Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #559 The Opus Dei Code – The Vatican Rag Pt. III

Lis­ten:
MP3: Side 1 | Side 2
REALAUDIO

Intro­duc­tion: The movie “The Da Vin­ci Code” has focused pub­lic atten­tion on the Opus Dei order, a reac­tionary Catholic orga­ni­za­tion with strong his­tor­i­cal links to fas­cism. High­light­ing its influ­ence on the cur­rent pope and his pre­de­ces­sor, this pro­gram sets forth some of the areas of influ­ence of this secre­tive orga­ni­za­tion. Play­ing a sig­nif­i­cant role in the rise of John Paul II through the Vat­i­can hier­ar­chy, Opus Dei was accord­ed spe­cial stature by the Pope once he was in office. Like­wise, Opus Dei appears to have heav­i­ly influ­enced the ele­va­tion of Car­di­nal Ratzinger to the papa­cy and appears to be wield­ing great influ­ence over access to the Pope. In addi­tion to review­ing Opus Dei’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with inter­na­tion­al fas­cism, the broad­cast sets forth the sig­nif­i­cant influ­ence of Opus Dei on the U.S. Sen­ate debate on the same-sex mar­riage bill. An area of spec­u­la­tion con­cerns the Opus Dei role in the Vat­i­can Bank­ing scan­dals of the ear­ly 1980’s, and the pos­si­ble influ­ence of P‑2 Lodge Grand Mas­ter Licio Gel­li on the “inves­ti­ga­tion” of the shoot­ing of John Paul II. Opus Dei was appar­ent­ly involved in the maneu­ver­ing around the col­lapse of the Ban­co Ambrosiano. The re-open­ing of the inves­ti­ga­tion into the mur­der of Ambrosiano chair­man and P‑2 Lodge mem­ber Rober­to Calvi has fea­tured the indict­ment of Lico Gel­li. Short­ly after Gelli’s tes­ti­mo­ny in the Calvi case, the would-be assas­sin of the Pope was released from prison, and Italy and Poland res­ur­rect­ed the dis­cred­it­ed “Bul­gar­i­an Con­nec­tion,” alleg­ing that the for­mer Sovi­et Union shot the Pope.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: John Paul II’s beat­i­fi­ca­tion of the founder of Opus Dei, as well as Arch­bish­op Stepinac (a mem­ber of the fas­cist Croa­t­ian par­lia­ment dur­ing World War II); the influ­ence of Opus Dei on reac­tionary gov­ern­ments in Latin Amer­i­ca; the influ­ence of Opus Dei on Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty; the strik­ing influ­ence of Bene­dict XVI’s per­son­al assis­tant Georg Gan­swein (an Opus Dei pro­fes­sor) on the papa­cy. Be sure to check out the influ­ence of Opus Dei on the fam­i­ly of Maria Shriv­er, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s wife. This is doc­u­ment­ed in FTR#422.

1. The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of Ratzinger’s close rela­tion­ship with his papal pre­de­ces­sor. The broad­cast notes their strong affin­i­ty through reac­tionary the­o­log­i­cal prin­ci­ples. As we shall see, both John Paul II and Bene­dict XVI have been great­ly influ­enced by Opus Dei. Note the nick­name ‘Panz­erkar­di­nal’ bestowed on Ratzinger by fel­low priests.

“ . . . The Pole and the Ger­man have been called intel­lec­tu­al bed­fel­lows. For almost 20 years, the two met at least once a week, usu­al­ly Fri­days, for a 90-minute dis­cus­sion of doc­trine and dis­ci­pline. A work­ing lunch fol­lowed, last­ing often until late in the after­noon. A the­o­log­i­cal lib­er­al of sorts in his youth, Ratzinger was lat­er nick­named the ‘Panz­erkar­di­nal’ for his iron hand in bring­ing Marx­ist priests in Latin Amer­i­ca and cler­ics with mushy views on sex­u­al ethics to heel. . .”
(“Analy­sis: Ratzinger in the Ascen­dance” by Uwe Siemon-Net­to; [Unit­ed Press Inter­na­tion­al]; The Wash­ing­ton Times.)

2. The broad­cast reviews some of the fas­cist con­nec­tions of Opus Dei.

“But it was not only the inevitable intrigue in Rome that left its mark. Back in Spain, Opus Dei mem­bers were mak­ing rapid advances in the Fran­co gov­ern­ment under Admi­ral Luis Car­rero Blan­co, an Opus Dei sym­pa­thiz­er who, as pre­mier, vir­tu­al­ly ran the coun­try. Until Carrero’s assas­si­na­tion in 1973, Opus Dei lead­ers were arguably the strongest con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal influ­ence in Spain.”
(Peo­ple of God; by Pen­ny Lernoux; Copy­right 1989 by Pen­ny Lernoux; [HC] Viking [Viking Pen­guin Pub­lish­ing Inc.]; ISNB 0–670-81529–2; p. 314.)

3. As men­tioned above, John Paul II was pro­found­ly influ­enced by Opus Dei. More about John Paul II’s inti­mate rela­tion­ship with Opus Dei can be found in para­graph #10. “Mat­ters changed rad­i­cal­ly when John Paul became pope. Opus Dei had court­ed the pope since his days as arch­bish­op of Krakow. He had been invit­ed to speak at var­i­ous Opus Dei cen­ters in Europe and at an event in Rome. The speech­es were lat­er made into a book, copies of which were sent by Wojty­la to the Vat­i­can Sec­re­tari­at of State. In 1978, when he was in Rome for the funer­al of John Paul I, Wojty­la vis­it­ed Opus Dei’s man­sion to pray at the black mar­ble crypt of ‘El Padre,’ who had died three years ear­li­er. Mon­sign­or Por­tillo, his suc­ces­sor and, by some accounts, the brains of Opus Dei, was wel­comed at the Vat­i­can by the new pope, who in turn was invit­ed to vis­it Opus Dei’s house and cen­ters.” (Ibid.; p. 315.)

4. Among the many shores upon which the waters of Opus Dei have lapped is that of the Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal and the P‑2 Lodge. As will be seen below, the Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal and the oth­er Vat­i­can bank­ing scan­dals are on the front burn­er once again, with a mur­der tri­al now under­way for the killers of Rober­to Calvi. (For more about the Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal, see—among oth­er pro­grams—AFA#’s 17–21, 32, 34, and Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Shows M60, M61, avail­able from Spit­fire, as well as FTR#’s #‘s 43, 59, 70, 71, 80, 81, 98, 185, 213, 217, 221, 229, 237. For dis­cus­sion of the inter­sec­tion of the P‑2 milieu with that of Al Qae­da, see FTR#’s 342, 359, 360, 377.)

