Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2015 | ← | Archive 2018 | Archive 2019 | Archive 2020 |
Lede section must mention controversial nature of Opus Dei to be NPOV
I restored the mention of the controversial nature of Opus Dei to the lead but greatly shortened it so because the lead need not completely duplicate the controversy section. NPOV requires that we at least mention the controversy over Opus Dei so that anyone just reading the lead knows about it, while leaving it up to them to read the controversy section if they want the details. I also made it clearer in the controversy section that Franco was a fascists for anyone not familiar with the history of the Franco Regime (The term "Francoist regime" does not properly convey this fact for anyone not familiar with who Franco was (or his politics). --2600:1700:56A0:4680:B944:ABBC:CAF3:A37C (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not strictly correct to describe the Franco state as fascist, especially in this context since Opus Dei's involvement with the Franco state marked a further marginalization of the Falange (i.e. the actual fascist party of Spain). I amended the article to clarify the ideological character of Franco's government while retaining an explanation of its controversial nature; it may be worth rewriting the article to include mention of the Opus Dei-Falange "conflict" 2600:1700:1100:FC20:F097:25D7:D3C9:F811 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
removal of unsupported claim
I've removed this edit, as the pretty broad and serious claim isn't sufficiently supported by the submitted sources.
- The cited article from elpais.com from 2011 mentions Opus Dei only once and rather casually without providing details or specifics ("The link that enabled the practice of taking children from their mothers ... was made up of a network of priests and nuns, as well as Catholic doctors, judges and notaries, many of them belonging to the highly secretive Opus Dei movement").
- The cited article from theweek.co.uk doesn't even mention Opus Dei.
- The article from deutschlandfunk.de questions its own validity by stating "Again and again, the Opus Dei, a ultra-conservative Catholic lay organization, associated with the baby trade. Whether rightly is an open question."; the article from freitag.de claims rather unspecific that "The perpetrators were all very well connected ... with the church, the military and the Catholic lay organization Opus Dei."; the article from welt.de claims that "many of the gynecologists working at that time were members of the conservative lay order Opus Dei.“ (citations from the German-language articles were Google-translated)
This type of coverage speaks rather for a conspiracy theory.
Til today only one "stolen baby" case has gone through court. The accused doctor was acquitted because of statute of limitations (though not found innocent) and there was no mention of Opus Dei, see: El Confidencial 2018,The Guardian, 2018, Los Angeles Times, 2018.
More interestingly, shortly after this court verdict, the adopted woman who had filed the lawsuit not only found her true biological family via DNA analysis, but also had to realize that her mother had given her up voluntarily. Therefore, the state prosecutor considers her no longer a "stolen baby", see: El Confidencial, 2019,The Guardian, 2019.
Following this recent twist, some editors in Spain now question the previously claimed extent of the scandal and the claimed organized plot at all, for example: Psicosis colectiva: los bebés robados del franquismo... que nadie puede encontrar.
Another recent publication by Maite Rico in the liberal es:Vozpópuli in Spain even speaks of fraud wrt the "lost-children scandal": La estafa de los bebés robados. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
alleged Neoliberalism and opposition to ...
I have removed the new chapter „Neoliberalism and opposition ...“[1], which had been added recently as first edit by new account Niezginela, as it massively violated WP:NOR policy and its main claims are unproven.
Of the 27 sources included, nearly all were primary sources (i.e., papers/books/news articles by the incriminated persons themselves, or general church documents without direct reference to the attacked authors). Only two marginal issues were formally backed by secondary sources, i.e. former ref 106[2], a La Stampa article from 2013, partly based on an interview with Cipriani, and former ref 107[3], which brings an isolated quote of Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, though it's not entirely clear who exactly it was addressed to.
How about the provided sources for the incriminated authors?
- Martin Schlag: The quote attributed to Martin Schlag is sourced to a blog, which does no longer exist and anyway is hardly a serious source for a researcher’s views. Schlag has published „Handbook of Catholic Social Teaching“ (CUA Press, 2017) and „The Business Francis Means: Understanding the Pope’s Message on the Economy“ (CUA Press, 2017), in which he takes a balanced position in Catholic social teaching.
- Martin Rhonheimer, currently visiting professor[4] for Ethics and Political Philosophy with no teaching obligation at PUSC: While the sources listed seem to show that he indeed favors a free market view, the editor‘s assertion that Rhonheimer „claims ... that workers do not have a right to a living wage, and much less a family wage“ represents a falsification of the source. In ref 88, Rhonheimer actually wrote: “In my view the idea of the « family wage » as an obligation of justice towards employees, ..., is an element alien to this teaching*; though based on a sound intuition, in its present form it has no roots in Catholic tradition but rather stems from the modern trade union movement.” (* teaching here refers to the tradition of the late scholastics, mainly the School of Salamanca).
- Oskari Juurikkala (university of Helsinki, Finland), the author of a paper[5] that earned the „Novak award“ in 2014: the editor‘s claims that the paper „advocates a liberal utopia ... free markets ...“ and „rejects compulsory contract terms ...“ and „claims a right to hire an employee without undue restrictions by vested interest groups“, is mostly the exact opposite of the facts. What Juurikkala actually wrote: 1) „apparently silly utopia“ (p. 265) and „The saintly utopia is not accessible to us.“ (p. 265), hardly expressions for advocating something.
2) „Therefore it is necessary to impose restrictions and compulsory contract terms that favor those workers and consumers.“ (p. 265) Rejects?
3) „Economic freedom .. depends on fundamental rights, such as „the right to seek employment or hire an employee without undue restrictions by vested interest groups that violate both fundamental rights and the common good“ (p. 268). As opposed to Niezginela's narrative, unions or just wages aren’t mentioned. Contrary to the editor’s OR-based claims, the journalist Sandro Magister wrote in a proper secondary source: „Juurikkala’s thesis is that the message of Bergoglio, with its emphasis on the poor, not only is not in contradiction with the free market, but enhances it, because it helps to “purify and enrich it.”[6]
- Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne: in the mentioned La Stampa article Ciprianis criticism of Card. Müller clearly focusses on „liberation theology“ (the article states that more than once), but not on economy or free market.
- Ettore Gotti Tedeschi: The cited polemic in La Veritá is expressedly labeled as a first-of-April piece[7], hardly suitable to seriously derive his views from it. The second source is an 2019-interview with an Italian newspaper[8] about environmentalism in context of the Amazon Synod. The incriminated statement in full reads „I rischi delle interpretazioni sulle conclusioni del Sinodo Amazzonico potrebbero essere anzitutto sui cambiamenti dello stile di vita, consumi, produzioni e utilizzo materie prime, quindi su un cambiamento di potere geopolitico ed economico conseguente“; not very specific IMO. Anyway, it’s meaningless, as there is no evidence that he has a relevant role in the hierarchy of Opus Dei; not sure whether he’s even a member of Opus Dei. His article doesn’t say that.
The editor also claims a „close collaboration“ of the PUSC with the maligned „Acton Institute“. However, the Acton institute holds academic events at all pontificial universities in Rome.
Urbaniana: [9], [10];
Gregoriana: [11];
Angelicum: [12],[13];
Antonianum: [14],[15],[16];
Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum: [17].
What remains of Niezginela's claims „Several high-ranking members [1] and institutions [2] of Opus Dei have opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on social justice and environmental protection, advocating instead the tenets of neoliberalism.“?
[1] The provided sources support a „free-market“ orientation only for one of the mentioned persons, Martin Rhonheimer. With this view he is surely in a minority position among catholic philosophers, likely also at PUSC. However, so far he hadn’t to report to the CDF. He surely might be a bright brain, but as a visiting professor at PUSC hardly „high-ranking“.
[2] Per Opus Dei in society#Universities, there are 24 Opus-Dei-related universities, PUSC is just one of them, though surely prominent. Collaboration with the Acton institute in Rome is no specialty of the PUSC.
Dealing with new or controversial ideas/views is essential for research and academic progress, as expressed in Academic freedom, which was emphasized by Benedict XVI. in his address to La Sapienza faculty in 2008.[18]
So, to attribute the legitimate, though criticizable views of 1 scholar at 1 university to Opus Dei as a whole is a gross misrepresentation. ‒Túrelio (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The section is fully referenced and does not make a single claim without providing sources proving it. I restored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niezginela (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
In what way? The section which I added is fully referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niezginela (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- In the way as I have explained above and the twice linked policy page WP:NOR. Your piece reads partly like an original paper partly like an indictment. Both is wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It present established knowledge. You are nearly exclusively using primary sources as reference, when you have to provide secondary sources. --Túrelio (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since user Niezginela is obviously not ready to correct the mentioned deficiencies, but has put the defective chapter online again, I've added the appropriate SYN template, as it's almost a textbook example for original research and Synthesis. --Túrelio (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Clear NOR violation should be removed. Also, ideas of one man clearly does not reflect the ideas of an organization. Opus Dei adheres strongly to all the social doctrines of the Church and it has no other doctrine. One of the writers of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is an Opus Dei theologian, and the Prelates have always asked members to learn the teachings of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Lafem (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, it is not appropriate to remove a fully referenced article. Amend it, if you can. Niezginela (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- The main reason your edits cannot be placed was mentioned by Turelio: No Original Research. If you want ideas to be in this, you have to seek an author who have arrived at that conclusion. This can be placed in the criticism section but you cannot create a whole section on one idea because of the policy of proportionalism in content. Lafem (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The mere claim that Opus Dei is faithful to the social doctrine of the Church is simply Opus Dei's view of itself, and is no argument for deleting the evidence I cite. Nor is it "original research" to cite these publications. Niezginela (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I notice that the section on Opus Dei and neoliberalism keeps being deleted, without any comment or discussion on the talk page. To those who do so: please clarify. Niezginela (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- You need to get a consensus for inclusion out of this conversation before it can be included, you haven't. Asserting things that simply aren’t true like "it is not appropriate to remove a fully referenced article” isn't going to win you much support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)