The dictator, the saint and the minister - [Opus Dei extends its reach]

Guardian (U.K.) ^ | January 28, 2005 | Andy Beckett

[snarks_when_bored]

The dictator, the saint and the minister

After weeks of speculation, the education secretary Ruth Kelly admitted this week that she receives 'spiritual support' from the secretive Catholic sect Opus Dei. But even if reports of bizarre rituals are exaggerated, why would she be involved with the controversial group in the first place? Andy Beckett investigates

Andy Beckett
Friday January 28, 2005

Guardian

Just over half a century ago in Spain, a new kind of politician began to appear. As government ministers, they were young, energetic and highly competent. They were confident without being overbearing. And they seemed relatively free of fixed political ideas, except for a general desire to turn their old country into a modern, business-driven one.

During the 50s and 60s they opened up its economy to foreign trade and its poor southern coastline to lucrative tourism. They made themselves potential role models - complete with a suggestive group name used by some of their associates: the"third force" - for future generations of reforming European politicians.

Yet two things about the Spanish modernisers have hindered their reputation since. First, they did their work as part of the dictatorship of General Franco. Second, many of them were members of a new, highly conservative and highly controversial Roman Catholic movement: Opus Dei.

Since 1997, Ruth Kelly has been a similar modernising presence in British politics. As a Labour MP, Treasury minister, and now education secretary at the precocious age of 36, she has been busy, effective and - working closely with both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - seemingly undogmatic. But being a British social democrat is rather different from being one of Franco's lieutenants. And so the revelation over the past five weeks, via a series of distinctly grudging admissions, that Kelly is also "in contact" (the organisation's words) with Opus Dei, and (in her words) receiving "spiritual support" from them, has been one of the stranger political shocks of recent British history.

All this has happened, moreover, at a time when, for non-political reasons, the notoriety of Opus Dei has been massively magnified. In Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, the organisation is famously portrayed as a murderous secret society whose crimes include concealing the truth about the Holy Grail. For all the exasperated reminders on the Opus Dei website that the book is "a work of fiction and not a reliable source of information on these matters", it is now even more awkward for Kelly to be the organisation's sole known representative in the House of Commons. As a prominent woman, with an assured manner, unmarked until now by any hint of political vulnerability or scandal, Kelly has had to watch her religious leanings being probed and dramatised with a certain relish in some quarters.

But a more interesting question perhaps than whether Ruth Kelly chafes herself with metal instruments or follows other Gothic-sounding practices ascribed to Opus Dei, is why a clever young politician, whether in modern Britain or Spain under Franco, would join the movement at all.

Before she became an MP, Kelly worked as an economist at the Bank of England and as a financial journalist at this newspaper. She studied at Oxford and the London School of Economics. Such a background in rational inquiry and the ambiguities of statistics, you might think, would not make someone receptive to a particularly unquestioning form of Roman Catholic faith.

Yet Opus Dei was founded, at least in part, to attract the ambitious professional classes. In Spain in the early 20th century, as in similar Roman Catholic countries, the church was anxious about a growing anti-religious scepticism. "Their great fear was losing the bourgeoisie," says John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, one of the few relatively balanced authorities on Opus Dei. Around 1928 (the date is disputed), Josemaria Escriva, a young priest and law student with a pale, intense face and wire-rimmed glasses, decided to start a new Catholic movement. Opus Dei was not the first of its kind - new Catholic groups combining traditional theology with modern methods of spreading it already existed in Spain and France - but Escriva's scheme had a novel element. Opus Dei would, as its website puts it, promote "holiness in and by means of one's ordinary work".

Members of the movement would not withdraw from everyday life, like monks, but would pursue their secular careers - only now they would be "working according to the spirit of Jesus Christ". And Escriva had a particular kind of career in mind. "He wanted to reach the elite, those who shape culture," says Allen.

In 1939, Escriva published a book to guide these converts called The Way. It remains an intriguing read. Arranged in 999 short fragments, each a saying or instruction, its tone is by turns intimate, fierce and stiffly formal. How to behave at work is one preoccupation: "25 - Avoid arguments." "343 - Work! When you feel the responsibility of professional work, the life of your soul will improve." How to behave towards Opus Dei is another: "941 - Obedience [is] ... the sure way. Blind obedience to your superior ... the only way." "627 - Yours should be a silent obedience."

