I touched the other day on the fact that Rick Santorum had included Opus Dei in the list of organizations he chose to praise for the “new evangelization” (he also included Regnum Christi, a group of which I had never previously heard, of which I’ll write something in a later post), and I drew some criticism from one reader from saying that Opus Dei rang a “somewhat sinister” bell. His suspicion, quite clearly, was that I had been influenced by Dan Brown’s distinctly dodgy narratives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Opus Dei certainly has some fine people in its ranks, but, as this recent post from the Daily Telegraph’s Damian Thompson (a former editor of the Catholic Herald) demonstrates, there is something about this organization that does not feel, well, quite right:
With all this phone hacking around, I think it’s time electronic eavesdroppers had their own patron saint, don’t you? As it happens, I have the perfect candidate: St Josemaria Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, who died as recently as 1975 and was canonised by Pope John Paul II in 2002.
A few years ago, I interviewed a distinguished priest who, as a young man, had been a member of Opus Dei and close associate of Escrivá. My jaw dropped when, half way through our conversation, he mentioned casually that “The Father” had installed bugs in Opus’s Rome headquarters in order to tape-record the conversations of visitors waiting to see him. I asked him how he knew.
“Because I helped him do it,” came the reply.The Vatican refused to hear this priest’s testimony when Escrivá was being assessed for sainthood; conveniently, the role of Devil’s Advocate had been abolished. Of course, all saints had flaws. It’s just that you don’t expect them to share the same ones as Richard Nixon (a far more sympathetic character than Escrivá, in my book).
Anyway, the reason I’m bringing up Opus Dei is that this controversial organisation – comically misrepresented in The Da Vinci Code but still secretive and slippery – is planning to open two independent secondary schools in south-east England.
Or, to adopt the official party line, a group of parents, some of whom happen to belong to Opus Dei, are opening schools “inspired by the teachings” of St Josemaria. Hmm. Don’t get me wrong, Escrivá was undoubtedly holy, but he was also vain, a snob and a spiritual control freak. While some of his followers are exemplary Christians, the saturnine ethos of Opus bothers many Catholics, including some outstanding clergy.A priest I know used to hear the confessions of primary school children at an Opus Dei school. “It was disturbing,” he told me. “I’d hear seven-year-olds riddled with adult scruples, worried that their disposition towards the sacrament wasn’t sufficiently pure and their sin wouldn’t be forgiven.”
He added that a teacher at an Opus school had boasted to him that she’d persuaded a little boy to give up his teddy bear for Lent. “How on earth is that going to help the child – to take away something so comforting and normal as part of his so-called spiritual development?”
Indeed. And one might also ask: how are Opus Dei “numeraries” (full members) supposed to develop healthy relationships with the opposite sex when men and women are forbidden to travel in the same car? Even if the man is a priest? One Opus centre has installed two sets of sliding doors between the kitchen and the dining room. This allows serving women to leave food in the small space between the rooms so male diners aren’t “distracted” by female flesh.
Opus Dei in England has taken advantage of the bumbling of the Catholic bishops. (Think L/Cpl Jones in a mitre.) Its fingerprints are all over a new PR outfit called “Catholic Voices”, it has a growing presence in a certain seminary, and before the papal visit it even managed to appoint a thickly accented Spaniard as spokesman for the beatification of John Henry Newman.
Opus always hits back when it’s criticised, so no doubt there will be the usual carefully worded and disingenuous denial of everything I’ve just told you. Meanwhile, its recruiters will keep gatecrashing smart Catholic parties, scanning the crowd for attractive young professionals who can be invited to “informal” drinks and then plugged into E-meters. No, sorry, that’s the Scientologists. But it’s an easy mistake to make.
And Rick Santorum’s support for Opus Dei is more than a matter than one line in a problematic article. If, for example, we turn to a 2002 report from the National Catholic Reporter we find this:
The extent of the power and prestige of Opus Dei in today’s Catholic church was on full display during a high profile Jan. 7-11 congress here marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of founder Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer.
The event drew 1,200 people from 57 countries, with an impressive number of church and state VIPs on hand, and was streamed live on the Internet. It occurred less than a month after Pope John Paul II recognized a miracle that clears the way for Escriva to become a saint.
One point that became clear during the Congress was how Opus Dei-inspired politicians tend to apply Escriva’s emphasis on finding holiness in work. A key theme of the gathering was the need for “coherence” between faith and politics, which in practical terms means taking one’s cues from the Catholic church on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and cloning.
American VIPs included Archbishop John Myers of Newark, N.J., a member of Opus Dei’s Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania. Santorum told NCR he is not a member of Opus Dei, but an admirer of Escriva…
Santorum is, of course, fully entitled to those views, but the electorate is fully entitled to ask how they would affect his behavior as president. Writing in the 2007 article I cited in a previous post, Santorum argued as follows:
[Romney] also said that “a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith.” His supporters say it is akin to rejecting Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Fair enough, and the same can be said about Santorum’s admiration for Opus Dei.
