Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving

Who has moved all this to the archive? Is this a way to conceal the discussion? I feel the discussion is not over yet: and I am not gone. Uncertain 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Uncertain. Please click the history tab and you'll find out who archived the previous discussions. Walter could very well have had a good intention. The page was rather long. Marax 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Franco

Opus Dei did not take advantage of Franco's regime and was not overrepresented

I am beginning a new section to make it easier to focus on the issue raised by Uncertain. Here is the basic issue:

My point (Uncertain's) is that Opus Dei was overrepresented in government (not only in the cabinet) and in the University, and that the organisation took advantage of the Regime to spread and prosper..... It portrays it taking advantage of a situation that made Spain worst-off. This is Opus Dei's "original sin", which price is paying today.

My point in turn is the title of this section.

1) OD, could have taken advantage, but did not take advantage of the Franco Regime to spread and prosper.

Allen recalls the Benelli story: Benelli --right hand man of Paul VI--wanted a Catholic Party in Spain a la Italy's Christian Democrats and wanted all Catholics to tow the line. Escriva, who was truly desperate in asking the help of Benelli to talk to Paul VI re personal prelature status, refused Benelli. And later complained to Benelli for holding Opus Dei hostage so Benelli could have his way. Allen says: "The Benelli story offers a good case for testing whether Escrifva was serious about OD having no political agenda. If ever there was a set of circumstances propitious for a "power grab", this situation presented them. ...If OD led the way in the creation of Spanish version of Christian Democ, its imaginable that its total of 8 ministers in 36 years under Franco would have been swamped by its representation in a new Spanish government."

Escriva stated in Conversations that Opus Dei had the hardest time and the greatest difficulties in Spain. I think partly because of accusations like these without any foundation in reality, "sin fundamento in re."

2) OD could not have been overrepresented in the government.

There were only 8 ministers of 119 in 36 years, one died three months after he took over and 3 others were there only for one term. And that is 1957 when Opus Dei already expanded so much. There were several other Catholics from other associations involved with Franco.

[[Nice point, Marax. I have seen these Messori's figures quoted several times in this discussion, and in other pages. Lets accept the rough figures, although it is difficult to say who was a member of Opus Dei (or not, I wrote --following Preston-- that Fernández Miranda was a member and Messori seems to deny it, but I think he has the same evidence than Preston; E. Ramón Arango (1995) doubts that even Carrero Blanco was a member) and I do not really know how many ministers served under Franco (the cited Gunther says --following Amando de Miguel-- that were 87 ministers until 1974, the year before Franco died). Lets accept those figures.
When I say that the Opus Dei was over-represented in Franco's governments I do not mean that the technocrats that-happened-to-be-members were representing any organisation. I do not even mean that there were any kind of representativeness (it was a dictatorship) although all the authors I have quoted underline that there where "quotas" for the powerful groups of the Movimiento. When I say that the Opus was over-represented I mean that it was over-represented in statistical terms.
8 ministers of 119 mean a 6.896%. If they were a proportional representation of Spain, the Opus Dei should have had 2,109,168 members, something that has never happened in the whole world [I take the population of Spain as 30,582,936 in 1960]. Conversely, this figure means that for one member of the Opus Dei to reach the cabinet the chance is very low. Lets say that the Opus Dei had then the members it has today, about 80,000. The chance that one would have reached the cabinet is, at least, 80,000 / 30,582,936 = 0.00261 [one member cabinet; for a cabinet of, lets say, 10: 0.0261] For three ministers, those of the 1957 cabinet, for instance, the chance is 0.00000000000468 [0.0000000000468 for a cabinet of 10 members]. This is what I mean when I say that the Opus Dei was over-represented. I can say, in the same way, that the women were infra-represented, Am I wrong? [Well, if there is a mathematician around, please, correct my figures  ;-) ].
We know that they were good technicians. They should be extremely good technicians to compensate such adverse probability.
By the way, I would add to the bibliography the books I have just cited:
- Gunther, Richard. 1980. Public Policy in a No-Party State. Spanish Planning and Budgeting in the Twilight of the Franquist Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California. ]]
- Arango, E. Ramón. 1995. Spain. Democracy Regained. Boulder,CO: Westview
--Uncertain 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Re over-representation, one can make a calculation closer to home: if a member of Opus Dei is in the present British cabinet with, say, 22 other ministers, then with a population of approaching 60 million obviously there are between 2 and 3 million members of Opus Dei in the UK. :-) Actually there are 520 members. So Opus Dei is over-represented in the British Government, then? The answer is clearly no: in fact it is not represented at all.
The problem of "representation" has to do with the separation of the institutional from the personal. Opus Dei was not in government (how many times does one have to cite the opposition of other members of Opus Dei before this is accepted?). You say you don't mean it that way, and I accept that.
But then, what is your objection to saying that "members of Opus Dei were" in (and over-represented in) the government? I would not object to that, as one can also add that they were in the opposition. What I object to is that statement that "Opus Dei was" in (or over-represented) in the government. Asoane 13:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Asoane wrote in my discussion page:
Hello Uncertain. I'm sorry if I sometimes come over as ironic: that is not my intention. I just want to ask here whether our difference is just over the question "Opus Dei was over-represented" (you) versus "members of Opus Dei were over-represented" (me), or whether there is more. Obviously that reflects a deep difference but in practical terms for the entry it might not be so great. I expect the Wikipedia entry could set forth both opinions although naturally I object strongly. ;-) Asoane 21:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
And I replied:
Hi, Asoane! I have just seen your comments in my message board. The question you ask is key: "Opus Dei was over-represented" (me) versus "members of Opus Dei were over-represented" (you). I agree that the most correct is the second one. None the less, as far as each individual member was not representing himself, the correct sentence would be something like "membership of the Opus Dei was overrepresented in the government", although it is an odd sentence.
However, and I think this is important also, an organisation is made by its members. And this is specially important when there are few members and when its organisation tries to be "reserved". I accept that an organization is something different and, in some way, more than the sum of its individual members. That's why I can accept that Opus Dei, as an organisation, did not explicitly supported Francoism when some of its members entered the cabinet in the late 1950s. But I cannot accept that those unlikely coincidences (the proportion among the members of the cabinet, first, the proportion among the higher staff and proprietors of Spanish banks, secondly, the proportion of journalists and journal owners, thirdly, and the proportion of middle-upper and upper classes in their firsm members, finally) does not mean purpose. And thus, I underline these "coincidences", first. And I analyse the kind of people was recruited in the very firs years of Opus Dei (around the Civil War), and why. Aand, as far as we cannot resolve if most of historians lie (or are wrong), I prefer to believe the history those eminent historians told, first, and to rely on reliable knowledge such as statistics, secondly.
And, if you don't mind, I prefer to make these discussions publicly. --Uncertain 15:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
--Uncertain 15:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


We seem to agree at least :-) that using "members of Opus Dei were" is more accurate than "Opus Dei was", in this context. I agree to reject the third option on the grounds of oddness.
You refer to an analysis of those who joined Opus Dei in its early years around the Civil War. The names of the each of the people who joined Opus Dei from 1928 to 1939 are known; they can be gleaned from several published sources about Opus Dei, most notably "El Fundador del Opus Dei" by Andrés Vázquez de Prada, Madrid, 2002, but also the biographies by Berglar, Gondrand, Bernal, Sastre, Coverdale, Keenan, Azevedo, etc, not to mention the earlier biography by Vázquez de Prada (1980). The numbers of Romana (Opus Dei's half-yearly bulletin) are good sources.
Most of the first members were students. Of the fifteen or so who were left standing when the dust settled at the end of the Spanish Civil War, the only ones older than their mid-twenties were Isidoro Zorzano (railway engineer, aged 36) and José Maria Albareda (inorganic chemist, aged 36) – the latter had joined Opus Dei in war-time Madrid in September 1937 (Keenan, Leominster, 2004). Rafael Calvo Serer was already a member in March 1936, at the age of 19 in Valencia (Coverdale, New York, 2002). Make of that what you will, but purpose seems unlikely at that stage.
The historians are hopeless sources for this sort of information because their interest is in politics, not in Opus Dei. Asoane 12:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Serer was removed by Franco from the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas in 1953 for an essay he wrote against Franco government.

He was fired because he supported the Franco's bête noire, Don Juan, the father of Juan Carlos I (the king nowadays). Don Juan was claiming his throne and, after Franco restored the monarchy (although he did not restored the monarch himself) he claimed his position. He was fired in one of the inner battles of the Movimiento. --Uncertain 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Herran was a young man after the civil war when he protested against Franco and jailed.

And WHO is Herran?
Sorry I was referring to Julian Herranz! Please see article on Opus Dei and allegations of... I think there is a reference there. Marax 07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Been very busy lately. Thanks, Lafem, for continuing the discussion, I would have wanted to say something similar).

Thus, in this issue, the institution of Opus Dei as such has no sin. Some members might have helped support a dictator. And if it were a sin to help your country in that situation by being "proponents of rapid capitalist growth" and of the "neutralization of politics through prosperity" (Carr and Fusi in Allen),* then it's their sin, their personal accountability. Just an example (not true): If my brother helped Idi Amin, and I fought against Idi Amin and was persecuted, jailed and exhiled, while my parents left us to be totally free in politics, I would argue and demand extremely clear evidence against anybody who accuses that my mother and father took advantage of Idi Amin's regime to spread and prosper. And I would demand even more evidence especially when the evidence that my parents left us in freedom is even more abundant and attested by credible experts and the latest research.

* Marax, you should have quoted the whole sentence or the whole paragraph, to avoid anyone to think, by chance, that you are interestedly misquoting to support your argument. "But Calvo Serer’s ‘third force’ monarchism had no attractions for Franco. Serer was in touch with the Caudillo’s bête noire, Don Juan, even if his vision of a traditional, Catholic anti-parliamentary monarchy was unacceptable to the Pretender; his attacks on Falangists as a gang of opportunists were unpalatable to Franco. The man of the Opus Dei were increasingly ‘technocrats’ like López Rodó, proponents of rapid -- capitalists -- growth and of the ‘neutralisation’ of politics through prosperity." (Carr and Fusi 1993(1979): 30). This is a bit more complete. I am glad that you accept Carr and Fusi as authorities in this topic.
This paragraph also casts light on the interpretation of Calvo Serer's opportunistic position. I will quote it at the end of the section. --Uncertain 19:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is my small contribution to this wonderful historical discussion. I studied history in my undergraduate studies and studied theology later. They go well together in the search for truth.

