism (through age 22 in the mid-1980s?) was apparently eradicated by bad influences.]

This is why I feel pity, not anger. I am consoled by the knowledge, though, that the "Hound of Heaven" will continue to pursue you! We need you back at Mass receiving Jesus.
I will continue to pray for you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 23, 2000.

Pity? Well now as far as I know, that's a first. I guess what goes around comes around eh?

Anyway, since Enrique didn't start this thread for us to argue back and forth on, I'll stop here. My apologies Enrique.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 24, 2000.

J.F. and Dave: thank you for comments. We have a saying in Spanish: "de la discusisn nace la luz" = "from discussion a ligt is born" . Now I know that Opus Dei is a ticklish subject, but is it not because of the secrecy with which they go about their business?

Dave, no need to apologize.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000.

Dear Enrique,

I am back after a couple of months, and I see that the discussions in this forum did not change much ;^).

Most , if not all, of the criticism aimed at Opus Dei is, in fact, a criticism of the true Christian outlook of the word. That consumistic-hedonistic mentality that pervades our daily life, our relations with friends and relatives and even our reasoning, is at play here as well. Not so long ago, a devout Catholic family would be very happy and thankful to God to have one of their children called to the service of God, either as a priest or as a member of a religious order. This is not the case anymore. We are so bombarded every day with the notion that the one and only one condition to achieve happiness is having sex, that even the most devout Catholic parents become upset with the idea of a son or daughter being consecrated to God in a life of celibacy. That's why even sincere Catholics favor the idea of the Vatican allowing priests to marry. They pity their fate of an unhappy life, as they cannot have sex. Celibacy nowadays is considered outdated, old-fashioned, and with no place inside the life of the Church. It is seen as a painful, cruel, Cross to bear. Again, not so long ago, the true feeling of the Church about this issue was more widespread among the faithful, that is, that celibacy is a gift of God and something that should be thanked for, a real cause of happiness for the individual called and for all who love him, his parents in the first place. It's interesting to see that most of the things that are charged upon Opus Dei are things that have centuries and centuries of tradition inside the Church. Celibacy is one of them. Corporal mortification is another. Many people think (including Catholics) that the times have changed, and that the Vatican II Council has abolished or forbidden many of these things (by the way, this is also the case with the Latin Mass, which the Council states as the default, being the celebration in vernacular only "allowed when pastoral circumstances require; most Catholics that I know think that the celebration of the Mass in Latin is forbidden, which is ridiculous).This is not absolutely the case. The post-conciliar Church is believed to have "softened" Christian life, as if it was possible to follow Christ without bearing the Cross. Those who propagate these ideas are very ill informed. The Church did NOT change her mind about these and many other things that are attributed to the Council.

Celibacy, by the way, is praised in many other traditional religions, such as hinduism and budhism . The despise for celibacy in the Occidental world is quite a protestant outlook of the world .

About corporal mortification, how about fasting? As far as I know, the Council did not abolish fasting as well. Corporal mortification had, has, and will ever have an important place in true Christian life, and I am not talking about monks, but of " normal ", lay, people. It is present in all the new Catholic movements, and is not an exclusivity of Opus Dei. This, of course, is the reaction against modernist heresies that include the yielding to hedonistic principles. Many traditional religious orders have abandoned corporal mortification, in the wake of the false interpretations of the Council's "spirit". So, the new movements tend to stress them in an attempt to revitalize Christian ascetism and mystical life. This is not new. The new orders of the 16th century, such as the Jesuits, had the same type of reaction to a lukewarm religious life inside the traditional orders in that time, such as Fransiscans, Dominicans and Beneditines. Opus Dei shares with virtually all other new movements, such as the Legionnaires of Christ, Folcolari or Comunione e Liberazione, a sharp stress on things that have been negliged by others in the Church, such as orthodoxy, loyalty to the Pope, the understanding that celibacy is not a crime (and at the same time praising Matrimony of course), and, why not, corporal mortification as well. The Pope himself is known to practice rigorous corporal mortification, as did all, and I mean ALL, saints. The scandal of Dave Bowerman is quite consistent with today's hedonistic mind, which sets the ground for reasoning nowadays. He's shocked with the interpretation that John makes of St. Paul. If he knew a bit of Church History he wouldn't, as this interpretation is not John's invention, but quite the interpretation that all the Church and all the saints since the first century made of this very passage. Indeed, there were even strange mortifications for our mentality of " the only evil that exists is pain and the only happiness is pleasure". If I remember well, there was a saint, St. John of the Column, who spent more than 30 years, until his death, at the top of a column, where he received his food by means of a basket attached to a cord. The first monks lived in the desert, with the most rigorous ascetism. It's interesting to read in that ancient records that these Christians did not see corporal mortification as the harsher ones. On the contrary. They thought corporal mortification was quite a basic thing. It's only our pleasure- oriented society that has such horror to physical pain.

Parents unhappy with their children's calling for a life dedicated to God is also not new. The most famous and funny case in this regard is that of St. Thomas Aquinas. For those who don't know it, his father put a whore in his bedroom trying to demote him of his intentions of entering the Dominican order. He answered to that by taking a blazing coal from the fireplace and running after the poor girl who tried to escape terrified from the attempt of St. Thomas of igniting her buttocks. As you can see, it is not new, not the only case, and altogether not uncommon.

How can an organization whose procedures are discussed in Web sites in the Internet be accused of secrecy? That's ridiculous. Of course, if a person knows that his parents will not agree with the decision to dedicate his life to God, he will think twice before telling this to them and starting a big quarrel. If he thinks that's not the case, he will tell them of course, and probably they will be very happy. In fact I know some truly devout Catholic families in which the parents even encourage their children to take this kind of path.

