Work of God or Work of Man?

Saint John the Baptist Preaching (1878) by Auguste Rodin

WORK OF GOD OR WORK OF MAN?

Jesus said to them in reply, ‘I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?’ (Matthew 21:24-25)

Jesus was a master of rhetoric, and possibly it is for this reason that he played the false dichotomy card. The chief priests and elders were flummoxed. They could not answer his question either way.

Of course, there are more than two possible answers. One response would be, ‘It is both.’

The so-called Opus Dei charism claims to come from God. Demonstrably, it is not, at least in part. If we were to ask the question, in the spirit of the Gospel story, ‘Is Opus Dei from God or from man?’ I would answer, ‘Both.’

I would add that the part that comes from man—from one man, in fact, who is treated as God because he is regarded as the infallible source of a so-called divine charism—is not from God at all, and in fact, because it is—at least in part—evil in itself and evil in its effects, it is the work of the evil that arises from human sinfulness and imperfection, probably, I would even say, in cooperation with the devil. I have said before that Opus Dei is the work of the devil, and I would affirm this statement. I have also said that the conduct of Opus Dei in regard to the claim of a so-called charism, born in perfection, Athena-like from Escriva’s brain, is idolatrous and sins against the first and second commandments.

Does the so-called Opus Dei charism come from God? Some relevant links:

“The Discernment of Prophecy” (June 24, 2018)

Describes three criteria for evaluating the authenticity of a claim to prophecy

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/06/discernment-of-prophecy.html

“The Demand for Signs” (June 24, 2018)

Are signs necessary to confirm the authenticity of a prophecy?

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-demand-for-signs.html

“The Doctrine of Reception” (October 7, 2017)

Reception is one important means for evaluating the authenticity of a prophecy.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-doctrine-of-reception.html

“‘The Father’ of Lies” (October 2, 2017)

Opus Dei is a work of man and a work of the devil.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-father-of-lies.html

If we were to profess that Opus Dei is wholly the Work of God, then we would also have to conclude God is a trickster and a tyrant. God the trickster relies on deceit to advance a cult agenda. God the tyrant brainwashes his followers. He requires absolute obedience under the threat of eternal damnation.

But God is not like this at all—God speaks truth always, he does not deceive us, he invites us to participate in his work of love in the world, and he does not inflict himself upon us like a jackhammer.

It would be more accurate to say that it is Opus Dei who is the trickster and the tyrant, and Escriva, who is the origin of Opus Dei, is the source of the trickster and tyrant side of Opus Dei.

We observe that Jesus did not answer his own question, ‘Was John’s baptism of heavenly or of human origin?’ John’s baptism is from heaven, yes, doubtlessly, but like so many other means by which God works in the world—grace in no small measure operates by the principle of sacramentality—John’s baptism works in cooperation with God’s grace. Therefore, John’s baptism is also the work of man, specifically, John the Baptist works in cooperation with God’s grace and not in obstruction of it.

Opus Dei is the Work of God and the work of man, in some important respects probably in cooperation with the devil, and as such, it is the work of the devil. I don’t agree with the logic that argues a false dichotomy, that is, that Opus Dei is either-or, either the Work of God or something else. Opus Dei is obviously the work of man, and the evil it has propagated has been done, most likely, in conjunction with the influence of the devil. In this respect, Opus Dei is also the work of the devil.

Saint Josemaria Escriva was a liar—he lied, he taught many thousands to lie, and he wrought great destruction in the lives of many as a result of lies. His lying ways are a telltale sign that he was under the influence of the devil in this critical respect. He lied in two ways principally—deception of others and delusion or self-deception. He propounded and spread his own delusions.

Personal sacrifice is part and parcel of any spiritual undertaking. In Opus Dei you are being asked to consume yourself for the sake of a narrow, distorted, and ultimately untruthful interpretation of the Roman Catholic faith falsely represented as dogma.

You are being asked to die for a lie. This kind of spiritual and ascetical regime is a living hell.

Escriva lied and spread his lies in at three important respects.

- Although doctrine exists at different levels of authority and certainty, Opus Dei fails to acknowledge these defining nuances. Depending on the specific point of doctrine, different degrees of adherence is required. However, in this matter Opus Dei does not allow the members to exercise their proper freedom as Roman Catholic faithful.

- He propagated idiosyncratic ideas about the world generally, and religion and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, propositions that were often questionable, unsubstantiated, and unsupported.

