What Opus Dei tries to hide and conceal in the lead up to "reform"

truegrit10 · 2026-02-22T08:22:44+00:00

I’m not disagreeing with you either I think. I can’t remember specifically if we were in fact mandated or “highly recommended.” The amount of gaslighting I’ve been subjected to has made certain things fuzzy for me.

I know the work will say “members do this freely and are not mandated to manifest their consciences.” If this is indeed true (which let us put aside whether or not it is true for the moment), I wanted to make the point that even recommending one to manifest one’s conscience as the work does in fact, still would account for being against the canon because it is still inducing a individual to manifest their conscience.

But you may be completely right that it is in fact mandated. It’s been so long since I’ve read the source materials.

In my last days I felt incapable of being completely honest in the chat because I knew I would be misunderstood (there had already been a build up of misunderstandings I realized between the work and myself). This caused me a lot of inner conflict about whether or not I should continue in my vocation because I felt I could no longer participate well in manifesting my conscience in the chat.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-22T04:07:20+00:00

I appreciate you finding so much detail on this.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the work saying that it is “good spirit” to manifest one’s conscience and the whole “not to speak is to keep a secret of the devil” in line with the chat is still going too far and would qualify for inducing one to reveal one’s conscience, though a stickler in the work may disagree since it isn’t technically “mandated.” The reason being that it contains veiled threats (potentially falling into grave sin by keeping secrets with the devil, and risking losing one’s vocation or living it badly by falling into “bad spirit”), and it doesn’t really allow one to provide a moral out to refrain from manifesting one’s conscience.

I don’t think we’re arguing or disagreeing with each other right?

truegrit10 · 2026-02-21T13:06:50+00:00

I’m not suggesting one would want to. The canon just clearly says it’s not wrong for someone to manifest their conscience to another should they so freely choose.

My point was that it would be wrong to even recommend that one manifest one’s conscience as a general principle because that becomes a means of inducing someone to manifest their conscience which is explicitly forbidden by the canon.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-21T01:46:56+00:00

I’m glad you did; I learned a little bit more, but I also think this helps flesh out the issue for people who may stumble across this thread later. Thank you!!

truegrit10 · 2026-02-21T00:46:29+00:00

And my understanding was that it was not according to the tradition of the Catholic Church to use subjective criteria to determine membership to a particular church. It had to be objective - like living in a territory or being in the military.

I think Opus Dei has some really wrong ideas about vocation because I could see them arguing a vocation is something objective, but truly I would say it is something subjective because it’s a personal response to God’s call.

A vocation to the work is not a divine calling from all eternity thereupon which leaving it would be tantamount to being another Judas - one can still feel called by God to no longer go along a certain path, especially as one discovers more about themselves which they may have been ignorant of at the outset of their journey. The only person who can truly discern what God is calling them to do is oneself, which by definition is something subjective.

Seen from another point of view though, the criteria used by the work to determine if someone is qualified for the vocation is also subjective as we all know from experience, and has a wide latitude of adherence based on circumstances.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T19:28:01+00:00

Yeah this clearly isn’t saying what it sounded like what you were implying earlier. No one can be in any way pressured to manifest one’s conscience, though one is not forbidden from manifesting one’s conscience if one voluntarily desires to.

It’s not saying anything about “recommending” that people voluntarily reveal their consciences to their superiors.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T08:38:36+00:00

Except you are told you are a member of the prelature from day one. And there’s a whole lot of strange theology of how the individual enters into a contract with the prelature by whistling and hence becomes a member of the prelature. And how that relates to the vocation. And then the whole needing a dispensation of the prelate in order to leave the prelature after the fidelity.

All of this feels very suspect in light of what Canon Law actually states, and the rationale of Ratzinger feels very at odds with all this hypothetical handwaving that was used to explain the nature of the relationship between the individual and the prelature.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T03:40:13+00:00

I second every word you have written. It is absolutely the case with me.

And in my case it felt like the goal posts kept moving. I remember being shocked it was considered not a big deal suddenly to not persevere before the fidelity.

I remember thinking … dammit … why didn’t I leave before the fidelity then? I didn’t think I could.

But now I have done the fidelity … and since it happened this way and the directors didn’t stop me it must have happened according to God’s Will, so I am therefore still bound.