Opus Dei has always insisted that its teachings do not have political implications for its members. But sections of The Way seem to contradict this. There is 353: "Have you ever stopped to think how absurd it is to cease being a Catholic on entering a university, a professional association ... or parliament, like a man leaving his hat at the door?" And there is 46: "Don't you think that equality, as it is understood today, is synonymous with injustice?"

In truth, the context for Opus Dei's creation was as much political as religious. In Spain in the 30s, hostility between the Catholic church and the left was one of the causes of the civil war; Escriva spent the war on the run from leftwing forces. When Franco and the right emerged victorious, Opus Dei survived the bloodletting and paranoia that followed - fighting off allegations that it was a Jewish sect with links to the Freemasons - to work its way steadily into the upper levels of the dictatorship.

This involvement remains a sensitive subject. "Opus Dei is filed under F for Franco," concedes Jack Valero, the organisation's spokesman in Britain. "Some members worked in Franco's Spain, became ministers of his. But Opus Dei people are free to do whatever they wish politically. Other members were against Franco." He cites the dissident Rafael Calvo Serer, who was driven into exile in the early 70s and saw the newspaper he published closed by the government.

Allen confirms that by the latter stages of the Franco era, Opus Dei in Spain was divided "50/50" over the regime. Yet during the same period, Opus Dei was less than critical of other dictatorships. Escriva visited Chile in 1974, only months after Pinochet seized power, at a time when most international figures were staying well away. From Chile to Peru to Venezuela, allegations have followed Opus Dei, as it has recruited across south America, that its members have been senior participants in authoritarian coups and governments.

A charitable interpretation of these associations is that they are a consequence of Opus Dei's practice of seeking converts among "the elite", who are more likely to side with the generals when social turmoil threatens. In Britain, the movement opened its first "residences", for recruiting and supervising members, in university towns and cities in the 50s. Escriva, an Anglophile, saw the country as an international crossroads from which his message could be widely disseminated. He had a particular fondness for Oxford; a residence was established there in 1958. Kelly went to Oxford University from 1986 to 1989.

According to The Way, "the search for fellow apostles ... is the unmistakable sign of true zeal". One favoured method is to invite likely converts to a meeting. The Anglo-Italian writer and cartoonist Barry Fantoni has attended several. It started on the way to a restaurant one evening in Salerno in southern Italy, when a colleague at the university where Fantoni teaches part-time asked him if he wanted to go to an unspecified meeting. Intrigued, Fantoni agreed.

He found himself in a flat owned by a local lawyer. Sitting on chairs were "30 to 40 doctors and lawyers ... the influential people of the city of Salerno", and a young Spanish priest. There was no food or drink. For the next two hours the priest gave strident, conservative answers to questions from his audience about abortion and homosexuality and sex before marriage. "Some of the people there were not convinced by what the priest said," Fantoni remembers, "but there were no sharp intakes of breath."

The priest also mentioned repeatedly that "more people are needed". It gradually dawned on Fantoni that this was an Opus Dei meeting, and that his colleague was already a member. Although Fantoni did not speak at the gathering, he was invited again. "I'm thought to be influential, especially as I live in England."

He decided not to join. But he could see the draw: "If you're intellectual, it's appealing on paper. You're being called on to do the work of God. And if you're an active English Catholic, there isn't really that much [like it] for you to do."

Father Alban McCoy, the Roman Catholic chaplain at Cambridge University, sees "an appeal for certain temperaments. People with high energy levels, ambitions. Sometimes they want to channel these. Opus Dei gives them a clear identity, a disciplined approach to life." The religious historian Stephen Tomkins adds: "There is an element of flattery in being asked to join a group of intelligent, successful people." The fact that membership involves "many commitments", in Valero's words, gives Opus Dei further status. "Part of the appeal," Tomkins says, "is that it is demanding."