I would also like to add that I understand where Uncertain is coming from. He is a Spaniard and I am happy he is discussing the recent historical issues of his country with a truly admirable tenacity to ferret out the truth. Marax 06:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice point, Marax. I too understand the environment where Uncertain proceeds from, still highly polarized by the divisions of the 19th and 20th century. Thomas S. Major 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Marax, dear Thomas, I thought this discussion page was to discuss about Opus Dei's article, and not to discuss about personal backgrounds. This would be an ungly 'ad hominen' argument, isn't it? I do not feel I am digging the truth: I just expose the contents of the history books I have found. Their authors were the ones that really made the hard work. [Back to the books I have found: have you, Marax, read the rest of the paragraph you are quoting from Carr and Fussi (1991)? I will discuss it later, if I can.]
I would like to clarify the trajectory of Calvo Serer and the reason why he was fired from the CSIC but, as you see, I have little time to discuss to all of you at a time. Calvo Serer and, specially, Albareda are key persons in Opus Dei persistance due to their position within the CSIC, as Maria Del Carmen Tapia explain in "Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei" (for instance). But later, later. --Uncertain 09:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In May 2000 the International Press Institute nominated Antonio Fontan, a member of Opus Dei who opposed Franco, as one of its fifty 'Press Freedom Heroes' for its 50th anniversary. It is not personal merely to point out that he is Spanish, any more than it is personal to point out that the only Spaniard on the list of fifty is a member of Opus Dei.

Rafael Calvo Serer, another Spanish member of Opus Dei opposed Franco. All the sources agree on this, e.g. his obituary in The Times of 21 April 1988. Now his motives are being called in question, as if his opposition to Franco might not be genuine. But it is likely that people of that time and place owed their stance towards Franco to all sorts of motives. Some of these motives might be personal, at least in part. Some may have had their eyes opened or changed their opinion at some stage. Some could even have stood to gain somehow, or had little to lose. While this can be taken into account when assessing one's personal qualities or foresight, none of it changes the fact of opposition to Franco, nor therefore of pluralism in Opus Dei. Asoane 16:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In this book "The politics of revenge” , Preston states: "The areas in which some commentators have seen Mussolini falling short of 'full-scale' fascism, that is to say, of a notional approximation to Nazism, are precisely where his regime coincides with that of Franco. Just as the existence of political and economic pressure groups created a narrowly restricted pluralism under Mussolini, so too did the Franco regime experience a constant jockeying for power and influence and between generals, Falangists, Catholics, monarchists, the Opus Dei and other political factions.” (1990:15).
Later on: “Beneath the great umbrella of the Movimiento, however, real political power was something that in part had to be wheeled and dealed for and in part depended on the Caudillo’s [Franco’s] view of how best the survival of his power might be secured. After 1946 the burden passed to the Francoist Christian Democrats deriving from the CEDA and associated with the Catholic Pressure group, the Asociación Católica Nacional de Propagandistas. Until they were supplanted by the Opus Dei technocrats in 1957 the ACNP Catholics provided the regime’s public legitimacy.” (1990:114).
Richard Gunther, the political scientist I cited above, wrote in his book about policy making and budgeting during Francoism: “A limited form of pluralistic conflict among individuals, however, was “certainly tolerated and often rampant” under the Franquist regime. Franco acknowledged the coalitional nature of his support and recognized that his supporters would inevitably hold conflicting interests. As a mean of maintaining the continued support of most or all groups in the original Nationalistic coalition, the Caudillo usually recruited his Council of Ministers from a pool lf “ministrables”, representing each faction of the coalition. Not only did he make sure that each major cluster of supporters was represented on the Council, but the practice soon developed of making control of certain departments almost “hereditary”: the Minister of Justice was almost always a Carlist traditionalist; the military departments were always controlled by career military officers, Foreign Affairs and education were usually headed by “Catholics”; economic ministries (Finance, Inddustry and Commerce) and the Planning Subsecretariat were dominated, after 1957, by members of the Catholic lay organization Opus Dei; and social ministries (Labor, the Movement and/or Syndicates and, at first, Housing, by Falangistas.” (33-34). He adds nine names in a note: “Navarro Rubio, Espinosa, Monreal, López Bravo, López de Letona, Fontana, García Moncó, Ullastres and López Rodó”. And in another place he quotes Tryhall: “As tryhall has written (p. 227): The Opus outlook was in tune with Franco’s. It believed in probity and in professionalism; it believed in technical progress but in political and religious conservatism; it was hostile to aggiornmento in the Catholic Church, and rejected democracy on the grounds that equality is a dangerous myth, that ‘only the truth has rights’.” (343).
How many full professors in prestigious universities should I present before I can write that “most international historians say that Opus Dei was linked to Francoism”? Do I show journalists as Messori? What are the criteria in this article for a credible source? --Uncertain 20:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, Messori identifies the ministers in Franco’s government correctly. That is why he can cite the figure of eight. They were: Lopez Rodó, Navarro Rubio, Espinosa, García Moncó, Ullastres, Mortes, Lopez-Bravo and Herrero Tejedor. Preston claims Fernandez Miranda was a member of Opus Dei: he is simply incorrect. On the other hand Ramón Arango is correct when he says Carrero Blanco was not a member. Asoane 12:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know? Do you have access to the Opus Dei's membership lists? Where can we find it? Is it reliable? Is it public? Can anyone access? How can you know that he is citing correctly? [By the way, do you know Messori? Are you Messory?]
I admit I should have never written this. This is the purest ad hominen argument -- I rejected. --Uncertain 19:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that Carrero was member of the Opus Dei (Gunther does not, either). The problem is that this is difficult to check. --Uncertain 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In contrast with the historians whose sources are clearly inferior in this area, Messori is credible, unless you are disinclined to trust him (or perhaps the distrust has more to do with Opus Dei) in the first place. With accurate facts one can draw better inferences. Gunther is perhaps a bit less reliable, as you can see from some of the names he gives. Asoane 12:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am really disinclined to believe Messori, yes. He is a catholic convert and, if we follow the sociologist Bryan R. Wilson, cited in these pages, the testimony of those who apostate is not reliable.
I disagree that on "Opus Dei and allegations of far-right links" those historians on Francosim are not good authorities. Opus Dei sources are not reliable, because they are interested. And, when it is related with the history of Francoism, I trust historians and professors more than journalists [Although I have cited one]. --Uncertain 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Messori also gives names of people in the opposition. Ditto John Allen’s book, a work that I disagree with in many ways, but it is accurate when it cites facts. If you would like criteria for a "credible source" for an entry on Opus Dei, perhaps factual accuracy as regards Opus Dei might be high on the list. Asoane 12:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Some members of Falange were also in the opposition. And some later fought against Francoism. Dionisio Ridruejo, for instance. But you cannot deny that Falange was part of the Francoist coalition. --Uncertain 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I am not impressed by the speculations of certain of the historians: expertise on Spanish politics is no indicator of expertise on Opus Dei. The extracts from Preston and Crozier quoted far above are reasonable. Perhaps we should discount entirely any historian who ever wrote that Carrero Blanco was a member of Opus Dei. :-) Asoane 15:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not read it anywhere. But I have read that Carrero sympathise with the Opus --which is not a crime, anyway. --Uncertain 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


I assume that some of your comments are tongue-in-cheek, such as the suggestion that Messori is not to be trusted because he is a convert (sorry, "apostate"). And the real career of Dionisio Ridruejo is well publicised: he left the Falange and changed sides, unlike Calvo Serer, Fontan, et al., who were in the opposition and at the same time members of Opus Dei one hundred percent.
Yes, Asoane, I was trying to be ironic in some way. Sorry about that. Messori can have better data about Opus Dei memberchip that had those authors so long ago. I wonder if they had the same possibility when they wrote their books.
Calvo Serer also changed sides: he was first Francoist and then he changed sides and became anti-Franco. But I am not sure that he was against the dictatorship but against Franco, or against Franco's point of view about monarchy and about Don Juan. Being against Franco does not guaranty rejecting totalitarism. It demonstrates that members of Opus Dei were free to change sides, but does not goes against the idea that most of them were Francoist and conservative. Or against the idea that the presence of members of Opus Dei in the government and in the cabinet was extraordinary. --Uncertain 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
As regards Dionisio Ridruejo, the correct emphasis above was that he “left the Falange”. In contrast, the members of Opus Dei who opposed Franco did not have to leave Opus Dei. Why should they after all, because it was pluralist, unlike the Falange. That is the true point at issue: the Falange and Opus Dei are completely different types of institution. The fact that there were prominent members of Opus Dei who opposed Franco gives the lie to the argument that Opus Dei supported Franco. Asoane 16:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
To respond to your question, I am not Vittorio Messori, nor do I know him. My handle here is my real name (first initial and surname), and as my page has always stated, I manage the Opus Dei Information Office in London.
I do not pretend that my viewpoint is likely to be unaffected by my membership, but your stance that facts from Opus Dei are unreliable goes much further than recognition of unconscious bias, and is actually an avowedly anti-Opus Dei POV. Why not simply write that Opus Dei is not to be trusted and have done with it?
Perhaps this bias is no more than the mirror image of my own. But I did not say that the historians are untrustworthy tout court, merely that they tend to be wrong when they touch on membership of Opus Dei – which is obvious, seeing as they often disagree with each other on this subject.
And I can reply that Opus Dei tends to be biased against the Spain's History books. But it is a fact that the common image among historians is --no matter who says it or when, independently of his or her background-- that they were one of the regime's "families", that it had strong links, that if gave them much too power in a precise moment of history, that the majority of the members were recruited among the political economical elites and among university students [at that time most of them were middle-upper and upper classes], and that most of them were conservative in politics and, often, extreme-right wing. At that time. Maybe all of them are wrong, maybe most of this is spurious. But most of these are facts. --Uncertain 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Now the ground has shifted from writing “Opus Dei was such and such” to “it is said by historians (or whoever) that Opus Dei was such and such”. None of the mainstream writers go as far as to claim that Opus Dei gave its support to Franco – this is true of the quotations given above (and below, at this moment in time). I think they all mention that one or more members of Opus Dei opposed him.
I have not been able to find either a statement that the situation under Franco gave Opus Dei “too much power”. Asoane 17:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
But the position reaches a real reductio ad absurdam in spurning an accurate list and preferring the speculation of academics who specialise not in Opus Dei but in Spanish politics, whose lists of Opus Dei members differ from each other, and who even admit they do not really know who was in Opus Dei (you yourself say "it is difficult to check"). Who should they be checking with if not the Opus Dei Information Office?
But the point is that you are trying to diminish their whole point of view because they speculate in some of the members. The general picture made by the majority of scholars does not change because they are wrong in data that used to be hard to find. How many books about the Spain's history denies this point of view? The section I discuss is about links with politics and we need specialists in the politics of the countries where that link is alleged. --Uncertain 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I was not diminishing their importance but defending Messori as a “credible source”. This is a issue which you brought up, not me; but I think it has been a good idea to discuss it. I defended Messori by saying more or less: he may not be an academic, but his facts are correct. You respond by saying, roughly, that even if they get details wrong the historians are prestigious academics who deserve to be taken seriously as regards the big picture. This is obviously a strong argument when they get their facts right (allowing for some latitude). But for Gunther to include three false “members” including Lopez de Letona, after he publicly declared several times that he was not a member, is asking for a negative evaluation on very reasonable grounds.
Obviously when one says that Messori and Allen et al., are reliable, that refers to what they write about Opus Dei. When they venture elsewhere they might be less reliable, e.g. Spanish demographics. You cite an example below. But my contention is that this applies the other way round: the historians are likewise venturing off their speciality when they write about Opus Dei. This is not to attack them, any more than you attack Allen.
As I wrote above I accept Preston and Crozier, and by all means include others in the bibliography. Asoane 17:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Messori is not a member of Opus Dei, but presumably he checked his facts with someone. In contrast it seems to me that some of the "historians" merely quote the guesses of those who went before. This may be reasonable with ancient history, but not when you have ways to find out properly.
If you have any problems with the names that appear above feel free to share them. Messori's book is in fact more trustworthy than the political historians in this area. This is clear when names such as Ibañez Martín are being bandied about by full professors.
As you say, Messori's book is most trustworthy in the details, but I do not think so about the whole. And, who cites Ibáñez Martín as a member? --Uncertain 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Re Ibáñez Martín, that comment was provoked by seeing his name on a list of “prominent members of Opus Dei” on another page on the Wikipedia. I admit I should not have aimed that remark at you, and I see also that you later removed his name (before my comment). Asoane 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
However, Simon Preston's biography of Franco (1993) is reasonable, allowing for one or two errors, and so is the biography by the earlier writer Brian Crozier. The memoirs of Navarro Rubio are a useful source, as are those of Lopez Rodó; and so is Pilar Urbano (El Hombre de Villa Tevere, Barcelona, 1994). Asoane 14:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The book that Marax qouted above have some more material on the Opus. I quote extensively because it leads with the position of Calvo Serer and with some of the points I was trying to rise. This is in a sub-section entitled "(iii) The Catholic church" within the section "The institutionalised families":