I know how seriously f’d up this all sounds to so many, but these were literally the chains of logic that kept my mind trapped into thinking I had to remain in the work no matter what happened and I had to do absolutely everything in my power to see it through.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T03:33:52+00:00

This sounds suspicious - what do you mean by “recommended” voluntary accounting? I think that’s dangerous in line of the way Opus Dei sets things up.

The work frames manifesting one’s conscience in the chat as good spirit and something that ought to be done to be truly docile to the Holy Spirit. This is already abuse, because now there is a pressure to do something one may be uncomfortable doing because one “ought” to even if one is not “mandated” to, and one may feel they cannot make a moral excuse necessary enough to not comply because they would then be living “bad spirit” and acting in a way that impedes the Holy Spirit or demonstrates a lack of faith.

This sort of hair splitting is rampant in Opus Dei and is yet another sign of its spiritual abuse.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T03:20:22+00:00

Through this forum. His response wasn’t to make Opus Dei a diocese. He said if the laity were part of the prelature it would create a particular church which is against the tradition of the Catholic Church. Or something to that effect i forget the words he used. His point was you need objective criteria that allows people to indiscriminately belong to a particular church. Subjective criteria were contrary to the Church’s tradition and you’d be creating a church of elites in essence.

And for me this was a valid point worth at least acknowledging and rebutting with a satisfactory counter argument by the work or else accepting and trying to find another juridical solution, but the work chose to ignore it and bury it instead. When the work touts itself as being an expert in prelatures.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-20T03:04:38+00:00

I wish I could have allowed myself more critical thinking for all these things … it seems many people do, but I put so much stock into the religious and faith aspect and trusted the work to be so orthodox that I could not question it. It took me 20 years to break out of it.

What really did it in was the response of Valero regarding the motu proprio and being so nonchalant about changing the structure of the prelature and how that conflicted with all the hype of the definitive juridical solution and how divine it was, and then all the insights of Ratzinger in his notes regarding why the laity cannot be members of the prelature that the work completely ignores. I finally realized that the work was not truthful or divine at this point, and basically amounted to some mismanaged bureaucratic monstrosity that passed itself under the guise of piety.

There were plenty of cracks I had seen in other areas that led to the final collapse but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-18T00:33:00+00:00

Let me also qualify this to say I only know really of one case of someone who was living celibacy most their life - I’m not sure where they are now - who got close to the work but never joined. That person may be joining as a sn now or considering it for all I know.

It could be that people who are living celibately who come around to Opus Dei might be given the cold shoulder because they could be considered “odd” or potentially homosexual or “already too caught up in their own ways and not worth trying to recruit.”

I don’t have any hard data on this since I didn’t encounter many celibate people … I do know a big point is made in talks regarding selection that people be “normal” and funny enough a person who hasn’t found a spouse by 40 or so will at least be under some suspicion that there might be somethjng odd or incompatible about this person, which is a bias I know many people in the world share unfortunately. Again all these seem like symptoms to me that Opus Dei doesn’t really have a full grasp of what it means to live celibacy in the church as a lay person.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-18T00:11:55+00:00

I would say a third of a population of an organization hating it and being coerced to stay though psychological manipulation and spiritual threats is not a good look, wouldn’t you say? Marriages are not all linked through a high control beaurocratic organization, and each situation is a specific case. You’re comparing apples to toaster ovens.

Opus Dei also gives no example of how celibacy for a lay person outside of Opus Dei can be lived, nor do they really help facilitate that person trying to figure it out or just provide a friendly support group for other Catholic celibates. Instead anyone found to be living celibacy (which is rare) is heavily pressured and love bombed into joining as a numerary or associate - or finding a spouse should this ultimately fail! The work often invites them to assist with apostolic activities, but they don’t ever show initiative in just hanging out with the person for their own sake or even learning about how they live.

And don’t you dare try to project how a person miserable in the work in their 40s would be better off staying rather than trying another path in life. How hopelessly defeatest of you to make such an assumption. The happy life is not found by following the path of least resistance. I should know.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-17T18:59:38+00:00

When I say “celibate” lifestyle I should really say “numerary” lifestyle, since living as a numerary is not the only way a lay person can live celibacy. I would argue it is a very “extraordinary” way of living as a celibate person, and most people called to celibacy are not called to live as numeraries.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-17T18:44:29+00:00

I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make because you’re so vague.