“Opus Dei was drawn into that imbroglio [the P‑2 lodge scan­dal] by asser­tions that it had been nego­ti­at­ing with Rober­to Calvi, head of Milan’s Ambrosiano Bank and a key fig­ure in P‑2, regard­ing a pos­si­ble bailout for Ambrosiano that would save the Vat­i­can Bank finan­cial loss­es and embar­rass­ment aris­ing from its deal­ings with Calvi. The banker’s body, either mur­dered or a sui­cide, was lat­er found hang­ing from Black­fri­ars Bridge in Lon­don. His wid­ow main­tained that he had been in touch with Car­di­nal Palazz­i­ni, the Opus Dei sym­pa­thiz­er in charge of Escriva’s beat­i­fi­ca­tion process, about the res­cue oper­a­tion, pre­sum­ably to be car­ried out with the help of Opus Dei mem­bers who owned or con­trolled banks in Spain. The trade-off, accord­ing to Vat­i­can observers, was to have been a takeover by Opus Dei mem­bers of the Vat­i­can Bank and the Vat­i­can Radio con­trolled by the more pro­gres­sive Jesuits. Let­ters were found on Calvi from Francesco Pazien­za, a Calvi aide with links to Ital­ian and U.S. intel­li­gence, in which Pazien­za referred to con­tacts between Palazz­i­ni and Calvi.” (Ibid.; pp. 317–318.)

5. Opus Dei wields great influ­ence in Latin Amer­i­ca.

“At the start of 1983, Opus seemed poised for a major expan­sion based on papal favor and its new sta­tus as a prela­ture. Its main base remained in Spain, where it raised the largest con­tri­bu­tions and enjoyed the most sub­stan­tial polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic influ­ence, but the move­ment also gained mem­bers and influ­ence in Italy . . .It was also strong in Latin Amer­i­ca, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Mex­i­co, Colom­bia, Peru, and Chile. Opus Dei mem­bers and sym­pa­thiz­ers sup­port­ed the CIA-backed coup that over­threw Chilean pres­i­dent Allende, and one of them Her­nan Cubil­los, became Gen­er­al Pinochet’s for­eign min­is­ter. Cubil­los, who found­ed Que Pasa, a mag­a­zine under Opus Dei influ­ence, was lat­er iden­ti­fied as an ‘impor­tant’ CIA agent by the Los Ange­les Times.” (Ibid.; p. 318.)

6. “In Chile, Peru, and El Sal­vador, Opus Dei pro­vides invalu­able sup­port to right-wing polit­i­cal groups through its reli­gious cours­es and schools, and through news­pa­pers, mag­a­zines, and tele­vi­sion out­lets influ­enced or owned by mem­bers. ‘It serves a func­tion for the polit­i­cal right and pow­er hold­ers,’ said a stu­dent of Opus Dei activ­i­ties in Latin Amer­i­ca. . . .A Span­ish priest made a sim­i­lar obser­va­tion about the influ­ence of Opus Dei bankers and indus­tri­al­ists in Europe: ‘They want to stop the growth of social­ism and paci­fy the labor move­ment through reli­gion.” (Ibid.; p. 319.)

7. One of the indi­ca­tions that the late Pope John Paul II’s alleged anti-Nazi sen­ti­ments are mytho­log­i­cal is the fact that he beat­i­fied Arch­bish­op Alois Stepinac (a mem­ber of the fas­cist Ustachi par­lia­ment in Croa­t­ia dur­ing World War II), as well as Father Escri­va de Bal­a­guer, the founder of the Opus Dei sect. (For more about the fas­cist con­nec­tions of Opus Dei, see—among oth­er programs—FTR#422.) As dis­cussed in FTR#422, Opus Dei was involved with the afore­men­tioned Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal as well. “Pope John Paul II has cre­at­ed a record num­ber of saints dur­ing the 22 years he has reigned as head of the Catholic Church. He has bestowed saint­hood on almost 300 respect­ed fig­ures from the Church’s long his­to­ry who dis­played ‘hero­ic virtue’ dur­ing their lives. He has beat­i­fied about 800 more, putting them on the road to becom­ing saints.”
(“Remov­ing the Pol­i­tics from Saint­hood” by David Lloyd; Vision: Foun­da­tion for a New World; 3/9/2000; p. 1.)

8. “Often his choic­es have been con­tro­ver­sial and viewed as polit­i­cal state­ments. In 1998, his deci­sion to beat­i­fy the Croa­t­ian Car­di­nal Aloy­sius Stepinac received much crit­i­cism from Ortho­dox Serbs and Jews. Stepinac was arch­bish­op for Zagreb dur­ing World War II and after­wards was accused of col­lab­o­rat­ing with the Nazis in their mas­sacre of Serbs, Jews and Gyp­sies in Croa­t­ia. In 1992, he beat­i­fied Jose­maria Escri­va, the Span­ish founder of the ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive Opus Dei—a move­ment wide­ly viewed with sus­pi­cion as a secret soci­ety. . . .” (Idem.)

9. Opus Dei, whose founder, Father Escri­va de Bal­a­guer, praised Hitler and was an ardent admir­er of Span­ish dic­ta­tor Fran­cis­co Fran­co, appears to have been a major play­er in the elec­tion of Ratzinger. “ . . . Sev­er­al Euro­pean car­di­nals are sym­pa­thet­ic to Opus Dei, among the Car­di­nal Camil­lo Rui­ni, the Ital­ian prelate who runs the Dio­cese of Rome on behalf of the pope, and a con­tender to suc­ceed John Paul. Rui­ni last year opened pro­ceed­ings to declare Opus Dei’s Del Por­tillo a saint. But recent­ly, sev­er­al Ital­ian news­pa­pers breath­less­ly report­ed that the two Opus Dei car­di­nals were throw­ing their sup­port behind the can­di­da­cy of Car­di­nal Joseph Ratzinger, a Ger­man-born tra­di­tion­al­ist who has served as chief enforcer of church doc­trine for two decades.”
(“Con­tro­ver­sial Opus Dei Has Stake in Papal Vote” by Lar­ry B. Stam­mer and Tra­cy Wilkin­son; The Los Ange­les Times; 4/19/2005; p. 2.)