"It was the subsequent advance of the Opus in the world of business, in the professions and in government that was, in the sixties and seventies, to attract most attention, because it was more successful. From 1951 its share of cabinet posts increased steadily. This ‘politisation’ of the institution was not to the liking of the Vatican. Calvo Serer, as energetic a man as Escrivá himself, became the ideologue of the Opus. For Calvo Serer, Spain under Franco had returned to its true intellectual moorings, lost in the eighteen-century Enlightenment and the individualistic liberalism of the nineteenth century. But Calvo Serer’s ‘third force’ monarchism had no attractions for Franco. Serer was in touch with the Caudillo’s *bête noire*, Don Juan, even if his vision of a traditional, Catholic anti-parliamentary monarchy was unacceptable to the Pretender; his attacks on Falangists as a gang of opportunists were unpalatable to Franco. The man of the Opus Dei were increasingly ‘technocrats’ like López Rodó, proponents of rapid -- capitalists -- growth and of the ‘neutralisation’ of politics through prosperity." (Carr and Fusi 1993(1979): 30).

They follow comparing ACNP and Opus Dei and their respective positions within Francoism:

"The ACNP [National Association of Propagandists] and the Opus were rivals with common characteristics. Both rejected the accusation that they were political parties or pressure groups engaged in a concerted, planned operation to gain influence in high places. ‘I belong to Opus Dei,’ López Rodó was apt to repeat, ‘as I belong to the Royal Madrid Tennis Club, which has nothing to do with my political actions.’ Both are involved in the periodical press and publishing: the ACNP has a daily, Ya; the Opus,, magazines and a publishing house. Both distrusted and were distrusted by Falangists whose hold on power they weakened. Both started as enthusiastic supporters of Franco and both developed an ‘oppositional’ wing more or less tolerated by the regime. By the 1960s Ruiz Giménez, the *propagandista* whom Franco had considered his most docile minister, was calling himself ‘more of a Social Democrat than a Christian Democrat’ and had become the leading spirit of the only critical magazine of this time, Cuadernos para el diálogo. Calvo Serer likewise moved from qualified disgrace into open opposition and exile; but he was considered an eccentric. The Opus Dei never established genuine contacts with the opposition." (Carr and Fusi 1993(1979): 30-1).
"Thus, by the 1970s both the ACNP and to a markedly lesser degree the Opus were divided between reformists who wanted to ‘open’ the regime and rigid conservatives, a development which cynical critics attributed to a desire to be on the winning side should Francoism disintegrate. Both professed concern for the working classes but both were essentially ‘parties’ of the grand bourgeoisie -- the Opus more than the ACNP which kept a wing influenced by advanced Christian Democrat thought and attractive to the young. The ACNP carried on the Catholic corporatist tradition which could be, somewhat uneasily, incorporated into the syndical organisation of the regime where ‘vertical unions’ were intended to end the ‘sterile’ was between capital and labour by harmonious co-operation in the interest of higher production. The labour economic of the Opus appeared more modern and have been castigated as a defence of neo-capitalism. Employers must accept collective bargaining in return for productivity agreements; workers must accept that higher production meant, in the end, a larger national cake to be cut up." (Carr and Fusi 1993(1979): 31).
"When the influence of the ACNP weakened in 1956, and with the economic boom of the sixties, it was the Opus which emerged as the ‘organised’ Catholic support to Francoism, backed, as its members were, by the most trusted of Franco’s ministers -- Admiral Carrero Blanco. The Opus was more ‘dynamic’ than the ACNP and its attractions for the ambitious more obvious; but in the end, in politics, as in the campaign to conquer the university, it overplayed its hand. Its fall from political grace in 1974 was resounding, and much of its former influence was inherited by the propagandistas. They reappeared in influential posts in the cabinet of Adolfo Suárez in 1976." (Carr and Fusi 1993(1979): 31).

Raymond Carr, I do read in the 1993 edition, are respectively Warden of St Anthony's College, Oxford and Director of the Iberian Centre, St Anthony's College, Oxford. --Uncertain 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the two previous paragraphs of the cited book are also interesting, spacially in their oppinion about Escrivá; but are nor related with Calvo Serer and my main interests. I will copy them later. --Uncertain 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Preston deals with Calvo Serer in 1953: “to Franco, his ideas smacked dangerously of political parties”. Preston continues, “In an article published in Paris in September 1953, and widely circulated in the Francoist establishment, Calvo Serer claimed that the Falangists and the regime Catholics had lost their way. For suggesting that only the new group could renovate the regime, liberalize the administration and modernize the economy, Calvo Serer was dismissed from his posts in the [CSIC]”. (Franco, pp.632-633) Preston does not make him appear a totalitarian.
I do get the impression that you tend to go further than many if not most of the historians in attributing a sinister or political “purpose” to Opus Dei (in Spain at that time), and minimising the opposition of some of the members to Franco. I wrote earlier that I would be happy with Preston, Crozier et al., if we stayed close to what they actually said, meaning avoiding a less balanced position - a reference to the posts I was responding to at the time, where you wrote that you “had not tried to be balanced”! (Maybe that was a typo.) Asoane 15:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no representation of Opus Dei and of Opus Dei members in the Franco government

If you will allow me, Uncertain, Asoane, Marax, Tom, can I bring in my views to focus on the big picture, the forest so to speak.

Let me quote the dictionary definitions of "represent": (a) to stand in the place of, (b) to speak and act for by delegated authority, (c) to act in behalf of, (d) to serve as an agent for.

  • From the point of view of the government: Preston stated that these gentlemen were picked for their talents, and not as representatives of OD or OD members. See again the text of Preston quoted by Asoane above:
Bright, hard-working functionaries were emerging who were more concerned to get top jobs in the state apparatus than to implement the ideology of Falangism. That was entirely true of men like López Rodó and Navarro Rubio who were labelled as being primarily of Opus Dei but were more accurately seen as being part of what came to be called the 'bureacracy of number ones', those who had won competitive civil service examinations or university chairs while still very young.
Thus, to answer the query of Uncertain to Marax: yes they were extremely good technicians. Preston says so.
  • From the point of view of OD: OD categorically states that it does not have anything to do with politics. It did not send the gentlemen as members of Opus Dei to represent or act as an agent of OD.
  • From the point of view of OD members: members who were against Franco could not have sent these gentlemen.
  • From the point of view of these gentlemen: they said they were representing themselves and only themselves.

I would strongly object to the use of the word "representation" in the text, even if it is couched in statistical terms, because to use the term is to "misrepresent" or mis-depict (this is the other dictionary meaning) what happened in history. Lafem 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Lafem! I see you are taking over. Welcome back. --Uncertain 19:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia has a "Disambiguation page" about "Representation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation One of the possible pages it refers to is "Group representation":

''Group representation, a way of viewing a mathematical group in some more concrete way.