All that I said so far does not relate specifically to Opus Dei, being true every time a young person is called to the service of God. Now, I will say some words specific to Opus Dei.

Most of the information, as John has already said, may be found in the organization's Web site at www.opusdei.org. Let me just add some things. Opus Dei members may be married or live in celibacy. The majority of them are married, and the few who live in celibacy do so as a means of being completely free of attachments and dedicate themselves integrally to the formation of the other members, to go in Mission to start apostolate in new countries or cities, to administrate the bureaucracy that goes with every organization, and to do other activities that may be required. However, Bl. Escriva thought that the vocation was radically the same to both married and unmarried members. He used to caution those who lived in celibacy not to be envious of the married ones, for their duties as spouses and parents in a Christian family was no laughing matter (I think many of you out there understand what he meant). At the same time, he didn't want vows, because he didn't want anybody inside the organization who would not quit only from scare of the vows taken. He wanted that everybody there would be there by their free will . And therefore, there are no vows in Opus Dei. Canonically speaking, this means that Opus Dei members are lay people. The organization itself is a Personal Prelature, a new juridical figure created by the Council. Roughly, it is a Prelature (that is, a kind of diocese) whose members are not defined by geographical bounds, but rather by their common commitment to follow Christ in a specific way. This Prelature has a Prelate, that is, a bishop, and was established as such by the Pope in 1982. So, it is juridically quite different from a religious order. However, you can regard its members as people totally committed for life with Christ for life , and you should expect no less seriousness in living Christianism up to its ultimate consequences from these people. So, in that way, you can regard the daughter of your friends as being called for a life of complete dedication to God, as if she had became a cloistered nun. And this is very difficult for people to understand. They think that if a person decides to follow Christ in celibacy, then he or she must go to cloister. They just can't understand a life of service to God inside the world. I think that answers also the question about the money. What do people think a Fransiscan brother does in his spare time? Perhaps he spends his time tallying his financial assets? Every man or woman who enters a religious order gives up his own money to the order, in the vow of poverty. Why should it be different in a lay organization like Opus Dei? Has anybody in any time accused the Franciscan order of recruiting people only to increase its wealth? The problem that people have with Opus Dei and the other lay organizations in the Church is that they are thriving, while the traditional religious orders are dwindling. So, for the enemies of the Church, the religious orders are no more a threat, but the new lay movements are.

The Pope has put quite a few Opus Dei priests as diocesan bishops in the last years. His spokesman, Joaquin Navarro Valls, is, as anybody well-informed knows, a celibate Opus Dei member , and was personally chosen by the Pope. Where is the secrecy? If Opus Dei is all the evil some people claim, either the Pope is blind or evil himself. And why does the Pope like Opus Dei, or all the new lay movements in the Church for that matter? Because he thinks, following the true spirit of the Council, that the world, which has become pagan, needs to be re-christianized from inside. He wants a less clerical Church. He thinks that the Saints that the world needs now are laypeople, both married and celibate, and not cloistered nuns or monks. This does not mean that he despises nuns and monks, but rather that he thinks that a technological and urban world which has forgotten God needs Saints inside it, not outside. The fact that he has chosen the first lay pope's spokesman in Church's history (until Valls, all pope's spokesmen were clerics) is a sign of what he means.

So, the thing is quite simple: if you love John Paul, then you will like Opus Dei. If you don't like the Pope, probably you won't like Opus Dei either.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 29, 2000.

Atila,

I'd like to comment on a few of your statements if I may:

You said, "Most , if not all, of the criticism aimed at Opus Dei is, in fact, a criticism of the true Christian outlook of the word."

Not true. So where in the word does it tell the leadership of the church to persuade young children into making oaths that are not prepared to live by? And where does the word teach to keep secrets from the parents of the children they are "ministering" to? And where in the word does it say a young child should pledge to work for a living turning over all future wages to an organization? And finally, where in the word does it say a child should employ corporal mortification?

Making decisions such as to remain celibate for life or to pledge to work for the good of the church, can only be made by a responsible adult. If a child is truly called by God for such things, which indeed can and does happen, they will not have to be coerced into pledges at such an early age when they have no clue what they are agreeing to. They will simply obey the call of God and walk in His ways. When the time is right, they can then step forward to make their committments.

All Christians must remain celibate until marriage at the very least, so why pressure a child into doing so when they are not capable of making an informed choice. Is a celibate life something that God calls people to, yes of course? But that is a very rare calling as Jesus himself attests. As you are aware, of the 13 apostles, only Paul was known to have remained celibate, the rest (as far as we know, were married). So if it is rare even among the apostles, the very foundation of the church, how much more so among the general population of the church.

What I object to is not that the child is going to be deprived of sex, you're the only one who's focused on that. What I object to is the preying upon impressionable children and lying to their parents. Why can't the Opus Dei simply teach the merits of such a calling rather than coercing pledges from those not even mature enough to go through confirmation.

You said, "that celibacy is a gift of God and something that should be thanked for, a real cause of happiness for the individual called and for all who love him, his parents in the first place."

The only value to celibacy is that it allows the individual to fully focus on God's call in their life. The deprivation of sex has no value in and of itself. To say that not having sex is inherently good is to imply that having sex is inherently bad or at least less than good. Since sex was created by God not only as a means of procreation, but as an expression of marital love and union (the joining of a man and woman to become one flesh) AND as symbolic of the union of the Bride of Christ (the Church) to the Bridegroom (Jesus). That may not have been your intention Atila, but it comes across that way, that somehow sex is evil or whatever. Just as celibacy is a gift from God, so is marital sex.

You said, "Celibacy, by the way, is praised in many other traditional religions, such as hinduism and budhism."

Oh now THERE'S a good reason to praise celibacy.

You said, "The despise for celibacy in the Occidental world is quite a protestant outlook of the world."