10. Ratzinger/Benedict’s friend and pre­de­ces­sor John Paul II ele­vat­ed opus Dei. More about John Paul II’s close rela­tion­ship to Opus Dei is con­tained in para­graph #3.

“Opus Dei flour­ished dur­ing John Paul’s pon­tif­i­cate. In 1982, he took the unprece­dent­ed step of mak­ing Opus Dei a per­son­al prela­ture of the church, answer­able not to local bish­ops in the dio­ce­ses where it oper­at­ed, but to the pope alone. In anoth­er sign of the group’s influ­ence, the pope placed Opus Dei’s founder, the Span­ish priest Jose­maria Escri­va de Bal­a­guer, on the fast track to saint­hood in 1992, leapfrog­ging over Pope John XXIII. In 2002, Escri­va was can­on­ized before a crowd of 300,000 in St. Peter’s Square, becom­ing St. Jose­maria a mere 27 years after he died. . . .” (Idem.)

11. Next, the pro­gram access­es an arti­cle that indi­cates that Opus Dei wields a pro­found influ­ence on Bene­dict XVI. His per­son­al secretary—who appears to be some­thing of a gate­keep­er or “gray eminence”—is a teacher at an Opus Dei the­o­log­i­cal col­lege. Georg Gan­swein appears to effec­tive­ly con­trol access to Bene­dict XVI. Note the “Aryan” looks of Gan­swein. Is he “Under­ground Reich”? (For infor­ma­tion indi­cat­ing that Benedict/Ratzinger may very well be Under­ground Reich, see FTR #508. For an overview of the fascist/Vatican con­nec­tion, see FTR#532.)

“As Bene­dict XVI trun­dled through the nar­row streets of Cologne last week, many of his admir­ers found them­selves dis­tract­ed by the extrav­a­gant­ly hand­some man sit­ting in the back of the Pope­mo­bile. The thou­sands of ador­ing young Catholics had come to Ger­many to get a glimpse of the new Pope, vis­it­ing his native coun­try on his first trip abroad as pon­tiff. But they could­n’t help notic­ing the Pope’s new — and rather dishy — pri­vate sec­re­tary, Mon­sign­or Georg Gän­swein. ‘As he jumped on to the Pope­mo­bile for the first time,’ one Ger­man mag­a­zine remarked, ‘we women held our breath. There, where for the past 27 years the grim and pale Stanis­law Dzi­wisz had sat behind the Pope, a tall, blond, ath­let­ic young man had tak­en his place.’”
(“Thou Shalt Not Drool” by Luke Hard­ing and Bar­bara McMa­hon; The Guardian; 8/23/2005.)

12. “Over the past four months, the Ital­ian press has also swooned over the 49-year-old Ger­man priest, who is known in Italy as Don Geor­gio. In the gray and elder­ly world of the Vat­i­can, it is hard­ly sur­pris­ing that Gän­swein — a keen ten­nis play­er and excel­lent ski­er who even has a pilot’s license — has become the cen­ter of atten­tion. Last month, the Ital­ian edi­tion of Van­i­ty Fair com­pared Gän­swein to the actor George Clooney, while the mag­a­zine Chi opened that he was ‘as fas­ci­nat­ing as Hugh Grant’. The Ital­ian pres­i­den­t’s wife Fran­ca was very tak­en with him when she first met him. ‘He’s very, very young. And he speaks excel­lent Ital­ian,’ she was report­ed as say­ing. Anoth­er woman liv­ing close to the Vat­i­can recent­ly told Ger­many’s ARD TV that Gän­swein was ‘an inter­est­ing man with a deep gaze’, adding: ‘Shame that he is taboo for us women.’” (Idem.)

13. “Some Vat­i­can-watch­ers, how­ev­er, are already mut­ter­ing about Gän­swein’s influ­ence over Pope Bene­dict, the first Ger­man to sit on the chair of St Peter for near­ly 500 years. Born on July 30 1956, Gän­swein grew up in Riedern am Wald, a tiny Bavar­i­an vil­lage. He was ordained in 1984 and is a doc­tor of canon law from Munich Uni­ver­si­ty. He came to Rome in 1995 and was quick­ly on the Vat­i­can fast track. In 1996, the then Car­di­nal Ratzinger asked him to join his staff, and he became a pro­fes­sor of canon law at the Pon­tif­i­cal Uni­ver­si­ty of the Holy Cross, an insti­tu­tion affil­i­at­ed to the secre­tive Catholic move­ment Opus Dei. [Empha­sis added.]” (Idem.)

14. “Those who know him praise his effi­cien­cy and ana­lyt­i­cal abil­i­ty. ‘He under­stands com­pli­cat­ed issues with­in about 10 sec­onds and can give a clear and imme­di­ate answer,’ one Vat­i­can source said. Gän­swein is, though, more than just an impres­sive the­olo­gian. He is, like the man he serves, extreme­ly con­ser­v­a­tive. ‘I think he is very dan­ger­ous,’ Daniel Deck­ers, the author of a biog­ra­phy of Ger­many’s lead­ing lib­er­al car­di­nal, Karl Lehmann, said. ‘He’s part of a small but very pow­er­ful group with­in the Catholic church. He will use his pow­er to push Ratzinger in a cer­tain direc­tion.’ Deck­ers recalls trav­el­ling to Rome to meet Gän­swein. ‘He’s a good guy. He’s very elo­quent and can be very charm­ing. But he came right up to me and said: ‘Oh, you don’t like us.’ He referred to him­self and Ratzinger as ‘us’, as if the two of them were an insti­tu­tion.’” (Idem.)

15. “With Gän­swein as pri­vate sec­re­tary, there seems lit­tle hope that Bene­dict XVI will offer con­ces­sions on issues that alien­ate many from the Catholic church — the use of con­doms, gay rela­tion­ships or pre-mar­i­tal sex. ‘You can for­get it,’ one reli­gious affairs writer said blunt­ly. A trust­ed con­fi­dant of the last Pope, who made him a chap­lain in 2000, Gän­swein has worked as Ratzinger’s sec­re­tary since 2003, and was one of the few aides allowed to give out press state­ments on John Paul’s con­di­tion. In the Vat­i­can, Gän­swein and Ratzinger dine togeth­er, recent­ly enter­tain­ing Princess Glo­ria von Thurn und Taxis, the Ger­man socialite, accord­ing to reports in the Ital­ian press. In Cologne last week, Gän­swein was nev­er far away from his boss — hand­ing the 78-year-old Pope his read­ing glass­es, or trav­el­ing with him on a cruise down the Rhine. He was there, too, when the Pope appeared on a hill beneath a fly­ing saucer-shaped dome, for a vast open-air mass. (In his address to near­ly 1 mil­lion pil­grims who had spent the night camped out in a mud­dy field, the Pope remind­ed the young Catholics that they had to obey all of the church’s rules — not just the bits they liked. ‘That basi­cal­ly means no sex, does­n’t it?’ Ger­man pil­grim Malte Schuburt, 19, point­ed out.)” (Idem.)