- He claimed that he was the infallible source of a divinely inspired charism, and he declared and taught that he should be treated by his followers as such.

Expounding each of these general points would require several books at least. We offer a brief treatment here.

1.   Although doctrine exists at different levels of authority and certainty, Opus Dei fails to acknowledge these defining nuances. Depending on the specific point of doctrine, different degrees of adherence is required. However, in this matter Opus Dei does not allow its members to exercise their proper freedom as Roman Catholic faithful.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is exercised at two levels, extraordinary and ordinary.

The exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium requires the “obedience of faith” by the Roman Catholic faithful.

CCC 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. [1] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” [2] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” [3] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [4]

On the other hand, the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium requires “religious assent.”

CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” [5] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

NOTES

1 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.

2 DV 10 # 2.

3 LG 25 # 2.

4 Cf. LG 25.

5 LG 25.

ABBREVIATIONS

LG Lumen Gentium

DS Denzinger-Schönmetzer, eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum

DV Dei Verbum

See: http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=exercised

—The Catechism of the Catholic Church in Questions and Answers

“Religious assent” is the English translation of obsequium religiousum, which occurs in Lumen Gentium 25. Although the meaning of the term has been parsed in various ways across the Roman Catholic ideological spectrum, one fundamental point maintains: it is possible for the faithful to disagree.

Although the interpretation given below, for example, by Germain Grisez, a conservative theologian is constraining, he concedes that it is possible for a non-definitive teaching to be mistaken.

“In giving religious assent, something is accepted on the authority of the pope or of one’s bishop. Thus, one submits one’s judgment to his. In doing so, one agrees with him about the point he teaches even if one would think it untrue except for his teaching. In this sense one submits one’s mind and will to his. …

“Still, authoritative teachings can be known to be mistaken. Teachings which…would call for religious assent can, however, be known to be in error. The responsibility to give religious assent therefore is limited, and its limits vary with the diverse ways in which papal and episcopal teachings, although proposed as certainly true, can be mistaken.” [boldface mine]

http://twotlj.org/G-2-1-I.html

—Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Question 1

Grisez passed away in 2018. The link below provides more information about him.

https://ccli.org/2018/02/professor-germain-grisez-passes-at-age-88/

—“Professor Germain Grisez passes at age 88,” Couple to Couple League

A religious writes,

“Both DV [Donum Veritatis] and DC [Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fide] distinguish the teachings of this category from those that are ‘definitive,’ and the latter document explicitly refers to third-category teachings as ‘non-definitive.’ Implicit in DV is that such teachings are ‘reformable,’ even though the pope and the college of bishops are teaching something which helps the faithful to understand a truth of one of the higher gradations. Because such teachings are not guaranteed infallibility, they are subject to theological inquiry in a way that the truths of the first two categories are not” [boldface mine]

https://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

—Brother André Marie, “The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching” (November 10, 2007), Catholicism.org

Commenting on the views of Cardinal Avery Dulles, J. Robert Dionne, S.J., and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the same religious remarks, concerning the magisterial status of Vatican II teachings and of those it reformed,

“For Dulles and Dionne, the argument goes in the direction of proving that the earlier magisterium was subject to correction – indeed, so radically subject that subsequent teachings could be, or appear to be, a ‘reversal.’ But by strictly applying their logic, the argument can be easily turned around: Since, according to Dulles, the teachings of Vatican II belong to the third category, they, too, can be reversed. To deny this would be to advance a ‘maximalist’ position on conciliar ordinary magisterium and ‘to assert that all of it is definitive, and that none of it can pertain to the third and fourth categories in the CDF instruction.’ Dulles would not likely do this as he thinks that ‘the teaching of Vatican II … falls predominantly into [the third] category.’”

“A similar turnaround may be applicable to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements. In his address presenting DV, the CDF Prefect mentioned “magisterial decisions which cannot be and are not intended to be the last word on the matter as such,” which are “an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition” whose “core remains valid but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification.” As examples of these “non-irreformable teachings,” he cited “the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom” and “the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time.” Now both of these are areas of doctrine that were touched upon at Vatican II, a council which was “pastoral” in its aim and which responded to “circumstances at that time.” If, in the Cardinal’s mind, the contents of the Syllabus of Pius IX, Lamentabili Sane, and Pascendi where subject to revision based upon these criteria, it seems reasonable to conclude that the same can be said of Vatican II, which the Cardinal himself said “chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.’” [boldface mine]

https://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

—Brother André Marie, “Vatican II and the Levels of Magisterial Teaching” (November 20, 2007), Catholicism.org

