Posted on 05/19/2006 5:51:33 PM PDT by fishtank
And Judas' "very in-depth relationship" with Christ had no effect on him morally, either. So, what's your point? Opus Dei has sinners among its membership. Some of its members may be big sinners.
You blame Opus Dei for Hanssen, when, for all you know, Opus Dei was part of Hanssen's "cover", something he used, just like he used other people around him.
And we do know that higher ups in Opus Dei pressured his wife not to talk about him/it
We don't "know" that, no. We have a citation from a anonymous reviewer of a book. (Evidently, the claim doesn't occur in the book itself, or the citation would have claimed that.
Taking all those things into consideration and discussing them
You're not "taking them into consideration" and "discussing" them, you're slandering an organization by claiming that that's their entire reality and purpose for existence.
If you don't or can't see the difference between those, I can't really help you much.
And then, last but not least, we have the testimony of people who were rescued from Opus Dei, including Freepers family members.
We also have the testimony of Freepers who've gotten a lot out of Opus Dei, like me for example. Testimony which you dismiss out of hand.
And why do you dismiss it? Could it be because it doesn't accomplish the goal of making Opus Dei and the Catholic Church look absolutely as bad as possible?
Well, goodness, and Robert Hanssen -- judging by his acts --doesn't believe what Opus Dei and the Catholic Church believes, either. Why is that sufficient to exonerate the SBC, but not sufficient to exonerate Opus Dei?
I don't dismiss it at all. But I believe the evidence speaks to the fact that there are plenty of unpleasant and unflattering things about the society, which is what this thread was about.
I personally wouldn't exonerate them because they won't speak out against the egregious behaviors of either former president.
But public comments made by both men show that they do not believe the statement of faith of the SBC.
Oh, you mean it's just about trashing Opus Dei, with no defense allowed by the accused.
I understand completely.
No, I don't mean that and I didn't say that. Has anyone tried to shut you down or make false accusations against you?
Rome cannot denounce Trent or deny the Infallibility of the Magesterium.
Concerning the 17 years page:
After reading the ODAN page, I found the "accusations" rather credible. If true, there are indications of corruption, and, an organizational structure which does have valid purposes, but unfortunately makes corruption difficult to find and root out. This means the organization would need not be corrupt, and still have a troubling amount of corruption within.
The scandals of parallel single-sex structures, cell structural organization, and his personal dislike for a guy who (from the authors point of view) seems dislikable, don't scandalize me at all.
The potential for there to have been mismanagement is problemmatic, but he acknowledges that the internal auditor seemed honest, even if a little ignorant of the problems. And there's no telling that the auditor didn't get his needed information about larger problems when he reported about the existence of smaller problems. The secrecy there could just as likely be that the higher-ups didn't want leaks.
The horror of being offered a sedative when he complained about not being able to sleep is a little strange. I certainly have recommended to friends non-perscription sedatives, when they were having huge emotional difficulties: Get the proper sleep! The last thing you need is to have to deal with these problems on no sleep!
From my limited ability to judge, I would say that the author has credibly raised some concerns of leadership of certain people he has dealt with. On the other hand, any organization as large and influential is going to have very dissatisfied customers who will be dissatisfied for very good reasons. I certainly hope that, despite the organization's secretive and cellular nature (which does seem a bit overblown), there are mechanisms to prevent the spread of such corruption. But I certainly hope we don't go arguing from the absence of evidence that there is an evidence of absence.
Frankly, there seems a need in Christianity for a rigid group to fight back against soft modernism. Certainly such a group would not be for everyone. The author seems to have missed the signs of what he was dealing with, but it seems quite possible that stemmed from cluelessness.
But there are two HUGE points:
1. Yes, The Da Vinci Code is essentially an attack on all Christianity.
2. The Da Vinci Code's portrayal of Opus Dei is hysterically inaccurate.
>> But I can say a couple bad things about Opus Dei. They actually DON'T have assassin monks. (That was a let-down.) <<
LOL!
O NO! They wear something scratchy!
By the way, I couldn't for the life of me respect a religious order that didn't mandate regular confession! If only such practices had been universal, I can't picture the sex-abuse scandals growing so horrible!