Wow, that is amazing stuff. I laughed at Brown, but it looks like there is some real dirt behind Opus Dei.
I have to ask, though… Why are you quoting people who look into all of this stuff in order to find what Santorum’s position on “abortion, gay marriage, and cloning”? Why not just quote Santorum, since he’s clearly stated his positions on at least two of the three, and associated himself in a way that appears to make his position on the third clear?
-Wm
As an ex-Opus Dei member, I can say that Dan Brown’s views of Opus Dei are somehow fictional, but not all the way erroneous. Regarding Regnum Christi, they are the lay organization of the Legionaries of Christ.
The Legionaries is another “dubious” organization, which its founder (Father Maciel) was praised by John Paul II and later on was accused of sex abused and that had a daughter. The interesting part of this is that Regnum Christi is under scrutiny from the Vatican because of their secret internal rules, and Opus Dei is also under the Vatican’s watch for the same reason (their strict internal rules were never approved by the Vatican)
I think if you look into the life of saint Francis of assisi you will find that he too avoided contact with women the same way as númeraries of opus dei do and probably even more so. The same can be said for countless saints and religious orders, past and even present. I don’t quite understand why this is such a problem.
Why not just quote Santorum, since he’s clearly stated his positions on at least two of the three, and associated himself in a way that appears to make his position on the third clear?
Precisely.
But the problem here isn’t what positions Santorum holds or his religious inspiration for holding them. No, it’s giving in to the cowardly temptation to avoid “conservative” heresy at all costs.
Take Saturday night’s debate. Stephanopolous attempts to nail Romney by belaboring–of all things–contraception. Romney doesn’t exactly bite, but neither does he say “Next question!”
Soon enough we find the candidates being asked about Griswold, for chrissakes! Is there a right of privacy? On from there to a pissing contest over who’s for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and whether Roe v. Wade should be reversed. ABC News had these idiots just where they wanted them: swearing allegiance to the RR and scaring the voters they need to win.
No candidate demurred by saying presidents have almost no power to change the legal status quo; or that the Constitution is very difficult to amend; that precedents are real hard to overturn and Roe’s been law for over 40 years; and that Griswold’s penumbras and emanations have been outlined in permanent CSI chalk.
That said, if Rick Santorum is the nominee I’ll vote for him even if he’s an Opus Dei numerary. The potential for harm from that kind of nutjobbery is -nil.
Wm, Jeeves, this is not a site that is nervous about “heresy”. The reason for not reciting Santorum’s views on “abortion, gay marriage and cloning” is that those are very old news indeed. His admiration for Opus Dei is far less so, and it is revealing not so much for what it says about *what* he believes as to what it says about *how* he believes. It’s also interesting that (publicly at least) Santorum appears untroubled by Opus Dei’s more controversial aspects.
Jgjg, your answer is very interesting. Anyone that has a minimal knowledge of Opus Dei, knows that numeraries are lay people, not monks (as in the Da Vinci Code)or friars.
Their message is that anyone can be a saint living “in the middle of the world” (meaning without living in a convent). So how a numerary can be living in the middle of the world and ignoring half (or more, I don’t know exactly the percentage between males and females) of the population? That’s what the article of Damian Thompson is talking about.
Rick Santorum — mercifully! — is unelectable. His admirable showing in Iowa, notwithstanding.
Social conservatives and their detractors need to give the culture war issues a rest. The 2012 presidential campaign is not about choosing a new patina and blueprint for a social engineering phase.
This country is facing monumental problems of global magnitude. Social and religious issues should not even be on the political radar screen.
As the magnificent and irresistibly cerebral Charles Krauthammer always says, paraphrasing the late WFB …..
….. vote for the candidate who’s most electable.
Given the way the Catholic Church is trying to fill my country with its Third World adherents in utter bad faith, I don’t have a lot of love for it, but the clutched pearls approach to this article is a bit silly.
So how a numerary can be living in the middle of the world and ignoring half (or more, I don’t know exactly the percentage between males and females) of the population?
They’re not ignoring the other sex. They’re trying to limit the amount of time they spend alone with a member of the other sex so as not to put themselves in a compromising situation, to avoid temptation, be it on the part of themselves or others who may gossip. This really was standard behavior for everyone up until the First World War and even a bit beyond.
I’m a bit surprised at the rhetorical “Even if the man is a preist?” Well, yeah, especially if the man is a priest. He’s under a vow of strict celibacy, so he has some reason to avoid being in a compromising situation, if not for himself, then to protect the reputation of his calling.
I’ll admit that I haven’t read the whole article, the quoted snippets provide enough 888 as it is, but what you’ve quoted just isn’t that shocking. Even a man recording his own conversations. It’s rude by our conventions, and he should have let his interlocutors know, but I don’t find it all that horrifying. It’s certainly not on the level of rearing up for yourself a specially trained self-flagellating Albino assassin.