h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Opus Dei (n.v.) - A2067491
Author: Andrew Soane - U239861

Entry: Opus Dei (n.v.) - A2067491
Author: Andrew Soane - U239861

This is an updated version of the entry on Opus Dei, A845732.

This version has evolved through discussion over the last two months, and represents a happy compromise - see the conversation thread in Editorial Feedback, about 40 postings (there's also a link to it on my personal space).

Notes:
1) The initials 'n.v.' in the title stand for 'new version'. They can be dropped once work on this is over.

2) Putting in the x-references to other entries I discovered a couple of minor changes were required for consistency:

a) I revised estimates of crowd sizes at the canonisation and beatification in order to tie them in with the BBC account that is x-referenced at that point.

b) In the second to last paragraph I changed 'undeclared wealth' into 'money', in order to create a suitable point for the x-reference to 'Money and the power of belief' from the original article.

That's all for now!

The paragraph on money at the end is rather more difficult to understand than the original one was -- I'm not really sure what the edits have added on that.

For example, the original said:

"One might also question where all the money goes. Considering the Personal Prelature, Opus Dei finances go to 'central office' in Rome, not the local area from where they are gathered. For what purpose is this immense wealth used? Some of it goes to maintaining the colleges and stipends, some towards the college in Rome, but the rest is invested elsewhere."

And the revised said:

"The members of Opus Dei earn their living with their work. They give what they can out of their earnings, to help with the apostolic works of the Prelature. Most of this stays in the local area. Some of it goes to other regions. Some of it goes to pastoral needs - e.g. training and maintaining the priests, who do not earn money. Rather more goes to maintaining the colleges, residences, universities, and other apostolic works run by the members of Opus Dei.

Some observers have questioned whether there are enough of these apostolic works to absorb all this giving, and ask whether immense quantities of money might not be invested elsewhere, for purposes known only to the Prelature."

I think the *content* of what you are trying to add seems solid, but the writing style is markedly less clear and straightforward than the original. For example, the last paragraph is quite a run-on sentence. And I think it now loses what, for many, is the main point of contention about Opus Dei -- the lack of *public* accountability about how finances are spent. The same criticism has been raised about Mother Teresa's order, actually.

Just my
Mikey

The new version uses the word 'prelature' more heavily than the original, and doesn't define it. Maeselwix seems to have a definite pronoun idea in mind, and in this article it seem adjectival. I am afraid I don't understand it.

In the original it seems more reasonable that there might be a separate organization than any particular parish or see; but its not at all clear what Opus Dei itself thinks is the reason that they should be treated separately in the new version. Are they a function of the parish they are in, or not? If not, who is their shepherd?

Ambrosian, Sarum, and Benedictan chant are interesting variations on 'Gregorian' chant, but they were mainly allowed in their small locations due to interesting internal power plays. So, why an Opus Dei at all that is separate from Jesuitism-is this known?

I'm also curious why you removed the original entry's mention of Escriva's alleged support of the Francoists...

In reading your entry and comparing it with the original, one strongly suspects that you are a member of Opus Dei and have an agenda to remove some of the more cynical bits of the original entry. And while I can hardly fault your intentions, I'm not sure that your efforts, rather than bringing balance, swing things the other way...

Anyone else with comments, suggestions?

Or have I lost my mind again?


- Jimi X

Thanks for the comments (I mean, everyone). Firstly, there's no need to suspect me of being a member of Opus Dei - take a look at my personal space!

If you would like to see how the article evolved up to this point, take a look at the conversation thread in the update forum; Masvaleix (who has experience of Opus Dei) and I worked on a compromise.

I agree the new final paragraphs are a bit tortuous and will try an improved version, strengthening the question about how finances are spent (thanks for the help). And I hope to plug the gaps pointed out by Sea Change.

As regards the bit about Franco, the orginal sentence read:
'A shadow has been cast over Escriva at this time for siding with the Francoists to avoid persecution during the establishment of Franco's regime (a time of great civil unrest). This is a matter that has never been satisfactorily explained / refuted.'

I think the above would have to be changed.
- Firstly, if the period in question is after the Spanish Civil War (as it appears to be), then there was no serious challenge from anyone, and it seems a bit unnatural to single out Escriva when Franco was accepted by most Catholics including all the bishops.
- Secondly, Escriva was not an enthusiastic supporter of Franco. He and Opus Dei had trouble from the Falange, and (independently of this) he moved to Rome in 1946, where he lived for the rest of his life.

By all means raise the issue. I'm sure we can agree on something... I can put something in about it in the re-draft.

Franco deserved to be resisted.

One might easily assume, based on high morality of most folk who attain some stature within the Catholic church, and the fact that the Catholic church holds saints up as important examples to learn, know and look up at, that Escriva was of high morality also. Escriva is *not* "just anyone". Even more important than just being an example, he is a rare example of a newly created structure with in a millenia old institution, so just what specific things he has done in his life are interesting solely in that light.

It is therefore of much interest to note that, among all the things he did, one of the things he didn't do (also among many other people who didn't happen to get canonized) was resist Franco. Maybe his God didn't demand it of him. Maybe it was in the plans of God or the Catholic church that it didn't get done. Maybe, it was irrelevant him, just to him. But it wasn't done and should be noted.

The fact that Andrew Saone who presumably knows as much as the Church wishes about the subject (being an information officer and all) would seek to eliminate the reference only reinforces Masealwich's original point about secretiveness, to my mind. ('appealing to his authority' is only mildly interesting rhetoric to me) It's not like his rewrite here wasn't careful, and my experience helping with Edited Entry he wrote on Mexico demonstrates a strong tendency of both carefulness and censorship on his part.

(and, what Jim X said)

Point taken - well, I had already agreed to put something back in, so can't get too worked up about secrecy and censorship.

The original paragraph read:
'A shadow has been cast over Escriva at this time for siding with the Francoists to avoid persecution during the establishment of Franco's regime (a time of great civil unrest). This is a matter that has never been satisfactorily explained / refuted.'

I would simply add it back, without the final sentence, which on reflection was the one that I found unfair, viz:
'A shadow has been cast over Escriva at this time for siding with the Francoists to avoid persecution during the establishment of Franco's regime (a time of great civil unrest).'

Other suggestions to follow.

Sea Change: I really do not know what happened re the 'Mexico' entry to irritate you last November (?), but if so I apologise. The thread is still on my personal space somewhere, presumably under the draft entry.
I don't mind being described as careful, though.

I'm not irritated by the Mexico entry. I think if you Update an entry you should increase the amount of information. Perhaps, if you sense any irritation, I am more irritated at myself; it took Jimi X to spot the omission because I think of myself as a very good editor.

If you are creating a new entry, you are most welcome to use your own style, and indeed I was in that Peer Review thread and did not object to your omissions. I don't know if anyone else in this conversation was in that thread. I thought they might like to know your argument was disingenous.

I am glad you added the information back.

So, how's this looking? Are we nearly ready, do you think?

Hi Jimster

I think I have to make a couple of changes based on postings 2 and 3 and we can see whether they're ok'ed. Hopefully there should be time to do the draft this weekend! Just hold on... (or let me know what you think).

Edits and suggestions

I have made two changes in the entry:

1) Added back in, as suggested earlier:
A shadow has been cast over Escriva at this time for siding with the Francoists to avoid persecution during the establishment of Franco's regime (a time of great civil unrest).

2) Revised text:
In place of the paragraphs about money (see posting 2 above), insert the following, which tries to make the point of both paragraphs clearer and is also closer to Masvaleix's original idea, I think (although if Mikey is right I missed the point before, so this could be wide of the mark as well...):

The members of Opus Dei earn their living with their work. They give what they can out of their earnings, to help with the apostolic works - i.e. the colleges, residences, universities and social projects run (for the most part) by members of Opus Dei. Some donations also go to meet pastoral needs - i.e. training and maintaining the priests of Opus Dei, who do not earn salaries.

Some observers have questioned where the rest of the money goes, at least that portion of it that goes to the central offices in Rome. Some of it is used in maintaining the colleges there and the central offices themselves, but the rest is invested elsewhere - or at least, there are no published accounts to show that it isn't.


In response to Sea Change's points in posting no.3, here are two further suggestions. I have not yet inserted them in the entry.

1) Revised text on personal prelatures:
In place of the present brief mention of what a personal prelature is, in 'other information', insert the following:

In 1982 Opus Dei was established as a 'Personal Prelature' by Pope John Paul II.
- The term 'Prelature' means that at the head of Opus Dei there is a 'Prelate' appointed by the Pope. The Prelate of Opus Dei is currently Bishop Javier Echevarria.
- The term 'Personal' means that membership of Opus Dei is not linked to territory (as is the case in a diocese, for instance).

Members of Opus Dei belong to the Prelature and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the Prelate. Of course the lay members are also subject to the bishop in the diocese where they live in the same way as other ordinary Catholics.

2) Add text on aim of Opus Dei (or, why is it something separate):

Opus Dei's aim is to help people find God in and through their work, which must be done to perfection if sanctity is to be sought. Escriva wrote, 'In God's service there are no unimportant posts: all are of great importance. The importance of the post depends on the spiritual level reached by the person filling it.' This is the hinge of Opus Dei's spirituality, and the characteristic message in the courses of formation organised in the centres of Opus Dei.

This text could be added as a second paragraph in 'The Faithful of Opus Dei' section.

Comments welcome. If in writing at such length the article is being swung too much, as Jimi X cautioned, I would be quite happy to leave those points as they were before - or insert something shorter, if someone can show how they might be cut. But the present proposal is to include them as above.

I'm pleased with and especially like the new proposed edits, but do see Andrew Saone's point that they change the flavor of the article somewhat. I think the way that they do change the article agrees more closely with the policies of the BBC (and hence the BBCi). They certainly save me the bus ride to the Cathedral of Los Angeles that I was planning, and I am guilty of much Sloth, so I pretty much automatically approve.

Do they annoy you, JimiX or Masevealix? I want to be especially careful with this as the Update Forum just doesn't have as large an audience of formidable brains that Peer Review has.

They add to the information already there, and 'done to perfection' is delightfully open to interpretation in interesing ways by the reader of the article.

Any other comments? I'm quite happy not to make the insertions if there is any objection.

I like the observation above about 'done to perfection'!

It's time to reward all of your hard work, Andrew. This update is now accepted and will appear on our Front Page until it's replaced by five new updates - so that could be some time

Well done my friend,

Jimster

Congrats!

Congrats!

Thanks!
Hi Jimster, should I actually make those changes above, or is that going to be done automatically?

Oh, the page is already up, without the last two proposed changes!
Well, no worries, as they say: I think it's ok.

Sorry, Andrew, I'd assumed you'd made all the changes you were going to. I've incorporated those last two in (I think) the places you wanted. Give it one more check over though.

That was quick! I tend to agonise over my edits.
In 'Other information' the first sentence is repeated twice (at least it appears so on my screen) - the first of the two could be deleted. Apart from that it's as proposed.