Excerpts are from Beyond the Threshold (1998) by Maria del Carmen Tapia:
Pages 276-77
…Monsignor Escriva began to pace from one side of the room to the other, very agitated, irritated, red, furious, while he declared: “And don’t talk with anybody about the Work nor about Rome. Don’t set your parents against us, because, if I find out that you are saying anything negative about the Work to anybody, I, Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, hold the world press in my hands,” and as he said this he made a gesture with his hands confirming the notion. “I will publicly dishonor you. Your name will appear on the front page of every newspaper, because I will personally see to it. It would bring dishonor on you before men and on your own family! Woe to you if you try to alienate your family from the good name of the Work or tell them anything about this!”
He went on: “And don’t return to Venezuela! Don’t even think of writing to anybody there! Because if you even think of going to Venezuela, I will assume the responsibility of telling the Cardinal what you are. And it would dishonor you!” Pacing the room he continued shouting at me: “I was thinking all night about whether to tell you this or not, but I believe it is better that I should tell you.” Looking directly at me, with a dreadful rage, moving his arms toward me as if he was going to hit me, he added at the top of his voice: “You are a wicked woman! A lost woman! Mary Magdalen was a sinner, but you? You are a seductress! I know everything. EVERYTHING! EVEN ABOUT THE VENEZUELAN NEGRO! You are abominable. YOU HAVE A WEAKNESS FOR BLACKS! First with one and then with the other. LEAVE MY PRIESTS ALONE! DO YOU HEAR? LEAVE THEM ALONE! In peace. Don’t meddle with them! You’re wicked! Wicked! Indecent! Come on, look at the business of the Negro! And don’t ask for my blessing because I don’t intend to give it to you!”
Monsignor Escriva went away toward the Relics Chapel. From there he turned around to shout a final insult: “Hear me well! WHORE! SOW!”
I stood stock still, frozen to the spot. I saw and heard everything as if in a nightmare. I did not cry. I did not blink. Within me, while Monsignor Escriva shouted his insults, I had only two thoughts: one that Christ remained silent in the face of accusations; the other that God had liberated me.
Pages 309-11
Within the Women’s Branch, Don Alvaro del Portillo enjoyed respect and affection. He was invariably polite to us and knew how to say “please,” “thank you,” and “excuse me.” Monsignor Escriva very seldom said “please,” and instead of “thank you” he would say, “May God pay you.”
Monsignor Escriva did not have natural good manners. He was rough, brusque, and rude. When he was angry and had someone to reproach, he had no measure of charity in his language. His offensive, violent words profoundly wounded persons. I remember vividly when I went to the Vatican in 1973 and visited His Eminence Cardinal Arturo Tavera, then prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Religious and Secular Institutes, he asked how many years I had spent in Opus Dei, and when I told him eighteen, he commented: “And you needed eighteen years to realize how rude Jose Maria Escriva is?”
His language was frequently crude.
…A former Opus Dei male numerary recalls [an] incident that took place in Pamplona, Spain, in the presence of at least fifty male numeraries. Seated in front of the group, Monsignor Escriva unbuttoned his cassock to take off a sweater (the day was warm) and remarked: “Well, I already have the behind of an abbess.” Then he dressed himself again in public.
What wounded me most deeply during the last months in Rome leading up to my dismissal were not Monsignor Escriva’s scoldings and violent insults but his lack of charity. He put his rank of president general and his prestige as Founder ahead of his priestly role. There was never a shadow of a doubt that I might be innocent; he passed judgment and sentence without hearing me, based on assessments of other people.
…The Father’s scoldings were famous throughout the Work. He was saintly before the multitudes, frequently calling himself a sinner, but he was capable of the most terrible insults for the slightest reason. For instance, if a fried egg was not done to his taste, he would abuse the director of the house. If an altar cloth did not hang exactly at the stipulated number of centimeters above the floor, he was capable of scolding the director; similarly, he would go into a rage if there was noise in the kitchen when the pots and pans were scrubbed. However you could not write in the house diary, “The Father was angry or caused a row,” but had to say: “The Father taught us this or that today.”
One of the best descriptions of Monsignor Escriva’s character was given by Alberto Moncada, who wrote that the Father “is charming, pleasant, and persuasive when one is on his side. He is intolerant, intractable, and crude when his standards are not accepted.”
…Power and high office attracted Monsignor Escriva. He claimed, “I am a descendant of a princess from Aragon,” and claimed that the famous sixteenth-century Aragonese physician and heretic, Miguel Servet, was an ancestor. By his express order, shields of his seven noble surnames were engraved near the main altar of the Basilica of Torreciudad in the vicinity of Barbastro, his birthplace.
…He took care that we were frequently reminded that he was “the Founder.” “In my life I have known several popes,” he would say, “many cardinals, a pile of bishops, but only one Founder—me.” Then he often added: “God will demand much of you for having known me.”