Another interpretation of obsequium religiousum explains,

“Obsequium religiousum in cases of disagreement

“With regard to the lesser interpositions of the Magisterium’s office, people can find themselves in a hard situation where a good reason for withholding compliance presents itself. However, the reverence given to non-infallible acts is always the same for the same degree of interposition of the office, even though how one acts on that reverence will depend on other factors like one’s academic training, one’s responsibility for instructing others, the harmony of the teaching with other magisterial teachings, etc. Disagreeing with a non-infallible teaching does not mean withdrawing the essence of the obsequium religiosum: in a given case one may not be at all ‘ready or compliant,’ and yet the reverence that normally drives compliance is still present.

“The reverence still present is not an empty form, either, because it still imposes certain limits on one’s actions. If necessity forced a soldier to move through a church sanctuary with a rifle, for example, he still would not spit chewing tobacco or write on the walls: his reluctant violation of the space would not eliminate his reverence. And similarly, even when we must disagree with magisterial statements—e.g., when they disagree with other magisterial statements—we do so with sorrow at the necessity and respect for the office and its holder.”

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/12/30/on-non-infallible-teachings-of-the-magisterium-and-the-meaning-of-obsequium-religiosum/

—Dr. Jeremy Holmes, “On Non-Infallible Teachings of the Magisterium and the Meaning of ‘Obsequium Religiosum’” (December 30, 2017), The Catholic World Report

Not surprisingly, secular interpretations of the term “religious assent” are less deferential toward the Magisterium, without necessarily being incorrect.

“The proper response of the Roman Catholic to authoritative teaching that is ‘ordinary’ and does not clearly deal with faith or morals is religious assent, a term that is extremely difficult to define. The theory of religious assent does permit considerable dissent from authoritative teaching, such as the dissent that greeted Pope Paul VI’s teaching against contraception in 1968. Religious assent is particularly relevant to the pontifical document called the encyclical, which first appeared in the 18th century and became the normal mode of pontifical communication in the 19th century. The encyclical letter is a channel of ordinary teaching, not solemn and definitive, and is somewhat provisional by definition. Religious assent may be withheld, in popular language, by anyone who in good conscience thinks he or she knows better.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism/Revelation#ref479258

—“Revelation,” Britannica

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that not every teaching that proceeds from the hierarchy requires the same degree of adherence on the part of the faithful. Doctrines that involve, for example, the “obedience of faith” are fundamentally different from those that compel “religious assent.”

Does Opus Dei draw out these all-important distinctions?

Based on my many years of experience as a member of the organization, I would say NO.

Every proposition that Opus Dei sets forth for the profession of its members and for their compliance is asserted with the same practically dogmatic certainty, whether it is the claim that baptism is necessary for salvation—a universal dogma of the Roman Catholic Church—or beliefs and attitudes peculiar to Opus Dei, for example, that the “ties of the spirit” among the members of Opus Dei supersede the “ties of blood” to their biological families, that God should be addressed using the male pronoun because that is how God wants it, that it is a sin for the members to read translations of the Bible other than the Douay-Rheims or Challoner, etc. Sometimes idiosyncratic Opus Dei beliefs and attitudes are said to belong to the charism of the organization.

Notably, in Opus Dei, artificial methods of contraception are entirely proscribed. It is considered a mortal sin and taught as such. We observe that, technically speaking, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this question falls under the category of “non-definitive” and therefore it requires “religious assent.” (This statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement of dissent from the official teaching on this question.)

Surely, the proscription against using artificial methods of contraception falls into a different category of adherence than, say, the Opus Dei prohibition against accessing translations of the Bible of which it disapproves? Based on the vehemence with which Opus Dei asserts its peculiarly fulsome array of religious and spiritual imperatives, you wouldn’t know.

“How many children should a couple have?” I once asked an American numerary. “As many as possible,” he replied, vehemently. To my mind his response was evidently inadequate. I waited for him to expound further, but it ended there.

Often fundamentalist in tone and lacking in nuance, this way of asserting religious and spiritual propositions I have found typical of Opus Dei.

A Catholic News Service article I came across offers a more satisfactory exposition.

“Pope Francis memorably countered popular misconceptions about the church’s sexual teaching in 2015 aboard a flight when he bluntly said, ‘Some people believe that—pardon my language, in order to be good Catholics, we should be like rabbits.’