16. “Gän­swein’s crit­ics even accuse him of turn­ing the Pope into a fash­ion vic­tim. This sum­mer, Ratzinger and his sec­re­tary went on hol­i­day to the papal res­i­dence at Cas­tel Gan­dol­fo, near Rome, as well as to the Ital­ian Alps at Valle D’Aos­ta. While both men were hik­ing in the hills, the Pope appeared in pub­lic wear­ing a Nike hat, design­er Serengeti sun­glass­es and a Carti­er watch. ‘This is Gän­swein’s style. It’s his hand­writ­ing,’ one reli­gious affairs writer said. ‘This is some­thing I don’t under­stand.’ Gän­swein’s pow­er derives part­ly from his place in the Pope’s very small per­son­al staff. Bene­dic­t’s long-time assis­tant is Ingrid Stam­pa and he has four women — Carmela, Loredana, Emanuela and Cristi­na — who do domes­tic duties. They have tak­en nun’s vows but do not wear habits. Pope Bene­dict writes every­thing in Ger­man in very small script, and Gän­swein is one of the few who can read his writ­ing.” (Idem.)

17. It appears that Gan­swein embod­ies the reac­tionary ide­ol­o­gy of Opus Dei and that he will use his influ­ence with Bene­dict XVI to fur­ther that ide­ol­o­gy.

“So far, Gän­swein does not enjoy the same pow­er as Stanis­law Dzi­wisz, who spent 40 years at Pope John Paul II’s side. Some have even dis­missed him as the ‘Black For­est Ado­nis’. Yet it is Gän­swein who decides who gets to see the Pope, and who does­n’t. [Empha­sis added.] He also pro­tects his boss from the mound of papers on Bene­dic­t’s desk. ‘He is the Pope’s gate­keep­er. This makes him a very pow­er­ful man,’ Deck­ers said. It is not sur­pris­ing, then, that the Pope’s pri­vate sec­re­tary is already begin­ning to inspire dread in lib­er­al Catholic cir­cles. In Ger­many, the Catholic Church is divid­ed more or less between two fig­ures — the lib­er­al-con­ser­v­a­tive Car­di­nal Lehmann, the head of the Ger­man arch­bish­op’s con­fer­ence, and the ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive Car­di­nal Joachim Meis­ner, the Arch­bish­op of Cologne. Both men were with the Pope last week. But it is no secret as to which Bish­op the Vat­i­can favours. ‘Gän­swein is an oppo­nent of Lehmann,’ one source in the Ger­man Catholic Church said. ‘One of Ratzinger’s great weak­ness­es is that his judg­ment of peo­ple isn’t always suf­fi­cient. He has a small out-reach.’ Last week’s papal tour of Ger­many was an undoubt­ed suc­cess for the Bavar­i­an Bene­dict. A far less flam­boy­ant fig­ure than his pre­de­ces­sor, Bene­dict was often embar­rassed by the euphor­ic crowds. But he is a for­mi­da­ble intel­lec­tu­al, able to deliv­er his ideas with flu­en­cy and rig­or in numer­ous lan­guages. The ques­tion remains though — how long will he last? The Pope has already suf­fered two strokes — one of which slight­ly impaired his eye­sight — and he has a heart con­di­tion. Don Geor­gio is said to be very pro­tec­tive of the Pope, par­tic­u­lar­ly about his health. But if there is bad news to trans­mit, it will be Gän­swein, the priest with the film-star looks, who will be there to deliv­er it.” (Idem.)

18. Next, the pro­gram access­es infor­ma­tion about Opus Dei influ­ence on the recent U.S. Sen­ate debate about a Con­sti­tu­tion­al ban on same-sex mar­riage. Opus Dei con­vert Sen­a­tor Sam Brown­back (Repub­li­can from Kansas), intro­duced into Sen­ate debate on same-sex mar­riage some talk­ing points from a paper craft­ed by an Opus Dei affil­i­ate at Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty.

“The Unit­ed States Sen­ate is often called ‘the great­est delib­er­a­tive body in the world’ which usu­al­ly rais­es the bar on the tenor and intel­lec­tu­al con­tent of speech­es giv­en on the floor and for the offi­cial record. Not so for Sen­a­tor Sam Brown­back (R‑KS) who took to the Sen­ate floor last week to deliv­er a stri­dent push for the big­ot­ed Mar­riage Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment, with mas­sive dis­tor­tions of the issue and an argu­ment that was based almost sole­ly on the opin­ion of a lit­tle-known, con­ser­v­a­tive think tank affil­i­at­ed with the Roman Catholic orga­ni­za­tion, Opus Dei .”
(“Is Brown­back Bring­ing Opus Dei Into The Sen­ate?” By Bob Geiger.)

19. “‘The prob­lem we have in front of us is the insti­tu­tion of mar­riage has been weak­ened, and the effort to rede­fine it on this vast social exper­i­ment that we have going on, redefin­ing mar­riage dif­fer­ent­ly than it has ever been defined before,’ the Kansas Sen­a­tor grim­ly intoned last week. ‘This effort of this vast social exper­i­ment, the ear­ly data that we see from oth­er places, harms the insti­tu­tion of the fam­i­ly, the rais­ing of the next gen­er­a­tion. And it is harm­ful to the future of the Repub­lic.’ Brown­back then went on to give fig­ures for how var­i­ous states have shown their hatred of gay peo­ple with their own pro­hi­bi­tions on same-sex mar­riage and used that as his ratio­nale for a sim­i­lar amend­ment to the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion. But Brown­back real­ly hit his stride when he described a paper, called ‘Ten Prin­ci­ples on Mar­riage and the Pub­lic Good,’ pub­lished by a fair­ly new and extreme­ly con­ser­v­a­tive group at Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty. Accord­ing to Brown­back, the paper is an ‘… impor­tant state­ment of prin­ci­ples from top Amer­i­can schol­ars [to] be con­sid­ered care­ful­ly by my col­leagues.’ He then added that the sen­ti­ments expressed in the non-sci­en­tif­ic trea­tise were so vital to our nation­al dia­log that they should ‘. . . help guide our debate on this issue.’ The paper, spon­sored by the With­er­spoon Insti­tute at Prince­ton, makes a case for ban­ning same-sex mar­riage alto­geth­er. What’s extra­or­di­nary, is the idea of a Unit­ed States Sen­a­tor attempt­ing to sway opin­ion on an amend­ment that would have altered our Con­sti­tu­tion (had it not been defeat­ed last Wednes­day) by using a paper from an orga­ni­za­tion linked to Opus Dei, a strict, reli­gious group that some for­mer mem­bers have described as a cult.’” (Idem.)