Protestants despise celibacy??? That's news to me. What we despise is trying to earn God's favor by attempting to remain celibate while not truly having such a call in one's life as if such an effort can please God. Self-control and denial of the flesh are manifestations of the Holy Spirit in one's life and are part of every Christian's life of obedience to God and His holy ways. Punishing one's self through self-inflicted pain and self-deprevation are works of the flesh and are a distortion of God's ways.

There are times of self-denial that God brings into one's life as a means of focusing on God and His purpose for us. Fasting, not watching television, not having marital sex (only for a season), etc. are means, when accompanied by focused worship and prayer, of progressing in the ways of God and are a normal part of most Christian's lives. But deliberately inflicting pain through beatings and torture are tragic distortions of God's ways. I remember a priest telling me about a nun who was forced into hanging by her thumbs for three days at a time only receiving water twice a day. She was told that she had to suffer these punishments as a price to purchase her family's way out of purgatory and into heaven. You may not believe that, but that's one of the milder accounts. When I first heard it, I believed the priest who told me but chaulked it up to horribly ignorant, sinful people who had no clue as to God's love abusing others to satisfy their own sense of guilt. The reason I'm responding so harshly to the Opus Dei and to some of the comments I've heard from you and John is that it would seem that not only did such actions have the Vatican's blessing, but such practices would probably still be honored today -- at least that is the impression you are giving. When I hear corporal mortification, those are the practices I associate with it, and I find such things to be from the very depths of hell itself.

You said, "How can an organization whose procedures are discussed in Web sites in the Internet be accused of secrecy?"

Are you serious? Ever hear of the concept of deception? So why don't the Opus Dei bring the parents in with the children and make it a family thing? Why don't they honor the God-given rights and responsibilities of parents to know and approve of what their children are doing? Even Jesus honored his parents hiding nothing from them. The Opus Dei seems to treat parents as a threat. At the very least, they should communicate with parents of EVERY child they are in contact with, explain exactly what they do and INVITE them in. It's simple. They could remove the very basis of their critics, but they don't do they? Instead, they choose to operate in secret.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 29, 2000.

OBRIGADO, my new friend Atila.

It was a wonderful consolation for me to read your long and interesting message. You wrote many MARVELOUS things. Thank you for supporting several things that I said, so that Dave may become aware that his criticism was not correct.

Ah, but now you have another big task to perform, because I see that Dave has replied to your message. I am tempted to answer him because he has again revealed himself to be in the dark on so many things, but I will leave it up to you to carry on what you have so admirably started. As a former Catholic, Dave has had his mind poisoned by lies against Catholicism (for example, the ludicrous myth about the nun hanging by her thumbs). Much prayer and hard work will be needed to help him overcome this, Atila. I have tried to reason with him privately and publicly, but perhaps without any success.

Oh, I was wondering about the first thing that Dave criticized in your message. He quoted you as having written this: "Most, if not all, of the criticism aimed at Opus Dei is, in fact, a criticism of the true Christian outlook of the word." Did you mean "word" in the sense of the Bible (the Word of God), or was this a typographical error, in which you meant to write "world?"

One other thing I have noticed in this thread ... The poor child being discussed seems to be getting younger and younger. It appears that Dave seems to be imagining her to be about 7 or 8 years old -- as if she were being molested by Opus Dei. If all were to return to Enrique's opening question, we would see that Enrique is speaking about a teen-ager. Perhaps I will guess wrongly, but I suspect that she is at least 15 and perhaps as old as 18. The reason I am guessing this way is that Enrique is Mexican, and I do not believe that a Mexican girl younger than 15 would be attending "young people's meetings" or "go[ing] out with boys." Perhaps Enrique can provide some help here.

John (JFG)

PS: Did you notice, Atila, that Dave wrote: "Even Jesus honored his parents, hiding nothing from them." Don't forget to remind Dave that Jesus did NOT tell his parents that He would be staying in the Temple when he was TWELVE years old (younger than the teen-aged girl in Enrique's question)!

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 01, 2000.

John,

Your rebuttals are getting more and more predictable. Whenever you hear something you don't want to hear, it becomes a myth or some curt dismissal without even addressing the possibility that it's true. And whenever you have no defense for your scriptural interpretations, you trot out the tiresome defense that Christians of ALL time have ALWAYS believed this way because the the Catholic Church tells me so and they can't be wrong so I'm right -- I'm still shaking my head over your "porneia" interpretation though not as much as your corporal mortification justifications. And whenever possible attack, patronize and belittle Dave's intellect, beliefs and motives (as if you have a clue). Whatever seems convenient to distract from the truth of what I'm saying. Well, your tactics are working . . . I have no intention of continuing to beat my head against this wall. If you want to persist in your blind acceptance of all that your fed without even attempting to see outside the box your living in, well, far be it from me to save you. I'll take my leave now so you can pass along your "wisdom" unopposed. It's just not worth my time. I used to enjoy my interesting and uplifting conversations here with David Palm, Chris Butler, Enrique and others, but this has become totally unproductive, which I'm sure you'll agree though for different reasons. Funny, at first I suspected that you were, like Franklin Journier before you, another one of David Palm's anonymous incarnations, but that's obviously not the case.

Anyway, bye guys.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), March 01, 2000.

Answering a wish, here it is: The girl in question is now seventeen.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

Hello, Dave. (I am writing pretty much the same words to you privately, in case you really don't come back here.)

I know that you have friends who frequent this site and that you will miss each other mutually. This saddens me somewhat.