“‘No. Responsible parenthood,’ he added.

“The pope was ‘pushing back against that misperception. The church doesn’t say, “Have as many children as possible or you’re not really Catholic.” What the church calls couples to is responsible parenthood,’ explained John Grabowski, associate professor of moral theology and ethics at The Catholic University of America in Washington.

“Key to understanding the term ‘responsible parenthood’ is Section 10 of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, ‘Humanae Vitae,’ Grabowski said.

“The section reads, ‘With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.’”

https://catholicphilly.com/2018/07/catholic-spirituality/what-does-the-church-teach-about-responsible-parenthood/

—Anna Capizzi, Catholic News Service, “What Does the Church Teach about ‘Responsible Parenthood’?” (July 6, 2018), CatholicPhilly.com

2.   Escriva propagated idiosyncratic ideas about the world generally, and religion and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, propositions that were often questionable, unsubstantiated, and unsupported.

Example would be, “All religious should wear habits,” an assertion which is habitually propounded in Opus Dei.

It’s an idiosyncratic proposition promulgated as normative without explanation.

It represents an opinion but it is not represented as such.

I would like to hear other points of view about this issue and from religious in particular.

Remember that not all religious originated with habits, e.g. Ursuline sisters. So why should they wear habits? Some habits were the dress of ordinary people, e.g. Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul. Over time as ordinary dress changed, the habits began to look like distinctive uniforms. The cornette of the Daughters of Charity, for example, fell into disuse among ordinary people toward modern times.

Considering the historical record, a more reasonable point of view is that religious should not be coerced into wearing habits but rather be accorded the freedom to make decisions consistent with their original spirit.

So why are members of Opus Dei being coerced into propounding a corporate line? The so-called “freedom” in Opus Dei is a lie in this and many other instances.

Freedom of belief and action proceeding thereby should be allowed according to the legitimate diversity permitted within the Roman Catholic Church.

However, in Opus Dei the member lives under a regime of censorship tailored to propound an idiosyncratic version of reality, so that this freedom which is a right of the faithful does not in effect exist.

Another example, briefly—Opus Dei keeps insisting that you are lay when the spirituality of the secular institute that the Opus Dei numerary follows is religious. In effect the Opus Dei numerary is told to brainwash themselves to profess what is obviously an untruth—that you are lay when de facto you aren’t.

3.   Escriva claimed that he was the infallible source of a divinely inspired charism, and he declared and taught that he should be treated by his followers as such.

This last point I have already discussed in this blog. See, for example:

“Dissimulation in Opus Dei” (June 26, 2017)

Opus Dei secrecy about its so-called charism violates the right to informed consent.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/06/dissimulation-in-opus-dei.html

“The Infallibility of the Opus Dei ‘Spirit’” (October 2, 2017)

The so-called Opus Dei charism is not infallible. It proceeds from a relatively low level of magisterial authority.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-infallibility-of-opus-dei-spirit.html

“The Tatterdemalion Tunic of Opus Dei” (October 2, 2017)

The so-called Opus Dei charism is marked by many inconsistencies and contradictions, including outright incoherence in official accounts.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-tatterdemalion-tunic-of-opus-dei.html

“Angelism” (November 4, 2017)

Opus Dei requires its members to abide by Escriva’s own private revelation and to obey its encompassing ramifications—the stipulation is unreasonable and excessive. It abuses the right of conscience.

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/11/angelism.html

A STEP FORWARD

I would recommend that the Roman Catholic Church compel Opus Dei to make available the complete original autographs—without any tampering or censorship—of Escriva for theological investigation, for at least three important reasons.

First, those who join Opus Dei and are asked to commit themselves to the so-called charism of Opus Dei have a right to this information. Opus Dei has justified its secrecy by citing the right to privacy, but the right to privacy in this particular case is superseded by the right to information.

Second, the Roman Catholic Church at large has a right to this information because Opus Dei seals its legitimacy by citing Roman Catholic Church authority. This authority must therefore be fully and properly exercised, and let us bear in mind that authority in the Roman Catholic Church exists at many different levels and that doctrine advances and develops dialectically.

Third, good governance in the Roman Catholic Church is served by transparency, which is requisite to accountability. The self-serving secrecy which Opus Dei practices, even to the point of delusion, propaganda, and deceit, works to abuse those who serve under its religious and spiritual authority.