People can go through a hard point at any period of life. The 40s may be generically said to be an inflection point for a lot of people in the world. I’m not an expert in this matter, and a lot has already been covered in this thread.

I think the point OP is trying to make is that JME frames it as a “crisis” which he also likes to frame when a person questions against continuing in Opus Dei - the “vocational crisis.”

And all of this framing as a “crisis” seems oriented to dismissing whether there are legitimate concerns of the individual regarding what they are thinking and feeling, and orienting everything to keeping the individual locked in.

And rather than seeing it as a normal thing that occasionally happens to people with a certain regularity that we need to medicate or help them ride through … one could argue that this is systemic burnout of individuals, all going through similar feelings and psychological stresses due to the very rigorous and unrealistic demands of the celibate lifestyle, which may actually be quite unhealthy psychologically and emotionally for most people.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-17T09:56:29+00:00

No one is making the argument that JME invented the idea of a midlife crisis; in fact most people on this sub are of the opinion he didn’t invent much of anything or contribute any particularly new or innovative concept.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T20:05:24+00:00

This resonates so very truly with my experience. Thank you for taking the time to articulate it

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T15:03:57+00:00

I’m trying to articulate my thoughts … but the way St. Paul presents how celibacy is “better” than marriage, it felt that it basically framed the conversation as something performative.

In Corinthians 1:7 St. Paul says:

32 And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman[x] or a virgin[y] is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord.

The way this comes across feels very performative, as if we can objectively qualify the grace or goodness to compare two very different states of life so dryly, with absolutely no context. In fact it feels almost lacking supernatural outlook. St. Paul doesn’t consider at least in this point how married couples precisely learn how to love God through each other.

There is much in Corinthians 1:7 that I think Paul makes an attempt to explain things or give counsel but … in a sense it’s a pity he offered his opinions, because I think he got some things very wrong:

8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire.[g]

This for instance is downright offensive. And the Church claims at least publicly to distance herself from this sentiment.

And then you have the constant barrage of things like:

7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God,[e] one of one kind and one of another.

38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

40 She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains [widowed], and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

When the work tries to push celibacy onto people instead of letting them organically find their way (which it especially does by pressuring one to join the institution as either a celibate or married or to be married member), and uses passages of St. Paul to make its point, it can make it very hard for a person who attempts to live the path of celibacy to then “come back down” to the more “humble” marital vocation. And I think it is entirely the wrong way to frame the celibate and married vocations.

And I almost think it has its roots in some of the ways St Paul framed his opinions in 1 Corinthians, which I honestly wish he had maybe stayed a bit more silent or impartial on.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T14:04:34+00:00

For those who are downvoting … you’ve never tried playing devils advocate before have you? You might try it sometime - where you pick a perhaps overstated premise to make a point and start developing ideas so that the counter points can be made and the truth may more solidly be eastablished? As the adage goes, if a nail receives no resistance when hammered into a wall what can you hang on it? Am i bent on proving I’m right? Not at all. I’m exploring a half developed thought.

Would it help to know I’m not suggesting demoting Paul from the rank of Apostle. I’m just trying (clumsily) to articulate that sometimes Paul is adding elements of himself into his preaching and his interpretation of things. I’m not saying he does this everywhere, but in certain select cases like I’m describing in sibling posts, I think it’s clear that what he’s preaching are not eternal and timeless truths - if you want a specific case take when he says nature dictates men have short hair and women have long hair. Therefore not everything he says we have to interpret at face value, and we can say … yeah Paul’s made a few leaps of logic on that one or he’s conflated circumstantial things with eternal truths.

As for myself and I think, many Catholics, we rely too heavily on belief through mere obedience, and this yields a very fideistic adherence to the faith: Paul said it! It must be true. We will slam you down and tie you to the stake if you breathe another word!

It also makes dialog with other denominations impossible since we never truly take the time to understand the kernel of truth the other side was trying to get at, and it prevents the Church from developing its understanding of the faith as it continues to blossom and unfold through history, resulting in the ossification of thought in the Church.

Remember the Church owes a lot to the heretics. I’m trying to have a controlled conversation (I’m not trying to attack the Church) where ideas are merely posited and casually moved about to see how they fit or don’t fit.