And the connected page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_representation I am sorry that you disagree with mathematicians and statisticians. And, probably, with linguistics. --Uncertain 19:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


'In fact, as you probably has seen, this meaning has little to do with my main point. But I have a few examples. I have found them writting "over-represented" in Google:

/Google examples of over-representation

I do not follow. The section on group representation you quoted above was about pure mathematics (group theory). In this sense, a 'group' is a set which obeys some mathematical axioms. The term 'representation' is similarly a technical mathematical term. My understanding is that you would have liked to relate these senses of 'representation' and 'group' to the one under discussion. Presumably this must be the sense of the posting. But now you seem to be going in a different direction. Asoane 13:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you were appealing to the Wikipedia disambiguation page, or whether you are actually rejecting it. Asoane 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The reference to group representations is a red herring. This has to do with Group Theory and not Statistics. The use of the words "groups" and "representation" has nothing to do with their usual uses in common speech.
You are fully right, Asoane, this was an unwanted red herring: I recognized it immediately in the next paragraph (see #redherring[broken anchor]), although I did not remove it because I though that maybe someone had seen and wanted to reply (as it has been the case). We could erase it, if you don't mind.
For me, the important thing are the examples below that paragraph. I'll try to fix the format to make them clear.  :-/ --Uncertain 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok Uncertain, that's clear and helpful. Personally I think the rectification is already enough, although I defer to Lafem whose point you were responding to. Asoane 12:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
But assuming you are now proposing a different argument, the obvious point is that in this context the word "representation" is ambiguous (it has an explicitly political overtone) and is better avoided. From a statistical point of view you could say that there were more members of Opus Dei in Franco's government than there would have been if Franco had picked his government by some sort of proportional representation.
However, this really says nothing, and I don't think it is what you have proposed saying so far.
What's important is why these ministers were there. Was it because of who they were as individuals (ie smart cookies and the right sort of chaps - the "number ones") or because Opus Dei put them there? Or were there perhaps other reasons. These are the real questions and they are being debated in the section above (albeit at one remove).
The question being discussed here is something of a side-issue, and it involves an ambiguity that really is better avoided, I think. Asoane 09:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think this is a side issue. You cannot expect to discuss the involvement (or not) of Opus Dei in politics without politically sounding language. We can try to avoid overtones, but not the meaning. And, yes, I was trying to say that they were over-represented in statistical terms, although my interpretation is also political --but I have not explained it yet. --Uncertain 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
But if it's just the unambiguously statistical sense that you really mean, then the sentence I suggested above would do, would it not? One could then go on to discuss the reasons why. Asoane 12:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Asoane. I was about to point out the ambiguity as well. Kindly explain to us then, Uncertain, hopefully using standard dictionaries and the Wikipedia disambiguation page, what you mean by "representation", if you wish to continue along that line. A technical definition of terms in any discussion is a must; if not, we go around in circles. I stress the words "technical" and "standard". A third party definition, you will agree, is more objective. Thank you. Lafem 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's non-sense really to discuss representation in a dictatorship, specially when historians agree some people were chosen for their extraordinary technical expertise, and NOT for their connection to this or that club, hobby, sports, religion, race, diocese, etc. etc. etc. One can think of so many other groups these guys are involved in besides Opus Dei.
They were chosen by Franco because he wanted to, period. Uncertain has already owned up to the fact that there is no representation in a dictatorship. And his quotes from webpages are basically on democracies. So why beat a dead horse? Thomas S. Major 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Thomas, I agree that there is not a political representation per se in a dictatorship, but I do not agree that Franco chose them only because they were good technicians. At the very least, the technocrats did not opposed the dictatorship. However, all this is going too far from the point. --Uncertain 16:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Lafem asked me for a definition in a common dictionary. I have found a lot, but I cite those in Internet:

The demanded definitions of over-representation

All those are in on line dictionaries. The first one redirect you to some of the others
http://www.onelook.com/?w=overrepresented&ls=a
One of the others is the Merriam Webster dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overrepresented
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/overrepresented
http://www.bartleby.com/61/3/O0190300.html
The Oxford English Dictionary is maybe a too technical one. It is made for philologists. However, I think this is authoritative enough. Some of the article's entries on "Over":
27. a. With verbs (both transitive and intransitive), and with nouns or adjectives used as verbs. Many verbs arose in Middle English; those treated as main entries include OVERCARK v., OVERCHARGE v., OVERDRIVE v., OVERHEAT v., OVERLADE v., OVERPRAISE v. In the 16th cent. such formations began to abound, as OVERBLOW v.1, OVERBOIL v., OVERBURDEN v., OVER-BUSY v., OVERCLOY v., OVER-CRAM v., OVERDARE v., OVEREAT v., OVER-FEAR v., OVERGORGE v., OVER-LABOUR v., OVERLOAD v., OVER-LOVE v., OVERREACH v., OVER-ROAST v., etc. Some of the occasional formations listed below date from before 1600 (and a few from before 1500); after 1600 it was effectively possible to prefix over- in this sense to any verb whose sense allowed it. over-accentuate, -afflict, -agonize, -answer, -argue, -assess, -bake, -black, -blame, -boast, -borrow, -brown, -brush, -characterize, -cherish, -chill, -cleave, -coach, -commend, -commit, -complicate, -concentrate, -condense, -confute, -control, -creed, -cull, -cultivate, -damn, -decorate, -deflate, -digest, -dilute, -discipline, -discount, -doctrinize, -doze, -dramatize, -dread, -dull, -edit, -elaborate, -emphasize, -engage, -enjoy, -enrich, -exact, -exaggerate, -exalt, -expect, -explain, -fag, -fancy, -fatten, -fee, -feel, -fix, -flatten, -flog, -force, -furnish, -gamble, -goad, -grace, -grasp, -gratify, -gun, -handicap, -harass, -hate, -help, -honour, -horse, -humanize, -hurry, -import, -ink, -instruct, -interpret, -invest, -involve, -itch, -job, -laud, -linger, -list, -loathe, -magnify, -marl, -meddle, -mix, -moisten, -mortgage, -multiply, -nourish, -nurse, -objectify, -oblige, -organize, -pack, -pamper, -peacock, -pepper, -pet, -plum, -point, -polish, -possess, -preface, -promise, -prove, -provoke, -puff, -race, -rapturize, -regulate, -rehearse, -relax, -represent, -restore, -rev, -reward, -sauce, -scare, -scent, -season, -scrub, -secrete, -seed, -soak, -store, -sup, -sweat, -teach, -thick, -throng, -till, -vilify, -worry, -worship.
A few such verbs occur in Old English, e.g. OVERDO v., OVERDRINK v., OVERFILL v., oferseman; some of these, however, only approach this sense, or can be otherwise explained.
(...)
b. With other nouns expressing actions or conditions, whether identical in form with a corresponding verb, or combined with a suitable suffix (as -ion, -ment, -ure, -nce, -age, -ice, etc.). More established words of both types (as OVERBID n., OVERCHARGE n., OVEREXERCISE n., OVER-INFLUENCE n., etc.; OVERACHIEVEMENT n., OVERACTION n., etc.) are treated as main entries. So over-abuse, -arousal, -blame, -broil, -claim, -concern, -control, -demand, -drain, -ornament, -self-esteem, -worry; over-accentuation, -accumulation, -addiction, -aspiration, -assumption, -attachment, -attention, -civilization, -classification, -commitment, -consumption, -cultivation, -decoration, -devotion, -dilution, -distension, -drainage, -dramatization, -enrichment, -exaltation, -expansion, -expenditure, -flexion, -imitation, -importation, -insistence, -interpretation, -involvement, -lactation, -laudation, -legislation, -moralization, -multiplication, -nutrition, -organization, -ornamentation, -provision, -rapture, -recovery, -reflection, -regulation, -reliance, -repletion, -representation, -secretion, -service, -sophistication, -speculation, -tension.
(...)
1849 Amer. Whig Rev. Mar. 290/2 The next year giving..to the one that was *over-represented a number less. 1881 Jrnl. Statist. Soc. 44 146 Both the dangers above referred to, viz., (1) of the majority in the constituencies being misrepresented in the assembly, and (2) of its being over-represented there. 1987 Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52 393 Our subsample overrepresents those with children.
I think that at least the last definition matches my meaning. Can I go back now to my main argument?
--Uncertain 16:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


-Dear Uncertain, it seems to me that the term 'over-represented' means that the person is there as a representative of the group in question. This is completely false in the case of a member of Opus Dei. If it were an MP in Britain then he/she would be a representative of the constituency that elected them but not of Opus Dei. In a non-democracy, like Franco's Spain, where the job went to a technocrat then you would probably have to say he was there as a representative of the 'set of university economists', or whatever.
-I don't think we are talking about statistics here.
-I think what you are trying to say is the following: If members of Opus Dei are a random selection from society, then the expected number of members of Opus Dei in the government is equal to: no of govt ministers * no of members of Work in Spain / population of Spain.
-This means you expect less than one.
-The point is that the assumption is false - Opus Dei members are not a purely random selection from society because: i) St Josemaría Escrivá worked with university students from very early on; ii) members of Opus Dei try to sanctify their work and this should mean they work harder than they otherwise might, and therefore have a chance of achieving more, etc.
-I asked a statistician and an actuary about the argument that you have presented; their opinions agreed with each other’s, and the conclusion of the statistician is recorded in the five paragraphs above, almost verbatim.
-I suggested earlier that you could say "there were more members of Opus Dei in Franco's government than there would have been if Franco had picked his government by some sort of proportional representation". I thought you would like that sentence, because the word "representation" is being used in the political sense. But it is placed away from the part of the sentence that would make it ambiguous. I think the sentence sets out the facts plainly and above all with clarity. I admit I did not ask for your view the first time I proposed it, but now I am left wondering whether you reject it, and if so why. Asoane 09:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Asoane: I did use the formula your friend has written and, remember, the probability of having three ministers that happened to be part of the Opus Dei was extremely low. Occam's-Razor-reasoning supports the purposiveness hypothesis more than the accident hypothesis. The probability is lower, sorry to say, than the probability that you and I die in a car accident. The opinions of your friend about the 'political meaning' of the term over-representation do not interest me.
Would you, too, please, read carefully my explanations above? Not red herring this time, I promise [I cannot truly swear].
--Uncertain 18:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Dear Uncertain, you have been citing statistical terminology, and you have performed a statistical calculation. A statistician objects to the assumptions behind the calculation, and also to your particular use of the word “overrepresentation”; whereupon you write “The opinions of your friend about the 'political meaning' of the term over-representation do not interest me”. With one bound our hero was free!

My other source, the actuary, wrote independently: “The use of the word overrepresented is wrong as it implies that these people are representing Opus Dei in some way which is not the case.” Two experts agree independently of each other that your use of the word is wrong. What is the probability of them both erring in this area?