>> Also, now that the founder of the Legionaries has been censored by the new Pope, Opus Dei is poised to take it's place. <<
Ooooh, the plot thickens! I bet they set him up!(/teasing)
>> Thanks for mentioning Hanssen. Something was (is) smelly there. <<
Yeah, Who'd've ever thought a spy would want to infiltrate an organization that several senators and the head of the FBI belonged to! Did you know that Hanssen wife was the Catholic, and that Hanssen had only become Catholic to be able to marry her? Yet, after not showing any interest in the faith, he jumps straight into the hardcore group which had nothing to do with his conversion?
Funny question: Are you a convert? Recently?
>> Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. <<
That can't be true! If that were true, such a revolter would lose their salvation! Oh, wait... it's the bible... It IS true.
>> Both of the supernumeraries in my local region are converts from Protestantism. One started out an extreme Calvinist, then became Episcopalian; the other started out Episcopalian. <<
You mean they left the invisible, subjective, divided, and self-invented, true Church for the One, Visible, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church run by those kooky Catholics? What happened? Did they lose their salvation?
>> Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened! <<
Actually, what you think of when you think of the Inquisition never happened.
Only 2700 people in 800 years were put to death; and the Inquisition's legal reforms were centuries ahead of their time; No person not professing to be a Christian was ever tried by the Inquisition; No person was ever tortured a second time or for more than 15 minutes; The Inquisition did not let the State do its dirty work, but rather once the Inquisition took over, no-one could be tried by the State for the same crime. (Of course, how likely is it that someone cleared of heresy might also have been suspected of treason?)
Just for the record.
And let any Lurkers know, any silence on my part in response to any rebuttals does not constitute acquiesence, but only a lack of intent to rehash arguments held elsewhere.
>> Let me reword this, even though Jerome put them in the Vulgate, they were not considered as Canonical and equal to the Hebrew Books in authority. <<
Nonsense. Jerome angrily asserted that his seperating them out was only due to the fact that he was writing a translation from Hebrew, and he didn't have a Hebrew text of those books on him; he called anyone who would read anything else into his separation of the texts a fool and a slanderer.
>> Jerome did not accept the Apocrypha books as equal to the Canon. Other Catholic scholars held to the same view. <<
I've already responded to the silly claim about Jerome. Name one other. The most famous "non-inclusions" are all translations of the Hebrew works, such as the Hexalpa.
>> William of Orange of the Dutch >>
Oh my! You mean in a war against a Catholic country, a Catholic tried to kill someone?
>> The aims of the conspirators are frequently compared to modern terrorists, however, their actions were not designed to merely influence government policy by evoking terror; their real aims were nothing short of a total revolution in the government of England and the installation of a Catholic monarch. <<
I'm not going to endorse the plainly sinful acts of the Gunpowder Plot, but surely you have to recognize facts:
1. While the violence certainly did flow both ways, James' ascendency (contrary to the laws of succession, incidentally) was amidst a very real struggle for the control of the state.
2. The British throne consituted a legitimate military target.
I don't see how the targetting of military targets in a time of war could be seen as "terrorist." "Insurgent," "treasonist," "rebel," or "revolutionary" would be far more accurate.
Exodus 32
27 And he said to them: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his sword upon his thigh: go, and return from gate to gate through the midst of the camp, and let every man kill his brother, and friend, and neighbour. 28 And the sons of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there were slain that day about three and twenty thousand men.
Numbers 25
And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor.
9 And there were slain four and twenty thousand men
Numbers 31
And Moses being angry with the chief officers of the army, the tribunes, and the centurions that were come from the battle,
15 Said: Why have you saved the women?
16 Are not these they, that deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam, and made you transgress against the Lord by the sin of Phogor, for which also the people was punished?
17 Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.
18 But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:
* end of quotes
A major difference between the Jewish and the Christian Inquisitions was the Christians one killed far less and they didn't kill children and take the virgins as their own (and I didn't even note all the others killed due to schism etc)
Of course, protestants have been raised to think the Inquisition indefensible snd UnBiblical. Actually, it is commanded by Scripture
Deut... When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, and transgress his covenant, So as to go and serve strange gods, and adore them, the sun and the moon. and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: And this is told thee, and hearing it thou hast inquired diligently (Inquisition), and found it to be true, and that the abomination is committed in Israel: Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned.
*Some Protestants conveniently ignore the Bible in order to attack the Church Jesus established
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.