Commentary
What stands out in Maria del Carmen Tapia’s account is the injustice, egregiously so, of the entire procedure as described. There is a pronounced asymmetry between Saint Josemaria Escriva and the accused—he holds an inordinate amount of power—he is the prosecutor, judge, and executioner. He exercises his power abusively, without due process.
Public domain photo
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/775634
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IN ROMAN CATHOLIC ADJUDICATION
ReplyDeleteRebecca of TheDeepDiveProject speaks about the clerical sexual abuse case of “Lucas” (not his real name), which is reported in this article:
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2020/07/abuse-victim-of-opus-dei-priest-wants-case-to-be-acknowledged
—Inés San Martín, “Abuse victim of Opus Dei priest wants case to be acknowledged,” Crux, July 13, 2020
See:
https://youtu.be/LYNRsFK3XQQ?si=rg8wnXDYmjrmt3KA
—TheDeepDiveProject, “Opus Dei’s Sex Abuse Crisis They’d Rather We All Forgot About It | Opus Dei Deep Dive,” YouTube video, 25:19 minutes, September 8, 2021
7:24
The specific charges leveled by MGF [the victim] against [Father Manuel] Cociña is that the priest massaged the young man’s genitals at least seven different times after the young man’s confession to him. MGF stated that…at least four other young men had reported similar episodes of abuse at the hands of the same Opus Dei priest.
7:58
MGF obtained a meeting with Opus Dei regional director in Madrid who listened to his accusations against Cociña—and this part just blows my mind—the director told MGF that he himself was reluctant to relay the charge to his superiors because he was unsure if the acts of massaging the victim’s genitals had a sexual connotation.
8:43
The director told MGF that the…revelations would hurt—yeah, no kidding—and that the young man should shut up pray for the priest and not worry—that is just completely unacceptable…and the fact that that even happened at all.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IN ROMAN CATHOLIC ADJUDICATION
DeleteContinued
9:10
Under the Opus Dei regime of directors filing regular reports on numeraries in the prelature there is no question in this reporter’s mind that the director immediately informed Opus Dei officials in Rome of MGF’s accusations, but the matter was kept under wraps until 2019. So the victim went forward, told the correct persons what had happened to him, and the person responsible for maintaining order and making sure that things go the way they’re supposed to go within Opus Dei basically just told them to shut up and go away and that it was basically a non-issue and that they shouldn’t bring scandal onto this Opus Dei priest.
10:46
Time and time again we see this happen where a victim comes forward to the leaders of the church or religious organization saying x y and z happened to me, and the leadership basically tells them to go away and be quiet because they don’t want to expose and bring shame and blah blah blah, all this other ridiculous stuff, and then they cover it up and hide it for as long as they possibly can until it blows up in their face because the victim does the responsible thing and comes forward to civil authorities, making a formal accusation, and then the church goes [whoops] well now they’re caught between a rock and a hard place and only then do they do something about the situation, and at that point it’s a scandal, and it never would have reached that point if they just would have done the right thing from the beginning, but that seems to be completely beyond them.
13:01
Quote this is canon law—you don’t have a right to the sentence [or] right to know who said what end quote. MGF says [quote] the accused and I are not on even footing. I notify the church of the abuse and it’s the church—Opus Dei—that canonically makes the accusation to the CDF quote
14:37
The fact that no sort of real due process is followed and nobody is held accountable, it ends up looking like a wild goose chase, some sort of red herring to make the church look bad instead of an actual real problem with actual real victims involved, and this is not a new thing whatsoever.
To be continued 2
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IN ROMAN CATHOLIC ADJUDICATION
DeleteContinued 2
Comments
Among other systemic deficiencies in the Roman Catholic Church, the lack of capacity or outright incapacity to deal justly and effectively with abuse—not only sexual but other forms of abuse as well—occurring within the institution arises from the following attributes of cultural clericalism:
- Absence of due process inside the institution itself
- Absence of adjudicative processes within the institution that deal fairly with all parties in the dispute—clerical reputation is given priority and importance over victim welfare.
It appears that in key instances the actions of the secular police and judicial institutions together with those of the secular press—if they are sufficiently motivated and they exercise the ethics proper to their respective professions—turn out to be necessary in order to obtain justice and fair treatment for the victims. It is only too obvious that you cannot rely on the institution—the Roman Catholic Church—to act against its own interest. Conflict of interest in cases of sexual and other forms of abuse is unmistakable, overriding, and prevalent.
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE INSTITUTION
ReplyDeleteMost Holy Father,
I write to you not as an adversary of the church, nor as one who has abandoned faith, but as a son who entrusted his life entirely to her structures and now bears the cost of that trust. I offer this letter as a personal witness, in the hope that it may contribute to the church's ongoing discernment about accountability, justice and the lived reality of those who seek help from within her hierarchy.