In my opinion this is being dragged out unnecessarily. You have sought approval from Wikipedia disambiguation on “representation” and failed to find it. Now your use of the word “overrepresentation” is being criticized by experts in the discipline you are trying to exploit. The word does not serve to avoid confusion, but does exactly the opposite. I earlier suggested a sentence which avoids confusion. You have not stated whether you object to it, and I am left asking myself why. Asoane 12:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Asoane 100%. This has reached a deadend. My guess is that Uncertain does not like the Asoane's proposal because it is hypothetical and he thinks it is real, but he himself said there is no representation in a dictatorship. There is clearly an inherent self-contradiction here. And so I'd recommend that we abandon this line altogether. I think the sociological and institutional distinction of Allen would best address Uncertain's points and finally conclude this long-drawn discussion. Please see the new section I opened below, #2. I hope Uncertain sees that I am trying to help the best I could. This is my best shot. Thomas S. Major

Definition of "representation"

Very well, Uncertain. Please write down here your choice, among all the things mentioned here, of the exact definition of "representation" which you have in mind. Please quote from one of the sources. Let's focus on the word representation. You will agree that Over- is a mere prefix, meaning excessive, above average, above normal, too much. Lafem 03:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you read carefully what I have written above?
I can understand that you are happy with delaying the discussion in secondary details, instead of going to substantive matters, but this is becoming a real pain.
I do not want to focus on "representation" but on overrepresentation.
--Uncertain 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I have discovered that book by Michael Walsh, Opus Dei: An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power within the Roman Catholic Church. If you had not insisted, I probably would have never read it. Thank you. I think this book should be quoted more often in this web page. [And also that by Luis Carandell] --Uncertain 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of Walsh is highly debatable. I would say he does not belong here in anyway. He is not credible at all. He is known to write for tabloids and his book is a collection of reports taken from tabloids.
The Wikipedia policy on experts states the following:
Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.
One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
  • the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works -- no tradition of expertise
  • whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones -- he does not use these
  • whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms -- he failed to respond to the criticism of O'Connor that his theses are unfounded, totaly biased, unsubstantiated, etc. etc. etc.
  • whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claim -- he does not have reputable supporters
I would OBJECT very, very strongly to any further use of Walsh in this article. He is a "dubious source." That is how Wikipedia calls such writers. Walter Ching 03:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Walter. Thomas S. Major 06:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncertain,

Lafem, who I know quite well, asked me to continue your discussion. I suppose it has something to do with the initial "sparks" between the two of you. I see the problem has not subsided. :-/ I read your comments with gusto, and I tried to read carefully the definitions you gave links to:

  • Merriam Webster: represented excessively; especially : having representatives in a proportion higher than the average
  • American Heritage/Bartleby/Dictionary.com: Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers: “Some groups, and most notably some races, may be overrepresented and others may be underrepresented” (Scientific American).

You also refer to "the last definition" matching your meaning. Is this the one? "Our subsample overrepresents those with children."

Let's see if we can have an "unemotional discussion" of this issue. By "over-represent" you then mean "having an excess of people who stand in the place of others." Am I doing justice to your thought? Rabadur 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Uncertain, please also answer my query below as to whether your point on over-representation is Original Research or not. Who is the expert to whom can we attribute this idea? How credible is he? Thomas S. Major 03:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed additions for Opus Dei and allegations of involvement in far-right politics

While Uncertain continues to evade substantial issues raised by Asoane, Lafem and myself against his theories, red herring or otherwise, on over-representation (which BTW seems to fall under the category of Original Research), may I propose that we follow what Wikipedia is asking, i.e. report on what the credible experts have undoubtedly stated. From what I have read so far in the discussion, there is no longer any dispute on these items.

1) It is "unfounded" to state that Opus Dei was aiming for political power and has taken over Franco's government. Franco merely needed a pragmatic and technical solution to possible bankruptcy and found some people who were highly recommendable.

a) Crozier: The charge that Opus Dei had been aiming at political power, and had achieved it at last, was heard in February 1957, when Ullastres and Navarro Rubio joined Franco’s cabinet. In this bare form, the charge seems to be unfounded because based on a misconception of what Opus Dei is. It is not, as its enemies either think or want others to think, a political party; nor is it a political pressure group. Nor, for that matter, is it a kind of super labour-exchange for politicians. In February 1957, Franco did not turn, as one would almost conclude from reading hostile comment, to Opus Dei's leadership, saying, in effect: 'I have vacancies for a couple of technocrats. Send me some candidates and I shall make my choice.' This would not have been Franco’s way, even if it had been Opus Dei's ambition. What happened was more pragmatic and less sinister. Franco had heard of the intellectual and technical merits of Ullastres and Navarro Rubio and sent for them; they happened to be members of Opus Dei. On the same occasion, he had heard of the intellectual and technical merits of Castiella and Gual Villalbi and sent for them; but Castiella and Gual Villalbi happened not to be members of Opus Dei.

b) Preston: "The arrival of the technocrats has been interpreted variously as a planned take-over by Opus Dei and a clever move by Franco to 'fill vacant seats in the latest round of musical chairs' [he quotes Yntfante's Santa mafia]. In fact, the arrival of the technocrats was neither sinister nor cunning but rather a piecemeal and pragmatic response to a specific set of problems. By the beggining of 1957, the regime faced political and economic bankrupcy. Franco and Carrero Blanco were looking for new blood and fresh ideas. To be acceptable, new men had to come from within the Movimiento, be catholic, accepted the idea of an eventual return to the monarchy and be, in Francoist terms, apolitical. López Rodó, Navarro Rubio and Ullastres [members of OD] were ideal. López Rodó was the nominee of Carrero Blanco. [He quotes López Rodó's Memories]. The dynamic Navarro Rubio was the Caudillo's choice. Franco had known him since 1949. He was a Procurador en Cortes for the Sindicatos and had been highly recommended by the outgoing Minister of Agriculture, Rafael Cavestany. Preston quotes Navarro Rubio's memories]. Both López Rodó and Navarro Rubio suggested Ullastres. [López Rodó's memories]. (as quoted by Uncertain)

c) Berglar: In 1957 FRanco restructured his cabinet with a view to restoring the economy of Spain and guiding the nation toward a modern fiscal system. With such purposes in mind,he appointed a number of talented young bankers and economists. Four of them were members of Opus Dei.

2) Ullastres, Navarro Rubio, Lopez Rodo were in the Franco Cabinet primarily due to their personal intellectual and technical merits.

a) Crozier: Franco had heard of the intellectual and technical merits of Ullastres and Navarro Rubio and sent for them; they happened to be members of Opus Dei. On the same occasion, he had heard of the intellectual and technical merits of Castiella and Gual Villalbi and sent for them; but Castiella and Gual Villalbi happened not to be members of Opus Dei.

b) Preston: Bright, hard-working functionaries were emerging who were more concerned to get top jobs in the state apparatus than to implement the ideology of Falangism. That was entirely true of men like López Rodó and Navarro Rubio who were labelled as being primarily of Opus Dei but were more accurately seen as being part of what came to be called the 'bureacracy of number ones', those who had won competitive civil service examinations or university chairs while still very young.

c) Messori/Romano: In specialists publications there is talk of the "age of technocracy" in the Franco regime, with the implication that the emphasis, for a time, had passed from the plane of ideology to the pragmatic.

Credibility of Preston: Widely acclaimied writer: Top 10 books on Spanish Civil War From Stanford University: WAIS has among its members several leading specialists on the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps the best known is Paul Preston, because his books appeal both to scholars and the general public. He writes with a familiarity of the period which would suggest he lived through it, but he was not born at the time. We may think of the writers involved in the Civil War as belonging to three generations. Paul Preston belongs to the third generation, which can view with the Civil War with the objectivity that comes from time. and the scholarly perusal of the vast literature which the Spanish Civil War generated, well over 15,000 books and pamphlets. Paul has made many contributions to that number. The most recent ones are first, A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War (1996) is a revised and updated version of The Spanish Civil War, 1936-39 (1986). The second is a Spanish translation (2000) of this work, entitled La Guerra Civil Española, published by Plaza& Janés, which had published his earlier best-seller Las tres Españas del 36 (1998) , a collection of nine biographies of Civil War figures. The first of these is Francisco Franco, to whom Paul had devoted a full-scale book, Franco. A Biography (1993).

I intend to quote these experts in the Opus Dei and Allegations article and summarize it a bit for the main article. Thomas S. Major 11:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent move, Tom! That's right on the mark on what Wikipedia is all about. Go ahead please. R Davidson 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Preston is not just credible. He is the most credible. And he is supported by other credible experts. There is a great chasm separating him from Walsh!! and other POV pushers. Let's do it, Tom! It's NPOV through and through. And let's also add the Benelli story. It shows the cohesion and agreement of the experts on what happened. Walter Ching 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just done it. Thanks, R Davidson and Walter, for the support. Let me clarify that what I have added are those items in which there is a consensus among the experts and among the editors. The "over-representation" issue of Uncertain, whatever it means, is untouched by these additions. He is pursuing a very specific issue, as he himself has said. I respect that. Thomas S. Major 06:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact this is not my issue: this is a distraction from Asoane and Lafem in which I am really not interested. --Uncertain 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Excelent move, Tom. While I was wasting time with the secondary issues raised by Asoane and Lafem --not to speak about recent ''mobbing''-- you have made some additions concerning the main issues. I think it is a good addition, although I think that we should also quote Preston's "The politics of revenge", and other pages in Franco's Biography to avoid misinterpretation. I would like to have five times the time I have to answer to all of you. However, I am happy to see that this discussion has raised the interest of those who seldom make contributions, like Walter Ching [Hi, Walter!]. --Uncertain 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and the compliments, Uncertain. I already corrected the main article, inserting points from Preston and Crozier.
My thanks also go to you, Uncertain, for bringing these issues up. You have galvanized more involvement and more importantly the discussion you started allowed the editors to study the Franco issue more deeply.
When you spoke about mobbing, I do hope you are not referring to the encouragement of my friend, Davidson and of Walter. Before I made my proposal I made sure I was just touching on the points where you and Asoane agreed on. So you are the prime mover of the "mob" in this case.
However, if by mobbing you mean that a number of editors are now contesting your arguments, it might be good to remember that arguments which are well-grounded usually stand on their own merits, while arguments which do not have strong bases fall on their demerits. That's what's happening I think. Although, yes, I respect your attempt to gather what you have read from various sources, but we still have to see if they are well-grounded and backed up by a consensus among experts. Thomas S. Major 03:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Preston's Politics of Revenge is dated 1990. It states: "the Franco regime experience a constant jockeying for power and influence and between generals, Falangists, Catholics, monarchists, the Opus Dei and other political factions.” (1990:15). ...Until they were supplanted by the Opus Dei technocrats in 1957"

His Franco of 1993 states: "The arrival of the technocrats has been interpreted variously as a planned take-over by Opus Dei and a clever move by Franco to 'fill vacant seats in the latest round of musical chairs' [he quotes Yntfante's Santa mafia]. In fact, the arrival of the technocrats was neither sinister nor cunning but rather a piecemeal and pragmatic response to a specific set of problems."