20. Brown­back accessed infor­ma­tion from a paper issued by the With­er­spoon Insti­tute, whose pres­i­dent (Luis Tellez) is the head of Opus Dei at Prince­ton. “Brown­back spent a good part of his lengthy Sen­ate speech last week cit­ing the study and attribut­ing it to ‘this Prince­ton group of schol­ars’ while nev­er men­tion­ing that all of the find­ings were based on the ultra­con­ser­v­a­tive With­er­spoon Insti­tute bol­stered by the involve­ment — direct­ly or indi­rect­ly — of a non­prof­it, tax-exempt reli­gious orga­ni­za­tion in Opus Dei. So what exact­ly is the With­er­spoon Insti­tute, whose paper formed the foun­da­tion of Brown­back­’s anti-gay argu­ment? The Insti­tute, which has only been around since 2003, has close ties to Tony Perkins and the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil, but is also tight­ly aligned with Opus Dei. Indeed, Luis Tellez, the pres­i­dent of the With­er­spoon Insti­tute is also the direc­tor and lead cler­ic of Opus Dei in Prince­ton. Since its found­ing in 1928, Opus Dei has been known for its tra­di­tion­al­ist val­ues and right-wing polit­i­cal stances. And crit­ics in acad­e­mia — which include for­mer mem­bers who some­times go through ‘depro­gram­ming’ upon exit­ing Opus Dei — charge that orga­ni­za­tions like the With­er­spoon Insti­tute are just veiled attempts by Opus Dei to spread its influ­ence in top-tier aca­d­e­m­ic cir­cles. So why then, is a U.S. Sen­a­tor offer­ing to Con­gress ‘research’ linked to Opus Dei on some­thing as vital as amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion? It turns out that Brown­back, who was for­mer­ly an evan­gel­i­cal Protes­tant, con­vert­ed to Catholi­cism by way of Opus Dei in 2002 and was spon­sored in that con­ver­sion by Sen­a­tor Rick San­to­rum (R‑PA), a vocal Opus Dei advo­cate.” (Idem.)

21. Tellez–the head of Opus Dei at Princeton—is among that reac­tionary organization’s most con­ser­v­a­tive mem­bers.

“Tellez, the leader of Opus Dei in Prince­ton, is a ‘numer­ary,’ con­sid­ered the most con­ser­v­a­tive of the sec­t’s mem­bers — they are unmar­ried, celi­bate, devote every aspect of their lives to their spir­i­tu­al beliefs and turn over their salaries from sec­u­lar jobs to Opus Dei. Again, it bears repeat­ing that Tellez is also the head of the With­er­spoon Insti­tute, the group Brown­back cit­ed at great length as his pri­ma­ry argu­ment against gay mar­riage. And remem­ber also, it is Brown­back, as an Opus Dei con­vert, who also leads the charge on Capi­tol Hill against abor­tion and stem cell research and who, along with San­to­rum, is seen by the Reli­gious Right’s as a point man on ‘cul­ture war’ issues. The oth­er cen­tral fig­ure in the With­er­spoon orbit is Dr. Robert George, a Prince­ton pro­fes­sor and a board mem­ber in the Insti­tute who, not coin­ci­den­tal­ly, helped draft the fed­er­al gay-mar­riage ban that was just defeat­ed in the Sen­ate. George chaired a meet­ing of reli­gious lead­ers in late 2005, which includ­ed Dr. James Dob­son and oth­er mem­bers of the extreme Reli­gious Right. In fact, in addi­tion to his piv­otal role in the With­er­spoon Insti­tute, George is also a board mem­ber at Perkins’ Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil, a group known for its big­ot­ed posi­tions on the gay com­mu­ni­ty. And, via Brown­back, all of this is ulti­mate­ly find­ing its way into the halls of Con­gress.” (Idem.)

22. “While it may not be tech­ni­cal­ly ille­gal for Brown­back to be so clear­ly mix­ing hard-right reli­gious ide­ol­o­gy — and faux-aca­d­e­m­ic papers pro­mot­ed by reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions like Opus Dei — with debate on the Sen­ate floor, it should cer­tain­ly raise some eye­brows. In a coun­try where strict sep­a­ra­tion of church and state is man­dat­ed, it seems Brown­back is freely blend­ing the two, attempt­ing to use reli­gious dog­ma to influ­ence pub­lic pol­i­cy — all the while not dis­clos­ing to his Sen­ate col­leagues the back­ground sources of the research he is cit­ing. But this should not be sur­pris­ing com­ing from Brown­back. In a Jan­u­ary 2006 Rolling Stone arti­cle, ‘God’s Sen­a­tor,’ Brown­back is described as a reli­gious zealot with a view for Amer­i­ca’s future that could almost be described as medieval. ‘In his dream Amer­i­ca, the one he believes both the Bible and the Con­sti­tu­tion promise, the state will sim­ply with­er away. In its place will be a coun­try so suf­fused with God and the free mar­ket that the social fab­ric of the last hun­dred years — schools, Social Secu­ri­ty, wel­fare — will be pri­va­tized or sim­ply done away with,’ reads the arti­cle. ‘There will be no abor­tions; sex will be con­fined to het­ero­sex­u­al mar­riage. Men will lead fam­i­lies, moth­ers will tend chil­dren, and big busi­ness and the church will take care of all.’ After all, it was Brown­back, who came to Con­gress in 1994 and refused to sign Newt Gin­grich’s ‘Con­tract With Amer­i­ca’ because he felt it was­n’t con­ser­v­a­tive enough. Even then, as a new­com­er to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, Brown­back believed that the vast major­i­ty of what he saw as Big Gov­ern­ment should sim­ply be elim­i­nat­ed, includ­ing the depart­ments of edu­ca­tion, ener­gy and com­merce.” (Idem.)