The movement currently has about 80,000 members. Its value to the Vatican can be gauged by the fact that Escriva was canonised in 2002, barely a quarter of a century after his death, an exceptionally short interval in the view of many commentators, and despite vigorous protests. The internet teems with assertions, often backed up with convincing evidence, about the extent of Opus Dei's financial and political leverage.

Allen says all this can be overplayed. "The Roman Catholic diocese of Hobart in Tasmania has more members than Opus Dei. There are 19 members of Opus Dei in the Curia [the powerful Vatican bureaucracy] out of a total of 2,600." These are statistics that Ruth Kelly may find herself deploying in the future.

Her voting record in the House of Commons on matters likely to be of interest to Opus Dei is ambiguous. Usually loyal to the government, she did not vote on a government proposal for unmarried and gay couples to be allowed to adopt, nor on two government-sponsored motions to lower the age of consent for gay sex. But she did not vote against them.

In a sense, all the mists of rumour and menace around Opus Dei, however troublesome for its members from time to time, are actually useful for the movement. "The magic is destroyed if they lose their secrecy and mystery," says McCoy. Then Opus Dei would be just one religious subgroup among many. I suspect they're not ready for that role quite yet.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I don't agree with everything from this source but it gives a decent explanation of the Theological virtues, the human virtues and others grouped around the core human virtues.

---

The Three Theological Virtues: Faith - Hope - Charity.
Sec. 1826 CCC

"1. The three theological virtues are manifested in the following manner:

The effect produced by the virtue of Faith is to make us believe in the existence of God and in his divine perfections.

The effect of the virtue of Hope is to make us look for eternal salvation from God, as well as the means that are necessary for its attainment.

The virtue of Charity causes us to find satisfaction in God, and to seek to please Him by keeping His commandments.

2. These virtues are fitly termed theological, because God Himself is their object, their motive, and their Author.

God is the object of faith; that is to say, we believe what God has revealed, and all that has reference to God Himself, to His being', His attributes, His works and His will. God is the motive of faith, for we believe that which He has revealed because He is omniscient and the highest truth. God is the object of hope; for we hope for eternal happiness after death, to see God and enjoy Him forever. God is the motive of hope, for we hope for eternal felicity because He is almighty, most bountiful, and faithful to His promises. God is the object of charity, for all our love centers in Him. God is the motive of charity, since we love Him because He is supreme beauty and sovereign goodness. God is also the Author of the three theological virtues, as the following reasons demonstrate:

3. We receive the three theological virtues to render us capable of performing good works simultaneously with sanctifying grace.

When the Holy Spirit enters into the soul, He transforms the powers of the mind, so that it can rise to God with greater facility. When He comes and imparts to us sanctifying grace, a light shines in our heart that awakens faith and hope (2 Cor. iv. 6), and a fire is ignited, that kindles a flame of charity (Rom. v. 5). This action of the Holy Ghost within the soul is called the infusion of the three theological virtues. The three theological virtues are infused into the soul (Council of Trent, 6, ch. 7). The infusion of these virtues has a similar effect as have the rays of the sun in imparting light and warmth to the atmosphere. God does not force these virtues upon us; the freedom of the will is in no wise interfered with. The power of exercising the three theological virtues is imparted in Baptism (CCC 1266), and if it be lost, it is given again in the Sacrament of Penance. As the seed lies dormant in the bosom of the earth, until, under the influence of sun and rain, it germinates and grows, so the three theological virtues at first lie dormant in the soul of the child until he attains the use of reason, and through the action of grace and religious instruction they are developed and come to sight (in works). The baptized child resembles one who is asleep, who possesses the power of sight, but sees nothing, until he awakens from sleep and makes use of that power. So the power to exercise faith, hope, and charity are latent in the soul of the child, until with the use of reason they are brought into play, and their existence is made apparent.

4. We ought to make acts of the three theological virtues frequently in the course of our life, especially before approaching the sacraments and at the hour of death.

The means of making acts of the three theological virtues is to place before the mind the object and the motive of these virtues. In doing so, it is well not to employ the usual formula, but to express one's self in one's own words. Every time we make the sign of the cross, utter a prayer, or do a good deed, we make implicitly at least, an act of one or more of these virtues." Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Tan Books (1899) p. 442-43. Imprimatur, +Patrick J. Hayes, Archbishop of NY, Oct. 18, 1921.