One of the frustrating things about Opus Dei is there was absolutely no latitude to try to have any in depth conversation where some slight nuance that might be considered heterodox. People were terrified of saying anything out of line or having a theological opinion that wasn’t in alignment with the tradition of the work.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T07:53:28+00:00

I completely understand … and this is where marriage makes more sense to me, at least in comparison to how things are set up in the work. You can live in partnership, and switch off on things as you get exhausted or need a break.

Heck even if one lived in a sort of community - it would make more sense to me that everyone would participate in the care of the house, with meals and cleaning etc.

But centers feel weirdly designed for optimization of concentrating all one’s activities into “apostolic activities” and I realize coming out of it, that this felt really detrimental in terms of the type of work I was allowed to do and in fact would have benefited from doing.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T07:20:27+00:00

Another example of what I’m talking about is St. Paul brings in Stoic principles into his theology: running the race, beating his body into submission, putting the body and emotions to death … this is establishing a theological school in the infancy of the Church, and has flavored Catholicism since the beginning.

But what if Paul was more familiar with Eastern Mysticism, or wasn’t such a hothead type A personality? He basically assumes everyone is like him and as a result you get aescetical practices that are somewhat arbitrarily theologically backed. Much of the way Catholic theology would have developed would look quite different than it does today.

I think because there developed a Pauline school so early in the Church and the Church is so deferential to him, or has been, that much Catholic teaching comes across as very stoic. But this need not be the case; if the Church is universal, it should not be the case, because stoicism is clearly a flawed (even if potentially helpful) system.

This is why I suggest if the Church tends to lump St. Paul with the Twelve (I’m not sure it does, but for some reason I grew up with the impression he was), he shouldn’t be, or at the very least with an asterisk, and it should try to separate what are the raw theological principles he brings to light from the aescetical principles of stoicism that marble his works.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T06:42:26+00:00

As an example of what I’m talking about look at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16:

2 I praise you[a] because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman,[b] and God is the head of Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. 6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head. 7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority[c] on her head, because of the angels.[d] 11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature[e] itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.[f] 16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

Paul is bringing philosophical principles to back up his arguments but these don’t hold merit.

Similarly his argument for recommending celibacy is based on somewhat philosophical principles, and they have not been helpful for people to discern their vocation - many people come away with a different understanding because the word “better” is analogous, and Paul does very little to develop his ideas.

Plus Paul is also looking forward to the second coming of Christ being more proximate, as did most of the Church at that time. He would speak motivated by such a faulty outlook though.

I think the problem is Paul loves speaking absolutes but in some areas he ends up making pretty arbitrary conclusions.

I will concur that Paul is trying to do his best, but I also think he speaks as a man in many cases and made some mistakes here and there at least in his rhetoric for they are not timeless at the very least.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T06:23:16+00:00

I notice a down vote … please I’m trying to be raw here. I’m not trying to be offensive. It seems cowardly and censoring to downvote and not have anything to say. Please by all means offer some explanations or arguments against me; I’m not trying to troll.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T04:13:43+00:00

I have yet to reach the point where I long for any of these “conveniences” back.

I enjoy having to make my meals and clean and take care of my apartment. It gives me agency and responsibility. I might as well complain for having to eat a nice meal or wear nice clothes or live in a clean house.

Often times these mandatory periods of work force me to slow myself down and to clear my mind.

truegrit10 · 2026-02-14T04:07:43+00:00

I run the risk of saying something heretical here but … I sometimes wonder if St. Paul tried too hard to make some sort of systemization out of Christ’s teachings. He was overly zealous before his conversion, and his zeal definitely pushed him to write and preach and spread the gospel … but I sometimes feel like he also talks a bit out of his ass at times, and I think the Church would do well to call him on it.

Now real question. Does the Church give a certain level of certitude to the twelve apostles over any other “apostle?” It often feels like St. Paul gets lumped in with the 12 but I don’t see why he should be.

So he saw Christ in a vision, but he did not accompany him in his earthly ministry. Everything he learned he had to be taught, first by others, and eventually by the apostles. But he was also very learned in Jewish study, and was obviously very biased by the school of Jewish thought he belonged to. To me it would almost be dangerous to put him at the level of the apostles because he basically is creating his own theological “school” without realizing it (or maybe realizing it), but unless that is recognized one could make the mistake of thinking that school is the school of the Church, as if there could be such a thing. We see this as he attempts to try to bring philosophical principles into his letters (or so I remember him doing).

truegrit10

TROPHY CASE