My experience raises a painful but unavoidable question: whether it is realistically possible to pursue justice from within ecclesial structures without first leaving them.
Having dedicated six years of my life in preparation for priestly service in the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut, I looked forward to my ordination in 2014. Yet on the night before that ordination, I encountered a glimpse of how the church can fail to act justly, an experience that would ultimately derail my vocation.
On the night before my ordination, I was sexually harassed by a senior priest who held significant authority and influence within my diocese, following a period of escalating boundary violations. Several months later, I disclosed this verbally to my bishop, believing — based on my formation and understanding at the time — that bringing the matter directly to him was both sufficient and faithful. I was not aware of any other reporting body or review process, and I understood this disclosure as notice to the church.
As long as I remained in active priestly ministry, dependent and under obedience, I did not have standing to confront power without risking reprisal, marginalization or removal.
As far as I know, no investigation followed. No record was kept. No protective or corrective action was taken. Instead, I was advised to distance myself quietly, and the burden of managing the situation was placed upon me.
At the time, I interpreted this response as prudence or discretion. Only later did I understand that it had functioned as strategic inaction.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE INSTITUTION
DeleteContinued
For years, I remained in ministry, carrying unresolved injury while continuing to serve the church in good faith. …I understood, incorrectly it turned out, that my disclosure had been handled appropriately, even though no outcome or process was ever shared with me.
…Sadly, the absence of any response from authority…suppressed my ability to grasp the full extent of what had occurred. It produced a dissonance that mounted and worsened without clear explanation, as my formation inclined me to trust the church’s judgment over my own experience. In that context, my capacity to name the harm clearly or to press for accountability was not simply diminished, but constrained by the very structure to which I belonged.
What I did not understand then is that remaining within the structure made justice functionally impossible. What this meant in practice is difficult to overstate.
Any effort to challenge my bishop's handling of the matter from within the system would have required me to place myself in direct opposition to the very authority upon whom my ministry, assignments, evaluations and livelihood depended. To pursue accountability while remaining obedient would have required a contradiction the system itself does not permit: to submit to the authority of a bishop while simultaneously contesting his exercise of that authority.
Within such a structure, meaningful challenge is not neutral — it is destabilizing, and it carries consequences borne entirely by the subordinate. As long as I remained in active priestly ministry, dependent and under obedience, I did not have standing to confront power without risking reprisal, marginalization or removal.
In practice, this dependence rendered sustained self-advocacy psychologically and institutionally untenable, leaving me effectively voiceless from within, even as the impact of the harm, compounded by the diocese’s failure to respond, continued. Eventually, the cost of carrying this unresolved harm became unsustainable, and I took a leave of absence from ministry.
To be continued 2
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE INSTITUTION
DeleteContinued 2
Only after stepping away from active priesthood in October 2022 did that constraint begin to lift, finally granting me clarity and a renewed sense of freedom to emerge in ways I had not anticipated. No longer bound by obedience, evaluation or vocational dependence, I experienced a perspective that had previously been inaccessible to me. What had once felt confusing and indefinable could finally begin to be named for what it was.
That this clarity and freedom became possible only after stepping away from the priesthood troubles me deeply. A system in which clarity, self-respect and recourse become accessible only from the outside warrants careful examination. While I remained in ministry, my ability to pursue justice was constrained not because the harm was unclear, but because the structure itself shaped how it could be understood and addressed.
Only nearly a decade after my original disclosure did I learn as a matter of fact that no record of my disclosure existed and that no action of any kind had ever been taken.
Working in professional environments outside the church taught me that boundaries, documentation and accountability are standard practice, making it clear to me that what I had experienced inside the church was not “discretion,” but the absence of process and accountability. That absence, I later concluded, was structural, not accidental.
I later learned that the priest involved had never been contacted or questioned. Even after I filed a formal written complaint to the diocese in April 2024, no diocesan investigation occurred at that time. This was confirmed for me during the Vos Estis Lux Mundi process, when those overseeing the review informed me that, during the priest’s Vos Estis interview, he stated that it was the first time he had heard my complaint.
For those who are not familiar, Vos Estis Lux Mundi is a set of universal norms issued by Pope Francis in 2019 establishing procedures for reporting allegations of sexual abuse and for investigating bishops accused either of committing abuse or of failing to respond appropriately to such allegations.
…Still, critics worried even when Vos Estis was being implemented that it did not go far enough to protect victims, a concern that my own story sadly proves to be correct.
A diocesan investigation was opened only later — after the initiation of the Vos Estis process in the summer of 2024 concerning the bishop’s handling of my disclosure, and after I raised the matter with the newly installed bishop in July 2025.