But, from a different perspective, I am pleased that you decided to leave this site, because you need time away from here to let the Holy Spirit "convict" you that all Atila and I have written is true. Right now, you are in a horrendous state of "denial," which resulted in the immature and less than truthful outbursts found in your final post. If I have written anything genuinely abusive of you, I apologize. But what I really think has happened here is that you cannot cope with the logic and evidence that has been put forward. You cannot answer us properly, so you are running away. Sad though it may be, it seems better that you leave, and not just so that the truth will sink in, but also so that faithful Catholics will not be led astray by any of the errors in your posts.

You believe that I have intentionally insulted you, but all I have tried to do is to point out holes in your arguments and to scoff at anecdotal evidence that the average person would find ludicrous. If you think that I have insulted you, you should read your own replies to Atila and to me, so that you can find very similar modes of expression -- which are not uncommon in apologetics debates. How easy it is for you to find yourself "not guilty!"

Just as you had thought I was someone else (Mr. Palm) or that I would write messages to you in the same way that others have done -- so I thought at first that you were sympathetic to Catholicism, shared most of its beliefs, etc.. But I have been saddened to find increasing hints that, as an ex-Catholic, you may have become an anti-Catholic bigot, misled by the people and/or writings with which you have been keeping company for 15 years.

Dave, I would not have been as hard-nosed in writing to you if you had been raised in another faith. You were a Catholic for your first 22 years, and you need to come back home. I am your older brother in the faith. My opinion was that you needed a scolding, not to be treated with kid gloves, as others may have treated you in the past. As I told you privately, I was a Catholic for my first 18 years, left for 15 years, and have been a "revert" for almost 16 years. Knowing this, I can only stand amazed at the following words you used: "If you want to persist in your blind acceptance of all that you're fed, without even attempting to see outside the box your living in, well, far be it from me to save you." Dave, you already knew that I was "outside the box" for 15 years, so you should have known that I would not have returned with a "blind acceptance." Oh, no. My eyes are wide open, as I hope and pray yours will be some day.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

John

PS: I have been coming to this site for only a month or so. If the old-timers here feel that I have committed a great injustice and would like to see Dave Bowerman come back, please write to me privately and urge me not to visit this site. If I decide, based on messages from you, that I will not return, I will invite one of you to send a message to Dave, asking him to return. Thanks.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 02, 2000.

Dave,

You may have noticed that my first post in this thread was a direct response to Enrique, and not an attempt to insult you. However, as you have pointed out many things in your response, I think I need to correct some misinformation stated by you.

First of all, it is very clear from your arguments that the only information you have about Opus Dei is that which you got at ODAN. As John pointed out earlier, it is very dangerous to judge a person or an organization hearing only the arguments of its detractors. This is the most single important rule in applying Justice. It seems very clear that you have never met any person from Opus Dei. I cannot understand why you think that the information provided by ODAN is more reliable than that provided by me, by John, by the Vatican, or buy Opus Dei itself. Anyone who reads the site of ODAN becomes immediately aware, even by the style of writing, that it is informed by a very secular mentality and a gross ignorance about the history, the uses and the life of the Catholic Church. I think John captured this immediately, even not knowing very much about Opus Dei. One interesting thing about ODAN is that I have sent them an e-mail some months ago correcting some of the errors displayed there, and as I expected, they never answered me. This kind of people only hear what and who they want to hear.

I myself know Opus Dei for 17 years, and I am very grateful to it, as it was the door for me and all my family to come back to the Catholic Church, after a lifetime of relapsed Catholic life. I and my family, that is, my mother, my sister, and my grandparents, as many people in predominantly Catholic countries, were always relapsed Catholics, those who go to the Church only to baptisms, marriages, and funerals. My mother's confessor and spiritual director was an Opus Dei priest who was invited by the Pope to be one of the auxiliary bishops of Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, I think I am in position to know it quite well, or at least better than an individual whose only information about the subject is collected from a secular (and clearly a Church enemy, or at least a Church ignorant) organization.

John made a good point when he said that the girl seemed to be getting younger and younger with each post. As Enrique said, she is 17, an age at which, in the United States, you can drive a car, join the Army, be prosecuted and convicted even to death penalty. I think it is very difficult to call this a child. Anyway, nobody can join Opus Dei canonically before 18, although a person can start a trial and training period which, if successful, will lead to joining Opus Dei when he or she ceases to be minor. You can think of it as a kind of novitiate. Indeed, one may only join definitely Opus Dei after 23.

It is interesting to observe that the fixation of 18 as the age for adulthood is a very very recent thing. Not so long ago, they age for one to marry, in Canon Law, was 14 for men and 12 for women. Fourteen was also the lower age limit for religious profession. Sociologists and psychologists every day point out that children are maturing earlier and earlier. Here in Brazil, Congress is evaluating a proposal for changing the law to permit people of 16 to be considered criminally responsible. As John pointed out, there are lots of cases in Church History of young girls secretly offering their lives to God at ages as early as 10. As far as I am aware, there are states in the United States that consider is very young children as criminally responsible. I think it would be a very big hypocrisy to say that children of, say, 15, is mature enough to go to the electric chair but not to offer their life to God. I repeat that nobody can join Opus Dei before 18, in case you jump over my last paragraph, as it seems you did when reading my first post. What I mean is that even if it was possible for younger people to do it, I would not think of it as an absurd, as it would be consistent both with Church History and, funnilly enough, with United States law. Besides, nowadays, it is very difficult to defend the theory that a 17 year old girl is imature, irresponsible, and clueless. At this age, in the United States, Brazil, or Mexico, girls are using contraceptives, making abortions, having children, leaving home to go to universities and to live with other men and so on. If a girl of 17 is considered old enough and responsible enough to choose to marry a man or what career she will follow, why would she be naive, irresponsible or clueless to dedicate her life to God?

Now I will comment specifically some things that you said.