23. Opus Dei con­vert Brown­back has been lead­ing the charge on “fam­i­ly val­ues” in the Sen­ate.

“And, yes, it was also Brown­back who was so out­raged at the split-sec­ond glimpse of Janet Jack­son’s nip­ple dur­ing the 2004 Super Bowl, that he intro­duced the Broad­cast Decen­cy Enforce­ment Act, which sub­stan­tial­ly raised fines for such sim­ple on-air dis­plays of nudi­ty. Final­ly, in addi­tion to being brought into Catholi­cism by the likes of Opus Dei and using laun­dered research by an affil­i­at­ed group on the Sen­ate floor, Brown­back chairs a meet­ing every Tues­day night with the ‘Val­ues Action Team,’ con­sist­ing of reli­gious lead­ers like Dob­son who help the Sen­a­tor for­mu­late his thoughts on pub­lic pol­i­cy issues. Accord­ing to Time mag­a­zine , Opus Dei has assets in the neigh­bor­hood of $2.8 bil­lion and, with John McCain unlike­ly to sig­nif­i­cant­ly rouse the Reli­gious Right in 2008, look for Brown­back to be the guy that Opus Dei, Focus on the Fam­i­ly and the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil turn to as their pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. . . .” (Idem.)

24. Updat­ing a sto­ry Mr. Emory has cov­ered for more than two decades, the pro­gram notes that P‑2 Lodge grand mas­ter Licio Gel­li has been indict­ed for the mur­der of Rober­to Calvi, the head of the Ban­co Ambrosiano. For more about the P‑2 Lodge, the Vat­i­can bank­ing scan­dals and the Vatican/fascist con­nec­tion, use the search func­tion on this page, tak­ing par­tic­u­lar note of AFA#’s 17–21—avail­able from Spitfire—as well as FTR#’s 504, 508.) In para­graph , we not­ed the alleged role of Opus Dei in the Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal.

What influ­ence might Gelli’s tes­ti­mo­ny have had on sub­se­quent events? Might the res­ur­rec­tion of the Bul­gar­i­an hypoth­e­sis have had some­thing to do with Gelli’s tes­ti­mo­ny? (The Bul­gar­i­an hypothesis—long dis­cred­it­ed but res­ur­rect­ed in Italy and Poland ear­li­er this year—alleges that the Sovi­et Union had the pope shot, in order to negate his activism on behalf of the Sol­i­dar­i­ty Union in Poland.)

“Mag­is­trates inves­ti­gat­ing the death of the Ital­ian banker Rober­to Calvi under Black­fri­ars Bridge in Lon­don in 1982 are focus­ing on Licio Gel­li the for­mer ‘grand mas­ter’ of the ille­gal P2 Mason­ic lodge that plot­ted against Ital­ian democ­ra­cy in the 1970s. Mr Gel­li denies he was involved but has acknowl­edged that the financier, known as ‘God’s banker’ because of his links with the Vat­i­can, was mur­dered. He said the killing was com­mis­sioned in Poland.”
(“Mason Indict­ed over Mur­der of ‘God’s Banker’” By John Phillips; The Inde­pen­dent; 7/22/05.)

25. In the after­math of Gelli’s tes­ti­mo­ny about the Ban­co Ambrosiano scan­dal, Mehmet Ali Agca—convicted would-be assas­sin of the Pope –was released from prison. Agca was a mem­ber of the Pan-Turk­ist fas­cist group the Grey Wolves. (For more about the fas­cist influ­ence on the Pan-Turk­ist move­ment, see FTR#549.) “After 25 years behind bars for try­ing to assas­si­nate Pope John Paul II and fatal­ly gun­ning down a jour­nal­ist, Mehmet Ali Agca was released from prison — and prompt­ly gave his sup­port­ers and his ene­mies the slip. With­in hours of tast­ing free­dom Thurs­day for the first time since wound­ing John Paul in 1981, Agca dis­ap­peared out the back door of a mil­i­tary hos­pi­tal. He left behind hordes of jour­nal­ists, along with ques­tions about whether he will be forced to com­plete the manda­to­ry mil­i­tary ser­vice he dodged as a young man. Scores of ultra­na­tion­al­ist right-wing sup­port­ers cheered his release and tossed flow­ers at the sedan that whisked him through the gates of a high-secu­ri­ty prison. But many Turks expressed dis­may that Agca, 48, served just five years for the slay­ing of news­pa­per colum­nist Abdi Ipekci in 1979, dur­ing a time of street vio­lence between right­ists and left­ists. Jus­tice Min­is­ter Cemil Cicek ordered a review to see whether any errors were com­mit­ted in releas­ing him. He said Agca would remain free until an appeals court reviewed the case. ‘If there is an error, that would dam­age Turkey’s image’ as the nation push­es to join the Euro­pean Union, said Ilter Turan, a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at Istan­bul’s Bil­gi Uni­ver­si­ty.”
(“Turk Who Shot Pope John Paul II is Released from Prison” [AP] 1/12/2006.)

26. “‘Day of shame,’ head­lined the dai­ly Mil­liyet, Ipekci’s news­pa­per. Cicek said Agca’s release was not ‘a guar­an­teed right,’ not­ing there have been sev­er­al cas­es in which con­victs freed by mis­take were returned to prison. He said Agca ben­e­fit­ed from amnesties, passed by pre­vi­ous gov­ern­ments, which have freed tens of thou­sands of crim­i­nals over the past decades. Agca, white-haired and wear­ing a bright blue sweater and jeans, was freed five years after he was par­doned by Italy and extra­dit­ed to Turkey. He had served 20 years in Italy, where John Paul for­gave him in a vis­it to his prison cell in 1983. . . .” (Idem.)

27. Short­ly after Agca’s release from prison, an Ital­ian par­lia­men­tary body endorsed the long-dis­cred­it­ed Bul­gar­i­an hypoth­e­sis. Note that the com­mis­sion was head­ed by an ally of Ital­ian Prime Min­is­ter Sil­vio Berlus­coni. Berlus­coni was a for­mer mem­ber of the P‑2 Lodge, head­ed by Licio Gel­li.

