HOLY DISCRETION
“Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is
from the evil one.”—Matthew 5:37
Robert Hutchison in Their Kingdom
Come (1996) remarks several times on Saint Josemaria’s predilection for
“holy discretion.”
begin One of the troubles about citing anything by Escriva is that he
was a master of double talk and dual standards. He said one thing for the
outside world and another for his children. Even more telling, he said one
thing for some of his children, while maintaining something else for his staff
officers, the inscribed numeraries. He also had two layers of publications, one
for the general public, The Way, for example, and another reserved for elect
numeraries. Strict orders were issued that copies of Cronica...be kept under
lock and key in each centre. end
Maria del Carmen Tapia relates how Saint Josemaria Escriva ordered her
to return to Rome from Venezuela, allegedly to take a “vacation.” Several weeks
later, Escriva tells her she had been ordered to return to Rome not for a
“vacation” but because she had been proud in fulfilling her duties in Venezuela
and as a precaution she would have to be confined in Rome.
Obviously, it was a lie, telling Tapia that she should go to Rome for a
“vacation.”
Naturally, Tapia got extremely distraught. She said she had been
deceived and became hysterical because she said—correctly—that Escriva had lied
to her. She set up a mailbox outside the Opus Dei center to receive mail from
Venezuela, although she had been prohibited from doing so by her superior. Upon
learning about Tapia’s mailbox, Escriva became extremely enraged. “I give you
the second admonition, hypocrite. You write me a letter on my saint’s day
telling me you want to begin again, and this is what you do to me!…You’re a bad
piece of work!…You’re a wicked woman, sleazy, scum! That’s what you are! Now
go! I don’t want to see you!” In a fit of unbridled anger, he expelled her from
Opus Dei. “WHORE! SOW!”
What incited this outburst of unreasonable rage? Tapia lied about her
mailbox. What should Escriva expect in the first place? After all, he lied to
her. He gave the bad example.
Deeply cultivated falsehood in Opus Dei leads to abuses, obviously. One
common abuse is lack of informed consent. Peter Malinoski, former numerary, for
example, concisely declares: “Opus Dei deceived me. Opus Dei manipulated me.
Opus Dei’s message was that in temporal matters, I would be just like any other
Catholic layman. What I experienced was anything but ordinary.”
At one point, my spiritual director, an Opus Dei priest, instructed me,
“Why don’t you learn how to lie a little bit?”
This is how Saint Josemaria Escriva wanted it.
Photo courtesy of Opus Dei • Buscar a Dios en el trabajo y en la vida cotidiana
ReplyDeletePhoto link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/opus-dei/13599158493
Gonzalinho
THE GURU’S CAT
ReplyDeleteWhen the guru sat down to worship each evening
the ashram cat would
get in the way and distract the
worshipers. So he ordered that
the cat be tied during evening
worship.
After the guru died the cat
continued to be tied during evening
worship. And when the cat
expired, another cat was
brought to the ashram so that it
could be duly tied during evening
worship.
Centuries later learned treatises
were written by the guru’s scholarly disciples
on the liturgical significance
of tying up a cat
while worship is performed.
In Anthony de Mello, S.J., The Song of the Bird (1984), page 63
Gonzalinho
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
It is more accurate to say that Opus Dei is a mixture of what is good and holy, along with beliefs and practices that are not only questionable but arguably immoral. No one can quarrel, for example, with the value of prayerful devotion or the practice of Christian asceticism. However, the outright deception of parents in the name of the virtue of prudence clearly transgresses the eighth commandment against lying. The practice of taking parents’ possessions and transferring them to the Opus Dei centers without the parents’ knowledge, a practice that during my stay in Opus Dei was encouraged directly in writing by Father Alvaro del Portillo, citing “the example of our holy Founder,” the then deceased Msgr. Josemaria Escriva, also transgresses the seventh commandment against stealing. What are patently immoral practices can only be justified by misguided casuistry.