It seems from this that Preston rectified his former view. His 1993 book supersedes his 1990 statements. Thomas S. Major

Status of Uncertain's main points

To be fair with Uncertain and just to help ease his perception that he is being "mobbed", I have summarized his main points, reported on their status, and can say that I certainly agree with one of his main points (#2).

1. My point is that Opus Dei was overrepresented in government (not only in the cabinet) and in the University...Well, it is again a joke to speak of "representation" in a dictatorship. My point is that this representation is overwhelmingly larger than the handle of Opus Dei members that were against the dictatorship --those you are looking for in the footnotes of History.

Status: still being discussed with Asoane and Rabadur

2. It portrays Opus Dei members' majority as conservative at that time (and still now in Spain), and the Opus as an organisation related with mostly conservative thinking.

Unresolved: Here I agree with Uncertain; an expert --Allen-- states that Opus Dei members (sociologically speaking and not institutionally speaking) acted towards Franco as Spanish Catholics would. Sociologically at the beginning of Franco's regime, they hailed him as a savior who liberated them from communism and anarchism; this attitude evolve through time and in the end, like most Catholics, they were 50-50 for Franco. And generally at present many Opus Dei members are politically conservative. We can insert a phrase which can summarize these.

3. It portrays it taking advantage of a situation that made Spain worst-off. This is Opus Dei's "original sin", which price is paying [and that the organisation took advantage of the Regime to spread and prosper.] -- this has been proven wrong by Marax (cf. Benelli story) and by Preston and Crozier's point that Opus Dei was not taking over Franco regime.

Do you agree with this status report, Uncertain and Asoane? Thomas S. Major (sorry, logging in takes a lot of time).


Thomas, my response is below. Asoane 15:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with paragraph no.1 above. I also agree with what I think you are saying, that the overrepresentation issue is a dead-end (correct me if I am misinterpreting you).
Yes, Asoane. You got it. The discussion has surely reached a deadend. Uncertain himself said that it is a "joke to speak of "representation" in a dictatorship". And so it is logical that no serious historian or expert has made any such assertion. Thomas S. Major 02:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Paragraph no.2 above is reasonable. Incidentally, anon. has been editing these pages, replacing the British title of John Allen's book with its USA title. But it's the same book. It just came out one month earlier in Britain (Oct 2005).
  • I agree with paragraph no.3 above, and the conclusion.
Thanks Asoane. Hopefully we can go to work on many other things soon after we finish this issue. Thomas S. Major 02:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

I moved everything Escrivá to the Escrivá article and added a link.

The following sites were removed. I keep them here, in case they are needed for reference.

Schools

Is there consensus for the deletion of all these links? I would object to some of the reasons provided for deletion, as these are the opinions of one editor only. --ZappaZ 22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of condensing the external links for them to appear in the main article. This is one of the suggestions at the FAC, if I am not mistaken. So, I would even commend Irmgard. I was about to do it myself, but he beat me to the draw! Thanks, Irmgard!

Am not in favor of deleting the remaining links except the deadlinks of course, and I agree with Zappaz here. They can still fit in their former place in the sub-page. It would be a pity to lose these links, they give additional insight and information. My opinion. :) Thomas S. Major 07:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Beside external links we should also have a section References: external links for the overall sites providing additional info, references for actual sources of statements which might be a specific article etc. Some of the links which I moved here could go there, if they are referenced to - or they can be used as references in other Opus Dei articles. --Irmgard 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the article should remove those links that repeat information, arguments or positions. I do not disagree for removing these. --Uncertain 20:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Allen's new book discusses theology extensively

I just finished reading Allen's new book on Opus Dei. The book which has been praised for balanced, even-handed reporting even by the secular press, [1] provides a substantial report on the theology of Opus Dei and its application in about 8 of the 14 chapters of the book. So, we are on the right track! Thomas S. Major 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code and Opus Dei

I have just finished reading Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code, and have to disagree with the section on Activities and work about Opus Dei being depicted as a sinister cult. Only two characters from OD were mentioned, and even then they were conned them sleves into doing bad things, thinking that it was for the best. It is those two that were depicted as sinister, not the organisation. I am not associated with OD or anything in the story, but I do like facts, and as such I think the section on The Da Vinci Code should be re written slightly. But, as many people have said before, this is only my view...

Kindly check this out: opus dei and da vinci and catholic answers. I have not read the book myself, so kindly help disentagle the issue. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't even agree that "two" characters are described as sinister. One is portraied as fanatically devout and misguided simpleton who was deceived into commiting murders, which eventually result in accidental death of his mentor who specically tell this simpleton not to resort to revenge for his death. My guess is that most Opus Dei members or for that matter Catholic haven't read the book. And lastly, the book was so s£$%, I want my money back. FWBOarticle 11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cult section

This para was much too long for the general article, in view of the fact that there is a special article on the subject. I condensed a lot, deleting generalities (it's not too interesting who said where and who else said where else that Opus Dei is a cult), replacing general remarks on ex-members with link to relevant article, shortened Odan and Wilson (both are still in full length in Opposition to Opus Dei), moving one para to Opposition to Opus Dei which was not contained there, deleting mortification points which are not a prime issue regarding the cult question. I added the reasons which, e.g., Garvey and Moncada give and modified the cult observer section.

Nice move, Irmgard! And thanks for fixing the pending issue of Andries. :) Thomas S. Major 03:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I surveyed the literature on Opus Dei as cult, and corporal mortification is many times mentioned. Dan Brown's Fact Page for example: The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." I then brought back the previous texts in the article on this item. Marax 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei is a cult? Dont be silly! A cult is a sect that only accepts itself as the one religion people should believe in and doesnt tolerste other sects. Opus Dei has good relations with the Catholic Church, the Anglican church, and many other branches, and also openly accepts Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduis and Islam as good religions. [[User:racooon|racooon]. 5th March 2006.

Intro

I condensed the third para of the intro somewhat, removed some redundancies, moved other special points further down in the article. I also removed the word revolutionary, as it should not be used unqualified in this context: while I do not doubt that some Catholic supporters of Opus Dei see its teachings as revolutionary, this is rather a Catholic-only view - in Lutheranism and especially Calvinism the sanctity of everyday work has been standard teaching already in the sixteenth century (and had a great effect on Calvinist culture). Revolutionary might be used somewhere further down in the article, but somewhat qualified (e.g. revolutionary within the Catholic church or so) --Irmgard 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move to condense the intro. I've re-written it a bit. I think the sentence on OD being controversial and a sign of contradiction is a consequence of the differences in how people view Opus Dei, so I placed it last and added "thus". I'm agreed as well with the removal of "revolutionary." Too strong for intro, I believe. How about "innovative"? The idea of innovation appears quite a number of times in the article so I suppose it's right to make it appear in the intro. Also, the wording comes out in such a way that it is a "perception" of Catholic leaders. The text says: Catholic leaders strongly support what they see as...
Allen also distinguishes between the Calvinist work ethic and Opus Dei's concept of sanctification of work. The first identifies salvation with success at work, some kind of sign of being elect; the second states that no matter what the outcome of your work is (success or failure) what matters most is the rectitude of intention by which it is done and the human perfection in the actual performance of the task. It is innovative within Catholic circles because the monks viewed work as an unavoidable ascetical means, a way to avoid laziness and temptation. Work was not viewed as the very place and the exact means of sanctification. (e.g. monks made baskets and burnt them afterwards.} Calvinism then is quite exclusivist--its for the rich and successful, the Opus Dei innovation (as old as the gospel and as the gospel new, quips Escriva) is for everyone who works. Thus, Calvinism has not made much inroads, it is I believe concentrated in Switzerland; Opus Dei has reached millions (4 million copies of the Way, around 900,000 cooperators says Allen, and millions more who have attended its formation activities). After writing all this, I am now even thinking of reverting back to "revolution." That's how John Paul I saw it, other Catholic officials, and Messori and Allen recently. The latter called it a Copernican revolution in Catholic theology. Lafem 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Membership types

Made subsections for each membership type as they are, for the average reader, more informational titles than "Celibatary". Shortened picture descriptions for layout reasons. BTW, supernumerary and numerary articles should get Opus Dei sections. --Irmgard 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kindly read Wiki Guide to layout. It says something about short subsections:

Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.

I suggest bringing back the old form; or if people don't like the celibacy title, then suppress the subsections. This will reduce the bulk of the article. R Davidson 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've integrated sub-sections in the other parts of the article and I've included this issue. The move is based on Wikipedia preference for fewer sub-sections. I read it somewhere. Thomas S. Major 02:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Shroud of Turin

This is captioned "Jesus Christ". Surely this is POV. I respect the beliefs of many Christians that it is Jesus, but there is no proof, and no general consensus as to whose face it is. Leonardo da Vinci has also been suggested as the subject. The tests conducted in the 1980s certainly did not support the Jesus theory, suggesting a much later origin. JackofOz 06:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the detailed picture of the shroud has been found in "Codex Pray" a hungarian illustrated manuscript written from 1190 to 1241 AD, the medieval radiocarbon datings and the leonardo claims are nonsense. 195.70.32.136 10:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There are significant objections to the methodology of the radiocarbon datings that place their results in question...even secular researchers do not necessarily support those findings DonaNobisPacem 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, JackofOZ. I just changed the image. Hope you like it. Thomas S. Major 06:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear DonaNobisPacem, there were more than Carbon-14-dating tests in the 1980s studies JackofOz mentions. Objections to radiocarbon dating are solid, nonetheless; but are more solid the objections: scientifically, to the autenticity of the shred, religiously, to the need of visible objects to support the truth of Passion or to the need of any idol to worship.
By the way, Happy New Gregorian Calendar Year! --Uncertain 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV update - some improvement, still much work to do

Hi all;

I thought I would give you an update on how I think this page is doing in terms of NPOV. I have already updated my previous analysis.

  • Please note, once again, that this is not based on knowledge of the organisation, rather just certain facts about the issues which are or are not addressed in the article and it's structure.
  • Please also note, that in some cases information I ask for may not exist or may be provided by non-"credible" sources. In most cases, the topic should be included anyway, since the lack of information is in and of its self an important fact.
  • Finaly please note, from my read through it seems that these are representative examples, many such problems need to be corrected so that this article can reach proper NPOV standards.

