This book was super informative and took a long time to read. The first couple chapters were a slog, since they were setting up the historical foundation before the author got down to the controversy, the pros, and the cons presented by each perspective. The author claimed that the book was meant to be an unbiased look at Opus Dei, but it’s fairly clear that he is a sympathizer. Nevertheless, he did go through painstaking work to represent all the viewpoints. He is certainly fair to both sides – he just also has his own perspectives, which are not kept out of the book. It has to be just about impossible to do that, so I don’t begrudge him. It was just interesting to walk into this book knowing basically nothing about Opus Dei, and then reading about it.
There were several quotes and premises from the book that intrigued me, so I made a list of which ones compelled strong reactions from me – both positive and negative.
“At its core, the message of Opus Dei is that the redemption of the worlds will come in large part through laywomen and men sanctifying their daily work, transforming secularity from within. “Spirituality” and “prayer,” according to this way of seeing things, are not things reserved primarily for church, as et of pious practices marked off from the rest of life; the real focus of the spiritual life is one’s ordinary work and relationships, the stuff of daily living that, seen from the point of view of eternity, takes on transcendent significance.”
This really struck me, because I have always taken for granted that everyone realized that they could sanctify their daily work – that you didn’t have to do or be formally ecumenical to represent Christ in your daily life. For me, that is just a given of being a Christian, so it’s very strange to me that this quote seems to indicate that this idea is somehow revolutionary or novel. Why would you have to join a special order or organization of any kind to be able to do your best to consecrate your life to Christ, regardless of what your vocation or avocation may be? Isn’t that what the essence of Christianity is?
“This idea, however, is that individual Christians can add their own “expiations,” or acts of suffering, to what Christ accomplished on the Cross, and doing so pleases God and contributes to the redemption of the world.
The concept of suffering in imitation of Christ is really vile to me for many reasons, so this quote was super off-putting. First, I remind myself that it’s entirely possible the author has unintentionally misrepresented the point of Opus Dei members deliberately add to their own suffering by trying to mimic Christ’s suffering…but I don’t think so. Can someone explain to me the point of deliberately putting oneself through mortification? Christ suffered so that we might not suffer, if we would repent. Insisting on deliberately inflicting one’s own suffering, then to me, refuses Christ’s gift! Inflicting suffering on yourself thinking that you are somehow adding to Christ is blasphemous. Christ’s Atonement was infinite. He wholly paid the price for us. How does any believer take it into their head that somehow doing a mimic of Christ’s pain pays homage to Him? We cannot add to or take away anything from Him!
The section on women was particularly interesting – especially quotes from Janne Haaland Matlary. I loved what she had to say against modern-day so-called feminism:
“There are very few [feminists] who talk about the importance of motherhood in practical-political terms, or even in more profound terms. In this sense, modern feminism is very impoverished in its anthropology—or rather, in its lack of such, Instead of exploring what it really can mean to be a woman—what womanhood is-in an ontological and existential sense—feminism seems to assume and offer an aggressive view of man where the two sexes are engaged in a power struggle…Modern feminism is silent on the question of what women are in their essence, and therefore has nothing to say on the importance of motherhood.”
She later adds, “In the revolutionary fog of the sexual liberation movement of 1968, women started moving down the masculine path of expressing themselves and acting, aligning themselves in everything, often in an exasperated fashion, with that masculine mentality that instead needs to open itself to feminine coexistence. Thus we’ve created not merely a struggle of the genders—in the streets and in the media, as in the parliaments and the private homes—marked by violence and desire for domination, but also rapid and progressive mutation of dress and of styles that has been irradiated, with an uninterrupted progression, by theoretical proclamations, even down to fashion, language and physical posture.” – Matlary
I couldn’t agree more! It was such a blessing to hear a woman of faith slam the worldly counterfeit of what constitutes a so-called strong woman! A woman isn’t meant to be a man any more than a man is meant to be a woman. Neither is inherently better or worse. Why do women spend so much time fighting so hard to try to become a man? There are so many wonderful things about being a woman – so many things she has the nature and ability to do that men simply don’t! Same goes for a man. He has so many talents and abilities and his own role that woman are just not designed to do. Why is that so horrible?
Later, Escrivá is quoted: “I think that if we systematically contrast work in the home without outside work, retaining the old dichotomy which was formerly used to maintain that a woman’s place was in the home, but now asserting the exact opposite, it could easily lead to a great social mistake than that which we are trying to correct, because it would be a more serious mistake for women in general to give up the work of looking after their loved ones. Even on the personal level, one cannot flatly affirm that a woman has to achieve her perfection only outside the home, as if time spent on family were time stolen from the development of her personality. The home—whatever its characteristics, because a single woman should also have a home—is a particularly suitable place for the growth of her personality. The attention she gives to her family will always be a woman’s greatest dignity. In the general terms, in her work of creating a warm and formative atmosphere around her, a woman fulfills the most indispensable part of her mission. And so it follows that she can achieve her personal perfection there” This was very compelling food for thought!
The last quote I made a note of that I just loved is from Escrivá de Balaguer: “For the person who stands in God’s hands always falls into God’s hands.” Escrivá de Balaguer. That was a really beautiful image. I’d love to see a piece of art depict this.
All in all, this was a very informative read, which I suppose is a main purpose of non-fiction. It was well written (though the editing could have used a bit of help in the grammar department), and it was exhaustively thorough. It was surely a labor of love for the author. I’m glad I read it, but I’m also glad I’m done!