Because the Vos Estis review concerned the bishop’s actions rather than the underlying allegation of sexual harassment, those overseeing the review advised me to raise the matter with the newly installed bishop. I did so through written correspondence and during a meeting with the new bishop in July 2025. Following that meeting, a diocesan canonical investigation into the original complaint was initiated. Absent that renewed disclosure, it is unclear whether any investigation into the underlying allegation would have occurred. At the time of this writing, that investigation remains ongoing, with no clarity provided to me regarding its scope, process or outcome.
When the norms of Vos Estis were later applied in my case, my testimony was taken and I was informed that it was credible and that diocesan procedures had not been followed. Yet the process remained internal and its outcomes opaque. I was provided [with] no written findings, no record of conclusions, and no explanation of what resulted. When the bishop retired in September 2024, I was told, in effect, that the matter had reached its end, since the Vos Estis process applies to active bishops and he was no longer in office by the time the review concluded.
This sequence troubles me deeply.
To be continued 3
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE INSTITUTION
DeleteContinued 3
In practice, justice became accessible only once one no longer belonged: Silence was rewarded with belonging, while truth-telling required separation.
I recognize that my own diocesan bishop’s failure to act represents a grave personal and pastoral lapse, and I do not presume that such failures are universal. Yet my concern extends beyond any single individual.
Even when ecclesial processes are followed in good faith, the current system relies heavily on discretion, internal control and hierarchical dependence in ways that leave those who come forward insufficiently safeguarded. My experience reveals not only a failure of action, but the limits of a structure that lacks clear, independent and durable protections for those seeking justice from within it.
I do not write this to assign blame to individuals, but to name a structural reality that stands in tension with the church’s own moral teaching. A system that requires the vulnerable to choose between fidelity and truth places them in an impossible moral bind. It risks confusing obedience with silence, unity with denial and endurance with holiness.
If my experience is not to be repeated, then the conditions that rendered justice inaccessible must be examined with equal honesty. With humility, I offer the following safeguards for continued reform. Each is intended to address structural vulnerabilities that persist even when procedures are followed in good faith:
- Clear formation and education for seminarians and newly ordained clergy regarding reporting mechanisms, rights and safeguards, including what constitutes a report, what follow-up can reasonably be expected, and how concerns may be pursued when initial responses are inadequate.
- A clearly identifiable and independent reporting pathway for clergy, particularly those newly ordained, through which concerns regarding harassment or misconduct by senior clergy or others exercising authority can be raised without exclusive reliance on episcopal discretion or internal hierarchical channels, especially where a power imbalance is present.
- Explicit and enforceable protections against retaliation, ensuring that clergy who come forward can do so without fear of reprisal or informal sanction, and without being forced to choose between truthfulness and continued belonging.
- Mandatory documentation and written acknowledgment of all disclosures, ensuring that reports are formally recorded, preserved and communicated, and that silence does not substitute for prudence or accountability.
- Transparency regarding process, including confirmation of receipt, explanation of how concerns will be reviewed, and communication when no action is taken, so that uncertainty and psychological burden are not borne solely by the reporting party.
To be continued 4
Gonzalinho
CLERICALISM IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE INSTITUTION
DeleteContinued 4
- Structural independence in the investigation and review of allegations involving bishops or senior clergy, such that authority, investigation and judgment are not concentrated within the same office — particularly where prior inaction may itself be at issue.
- Guaranteed access to independent pastoral, psychological and practical support for clergy who come forward, so that the personal cost of disclosure is not privately absorbed during institutional review, and so that care remains available regardless of process, timing or outcome.
- The establishment of a durable and transparent accountability process for episcopal failures, such that findings of credibility or procedural noncompliance are formally documented, preserved and communicated, and do not lapse or effectively terminate due to retirement, reassignment or changes in office, leaving acknowledged institutional failure without resolution or repair.
Most Holy Father, I still love the church.
…But I can no longer pretend that my experience was an anomaly. It reflects a deeper tension between hierarchical self-protection and the church’s call to justice. I offer this witness not in bitterness, but in hope that those who seek justice within the church's walls are not required to leave them in order to find it.
With filial respect and sincere prayer,
Jonathan Ficara
Former priest of the Diocese of Norwich
https://www.ncronline.org/news/dear-pope-leo-after-senior-priest-harassed-me-i-learned-justice-elusive
—Jonathan Ficara, “Dear Pope Leo: After a senior priest harassed me, I learned that justice is elusive,” National Catholic Reporter, March 25, 2026
Clericalism is a deeply corrosive poison in the institution.
The institution that bloats on a medieval clericalist ethos has much to learn from the modern understanding of good governance.
Transparency and accountability, checks and balances, human rights, due process, among others—they are profoundly wanting in the present-day medieval, monarchical, feudal, clericalist, secretive, self-serving, fossilized structure of the institution.
Gonzalinho