The notion that Opus Dei ideology and praxis is entirely the product of divine inspiration is, in my opinion, theologically insupportable. Much of Opus Dei ideology and praxis originates from Blessed Escriva, if we are to believe historical testimony as well as the practice among Opus Dei directors of citing Blessed Escriva to justify what is often called the Opus Dei “spirit.” Yet we must acknowledge that the source of this spirit is Blessed Escriva’s claim to private revelation, which belongs to a very different category of truth from the depositum fidei of the Church. Indeed, in many cases it seems that Opus Dei beliefs and practices, as is evident from Ms. Tapia’s account, may just as well be the product of human judgment, preference, and opinion.
Father Escriva’s beatification and probable canonization do not alter this equation because the papal act of beatification does not necessarily sanction Blessed Escriva’s claim when he was alive that he, as the Founder of Opus Dei, is the sole source and arbiter of a divinely communicated system of belief and practice. One has only to read the history of the Church and peruse copies of original documents to realize that in notable instances, the saints made mistakes that in the context of current knowledge and modern mores might very well be regarded as disgraceful. Some of the saints’ mystical writings also show them to be recipients of private revelations that turned out to be false.
Instead of assuming that what has been passed on from Blessed Escriva is divinely inspired in its entirety, I believe that it is a more accurate theology to recognize that the truth and value of private revelation is manifest in its effects: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). It goes without saying that systemic aspects of Opus Dei ideology and praxis have had very negative effects on individuals who joined the organization under the impulse of unknowing idealism, including Ms. Tapia.
Therefore, to cite or criticize the negative aspects of Opus Dei does not necessarily constitute “slander,” an emotionally charged word that tends to obfuscate the issues raised by what may very well be legitimate criticism. Insofar as Ms. Tapia testifies to harmful aspects of Opus Dei that are consistently confirmed by many former members, including myself, she is simply telling the truth.
To be continued
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
Continued
I emphatically attest that numerous beliefs and practices of Opus Dei have worked to the harm, at times severely damaging, of many former members, including Ms. Tapia, as well as their families, and that this abuse is insupportably justified by invoking a divine mandate. In consequence, it is my sincere desire that Opus Dei reform itself in specific aspects, for the sake of many aggrieved persons and for the protection of the next generation. Reform entails the rejection of important aspects of Blessed Escriva’s idiosyncratic legacy. I earnestly hope that the little I have written will work toward enlightenment and genuine reform. We should not have to wait as long as Galileo did for rectification.
Gonzalinho
The Roman Catholic Church sometimes uses the excuse of “mental reservation” to justify lying when it is objectionable, questionable, or insupportable. It’s a common problematic practice that harms many victims of falsehoods, including and especially the laity who are the victims of the clergy and religious. I would point out that the clergy and religious are strongly motivated to act in the support and protection of the institution to the harm of the lay faithful because the interests of the clergy and religious are identified with and strongly bound up in the institution.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
“Broad mental reservation” is susceptible to abuse because it allows the liar to justify practically any falsehood by claiming the exercise of “prudence” for the sake of the “common good.”
DeleteHowever, one person’s truth is easily another’s lie, so that “broad mental reservation” may be invoked in practically any instance to rationalize every possible dissimulation.
Indeed, lying in Roman Catholic cults appears to be standard practice. What the recruit claims is their right to know is countered by the cult’s insistence on their right to privacy, among other reasons. So-called “mental reservation” in cults as a consequence is often objectionable when the cult’s truth is the recruit’s lie with all the harmful ramifications that follow upon it.
Gonzalinho
https://youtu.be/mlt_rhvKfZk?si=s_ZiByZ1ljSQycV2
ReplyDelete—Armor of God: Spiritual Warfare, “Satan’s pursuit of souls and the next phase of his ‘supposed’ triumph over mankind,” YouTube video, 34:15 minutes, February 18, 2024
“Truth is exorcistic.” (13:13)
Conversely, when falsehood is systemic in an institution, doesn’t it mean that the devil afflicts it (obsession) and possibly even inhabits it (possession)? We are speaking metaphorically, of course.
Gonzalinho
The danger for Roman Catholics is to make not only the faults and shortcomings of the canonized exemplary but also their sins.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho