AUTHENTICUM CHARISMATIS
The following is a translation of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio “Authenticum Charismatis”, amending can. 579 of the Code of Canon Law regarding the erection of institutes of Consecrated Life.
...“A sure
sign of the authenticity of a charism is its ecclesial character, its ability
to be integrated harmoniously into the life of God’s holy and faithful people
for the good of all.” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 130). The
faithful have the right to be warned by the Pastors about the authenticity of
charisms and the reliability of those who present themselves as founders.
Discernment
about the ecclesial nature and reliability of charisms is an ecclesial
responsibility of the Pastors of the particular Churches. It is expressed in
close care for all forms of consecrated life and, in particular, in the
decisive task of assessing the advisability of establishing new Institutes of
Consecrated Life and new Societies of Apostolic Life. It is right to respond to
the gifts the Spirit awakens in the particular Church, welcoming them generously
with thanksgiving; at the same time, it must be avoided that “communities may
be needlessly brought into being which are useless or which lack sufficient
resources” (Decree of the Vatican Ecumenical Council II, Perfectae Caritatis,
19).
The Apostolic
See has the responsibility to accompany the Pastors in the process of
discernment leading to the ecclesial recognition of a new Institute or a new
Society under diocesan law. The Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata states
that the vitality of new Institutes and Societies “must be judged by the
authority of the Church, which has the responsibility of examining them in
order to discern the authenticity of the purpose for their foundation and to
prevent the proliferation of institutions similar to one another, with the
consequent risk of a harmful fragmentation into excessively small groups” (n.
12).
—“Ecclesiality Is a Sure Sign of the Authenticity of a Charism,” L’Osservatore Romano (November 6, 2020)
...it is hoped the new procedure also will go further in assuring the diocesan congregation’s continued health and stability once the founding bishop has retired and that it will give the Vatican an opportunity to suggest ways to ensure the proper exercise of authority and freedom within the communities.
Some
recent diocesan-right foundations have had serious issues with the sexual abuse
and psychological domination of members. One example is the French Community of
St. John, which was founded by the late Father Marie-Dominique Philippe. After
his death, the prior of the community said credible accusations had been made
against Father Philippe. Pope Benedict XVI dissolved the community’s branch of
contemplative nuns in 2013.
Pope
Francis’ document amending canon law said that Catholics have a right to know
from their bishops that a serious discernment has taken place regarding “the
authenticity of the charisms” of new orders and “the reliability of those who
present themselves as founders.”
Local
bishops, he said, are right to welcome new expressions of the Holy Spirit
calling people to consecrated life, but “at the same time, care must be taken
to avoid carelessly setting up institutions that are useless or lacking in
sufficient vigor.”
—Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, “Vatican Approval Necessary for Diocesan Religious Orders, Pope Says,” CatholicPhilly.com (November 5, 2020)
I am not
persuaded that implementing a review by the pope of the charisms of diocesan
congregations ensures the protection of the faithful, especially the lay
faithful, against the establishment of cults and the abuse of religious and
spiritual authority by the same. I would recall that the abuses of Opus Dei
occurred under Saint John Paul II, with his endorsement, for many decades,
harming and damaging many thousands.
I have
turned over this issue in my mind for several months, and I believe that cults
arise and are enabled in the Roman Catholic Church principally because of its
longstanding religious culture. Centuries-old beliefs, attitudes, and values
with the alarming potential to co-opt cults are deeply ingrained in Roman
Catholic culture. Religious and spiritual authoritarianism, for example,
potentially encourages the establishment and cultivation of cults. Other
features of Roman Catholic culture that engender, foster, or promote cults
include the self-serving secrecy of the leaders and the lack or absence of
accountability and transparency. Clericalism, which is biased in the interest
of those who exercise religious and spiritual authority in a cult, is another
prospectively dangerous and harmful cultural attribute.
If the
risk of cults in the Roman Catholic Church is rooted in culture, then cultural
change—ultimately, the transformation of beliefs, attitudes, and values—is the
most effective way to interdict and check the emergence and growth of cults.
I would
suggest the following broad areas of investigation for reform and action:
- Cults
harm and damage the faithful mainly through the abuse of religious and
spiritual authority. Therefore, the most logical and effective way to check the
abuse of religious and spiritual authority is to reform its exercise. A useful
construct in this regard is good governance, which is highly developed in its
application to public governance and to corporate governance. Constructs like
transparency and accountability, rule of law, or human rights, for example,
bear specific, adaptive applications to religious organizations. To govern is
to rule, and good governance is salutary rule.