“It has per­sist­ed as one of the most mys­te­ri­ous cas­es of inter­na­tion­al intrigue in recent times: Who shot the pope? A com­mit­tee of Italy’s Par­lia­ment inves­ti­gat­ing the 1981 attempt to assas­si­nate John Paul II released its con­clu­sion Thurs­day that ‘beyond any rea­son­able doubt’ the Sovi­et Union ordered the attack that seri­ous­ly wound­ed the pope as he greet­ed crowds in St. Peter’s Square. The Turk­ish gun­man, Mehmet Ali Agca, was long ago con­demned in the shoot­ing and served 19 years in jail. But for whom he worked has nev­er been def­i­nite­ly estab­lished. His own con­fes­sions have been all over the map; he has var­i­ous­ly impli­cat­ed the Sovi­ets, the Bul­gar­i­ans and oth­ers.”
(“Sovi­ets Behind Pope’s Shoot­ing, Italy Pan­el Says” by Tra­cy Wilkin­son; Los Ange­les Times; 3/3/2006.)

28. “Rumors about the intel­lec­tu­al authors of the attack have cir­cu­lat­ed for years, but pin­ning it direct­ly and final­ly on the Sovi­et Union would be a first. Sen. Pao­lo Guz­zan­ti, pres­i­dent of the par­lia­men­tary com­mit­tee, told reporters that the Sovi­et mil­i­tary intel­li­gence agency, the GRU, ‘took the ini­tia­tive to elim­i­nate’ the pope. Accord­ing to Ital­ian media, the report says the Sovi­ets had decid­ed that Jon Paul, a fer­vent anti-com­mu­nist, had become dan­ger­ous in his out­spo­ken sup­port for the Sol­i­dar­i­ty protest move­ment in his native Poland. Solidarity’s activ­i­ties even­tu­al­ly helped pre­cip­i­tate the fall of com­mu­nism there in 1989. In those Cold War years of intrigue and decep­tion, the shoot­ing of the pope was tan­gled in a web of secret agents, proxy gun­men and the life-or-death strug­gle who would dom­i­nate the world.” (Idem.)

29. It is alleged that the inter­ro­ga­tion of Car­los the Jack­al yield­ed some infor­ma­tion about the shoot­ing of the Pope. Car­los the Jackal—as dis­cussed in FTR#453—is a pro­tégé of Nazi oper­a­tive Fran­cois Genoud. Might the far right have influ­enced this res­ur­rec­tion of the Bul­gar­i­an hypoth­e­sis, uti­liz­ing the milieu of Car­los? (Genoud died in 1996.) Note also that the head of this commission—Mr. Guzzanti—is a polit­i­cal ally of for­mer P‑2 mem­ber Sil­vio Berlus­coni.

“Com­mit­tee staff mem­bers said the report was based on evi­dence pre­sent­ed at a host of Ital­ian tri­als through the years con­nect­ed with the shoot­ing, includ­ing one that probed the Turk­ish mafia and anoth­er the pur­port­ed involve­ment of the Bul­gar­i­an secret ser­vice. In addi­tion, France’s not­ed anti-ter­ror­ism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, report­ed­ly shared evi­dence with the Ital­ians that sprang from the pros­e­cu­tion of Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, alias Car­los the Jack­al, the noto­ri­ous ter­ror­ist held in France since his cap­ture in Africa in 1994. . . . Guz­zan­ti, a mem­ber of Prime Min­is­ter Sil­vio Berlusconi’s right-wing Forza Italia (Go, Italy) par­ty, said he launched the new inves­ti­ga­tion after John Paul’s last book before his death spoke of the assas­si­na­tion attempt and his con­vic­tion that some­one beyond Agca had ‘mas­ter­mind­ed and com­mis­sioned’ the attack. [Empha­sis added.]” (Idem.)

30. Short­ly after the Ital­ian inves­ti­ga­tion, a Pol­ish inquiry head­ed in the same direc­tion. Again, what influ­ence might Licio Gelli’s tes­ti­mo­ny have had on the res­ur­rec­tion of the Bul­gar­i­an hypoth­e­sis? What might Gel­li –dubbed the “Pup­pet Mas­ter” by the Ital­ian media—have dis­closed or threat­ened to dis­close? If any­one could be said to know “where the bod­ies are buried”—literally in this case—it is Gel­li.

“Inves­ti­ga­tors in Poland said Mon­day they have opened an inquiry into a sus­pect­ed plot behind an assas­si­na­tion attempt on late Pol­ish-born Pope John Paul II in 1981. ‘The inquiry is not into the attack itself but into a plot by com­mu­nist (secret) ser­vices,’ said Ewa Koj of Poland’s Nation­al Remem­brance Insti­tute (IPN), which is charged with pros­e­cut­ing Com­mu­nist and Nazi crimes. Koj, head of the IPN’s inves­tiga­tive depart­ment in the south­ern city of Katow­ice, told the PAP news agency the inquiry aimed to probe sus­pect­ed involve­ment by sev­er­al coun­tries in plan­ning the assas­si­na­tion attempt on the pope. The IPN has pre­vi­ous­ly said that it does not have direct proof that Pol­ish Com­mu­nist-era secret police took part in the attack. Charges that the Sovi­et Union and then-com­mu­nist Bul­gar­ia orga­nized the attack over John Paul’s sup­port for the Sol­i­dar­i­ty trade union move­ment in his native Poland were nev­er proved. In March, the head of an Ital­ian par­lia­men­tary com­mis­sion accused lead­ers of the for­mer Sovi­et Union of order­ing the assas­si­na­tion bid.”
(“Poland Opens Inquiry into 1981 John Paul II Death Plot”; TurkishPress.com; 6/12/2006.)

Discussion

8 comments for “FTR #559 The Opus Dei Code – The Vatican Rag Pt. III”

  1. You have to love it when sleazy attempts at his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism and right­eous indig­na­tion become unin­ten­tion­al­ly iron­ic.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 26, 2012, 5:59 pm
  2. Rick is show­ing him­self to be quite the his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ist! Keep it up Ricky! One of these days one of your revi­sions might actu­al­ly be in the right direc­tion. Prac­tice makes per­fect.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 27, 2012, 9:15 pm
  3. [...] FTR #559: The Opus Dei Code This entry was post­ed in Reli­gion, Sab­o­tage, Sex­u­al Repres­sion and tagged Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger, Bene­dict XVI, Catholic Church, Enlight­en­ment, Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al, Father Jose­maria Escri­va de Bal­a­guer, Georg Gan­swein, Hasan al-Ban­na, Hitler, Islam, Jean-Paul II, Licio Gel­li, Maria Shriv­er, Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, Mus­soli­ni, Opus Dei, P2 Lodge, Rober­to Calvi, Sam Brown­back, The Da Vin­ci Code, The Secret War Against The Jews, Under­ground Reich, Unholy Trin­i­ty: The Vat­i­can The Nazis and The Swiss Banks, Vat­i­can. Book­mark the perma­link. ← Mis­cel­la­neous arti­cles for – Arti­cles divers pour 02-29-2012 [...]