Firstly, the paragraph about OD's status of a cult is written from "Catholic Point of View (TM)". The problem is that there are several definitions] of 'cult

  • catholic: non orthodox bible interpretation
  • secular: religious organisation (including the Catholic church please note!!!)
  • anti-cult organisation: various features: "pyramid type authoritarian

leadership structure" and "claim to be the only way to God" for example.

The slogan “sects within the Church” is self-contradictory

is a statement which only applies to the recent catholic definition. This section needs a very careful restructuring to make it clear which definition is being used in the accusations and which definition is being used in the defense. Please complare Cult (religion) with cult to get some idea of current Wikipedia consensus on the use of these words.

While critics say that Opus Dei is a secretive, right-wing group interested in spreading a conservative ideology, Catholic officials say that Opus Dei is God's Work performing a divine operation in society

This paragraph (and those follow on) show the critics simply as strawmen; I think it's an attempt to improve POV, however, we don't have a clear view of what the critics are claiming and we lack sources to look it up. Worse still, is the use of the word while at the beginning, which immediately implies lack of credibility;

[...] the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" (see WP:NPOV)

State what the facts are; state what the critics actually said; let them hang themselves if they are lying. Don't project a view of the critics through language or structure of the Wikipedia writing.

In coverage of the Da Vinci Code in the current text, to be frank the, view that the book is a serious representation of OD is put far above the view that the Da Vinci Code is simply a work of fiction, and that (my own restatement of other's opinion) serious responses to it are rather similar to an association of bean stalk growers running around everywhere denying that there is any risk of giants climbing down their plants from the sky.

The interesting story is not that the Da Vinci Code is inaccurate but the reason why Opus Dei felt the need to respond to a work of fiction.

The current article is separated from Opposition to Opus Dei. Because it covers similar areas, but with a different view, that article has become effectively a POV fork of this article. The two should be merged and a different split should be proposed to keep the length down. Examples of statements which contradict this article

There existed links between the Franco regime in Spain and Opus Dei representatives, and links with Augusto Pinochet, Chile's dictator, are also alleged.

Where this article goes into more detil on varied views of the topic.

When splitting the article to reduce length summary style should be used to split out separate articles about theology and by reducing the section on Opus Dei in society by about 20-30% remembering that the subsidiary article should not be duplicated too much in the main text.

Finally, there are three sections Message and Teachings, Doctrine, instruction and training and Opus Dei and Catholic demands where much material overlaps. They should probably be merged and split into teaching/training; message/doctrines and relationship with the catholic church (which should also include the section Structure: Catholic personal prelature).

Mozzerati 22:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) (comment still a work in progress; some corrections will probably be refactored in)

Thanks a million, Mozzerati. There are many good observations and good ideas here. I'll think about them and work on some which can be worked on immediately. I hope the others can help think up some synthesis of the teachings and doctrinal points. How about it Marax, R Davidson, Lafem, Asoane? :) Thomas S. Major 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As regards Opus Dei answering a work of fiction, my own take is this (my personal opinion that is because I am not a representative whether political, cultural, ecclesiastical, etc. of Opus Dei): Dan Brown and publisher took a lot of trouble asserting that his book is based on meticulous research. Moreover, he has a Fact Page, before the novel itself, which states that Opus Dei is a sect. I suppose anybody who concocts a novel about another's mother having an affair and shouting it to the world that it is a fact (well-researched and documented), expects some kind of reply. :) Thomas S. Major 01:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I just fixed the opening of Opus Dei in society. Ok? Thomas S. Major 06:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Article structure: Opus Dei is akin to a school

Although I am grateful for some of Mozzerati's ideas, I tend not to agree with this suggestion: "Please also note, that in some cases information I ask for may not exist or may be provided by non-"credible" sources. In most cases, the topic should be included anyway, since the lack of information is in and of its self an important fact." I don't think we should follow this suggestion. It would mean that issues that he suggested like repression, legal problems, charity used for theological propaganda should be included even though there is silence about this from credible experts. I don't think the article on General Motors, San Antonio Spurs basketball team, just to give an example, would include such topics.
On Mozzerati's new proposal on integration and summary of sections on teachings, my reaction: Opus Dei is perceived by the experts as a teaching agency. It is analogous to a school (a very limited analogy of course).
Thus, most of the sections should be devoted to an analysis of its teachings and how it teaches. That is how many of the books on Opus Dei deal with it. The separate sections on
(1) Teachings and Message,
(2) Doctrine, Instruction and Training,
(3) Radical Demands of Christian Sanctity follow what one can expect from an encyclopedic treatment of a teaching institution, let's say a military school:
(1) Basic overview or summary of what its distincitve teachings: what differentiates it from other military schools,
(2) Its Training and Pedagogical Program and Curriculum and people say about it,
(3) An indepth analysis of the logic behind its demanding teachings and its curriculum.
Now, why not make number (2) follow number (1) immediately? The training program (number 2) should follow a discussion on its structure, i.e. who gives the training program-the numeraries and priests. Thus, the discussion on the Prelature follows number 1.
I do see a problem in the sub-titles which can produce such a feel of over-lapping as Mozzerati's. Please see what I have done to change the sub-titles. Lafem 03:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Catholic origin determines nature

Great point, Lafem, and great edits. Let me explain further what you have just put down so well, but from another point of view. This article is about a Catholic organization studying first its origins and its main influencer (the Catholic Church), its place in the Church and what the Church wants from it, then second studying Opus Dei's influence and reach outside the Church. Since the origins of something determines its nature and all the aspects flowing from this nature, the greater part of the article should be devoted to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church, i.e. Opus Dei in its origins, its nature and rationale. There are 6 sections tackling all these. The last section tackles Opus Dei in Society: aims, members in society, work they do for society, paradigms for action, politics.

The first 6 sections develop (1) Opus Dei's creation within the Church and its role within it: a Catholic Catechesis, (2) Its Catholic teachings based on its specific lay spirituality, (3) Its structure within the Catholic Church, (4) Its Catholic Doctrine and Training Program, (5) Its Catholic Demands, their rationale and consequences. The last two sections do not overlap per se. Using the terminology of the sociologists of religion, "Doctrine" refers to its "qualitative aspects", and "Demands" refers to its "quantitative aspects" and its rationale.

I will do some more edits based on what I have just written. Perhaps the problem lies in the length of the treatment of these sections and not the sectioning per se as I wrote above. In fact, I've already done some work to make them more brief. But let's see what else can be done. And yes, thanks to Mozzerati for pushing more improvement. :-) Marax 09:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to fix some overlaps, and also shortened some discussions but I think the present structure also follows the "spiral" approach of delving deeper into what Opus Dei, ie. some repeats but expressed in another deeper angle are essential in this approach. Marax 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
After thinking through Mozzerati's suggestions, Lafem's and Marax's explanations on the order of the article, I have just integrated Doctrine and Demands into one section and transferred Instruction and training under Vocation, Membership and Training. This has the some advantages. First, training which speaks more of delivery is distinguished from doctrine which is more about creeds. Training really belongs more to membership. Second, Mozzerati's point on the types of cult is better addressed, since the attack on Opus Dei is based both on its doctrine (Catholic-Christian) and its demands (anti-cult). Third, it respects the order seen by Lafem and Marax, which seems most logical, as I see it. :) Hope you like the changes. Thomas S. Major 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I've also inverted the use of "while," placing it immediately before the phrases of the defense or response for the Kinal and Pot images. Those are the only two other uses of "while" to illustrate contrasting opinions. I also checked the meaning of "while": Aside from meaning "although", it also means "at the same time", so it does not necessarily mean a rejection of one side of the argument on the part of the editors. It remains to be neutral as it is. Anyway, as I said, I already placed the word on the side of the defense. Hope this is helpful for NPOV improvements. Thomas S. Major 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Only the few deeply involved ex-members have reason to complain

I think that the article is unbalanced and especially the extensive quotes of Massimo Introvigne. The vast majority of the people involved with of Opus Dei were, like myself, only shallowly involved. And of course, these persons, incl. myself have little reasons to complain. I do recognize though from my experience some of the points of criticisms made by the critical former members, who were deeply involved and of course I can understand that they are disappointed and angry about that (though one has to be quite naive and blind not to see these traits of Opus Dei before joining). Self admitted sockpuppet 18:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your comments, Mr. Sockpuppet. I'd venture a guess on who you are sockpuppet for, but it might not be good manners. Anyway, I'd say Introvigne is quoted here because he is one of the few credible supporters who have written specifically about Opus Dei and the anti-cult movement. A response on the attacks is needed you know, but if no other scholar writes about the issue then it is quite difficult to quote them. If you know some scholars who defend Opus Dei against the anti-cult movement, please do not hesitate to propose his inclusion in the article. Thanks again, Self admitted sockpuppet. :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed one of the references to Introvigne and replaced it with the old one put by Irmgard on Bryan R. Wilson. I further elaborated on Irmgard's version, trying to make it more neutral and accurate, i.e. also showing not just opposition to Wilson's thought but also the wide support he receives from his international following (see article on Bryan R. Wilson.) Thomas S. Major 02:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation

I have removed this page from Category:Roman Catholic Church as it is listed in a number of subsidiary pages. I will come back to these subsidiary pages later, but for now I've simply removed it from the RCC cat. --JASpencer 13:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allen in the introduction/Application of Non-equal Validity NPOV Policy

I agree that the introduction is an abstract of the article. And so I submit that Allen's book and what he has shown should appear there. This article cites his well-researched work all throughout:

  • 1) on ultraconservativism
  • 2) on aggressive recuitment
  • 3) on elitism and power
  • 4) on secrecy
  • 5) on wealth
  • 6) on corporal mortification
  • 7) on freedom and political pluralism
  • 8) on Franco
  • 9) on high-control of members
  • 10) on social activities

And so an abstract of the article should mention his research, the latest and one of most thorough yet in history.

Thus I am bringing back the former statement in the Intro before the recent changes:

In a recent book, Opus Dei: an Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church (2005), John L. Allen, Jr., a journalist known for his objectivity, gathers abundant facts that run counter to these allegations.

Nobody so far has questioned the angle of neutrality and factuality of this statement, but I now submit that this statement is not just a good summary of the article, it is also factual and neutral.