- In
particular, the process by which complaints about the abuse of religious and
spiritual authority are communicated, investigated, and adjudicated requires
investigation and reform. The clergy and religious who receive these
complaints, for example, can hardly be expected to impartially act in the
interest of the laity who bring their complaints against those who are clergy
and religious themselves, because clergy and religious belong to a group with
shared interests, interests that are possibly threatened by complaints from the
laity.
- Since
the abuse of religious and spiritual authority in cults is directed against the
transgression of the rights of the faithful and it is in this area that the
abuse causes the most harm and damage, the entire faithful would benefit from a
deeper awareness and understanding of their rights within the Church and from
the advancement of these rights. I would suggest that cults are particularly
prone to the abuse of the following rights:
Right to
informed consent
Right to
information
Right of
conscience
Right to
privacy
All the
faithful benefit especially from having access to accurate, sound information
about the teachings of the Church, which is today made possible because of
advanced—and advancing—information technology.
Sometimes
an ethos of indoctrination prevails over that of genuine truth-seeking, a
reprehensible inversion that often occurs among the insecure, bigoted,
ignorant, twisted, or inordinately self-serving.
The lay
faithful should be encouraged to exercise their freedom of conscience,
especially in the many discretionary matters that belong to the lay state. It
is a fundamental principle of moral theology that a person must follow their
conscience even if it is erroneous.
Ministers
who have access to private information in private matters should be guided by a
corporate privacy policy and the penalties for transgressions of it should be
major, serious, and sufficiently inhibitory.
Public domain photo
ReplyDeletePhoto link: https://pxhere.com/en/photo/815917
Gonzalinho
REGULATORY FRAUD FOUNDED ON IDOLATRY
ReplyDelete1:58
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.
3:56
Let’s start with why this complaint is being levied in the first place, the authors say that it is Opus Dei’s institutional regulatory fraud which has become systematically hidden from the Church hierarchy, this situation has allowed the statutes, the legal normative document of Opus Dei, to be de facto replaced by 46 internal documents with a normative character, both external and internal. The daily government of Opus day was based on these documents where the bases are laid for the systematic violation of respect for the dignity of the person through abuses of power, conscience, and spirituality.
6:00
At the end of the day the bottom line is that because of the fact that Opus Dei sued Opuslibros for having those books on their website, [Opus Dei] essentially [was] forced to admit that they actually do exist despite everything that they have ever said to the contrary.
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 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
To be continued
REGULATORY FRAUD FOUNDED ON IDOLATRY
DeleteContinued
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.
To be continued 2
Gonzalinho
REGULATORY FRAUD FOUNDED ON IDOLATRY
DeleteContinued 2
Description of the Complaint for Regulatory Fraud
begin
In the complaint, the “secret normative documents that Opus Dei has systematically hidden from the Holy See” are presented, which the complainants consider “fundamental evidence” of the same. In the summary with which the letter begins, the “characteristics of sectarian drift that can be seen in Opus Dei” are emphasized, among which, as a Decalogue, the following stand out:
The group is united by a doctrine that is transmitted in a ‘messianic’ way and is led by a charismatic figure who considers himself the possessor of the Absolute Truth.
The structure of the group is theocratic, vertical and totalitarian.
Total adherence to the group is required, which implies distancing from social relationships, affective ties and previous activities.
Members live in a closed community or in total psychological dependence on the group.
Individual liberties and the privacy of the followers are suppressed.
The information that reaches the members of the group is controlled.
A set of manipulation and coercive persuasion techniques is used, such as meditation or spiritual rebirth.
A more or less strong rejection of the rest of society is encouraged, considering them enemies or at least suspects.
The main activities of the group are proselytizing and collecting money.
Under duress or psychological pressure, [from the] followers are obtained the delivery of their personal assets and considerable sums of money.
