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
https://youtu.be/mlt_rhvKfZk?si=s_ZiByZ1ljSQycV2
Delete—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)
Gonzalinho
The danger for Roman Catholics is to make not only the faults and shortcomings of the canonized exemplary but also their sins.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
THE LIAR SAINT
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Saint Josemaria Escriva’s habits of mendacity are set forth by Opus Dei, invoking the institution of canonization, as normative and exemplary. As such, the Opus Dei program represents an adulteration of the institution of canonization.
The deficiencies of this particular saint should be recognized and acknowledged for what they genuinely are—distortions of Christian doctrine that are harmful to the faithful and in some cases destructive.
Among the various transgressions along this line, we mention:
- Deception in the recruitment of members, celibate members in particular, and the violation of the right to informed consent thereby
- Propagation of sectarian doctrine, a type of delusion or mass psychogenic illness
- Practice of mental reservation to the point of abusing the right to information and the right of conscience, not only of members and related but also those of outsiders without any formal affiliations to the organization and even in evasion of the overarching regulatory authority of the papacy
- Abuse of the right to privacy, sometimes, astonishingly, to the point of violating the seal of the confessional—the confessor deceptively seeks to transfer information from the internal to the external forum and without obtaining the consent of the subject shares in an unethical manner—treacherously—their private information originally confided in spiritual direction
Gonzalinho
THE LIAR SAINT (continued)
DeleteDeception in the recruitment of members, celibate members in particular, and the violation of the right to informed consent thereby:
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.”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/holy-discretion.html
“Giménez, now 56, joined the conservative Catholic group in her native Paraguay at the age of 14 with the promise she would get an education. But instead of math or history, she was trained in cooking, cleaning and other household chores to serve in Opus Dei residences and retirement homes.”
“…The women in the complaint have one thing in common: humble origins.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/americas/women-in-argentina-claim-labor-exploitation-by-opus-dei/article_193af116-55dc-57c8-b326-721b7ed86fa8.html
—Débora Rey The Associated Press, “Women in Argentina claim labor exploitation by Opus Dei,” Toronto Star (November 12, 2021)
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-work-of-evil-spirit.html
5:31
There are many assistant numeraries across the world living lives quite similar to the one I have explained. I feel that these women’s human rights are severely breached by the attitudes and rules of Opus Dei. However, Opus Dei continues to justify and allow this type of status to exist. It can only be described as a serious exploitation of a vulnerable group of women in the name of God. It’s actually abuse, that’s what it is. It’s child abuse…it’s emotional and it’s physical as regards the actual like morning to night working…and there’s no other word for it…it’s child abuse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvMQq8M_3Ko&t=619s
—TheDeepDiveProject, “Opus Dei is NOT above the LAW (trafficking, exploitation, lies, and coercion) | Opus Dei Deep Dive,” YouTube video, 1:35:37 hours, May 23, 2024
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2024/12/spiritual-abuse-in-opus-dei.html
Gonzalinho
THE LIAR SAINT (3 of 5)
DeletePropagation of sectarian doctrine, a type of delusion or mass psychogenic illness:
At the core of Opus Dei spirituality is the assumption—it is a theological assumption—that Saint Josemaria Escriva is the infallible (pause) purveyor of the will of God for Opus Dei. Opus Dei might not officially use the term “infallible,” but in practice, Escriva’s words with respect to the implementation of Opus Dei in practice—his vision of Opus Dei—are treated as infallible. Escriva’s will is infallible in practice. He exercises “practical” infallibility in Opus Dei.
As I have argued earlier, this treatment of Escriva’s will is idolatrous. It treats as the will of God that which is not demonstrably so, and in fact, we have seen that the result of doing so is demonstrably evil. Many fruits of the fundamentalist interpretation of Escriva’s will by the members of Opus Dei, the leaders especially, are bad—they do not come from God.
In an earlier post, I had expounded:
Peter Berglar observes in Opus Dei: Life and Work of Its Founder Josemaria Escriva (1994):
“...Escriva always insisted that Opus Dei was not his own invention, that it was not the consequence of a series of speculations, analyses, discussions, or experiments, and that it was not the result of good and pious intentions. He clearly implied that the actual founder was God Himself and that the commission of the task to a young priest was a supernatural act, a unique grace.”
…In Opus Dei as Divine Revelation (2016), E. B. E. relates:
“…Escriva has been considered by many Opus Dei members as a historical figure at the same level as Moses. ...God’s will emanated from Escriva's mouth, according to a senior director's testimony:
“‘Do what I [Escriva] tell you: as soon as you receive from Rome a note or indication of mine, you will take that paper and...you will kneel down and with your hand lay it on your head, saying: “This comes from our founder, then it comes from God and must be put into practice with all our soul.”’ (J. Prieto, ‘Una Crisis en el Opus Dei,’ El Pais, April 12, 1992)”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-infallibility-of-opus-dei-spirit.html
The concern I have is that as lay faithful we should not be dragged by clergy or religious, whether individuals or institutions, into their intramural wars inside the Church. Their struggles are often partisan, highly personal, ideologically motivated, unduly dogmatic, aggressive, domineering, tendentious, idiosyncratic, and sometimes even delusional. Opus Dei, in my sad, personal experience, drops into this category.
