| |
|
Author
|
Canonization of the founder of Opus Dei: the great charade. |
alejandra
|
8 tracks
initiated
40 messages
posted
common |
| |
|
Published
13 July de 2002 at 02:25:18  
|
Echoing the clarification of a Guest, with respect to what is coming is the canonization of Type and not the beatification, which was done. I propose to treat the subject from this perspective and admittedly more realistic.
Do you think? |
|
| pusey-2 |
4 tracks
initiated
72 messages
posted
veteran |
|
|
Published
13 July de 2002 at 03:13:28
|
Sounds good to continue along this track that you've started.
Publicly known two people who were excluded from the process: Miguel Fissac, eminent Spanish architect and one of the "first" of the work and I think that allowed for late 40s or early 50s, after several years to request the output. I think it was Javier Echevarria, the current prelate, who sent a letter to avoid it being called to testify, and justified, I think in their emotional imbalances.
A few months ago I read on the Internet his explanations seem to me interesting to get an idea of the personality of the founder. However, third parties who do not know much about the work and have not even seen any party, may seem somewhat exalted statements and typical of a person who actually has had psychological problems.
About Mari Carmen Tapia, in his book "Following the Threshold" published a copy of your blemish as a witness. I have already discussed elsewhere the reasons for it. On his testimony, it also seems consistent with regard to the evil genius of its founder and fuss when he was angry (and their films can be inferred). However, say the same and is not to discredit his testimony, is something that happens to most people who have left the Work and spoke critically of it: the passion blinds us and our indignation may appear in the eyes of strangers as resentment.
Despite the limitations of the testimony of former members, there are objective facts demonstrating that the process has been strange. I would like to see the theological view that was made of his instructions, letters (the "chimes"), its critical events to Paul VI, during the process.
This alone shows that his ideas were closer to Archbishop Lefebvre that the Second Vatican Council (a priest of Opus Dei, at least, told us that he personally disagreed with Lefebvre only in form, not content, that priest is now a spokesman for a bishop in Spain).
Finally for now, I just want to repeat, safe from people hammering and fervent Catholic, I'm not doubting the sanctity of Escriva. Read the book if Urteaga Jesus, priest of Opus Dei, entitled "The shortcomings of the saints." If I write here is, I know it naively, as an "ecclesia semper reformanda.
|
|
| alejandra |
8 tracks
initiated
40 messages
posted
common |
| |
|
Published
13 July de 2002 at 14:47:20
|
Hello Pusey-2:
I fully agree with you unless you fear that those who do not know the opus think that those who criticize what we do from resentment. Having passion for something - our life for example - is not to be resentful.
In fact, neither I nor many people who know the inside opus speak from resentment. We speak from the permanent search for Truth.
Following your thinking, we might say that Jesus spoke from the resentment of all the sins and excesses of the Scribes and Pharisees of his time, or that the Jewish survivors of Hitler speak from resentment or who escaped from Stalin spoke resentment, etc, etc.
It's elementary Life emphasize that we often have to suffer much for the "absence" of something - like freedom for example - to value it. Now if this absence is caused by the imposition and bigotry that takes advantage of the young nobility of naive people, I consider a crime. This is a reprehensible crime and eternally in the U.S., Afghanistan and China, regardless of whether those who perform it are convinced that just save your soul and that "working on behalf of God."  |
|
|
There are 1
pages of post: 1 
Close this topic
moderated forum