Seven consequences [derive] from regulatory fraud…:
Abuse of conscience, spiritual and power abuse
Fraud [with respect to] the concept of “spiritual family” [resulting in] depression, suicides, psychiatric issues
Ideologization of the figure of the founder
Fraud to the Church
Fraud to the state and civil society
Distortion of the Christian vocation, aggressive proselytism
Auxiliary numeraries [spiritual abuse and human trafficking]
end
https://opus-info.org/index.php?title=File:International_ecclesiastical_institutional_complaint_against_Opus_Dei_for_regulatory_fraud_against_the_Holy_See_and_the_members_themselves.pdf
—Antonio Moya Somolinos and Other Signatories, “International Ecclesiastical Institutional Complaint Against Opus Dei for Regulatory Fraud Against the Holy See and the Members Themselves,” June 27, 2023
Gonzalinho
Opus Dei is a secret society. The Church should not allow this license to continue. Secret societies violate principles of good governance. They lack transparency and avoid accountability. They violate basic rights. They cause psychological and spiritual damage and harm people. They abuse conscience and operate in contravention of the right to religious freedom.
DeleteGonzalinho
Escriva’s writings were not subject to adequate review by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Key documents were evidently kept SECRET from the panel, and the panel apparently did not review his writings with any depth. The review was cursory and pro forma probably because John Paul II was in power and the panel was aware Opus Dei was basking in his favor. The absence of documentary evidence that Escriva’s writings were carefully reviewed by the panel means they weren’t. So today Escriva’s harmful doctrines continue to damage the faithful.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
MEGALOMANIA
ReplyDelete“On October 2, after Mass, Fr. Josemaría returned to his room and began to put his notes in order: resolutions and inspirations taken down during his prayer, and meditated upon many times already. There, suddenly, he saw the long-awaited will of God. He always used the verb to see on the rare occasions in which he referred to that supernatural intervention: it was an intellectual vision of Opus Dei such as God wished it to be and as it would be down through the centuries.
“…What did he see? In an ineffable way, he saw people of every nation and race, of every age and culture, seeking and finding God right in the middle of their ordinary life, their work, their family, their friendships. People who looked for Jesus in order to love him and to live his holy life until they were completely transformed and made into saints. Saints in the world. A tailor saint, a baker saint, an office saint, a factory worker saint. A saint, seemingly like everyone else around him, but deeply identified with Jesus Christ. A person who directs all his activity to God, who sanctifies his work, who sanctifies himself in his work and sanctifies others through it. A person who christianizes his surroundings, who with warm simple friendships also helps his neighbor to come closer to Jesus — someone whose Christian faith is contagious.”
https://opusdei.org/en-ph/article/the-founding-of-opus-dei/
—“The Founding of Opus Dei,” Opusdei.org
I suspect that Saint Josemaria Escriva gave a grandiose interpretation to his October 2, 1928 vision. Opus Dei buildings communicate megalomania, among other things. Alberto Moncada on CNN faulted Escriva for his megalomania. I don’t believe the megalomaniac interpretation is from God.
The scale of church places of worship is already quite grand. There’s no need to go over the top or overdo the decoration. Miguel Fisac thought the design of Opus Dei oratories was vulgar. I wouldn’t go that far. However, I’d say that the ostentatious design often does more to inflate Escriva than to glorify God.
Interestingly, I spent six months with a religious missionary order whose founder, a priest, had a founding vision similar to Escriva’s. I asked the vocation director if the founder was canonized. The director said no, we don’t need to canonize them (the co-founder was a woman). We know they are in heaven, he said.
Gonzalinho
THE ANACONDA
ReplyDelete“According to numerous testimonies from around the world, most new initiatives were set up by trusted numeraries acting on instructions from their superiors, having been ordered to leave behind their jobs and communities. These numeraries arrived with seed funding provided by the prelature, money transferred from other supposedly independent initiatives, or occasionally from tax havens overseas. The initiatives were set up in their names, but their control was only nominal, with all major decisions first vetted by Opus Dei’s regional or central government. As an added protection, these numeraries were asked to sign documents relinquishing ownership to other foundations or companies in the Opus Dei network—copies of which were kept under lock and key at the regional government to be used in the event that the appointed numerary failed to follow orders or left the Work. Critically, the system also acted as a circuit breaker between Opus Dei and anything being carried out in its name. It saddled individual numeraries with all the liability, while guaranteeing legal immunity for the prelature. Most important, it protected the narrative of infallibility concerning Opus Dei: if it didn’t own or control anything, then it couldn’t do anything wrong. Of course, this was a sham…”
—Gareth Gore, Opus (2024), page 206
The principal victim of this Opus Dei squeeze play is the Opus Dei numerary. Under what is in effect religious obedience, they are obliged to take on the role of the fall guy for Opus Dei.
Gonzalinho