1) It is factual that (a) Allen is known for his objectivity. This reading of Allen is all over the internet. One commentator even said his objectivity is "maddening." See his Wikipedia bio as well: John L. Allen, Jr.; (b) that he has gathered abundant facts (this is also bourne out not just by the article itself, by the many reviews on the article) (c) that these facts run counter to the allegations (ibid).

2) It is neutral. The statement does not even say negate or disprove, words which I believe can perfectly be used here. Be that as it may, the present rendering just says that the facts he gathered cut in the opposite direction of these allegations. This way of stating things is perfectly in accord with the Wikipedia:NPOV policy on majority views and non-equal validity.

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory.

Hope this is clear enough. Thomas S. Major 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On this, I would actually tend to disagree; although Allen's book is undisputably NPOV, and a good source cited/talked of in the article, the intro is meant to give a broad overview - by stating that it has been accused of blah blah blah, and then saying a recent book runs counter to claims of blah blah blah, you are already getting into specifics dealt with in the body of the article. As in a thesis statement of an essay - you are stating the fact/argument of the article, with no supporting facts. Thus I would argue that specific reference to the book should be dropped from the intro, as the point is to say that they are thought of as blah, blah, blah, and not to provide evidence (no matter how good) counter to it.
Keeping in mind my comment above (not saying it's right, just saying I'm keeping it in mind), I suppose one could write something like:
"In contrast, it has often been accused of secrecy, ultraconservative beliefs, a right-wing political agenda, and even cult-like methods, although a recent publication has done much to undermine these claims."
- but I suspect a great deal of objection would be raised over a statement such as that as well. DonaNobisPacem 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with your suggestion, DonaNObisPacem. Thanks a lot for it! For me, what is important is the application of the Non-equal validity NPOV policy in the Intro and thus to report and summarize there that the accusations have been undermined, as you very well stated, in the article, and thanks mainly to Allen. So any wording which does this is alright with me, and I see that your proposal supports this line. I'd await for other comments before changing the phrasing. A second voice within me is saying that its present form basically says the same thing as your proposal, except for the mention of the title and the author, and the credibility of the expert involved ("journalist known for his objectivity...gathers abundant facts) which for me is a good way of summarizing the article, applying at the same time this part of the policy: "describing the majority views as such; ... fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory." We might also have to look at some policies and guidelines on how intros are done. Thomas S. Major 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now I feel like an idiot, b/c I mucked up what I was trying to say - I actually left out some points I had meant to make (that's what happens when I'm writing in short time spans - I really gotta start using the preview button). First off, I was going to say that keeping in mind what I had written, the statement could read:
"In contrast, it has often been accused of secrecy, ultraconservative beliefs, a right-wing political agenda, and even cult-like methods, despite current evidence to the contrary."
I was then going to offer an alternative, one I think holds less to a true thesis statement, but that included Allen without trying to say too much about it:
"In contrast, it has often been accused of secrecy, ultraconservative beliefs, a right-wing political agenda, and even cult-like methods, although a recent publication by John L. Allen, Jr., has done much to counter these claims.
Sorry for the delayed edit, but what the hey.....hope I clarified my position, Major. DonaNobisPacem 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, DonaNobisPacem; in fact it also happens to me. I forgot, for example, to put the right title on this section. Thanks a lot for clarifying and adding more alternatives. I've also done a bit more thinking on this. I now tend to agree that we don't have to mention Allen as sole investigator with facts, b/c Messori has also done his part, and some others (Preston, Introvigne, Crozier), and they are mentioned in the article. So, building on what you proposed, I'd put it this way:
In contrast, it has often been accused of secrecy, ultraconservative beliefs, a right-wing political agenda, and even cult-like methods, although recent [or contemporary] research has done much to counter these claims.
With this, not only do we give credit to other researchers and summarize what the article says of their contribution, but with the term "research" we imply objectivity and facts, i.e. the majority position. Also, with the phrasing you proposed, we use some wordings that the NPOV policy itself somehow uses for religion issues (NPOV Religion), and we imply what the research has concluded: that most of these accusations are rooted in attacks from as far back as 1940. I will now make the edit; we can improve it some more later, if necessary. Thomas S. Major 08:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DNP, More ideas. How about:

In contrast, it has often been accused of secrecy, ultraconservative beliefs, a right-wing political agenda, and even cult-like methods, although contemporary research has done much to counter these claims, especially the work done by John L. Allen Jr., a writer known for his objectivity. Described as the most controversial force in the Catholic Church, Opus Dei is seen by many Catholics as a sign of contradiction.

I have the following reasons: (a) Allen still needs to be given special credit, and his credentials presented, (b) I think the anonymous editor who placed the title of his work, intended that to take the place of the word controversial which was a big bone of contention some time ago, on whether or not the word should appear in the Intro. So I placed the word back in its old place before the title was placed. Thomas S. Major 04:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... excuse me, something's happened to the FAC archive

The FAC discussion page for Opus Dei, from September 2005, just showed up on my watchlist, and I realized that people have been using it as a kind of workshop, adding comments and new sections to it, right up to today. That's a mistake; the page is an archive, and needs to be kept as it was when Raul removed the nomination from WP:FAC. Readers are supposed to be able to click on the link to it in the "This article is a former featured article candidate" template at the top of this page and find the FAC discussion, just the way it went, "to see why the nomination failed", as the template says. They're not supposed to find a confusing mixture of old and new. Moreover, if the article should be re-submitted to FAC at some point, the archive of the previous discussion is even more essential for the FAC reviewers to have, to see what happened last time. Among other things, people seem to have been pasting comments from this talkpage into it. That's a backwards way of doing it: if you wish to have a discussion based on the FAC archive, you should add comments from it to this talkpage. Or, if you'd like to have a separate discussion page based on the FAC nomination, create a subpage of the form Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions, or whatever, and link to it from here. I've reverted the archive to how it was on September 30. Of course the text with the later comments can easily be retrieved from the history, if you'd like to use it in any of the way's I've suggested. Bishonen | talk 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your observation and suggestion, Bishonen. I will do just as you suggested. :) Thomas S. Major 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Validity of testimonies of former members

Dear Andries, I am trying to synthesize the different versions proposed so far:

  • Your first one: Adherents of Opus Dei point in response to the accusations to the fact that several sociologists and religious scholars, like Wilson, treat the testimonies of critical former members with skepticism. In [2]
  • Irmgard's: Sociologist Bryan R Wilson discredits reports of former members as [apostates testimony], a view which is disputed among scholars and sociologists. See Apostates#Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations.
  • Thomas S. Major's: Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, a scientist admired by scholars world-wide but also opposed by some others, studied the phenomenon of a type of adult former members who "shows himself to have been first a victim" then "a redeemed crusader" and "whose personal history predisposes him to bias." Wilson states: "the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem." These, he says, "learn to rehearse an atrocity story,"
  • Your latest version: Some prominent sociologists advocate in general skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members of controversial religious movements while other sociologists disagree. See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My latest proposal: While the topic of the validity of testimonies of former members of religious organizations is controversial, some prominent sociologists like Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, generally advocate skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members. Wilson, for example, goes so far as to say that some of these adult members who are "prone to bias" sometimes "learn to rehearse an atrocity story." See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My proposal tries to put together proposals. I think that Thomas' attempt to provide a quote is ok given the NPOV policy:

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. [3]

Although I do agree that the quote has to be nuanced as you said in [4]: that Wilson although prominent and a very "reputable source" is quite extreme. Thus, my rendering: "he goes so far as to say." Lafem 05:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Love : As man, he freely obeyed....

I just placed a colon after the word love in the feature of Escriva's spiritual teaching called love for freedom. In classic theology, love which a union of lover and beloved is shown above all through obedience, a union of wills, for the will is the greatest faculty of the person.

I've also corrected recently another thing connected to this and as summary of the edit I placed this: it is the Divine Person's use of human freedom as new Adam, with a human love of infinite value, that made up for 1st Adam's sin vs the Infinite God.

It's an important point which I want to record here. Saint Paul preached that the one mediator is the man Jesus Christ. It shows the importnace of human nature, humam struggle, human excellence. That is why Escriva called the human virtues, produced by free human acts, as the "foundation" of the supernatural virtues, the virtues which save and sanctify us and unite us to God. Marax 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Introvigne

I'd like to get feedback on the photo of Introvigne's work and the quote that I just posted.

Thanks, Lafem, for backing up my quotes of Bryan Wilson with Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Yes, indeed, Wikipedia rules are out to ensure we have a reliable encyclopedia by citing the most reputable source. I've done more research on Introvigne and yes he ranks high as a scholar. He has published hundreds of article in scientific journals. See his numerous works in His updated Bibliography.

I would have wanted to put a photo of Introvigne, but am still scouting for a good one. But I found this nice photo of his Encyclopedia of Religions. It might be better to place this than a photo of his face. This clearly shows his "reputableness" and "credibility" as an expert. Anyway, as I said, some feedback would be good. Thomas S. Major 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine - the only change I would suggest:

"Massimo Introvigne, author of numerous works on sociology of religion, says that secularists and liberals "stigmatize" their "prime target," Opus Dei, since they "cannot tolerate the 'return to religion'" of the secularized society."

to

"Massimo Introvigne, author of numerous works on sociology of religion including the Encyclopedia of Religions, says that secularists and liberals "stigmatize" their "prime target," Opus Dei, since they "cannot tolerate the 'return to religion'" of the secularized society.

as it is not immediately obvious (although one does figure it out.....one would hope, anyways) why the picture of the book cover is there. Out of curiosity, is that quote out of the Encyclopedia? DonaNobisPacem 07:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement combines several quotes: "prime target" appears in his interview with Messori on Opus Dei. "stigmatize" comes from his article which he translated into English as Labelling...(see one of the footnotes) "return to religion" is from his article on Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement.

It does not come from the Encyclopedia itself. The articles and interview do not have covers and so no image... Thanks a lot for the immediate feedback! BTW, ok to your suggestion! Thomas S. Major 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultraconservative?

This article keeps using the term "Ultraconservative" repeatedly. I don't think this is an apt description. Conservative, by definition, implies the preservation of the status quo, therefore, it's impossible to be an extreme conservative. I think the appropriate term to express what the authors wish to express would be reactionary, and I'm not sure that really fits. --71.141.136.236 09:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok for adding the word ultra. This is what the critics say and we have to report on it, whether or not it is reasonable. Lafem 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opus_Dei/Archive_2006-1&oldid=1219982253"