The Four Cardinal Virtues. Sec. 1805 CCC

Prudence - Justice - Fortitude - Temperance.

2. Justice enables us to willingly walk the narrow path of the commandments; the just man dreads the slightest deviation from it. The just man gives every one his due; to God, he gives worship, to proper authority, obedience, to subordinates, fairness, and to all, the love Christ commanded

http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/basic_belief.htm

-------

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

If 2000 years of tradition and canon law was summarily dismissed as you claim and as it appears, the post-conciliar problem is much, much worse than I realized. The process of saintmaking has become a novel creation. Whether the Magisterium has the authority to reinvent Catholicism is the issue.

If I have time I'll go back and research the details. For now, you can have the point.

[gbcdoj]

If 2000 years of tradition and canon law was summarily dismissed as you claim and as it appears, the post-conciliar problem is much, much worse than I realized. The process of saintmaking has become a novel creation.

The so-called "Devil's Advocate" (a popular term for the Promoter of the Faith) is never even heard of until after 1512.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The essential position was always there from the beginning but not officially declared until Urban VIII.

[gbcdoj]

No, it wasn't. The current canonization process is an evolution of the old one in which each bishop had authority to canonize saints. Certainly the diversity of procedures engendered by this meant that the position of "advocatus diaboli" was not "always there from the beginning". Unless you're simply referring to the "essential position" as being persons to raise objections, examine evidence, etc. But this is all retained in the new norms, as you will find if you read the Apostolic Constitution and the norms promulgated in accordance with it.

13) When the Bishop has sent to Rome all the acts and documents pertaining to a cause, the procedure in the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is as follows:

1. First of all, the Undersecretary is to verify whether all the rules of law have been followed in the inquiries conducted by the Bishop. He is to report the result of his examination in the ordinary meeting of the Congregation.

2. If the meeting judges that the cause was conducted according to the norms of law, it decides to which Relator the cause is to be assigned; the Relator, then, together with a collaborator from outside the Congregation, will prepare the Position on virtues or on martyrdom according to the rules of critical hagiography.

3. In ancient causes and in those recent causes whose particular nature, in the judgment of the Relator General, should demand it, the published Position is to be examined by Consultors who are specially expert in that field so that they can cast their vote on its scientific value and whether it contains sufficient elements required for the scope for which the Position has been prepared.

In particular cases, the Sacred Congregation can also give the Position to other scholars, who are not part of the group of Consultors, for their examination.

4. The Position (together with the votes of the historical Consultors as well as any new explanations by the Relator, should they be necessary) is handed over to the theological Consultors, who are to cast their vote on the merit of the cause; their responsibility, together with the Promotor of the Faith, is to study the cause in such a way that, before the Position is submitted for discussion in their special meeting, controversial theological questions, if there be any, may be examined thoroughly.

5. The definitive votes of the theological Consultors, together with the written conclusions of the Promotor of the Faith, are submitted to the judgment of the Cardinals and Bishops.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

No, it's not the same position. It is a new creation with some similarities to the old.

[gbcdoj]

Elaborate, perhaps? The writings and the life of the Servant of God are critically examined, as are the the miracles attributed to his intercession.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The old Promotor Fidei (devil's advocate) was solely responsible for arguing against the canonization of the proposed. It was his job to call witnesses from among the faithful and gather evidence of negative sanctity to ensure a thorough investigation. That position has been eliminated.

The Postulator who is appointed by the petitioner, normally presents the case only for the cause. Under the new law, he is responsible for arguing both for and against the cause. Now if you want to get someone canonized, are you going to present evidence to the contrary?

Opus Dei was therefore able to control the process and prevent those opposed to Escriva from testifying against him.

There is a Promotor of Justice who provides canonical counsel but his position is not that of the former devil's advocate. He is not required to gather evidence or call witnesses. His presence isn't even required.

[gbcdoj]

Opus Dei was therefore able to control the process and prevent those opposed to Escriva from testifying against him.

Even if this was true, we have the dogmatic fact of St. Josemaria's canonization to prove that these witnesses were either lying or sadly mistaken.