>> "But that is a very rare calling as Jesus himself attests. As you are aware, of the 13 apostles, only Paul was known to have remained celibate, the rest (as far as we know, were married). So if it is rare even among the apostles, the very foundation of the church, how much more so among the general population of the church"

Where in the Scriptures (as it seems it is the only reference you accept) did you read that it is so rare? And what is rare, anyway? 1%? 10%? 0,0001%? Your interpretation of the Gospel is very interesting. Scripture says Paul remained celibate. OK. Scripture also says that Peter had a mother-in-law. Scripture does not say that the other apostles were married. One of them, John the Evangelist, most probably was not married, as he was a very young adolescent, believed to be 14 years old when he joined Christ by the best historians. Peter had a mother-in-law, but his wife might have died. If she had not, then Peter left her to follow Christ, as she's never referred to in the Scripture, at the same time that Scripture is very precise about who were the women who followed Christ closely. That would not be absurd, as Jesus is very clear to say that " he who does not leave his house, his parents, his wife, and his children for my sake is not worthy of me". In the same way, Scripture says nothing about the wives of the other apostles, which would be very strange indeed if they remained married, that is, leaving maritally with their wives; if that were the case, they would probably be listed beside all the women who are always listed as belonging to Christ's group.

>> "What I object to is not that the child is going to be deprived of sex, you're the only one who's focused on that".

As I have told you, my post was an answer to Enrique4s question, not a comment on your postings. And if you read again his question, you will be aware that the primary concern of his friends was the fact that she was not going out with boys anymore. If that is not related to marriage and sex, what is it related to?

>>"The only value to celibacy is that it allows the individual to fully focus on God's call in their life. The deprivation of sex has no value in and of itself. To say that not having sex is inherently good is to imply that having sex is inherently bad or at least less than good. Since sex was created by God not only as a means of procreation, but as an expression of marital love and union (the joining of a man and woman to become one flesh) AND as symbolic of the union of the Bride of Christ (the Church) to the Bridegroom (Jesus). That may not have been your intention Atila, but it comes across that way, that somehow sex is evil or whatever. Just as celibacy is a gift from God, so is marital sex."

In this paragraph you said some very true things, and some not so true. Of course the Catholic Church and Opus Dei consider marriage as a gift of God. Indeed, compared to protestantism, Catholics put marriage in a much higher place then protestants. For Catholics, marriage is a Sacrament and is indissoluble, things that marriage is not for protestants. It seems that to be able to appraise the correct value of celibacy, it is necessary to appraise correctly the value of Matrimony, and vice versa. Indeed, Catholics think of both things as good, holy, and very valuable gifts of God. It seems that protestants cannot see the value of either. After all, Luther was very clear in considering sex as an inherently bad thing, consequence of original sin. Calvinism is most known in all the world for its sexual puritanism. This is a part of my post that it seems that you'd jumped over. I said that most of Opus Dei members are married, and that its founder viewed the vocation of both married and celibate members as radically equal, being that the celibate ones remained this way in order to be free to do the things necessary for the organization.

However, the Catholic Church does see celibacy as a higher state than marriage. Before the Council, it was usual to call celibacy the " state of perfection". And this , because the sacrifice or renunciation of a good think for the sake of the Lord is even better. To renounce to bad things is nothing more than our duty. Even the most primitive religions have the notion that the things to be offered to the gods are the best things available to the comunity. Primitive tribes offer, in their religious services, the best animals available (as Jews had done). That's probably why protestants cannot see the value of celibacy: as they don't have marriage in a very high account, and as they think sex is an evil thing, there is no point in offering its sacrifice to God.

I am not saying that you, Dave, has this opinion about marriage. By what you have written, your view on marriage is much more Catholic than protestant. You even used phrases often used by the pope himself. Perhaps this is so because you learned about marriage in the Catholic Church? Very few protestants would subscribe to the description you made of merriage.

About celibacy being nore than just an utilitarian choice, please read the following texts:

-"It has been sometimes asked whether there is a special virtue of virginity; and in spite of the affirmative answer of some authors, and of the text of St. Thomas, II-II:152:3, the statement of which cannot be taken literally, the question must be answered in the negative. Formally, virginity is but the purpose of perpetually preserving perfect chastity in one who abstains from sexual pleasure. Ordinarily this purpose is inspired by a virtue superior to that of chastity; the motive may be religious of apostolic. Then the superior virtues of charity or religion will ennoble this purpose and communicate to it their own beauty; but we shall not find in it any splendour or merit of another virtue. The resolution of virginity is generally offered to God under the form of a vow. The counsel of virginity is expressly given in the New Testament; first in Matt., xix, 11, 12, where Christ, after reminding His disciples that besides those who are unfit for marriage by nature, or by reason of a mutilation inflicted by others, there are others who have made the same sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven, recommends them to imitate these. "He that can take, let him take it." Tradition has always understood this text in the sense of a profession of perpetual continence. St. Paul again, speaking (I Cor., vii, 25-40) as a faithful preacher of the doctrine of the Lord (tamquam misericordiam consecutus a Domino, ut sim fidelis), formally declares that MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL AND REMAIN SINGLE; and he gives the reasons; besides the considerations arising from the circumstances of his time, he gives this general reason, that the married man "is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided"; whereas he that is without a wife directs all his care to his own bodily and spiritual sanctification, and is at liberty to devote himself to prayer. THE CHURCH,S FOLLOWING THIS TEACHING OF ST. PAUL, HAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED THE STATE OF VIRGINITY OR CELIBACY PREFERABLE IN ITSELF TO THE STATE OF MARRIAGE, AND THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (SESS. XXIV, CAN. 10) PRONOUNCES AN ANATHEMA AGAINST THE OPPOSITE DOCTRINE. Some heretics of the sixteenth century understood Christ's words, "for the kingdom of heaven", in the text above quoted from St. Matthew, as applying to the preaching of the Gospel; but the context, especially verse 14, in which "the kingdom of heaven" clearly means eternal life, and the passage quoted from St. Paul sufficiently refute that interpretation. Reason confirms the teaching of Holy Scripture. The state of virginity means a signal victory over the lower appetites, and an emancipation from worldly and earthly cares, which gives a man liberty to devote himself to the service of God. ALTHOUGH A PERSON WHO IS A VIRGIN MAY FAIL TO CORRESPOND TO THE SUBLIME GRACES OF HIS OR HER STATE, AND MAY BE INFERIOR IN MERIT TO A MARRIED PERSON, YET EXPERIENCE BEARS WITNESS TO THE MARVELLOUS SPIRITUAL FRUIT PRODUCED BY THE EXAMPLE OF THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO EMULATE THE PURITY OF THE ANGELS. " (Catholic Encyclopedia - Topic "Virginity" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm.)