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2022/10/modern-gnosticism-and-pelagianism.html
Gonzalinho
THE LIAR SAINT (4 of 5)
DeletePractice of mental reservation to the point of abusing the right to information and the right of conscience, not only of members and related but also those of outsiders without any formal affiliations to the organization and even in evasion of the overarching regulatory authority of the papacy:
REGULATORY FRAUD FOUNDED ON IDOLATRY
1:58
I am…if you haven’t guessed it by now referring to the international ecclesiastical institutional complaint against Opus Dei for regulatory fraud against the Holy See and the members themselves. It is a 20-page document and the information contained…because it is 20 pages I cannot go over every single bit of it even though it is all significant so I will leave a link down in the description of this video…I highly encourage you to go and read it for yourself…it’s been translated into…seven or eight languages.
6:43
They say this, from the beginning [Escriva] seemed to consider himself a special and extraordinary figure with a transcendental mission. He manifests in his writings that his role is quasi-messianic, frequently above the Supreme Pontiff and the hierarchy of the Church, a…problem rooted in Opus Dei since its inception is its ideologization. Opus Dei day members are…guided to consider the founder and his successors not with respect and affection but as depositories of a faith…which they call theological.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBI0OwS6-_M
—TheDeepDiveProject, “This information could RUIN Opus Dei - International Complaint of Fraud | Opus Dei Deep Dive,” YouTube video, 1:02:11 hours, September 10, 2023
The complaint here appears to be that the ecclesiastical law that is supposed to regulate Opus Dei is its statutes publicly registered with the Vatican.
However, Opus Dei internally mandates 46 secret documents to substitute and supersede the statutes—originally registered decades ago, I am guessing in 1950 with the Congregation for Religious.
The Congregation for Religious was originally started by Pope Sixtus V in 1587 as the Sacred Congregation for Consultations About Regulars, after which it was renamed by Pope Saint Pius X in 1908. It was renamed again by Pope Saint Paul VI in 1967 as the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes.
Pope Saint John Paul II in 1982 promulgated the statutes of Opus Dei as the first personal prelature in the Roman Catholic Church.
Since 2022 Opus Dei has been supervised by the Dicastery for the Clergy.
Allegedly there is regulatory fraud because Opus Dei does not follow the statutes registered with the Vatican but rather enforces its own internal rules, specifically, the content of the 46 secret documents. Opus Dei plays by its own rules (no surprise here).
The underlying basis for the alleged abuse by Opus Dei is a basic and overriding assumption: Escriva is the infallible origin and source of a charism allegedly from God that has to be strictly followed by everyone in Opus Dei in all its details. It is this theology decades-old that really should be brought to the light of day and dealt with on its merits. As I have argued in the past, it is a theology that is at least partially spurious, and in this respect it is idolatrous. The pope has to weigh in and pronounce on this theology, because based on at least hundreds of testimonies it has deleterious spiritual and related effects on thousands of lives.
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2021/02/authenticum-charismatis.html
Gonzalinho
THE LIAR SAINT (5 of 5)
DeleteAbuse of the right to privacy, sometimes, astonishingly, to the point of violating the seal of the confessional—the confessor deceptively seeks to transfer information from the internal to the external forum and without obtaining the consent of the subject shares in an unethical manner—treacherously—their private information originally confided in spiritual direction:
“Has confessional secrecy ever been abused? Not directly, perhaps, but Vladimir Felzmann relates a disturbing incident. After some time as a lay numerary he was ordained and returned to England where he heard the confessions of members. One day he was visited by senior Opus Dei officials. It had come to their attention, they told him, that someone had confessed to him the sin (as they saw it) of homosexuality, yet Felzmann had not informed Rome. That, pointed out Felzmann, would have been to breach the seal of the confessional. The officials grudgingly conceded the point, but told him he should have made the person involved, on the pain of not receiving absolution from his real or supposed sin, come back to him or to someone else outside the confessional in the form of a confidence, so that the information might be used. Felzmann protested to the point of tears that this could still technically be construed as breaking the seal. The senior members would not accept this, and rebuked him sharply for his want of loyalty to the organization.”
—Michael Walsh, Opus Dei: An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power within the Roman Catholic Church (1992), pages 118-119
When Opus Dei directors require priests to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal his or her sins in the external forum, they violate the seal of the sacrament—not directly, but indirectly.
“The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or INDIRECTLY, BY SOME SIGN, SUGGESTION, OR ACTION. [all capitals mine]”
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html
—Father William Saunders, “The Seal of the Confessional,” Catholic Education Resource Center, reprinted with the permission of Arlington Catholic Herald, 2000
In the above account of Father Vladimir Felzmann, the priest is being required by the directors to reveal the content of the confession by using a threat (action) not permitted under the circumstances to compel the penitent to disclose the details of the confession in the external forum.
Categorically, the priest is not allowed to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal information in the external forum.
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/11/opus-dei-violates-seal-of-confession.html
Gonzalinho