I want to see the evidence that the so-called "devil's advocate" was an official of the Roman Curia from ~1000-1500.

[murphE]

we have the dogmatic fact of St. Josemaria's canonization to prove that these witnesses were either lying or sadly mistaken.

What are you saying here? "Dogmatic fact of St. Josemaria's canonization"?

[gbcdoj]

Canonization is an infallible definition, since it binds the universal Church to honor a man as a Saint. This is what St. Thomas says and it is the unanimous opinion of theologians according to Cardinal Journet.

In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints.  In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Obviously this is an infallible act: consult the Constitution of Vatican I and you will note that all the requisite "ex cathedra" conditions are fulfilled.

[Gerard.P]

Canonizations are not dogmatic facts. Revelation closed with the death of John.

The communion of saints is a dogmatic fact. It is a pious belief, not a dogmatic fact that individual canonizations under the old format are infallible.

[thor76]

We only know for sure that the Communion of the Saints is for real. We do not know the names of all the saints in history. We do know the identities of those whom the Church has chosen to honor and whose intercession it specifically invokes........whose feast days she celebrates.

But you are correct in saying that there is no way of being absolutely sure if all of the saints names under the "old waY" are infallible. However, one does have enough documented stories of answered prayers, and seemingly miraculous intercessions, to know that some saints are "for real".

[murphE]

I thought so. Now with some of these "newer saints", I really think it would be quite horrible, if they were in all actuality needing prayers, and yet no one was praying for them.

[thor76]

A very interesting question, regarding the saints whom are canonized by the church, is if all of them are in heaven? Or went directly to heaven?

There is only one kind of saint whom we are assured went directly to heaven - without going to purgatory first - the martyr. Their death, offered as a sacrifice in reapration for their sins, and out of love for Christ, and in defense of the faith, merits the crown of martyrdom, and direct admission to heaven.

We can read in the lives of the saints that many of them were far from perfect. They were all sinners - some were grave sinners. But, what makes us consider them to be saints is the way in which they ccarried their crosses in life. Their attemps at self perfection, penance, prayer. To walk the narrow way. Of their love for, and close relationship in prayer with Jesus, Mary, the saints, the angels. This is the example of a life of heroic virtue.

So, perhaps it is that some of the saints are currently in purgatory, atoneing for sins they committed here on earth. They cannot pray for themselves - like all souls in purgatory. They can pray for us.......and we can pray for them. They can intercede for us before God - we know that much of the Holy Souls in Purgatory.

Am I correct? I would like to hear come intelligent comment on this matter.

[saradippity]

Thanks,reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church is always enlightening and serves to preserve and clarify the teachings of the Church through time. It's really quite remarkable. But I didn't find the statement I had asked you about anywhere in the Catechism. I did find one paragraph under Justice that captured part of it.

Of course,I did know that obedience is part of justice,in terms of a right relationship with God as well as legitimate authority/ies. However,I still do not know the context or the source document of the statement in your post #23,wherein you commented under the title OBEDIENCE in the FAITH

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is a part of justice,one of the cardinal virtues,which is subordinate to the theological virtues of faith,hope and charity. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore,if obedience acts to harm the faith,then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superiors.

So to go back to square one,where did that statement come from or did you weave it together from diverse sources? In either case,it seems to me that it is wrong and can lead to total anarchy. I just wish there were more we could do to get the imposters out of the Church and ensure that it will be here for our children and theirs,like it has been there for me through some awful times. I guess I'll just keep praying and writing letters and trust that the Triune God will see us through the storms.

[saradippity]

Post #76 is to you, I must have looked back to what I had said to you in an earlier post and beamed back from there rather than from your post to me. Sorry.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I did not weave it together. The statement is a direct summary of what is contained in the Catechism. What part of the statement do you find erroneous?

[saradippity]

Do you interpret "the faith", referred to in the paragraph in question as the Deposit of Faith preserved by the Catholic Church or the supernatural virtue of faith given to individuals?

[JFK_Lib]

"When somebody demands blind obedience, wariness is best."

Christ demands blind obedience, so I guess I'll just have to take my chances.