-"12. The chastity "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12) which religious profess SHOULD BE COUNTED AN OUTSTANDING GIFT OF GRACE. It frees the heart of man in a unique fashion (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32-35) so that it may be more inflamed with love for God and for all men. Thus it not only symbolizes in a singular way the heavenly goods but also the most suitable means by which religious dedicate themselves with undivided heart to the service of God and the works of the apostolate. In this way they recall to the minds of all the faithful that wondrous marriage decreed by God and which is to be fully revealed in the future age in which the Church takes Christ as its only spouse. Religious, therefore, who are striving faithfully to observe the chastity they have professed must have faith in the words of the Lord, and trusting in God's help not overestimate their own strength but PRACTICE MORTIFICATION AND CUSTODY OF THE SENSES. Neither should they neglect the natural means which promote health of mind and body. As a result they will not be influenced by those false doctrines which scorn perfect continence as being impossible or harmful to human development and they will repudiate by a certain spiritual instinct everything which endangers chastity. In addition let all, especially superiors, remember that chastity is guarded more securely when true brotherly love flourishes in the common life of the community. " (Counsil Vatican II - Decree "Perfectae Caritatis" on the Renewal of Religious Wife, n.12) - http://www.cin.org/v2relig.html

( sorry about the upercases, I don't know how to make bold here)

As you can see, this opinion is not mine, John's, nor of Opus Dei. it is the opinion of the Church, and not just an ancient one, being reconfirmed by the Council. You may disagree with it, but not say that it is an aberrant new idea and practice of Opus Dei. On the contrary, Opus Dei, while maintaining these ideas, stresses the call for holiness for lay people and married couples, something that was almost forgotten in Catholic circles before the Council.

Indeed, the founder of Opus Dei was considered by some a heretic it in the beginning , because he preached that married people were called to holiness the same way as celibates. This was a very strange notion indeed inside the Catholic Church just before the Council. That's one of the reasons why the three last popes (Paul VI, Jonh Paul I and John Paul II) called him a Council's precursor.

>> "You said, "Celibacy, by the way, is praised in many other traditional religions, such as hinduism and budhism." Oh now THERE'S a good reason to praise celibacy. You said, "The despise for celibacy in the Occidental world is quite a protestant outlook of the world." Protestants despise celibacy??? That's news to me. What we despise is trying to earn God's favor by attempting to remain celibate while not truly having such a call in one's life as if such an effort can please God. Self-control and denial of the flesh are manifestations of the Holy Spirit in one's life and are part of every Christian's life of obedience to God and His holy ways. Punishing one's self through self-inflicted pain and self-deprevation are works of the flesh and are a distortion of God's ways. "

What I meant with that hinduism and budhism thing is that celibacy is a thing cherished by human nature, and so it is present in many cultures, making it clear that it is not the absurd thing that protestants seem to think. That protestants despise celibacy is such an obvious thing that it awes me that it can be disputed. Luther went out of his monastery, married a nun, and one of the first things he did when the German princes gave him power over the German Church was to pull nuns out of their convents and force them to marry. And the fact that there is nothing in the protestant world even comparable to a religious order, added to the fact that ministers, pastors, and missionaries are all married among protestants speaks by itself about the value that protestants attribute to celibacy. It4s no use to praise celibacy (something I never heard from a protestant, BTW) and have nobody in the comunity who practices it. Sounds hypocritical. Again, this is such a distortion of human nature, that even remote and strange religions as the oriental ones recognize the necessity and goodness of certain people to remain celibate, such as the Buddhists. In fact, as far as I am aware, the two only big religions in the world that deny the importance of celibacy, either in theory or in practice, are protestantism and islam. You say that one to remain celibate when he or she has not this call is a futile exercise. You may be right. But how do you know whether a specific person's call is true or not? Perhaps you are appointing yourself as Judge of God's vocations? Even more strange coming from a person who believes in individual scripture interpretation and direct inspiration by the Holy Ghost!

>>"There are times of self-denial that God brings into one's life as a means of focusing on God and His purpose for us. Fasting, not watching television, not having marital sex (only for a season), etc. are means, when accompanied by focused worship and prayer, of progressing in the ways of God and are a normal part of most Christian's lives. "

Perfectly true!

>>"But deliberately inflicting pain through beatings and torture are tragic distortions of God's ways. "

Perfectly true as well!

Now, how do you know that this is the case in Opus Dei? By what you read in the ODAN site? The Church (Vatican) regulates how much corporal mortification is reasonable and justifiable for each religious organization. That kind of corporal mortification practiced in Opus Dei is quite mild compared to those practiced in ascetism-oriented religious orders, like the Trappists, the Cisterciences, the Cartuxes,or in Eastern Orthodox monasteries. It is a kind of mortification used by lay people aspiring to holiness throughout Church's history, like St. Thomas More. As I have said, corporal mortification is not considered as an end of itself, but is something necessary at the very beginning of the spiritual life. For that, see the "Tratado de Teologma Ascetica Y Mistica" (Tanquerey) or the writings of Saint Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross (by the way, the subject of the Pope's doctoral dissertation in theology).

>> "I remember a priest telling me about a nun who was forced into hanging by her thumbs for three days at a time only receiving water twice a day. "

Now this is obviously absurd. An absurd tale it false, and a diabolical one if true. And completely unrelated to the practice of corporal mortification as understood and ruled by the Catholic Church. (hey, not all Catholics are saints!)

>> "The reason I'm responding so harshly to the Opus Dei and to some of the comments I've heard from you and John is that it would seem that not only did such actions have the Vatican's blessing, but such practices would probably still be honored today -- at least that is the impression you are giving. When I hear corporal mortification, those are the practices I associate with it, and I find such things to be from the very depths of hell itself."

I agree with you. The problem is that you are perhaps so traumatized with that account that you cannot even hear about corporate mortification. But, mind you, this exaggeration comes from your own trauma, and you should not immediately jump from hearing the words " corporal mortification " to understand those absurd things you are telling us about. Mind you, that exaggeration is yours, not Opus Dei4s or the Vatican's.

>> "So why don't the Opus Dei bring the parents in with the children and make it a family thing? "

They usually do. As I have said you, in my family, the first to come across Opus Dei was me, and I was a kid. Today, in my family, the person who is most close to Opus Dei is my mother. It is not clear from Enrique4s account, but it is possible that the girl's parents were invited to know Opus Dei and refused.

>> "Why don't they honor the God-given rights and responsibilities of parents to know and approve of what their children are doing? Even Jesus honored his parents hiding nothing from them. "

As I have said, they do. What they don't, is to think that parent4s responsibility overthrows God's rights. As John has remembered well, Jesus himself, when he was 12, was not ashamed of remaining in the Temple and worrying his parents. And He made it quite clear that God came before parents.

>> ". The Opus Dei seems to treat parents as a threat. "

They treat parents as people to be helped to have a deeper spiritual live, as was the case with my mother. However, they are indeed treated as threats if they try to hinder their children's vocation, in which case they are merely being instruments of the Devil.

> "The Opus Dei seems to treat parents as a threat. At the very least, they should communicate with parents of EVERY child they are in contact with, explain exactly what they do and INVITE them in. It's simple. "

Yes, it is simple. And it is exactly what they do. Now, if the parents don't want to go, they do not force them. My mother was invited in less than a week after I got to know one of its centers.

>"Instead, they choose to operate in secret. "

They don't. This is ridiculous and simply a calumny.

Summarizing, Dave, it seems that you mixed lack of information with your own traumas, resulting in a harsh attack on something you know very little about, as you yourself admit.

John, thank you for your encouraging words. As for your question about "word" or "world", it was a typo. I meant " world ". Your comment about the child becoming younger and younger made me roll on the floor with laughing! <-D

And Dave, your comment to John about saying that something was always believed by all Christians this or this way is merely a question of historical investigation, not a question of faith , opinion or interpretation. For example, about corporal mortification, which is one of the things discussed here, when I say that this kind of mortification was always used in the Church, is not a matter of telltale, but a historical fact, easily verifiable by the study of manuscripts of the first centuries and of other documents from that time on. It's interesting to see that protestants accept the scriptures maintained by the Catholic Church for 15 centuries (and make of them their only divine source!) at the same time deny historical facts that can be verified even by an atheist historian.

Peace for you all.

Atila

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 02, 2000.

Most of what I have said here perhaps may be applied to the Legionaires os Christ thing on the other thread, I think. Each one of the new movements inside the Church will of course receive as much oposition and criticism (frequently calumnious) as big is their success. This has allways been this way. Just consider the persecution of Franciscans and Dominicans in their day, or even worse, the incredible persecution of the Jesuits, to the point of the dissolution of the Order by the Vatican and making its priests run to Russia for their lives (the "czarina" offered them protection)!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 03, 2000.

Dave and JF: I consider that there is no need that any of you two stay away from this forum. It is only natural that many people have different opinions. It is a question of not taking it as a personal thing. After all we have the right to express our ideas freely. If someone does not agree with us, let him express his own idea, as long as we show respect for each other at all times. Of course you all know these things, but sometimes it happens that our heart (or is it the liver?) speaks before our head, and that brings about the misunderstandings. As far as I am concerned, you two, Dave and John, are welcome to stay on the forum, and I am sure many ot the other participants agree with me.

In Christ our Lord. Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

Hello Enrique,

I have been a member of Opus Dei for almost 10 years. I am quite surprised with what you are saying above.

1. Opus Dei member DON'T MAKE VOWS! We have a 1 year VERBAL contract renewable every March 19. Although most members remain faithful, I have seen a lot of members who leave the organization by not renewing their contract... The door is wide open to those who leave and no one is ever forced to remain in Opus Dei if he doesn't want to. The reason we remain in Opus Dei is because WE WANT TO which is the most supernatural of all reasons!

2. Incorporation to Opus Dei can happen only to those 18 years and above. It is sad that this girl hasn't been straight forward with her parents.

An incident occured during the time of the Founder when a student attended a retreat but told his parents that he was somewhere else. His parents were against Opus Dei. The founder scolded that student telling him, "No more lies!" One thing we are taught in Opus Dei is TRANSPARENCY AND SINCERITY! Both qualities are very foreign to secrecy. I don't it is not so much as the fault of the director as the lack of sincerity on the part of the girl. Or maybe it could be that the girl misunderstood what she was told.

Nothing is every a secret in Opus Dei. If you want to know more about the Work go to the phone book and look for Opus Dei information office of go to http://www.opusdei.org.

