Posted on 01/29/2005 7:44:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
I think the Opus Dei folks might be a little nuts... but what a patronizing article about Christians, as if being one somehow would mean that you just naturally would stay away from anything rational.
If the Guardian is that upset about them they must be doing God's work.
In 1939, Escriva published a book to guide these converts called The Way. It remains an intriguing read. Arranged in 999 short fragments, each a saying or instruction, its tone is by turns intimate, fierce and stiffly formal. [snip]How to behave towards Opus Dei is another: "941 - Obedience [is] ... the sure way. Blind obedience to your superior ... the only way." "627 - Yours should be a silent obedience."
When somebody demands blind obedience, wariness is best.
Amen.
There is much more to "Opus" than is written here.
Clearly a reference to the Guardian in general and Andy Beckett in particular, correct?
In 1939, Escriva published a book to guide these converts called The Way. It remains an intriguing read. Arranged in 999 short fragments, each a saying or instruction, its tone is by turns intimate, fierce and stiffly formal. [snip]How to behave towards Opus Dei is another: "941 - Obedience [is] ... the sure way. Blind obedience to your superior ... the only way." "627 - Yours should be a silent obedience."
Those little dots caught my eye.
Look at the full quote from 941-942 in The Way and notice the change of words and concepts:
"Obedience, the sure way. Unreserved obedience to whoever is in charge, the way of sanctity. Obedience in your apostolate, the only way: for, in a work of God, the spirit must be to obey or to leave.
Bear in mind, son, that you are not just a soul who has joined other souls in order to do a good thing.
That is a lot, but it's still little. You are the Apostle who is carrying out an imperative command from Christ."
This is, and has been for 2,000 years, basic Catholic teaching. The evangelical virtue of obedience, opposing pride, is supreme in the life of holiness. Notice the last line, whereby obedience is ordered and granted to Christ.
It is no surprise that an anti-religious secular rag in Europe would oppose it and find it odd.
I know. But it's from the Guardian. I'd suspect context is missing.
No surprise at all.
For the 'everything will be fine if somebody will just tell us what to do' folder.Clearly a reference to the Guardian in general and Andy Beckett in particular, correct?
No. My opposition to the call for blind obedience extends to the often nutso Guardian, too.
Obedience, the sure way. Unreserved obedience to whoever is in charge, the way of sanctity. Obedience in your apostolate, the only way: for, in a work of God, the spirit must be to obey or to leave.
This part of what you quoted doesn't appear to help your case. Calls for obedience to Christ I can at least understand (even though it might not always be easy to know what that entails). But calls for obedience to "whoever is in charge"? Do you really feel comfortable with that?
"unreserved" does sound better. "Blind" as Snarks pointed out implies unthinking.
Do you? What about the US military? Are not enlisted men expected to be obedient to their superior officers?
True, an enlisted man can refuse an order that contradicts his conscience, or contest to higher authority an order he considers wrong, but he can never invent his own orders.
In a group like Opus Dei, (technically, a personal prelature in the Catholic Church of lay people who freely choose to be members), the situation is similar for members in living out their chosen apostolate.
This has always been the case for the various religious orders in the Church. What makes Opus Dei unique is that it is set up for working lay people.
Don't forget to read the following:
"Obedience in your apostolate, the only way: for, in a work of God, the spirit must be to obey or to leave."
Nobody is being asked for "blind" obedience. The author simply cherry-picked quotes out of context, changed words, etc. Jeez, you'd think he had an agenda or something....
Were it the case that most secret societies work for what's best for all people of good will, I'd be less inclined to oppose them. But history suggests otherwise. In the end, it often happens that the secret societies work for what's best for their own members and their own interests, and if that happens to coincide with a wider good, okay, but if not, too bad for the wider good.
But perhaps I'm too cynical...
There's the problem. Opus Dei is not a secret society. It would never have been confirmed by the Holy See if it were. It is hated by liberal governments in Europe and dissident Catholics in America because it is a strictly orthodox organization in the Church which is having an effect in it's apostolate.
The "secretive sect", "controversial", etc. ad naseum, labels are applied to Opus Dei as a scare tactic. Reminiscent of claims against the Jesuits in early 20th Century America.
Your last sentence, though, gave me pause:
If you don't want to be a Christian, the gates of Hell are always open, but they will not prevail against Christ or His Church, because in the end, without Christ, there is only death, and human suffering is meaningless.
Perhaps in the next few days I'll send you a FReepmail about this sentence, but it's late now and past the time for launching a new theme of discussion.
Best regards...
There's the problem. Opus Dei is not a secret society.
So is it not 'secretive'? And was Beckett wrong to describe it as such? (I'm asking...I don't know the answer.)
"True, an enlisted man can refuse an order that contradicts his conscience"
Huh?
Unless things have changed radically in the past few years, the only order that can be refused is an unlawful order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.