I now know what Opus Dei is and what it is not. John Allen did a very thorough analysis of Opus Dei including the good, the bad and the ugly.
The myths have been debunked. Mr Allen just lays it all out there and you can make your own judgment.

I'm not sure if it was due to poor organization or an attempt to maximize the information gathered, but I slogged through this book. I found the same quotes/information by the same subjects repeated nearly verbatim and used to fit a variety of contexts. That, and the fact that each chapter was separated into many brief subsections made reading this book a rather tedious enterprise. I found myself skipping pages that presented "more of the same" rather frequently. Chapter 15 promises that it's now time to make conclusions, but these are the same points Allen made (often more than once) in previous chapters.

Is it possible to be objective to the point of irrelevancy? I think so, and this book may approach that line. The presentation of point-counterpoint begins as a fairly balanced exercise, but by the time the reader is about halfway through it, the system becomes annoying. One already knows in reading an experience or opinion that it's going to be refuted on the next page.

What Allen fails to do often enough is ask the question, "Why?" and provide more interesting analysis. He mentions a few times that Opus Dei in the UK grows little and he anemically offers the late Cardinal Hume's reticence as a reason. Sorry, but that doesn't satisfy. Conversely, Allen demonstrates the strength of Opus Dei in Spanish-speaking countries but never probes why this might be. Indeed, readers don't get much of a picture of Opus Dei in the United States. Allen globetrots to interview members in other countries where the movement is popular while not explaining WHY it is popular in Peru and not, apparently, in Peoria. Or is it? We have little idea because of this and many loose threads.

I gave this book 3 stars because it does a good job of explaining what Opus Dei is. However, I was being a bit generous because I think that people buying it expect more analysis and less spoon-fed material. Authors would prefer that people read their books from cover to cover, and serious readers prefer that, too. But because of the repetition, this book disappoints when read from beginning to end. Perhaps skipping around in this case is better. Best would be a thorough edit that reduces the repetition and reorganizes away from the interminable tennis match of point-counterpoint.