3. We don't make a vow of chastity in front of Opus Dei priest. But we are asked to LIVE CHASTITY in whatever state in life (married or single!) To join Opus Dei, we apply to the director of a center NOT to Opus Dei Priests.

4. Lastly, why is the "superior" a he? There are two sections of Opus Dei, one for men and other for women. But sections are separate and the only men that go to the Center are the priests. The head of each center is a director or a directress... Priest dispense the sacraments, give doctrine or theology classes and give spiritual direction.

There is a lot of things wrong with the situation you have presented. Are you sure this girl is really talking about Opus Dei?

-- Chris Go (agonggo@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001.

Atila,

Please tell us what other thread that you commented regarding the Legionaires of Christ. I would like to follow up on this thread by reading the other one you talked about. Thank you.

-- Vannie (Vanden@juno.com), August 26, 2001.

Hello, Vannie.
Sadly, Atila cannot visit our forum very often these days. I was able to find the thread to which he referred. Please click here.
JFG

-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), August 26, 2001.

Dear Enrique:

I will contribute my own answer based on my six years' experience as a numerary of Opus Dei, my relatively extensive (I am sorry if I sound like I am boasting, but I really have read a tremendous amount) reading in the Catholic Faith, and my reading of almost all published negative commentary on Opus Dei.

Answer to 1: In general, secrecy about one's personal membership in Opus Dei is encouraged. Why? The simple answer is that this practice is part of the culture of Opus Dei. To a great extent, this practice originated from and was perpetuated by Bl. Josemaria Escriva. The original 1950 Constitution of Opus Dei, which originated from Bl. Escriva, made this secrecy one of its provisions. However, Opus Dei claims that the 1950 Constitution has been superceded by the 1982 Constitution.

When I was a member of Opus Dei, I was told by the priest and the directors on more than one occasion not to tell my parents that I had joined Opus Dei. I was given permission to do so only about four years after I had joined--but by this time, it was pretty obvious to my parents that I was a numerary.

I can only speculate about the reasons behind this specific counsel to deny my membership in Opus Dei. There are probably many reasons-- Opus Dei is a complicated and paradoxical place. I believe that the most important reason is that when a person has joined Opus Dei, it is generally thought by the priests and directors that the person has a vocation to Opus Dei, a calling from God. It is also believed that parents often present an obstacle to this vocation--and yes, parents very often raise hell. But in the Opus Dei way of thinking, "one must obey God first, parents second."

This general way of thinking is full of theology mixed with good aspects of two millenia of Catholic tradition as well as harmful applications. The key is to discern in what situations aspects of this general way of thinking may apply--in my opinion, Opus Dei is poor at this.

Moreover, Opus Dei is not consistent on the practice of secrecy. At various times, we were encouraged to tell other people that we were members. In my experience, the criteria regarding when we were supposed to tell and when we were not supposed to was not clarified.

In general, revisionism and inconsistency characterize Opus Dei practices. This occurs in part because Opus Dei reacts to criticism that it perceives as valid by making some changes. But Opus Dei also disagrees with most of the criticism it receives.

Answer to 2: I believe that the vow is valid, even if the person is a minor, as long as it fulfills the conditions specified in Canon Law. I don't know too much here.

While the evangelical vows are no longer a part of the life of a numerary, it is possible for any layperson, including a member of Opus Dei, to take the vows, one or more of them--I was taught this by an Opus Dei priest. I believe that the Holy Spirit can inspire this desire to take vows, as we may see in the evidence of some of the lay saints' lives.

Answer to 3: Yes. Very often. At least when I was a numerary, 1979- 1985. Still probably true, because Opus Dei changes very slowly.

I hope this helps. I was just browsing and decided to send in my two cents' worth.

-- J. I. B. Gonzales, Ph.D. (techcom@broline.com), October 01, 2001.

There is a deep misunderstanding of the rights of parents in many of the statements in this thread. Atila states "Of course, if a person knows that his parents will not agree with the decision to dedicate his life to God, he will think twice before telling this to them and starting a big quarrel." Exactly, but this is very different from a representative of Opus Dei ADVISING the child to do so. This is a denial of the rights of the parent. Only the bishop has the right to advise a child to not inform the parents about this decision. The parents actually share in the sanctifying and teaching office of the bishop according to canon law. They are the primary educators of their children. Until they are eighteen, they are under the authority of their parents in all matters except those, like a vocation, in which they are exempt. IN THESE AREAS THEY THEN COME DIRECTLY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BISHOP. Until the child has reached eighteen, advising a child to not tell the parents about the education they receive in preparation for a commitment to celibacy denies the parents their right to supervise this education and it UNDERMINES THE AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP. If the authorities in Opus Dei suspect the parents will coerce the child, they must first prove this suspicion to the proper authority, the bishop of the diocese.

-- David Williamson (stsjoachimandanne@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

Another point. Atila says: "If a girl of 17 is considered old enough and responsible enough to choose to marry a man". Who by? The Church forbids priests to allow minors to marry if their parents are unaware of or reasonably opposed to the marriage. This is an example of where the Church asserts the parents right to know and give consent. Minors are allowed to marry at a younger age, and may be convinced that God is calling them to do so, but their judgement is subject to thier parent's knowledge and consent. The priest may only go ahead with a marriage where the parents are opposed if the BISHOP gives his approval - a clear example of what I mentioned in the last comment.

-- david williamson (stsjoachiamandanne@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

I am hoping to become a member of opus dei in the near future

-- Robert (six_bob@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.

Robert,

Best wishes. Are you a minor?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 06, 2004.

No I am not a minor 40 year old and married I have got a lot from attending OD circles and recollections.

-- Robert (six_bob@hotmail.com), December 27, 2004.