    Posted by 1928: The year fascist bigots prepared the sinking of the Enlightenment | Lys-d'Or | February 29, 2012, 7:34 pm
  4. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/23/vatican-hires-fox-news-reporter-as-media-advisor/

    Vat­i­can hires Fox News reporter as media advi­sor

    By Jonathan Ter­bush
    Sat­ur­day, June 23, 2012 18:16 EDT

    The Vat­i­can has hired a Fox News cor­re­spon­dent [and mem­ber of Opus Dei] to help improve the Catholic church’s media rela­tions, Reuters report­ed Sat­ur­day.

    Cit­ing a church source, the news agency report­ed that Gerg Burke, a Fox cor­re­spon­dant for Europe and the Mid­dle East and a mem­ber of the right-wing Catholic group Opus Dei, had been hired as a “senior com­mu­ni­ca­tions advi­sor” to the Vatican’s polit­i­cal arm, the Sec­re­tari­at of State. The Vat­i­can has yet to for­mal­ly announce Burke’s hir­ing, though the church offi­cial said they are expect­ed to do so short­ly.

    In an inter­view with the Asso­ci­at­ed Press, Burke likened his role to that of a White House com­mu­ni­ca­tions advi­sor, say­ing he would be respon­si­ble for defin­ing and craft­ing a well-honed media strat­e­gy, and then ensur­ing that every­one with­in the Vat­i­can stays on mes­sage.

    Burke’s appoint­ment is some­what unusu­al in the clois­tered world of the Vat­i­can, as he will become the only mem­ber on the com­mu­ni­ca­tions team with exten­sive report­ing expe­ri­ence out­side the realm of Catholic media.

    Posted by R. Wilson | June 23, 2012, 9:28 pm
  5. The Shad­ow­Pope cometh:

    Pope Bene­dict XVI gives emo­tion­al farewell, while Vat­i­can reveals he hit head dur­ing 2012 trip to Mex­i­co

    Pub­lished Feb­ru­ary 14, 2013

    Asso­ci­at­ed Press

    VATICAN CITY – Pope Bene­dict XVI’s emo­tion­al farewell took an inti­mate turn Thurs­day as he held off-the-cuff rem­i­nis­cences with Roman priests. In the back­ground, ques­tions kept mount­ing about the true state of Bene­dic­t’s health and his influ­ence over the next pon­tiff.

    For a sec­ond day, Bene­dict sent very point­ed mes­sages to his suc­ces­sor and to the car­di­nals who will elect that man about the direc­tion the Catholic Church must take once he is no longer pope. While these remarks have been clear­ly labeled as Bene­dic­t’s swan­song before retir­ing, his influ­ence after retire­ment remains the sub­ject of intense debate.

    Bene­dic­t’s res­ig­na­tion Feb. 28 cre­ates an awk­ward sit­u­a­tion — the first in 600 years — in which the Catholic Church will have both a reign­ing pope and a retired one. The Vat­i­can has insist­ed that Bene­dict will cease to be pope at exact­ly 8 p.m. on the his­toric day, devot­ing him­self entire­ly to a life of prayer.

    But the Vat­i­can con­firmed Thurs­day that Bene­dic­t’s trust­ed pri­vate sec­re­tary, the 56-year-old Mon­sign­or Georg Gaenswein, would remain as his sec­re­tary and live with Bene­dict in his retire­ment home in the Vat­i­can gar­dens — as well as remain pre­fect of the new pope’s house­hold.

    That dual role would seem to bol­ster con­cerns expressed pri­vate­ly by some car­di­nals that Bene­dict — by liv­ing inside the Vat­i­can and hav­ing his aide also work­ing for his suc­ces­sor — would con­tin­ue to exert at least some influ­ence on the Vat­i­can.

    Asked about this appar­ent con­flict of inter­est, the Vat­i­can spokesman, the Rev. Fed­eri­co Lom­bar­di said the pre­fec­t’s job is very tech­ni­cal, orga­niz­ing the pope’s audi­ences.

    “In this sense it is not a very pro­found prob­lem,” he said.

    ...

    In his homi­ly, Bene­dict lament­ed the inter­nal church rival­ries that he said had “defiled the face of the church” — a not-too-sub­tle mes­sage to his suc­ces­sor and the con­clave that will elect him.

    Those rival­ries came to the fore last year with the leaks of inter­nal papal doc­u­ments by the pope’s own but­ler. The doc­u­men­ta­tion revealed bit­ter infight­ing with­in the high­est ranks of the Catholic Church, along with alle­ga­tions of cor­rup­tion and mis­man­age­ment of the Holy See’s affairs.

    Bene­dict took the scan­dal as a per­son­al betray­al and a wound on the entire church. In a sign of his desire to get to the bot­tom of the leaks, he appoint­ed a com­mis­sion of car­di­nals to inves­ti­gate along­side Vat­i­can inves­ti­ga­tors.

    His but­ler, Pao­lo Gabriele, was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to 18 months in prison, although Bene­dict ulti­mate­ly par­doned him

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 14, 2013, 8:52 am
  6. Now that Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bill Barr is engag­ing in a legal show­down with Con­gress and poten­tial­ly fac­ing con­tempt of Con­gress charges over his refusal to tes­ti­fy before Con­gress, here’s a series of arti­cles that pro­vide some back­ground infor­ma­tion about Barr that could become par­tic­u­lar­ly rel­e­vant if we’re look­ing at a major fight before branch­es of gov­ern­ment: It appears that Barr is a bit of theo­crat who believes that the US gov­ern­ment has strayed from its man­date to enforce strict reli­gious moral­i­ty. In par­tic­u­lar, Barr wants to see con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion sub­si­dized by the gov­ern­ment and laws passed that “restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty,” a ref­er­ence to homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and extra­mar­i­tal sex. And as the sec­ond arti­cle below hints, it’s entire­ly pos­si­ble Barr is either a mem­ber of Opus Dei or at least a fel­low trav­el­er.

    As we’re also going to see, one of the orga­ni­za­tions Barr used to sit on the board of, the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, hap­pens to be one of Opus Dei’s DC-based orga­ni­za­tions. It was promi­nent­ly direct­ed by the now dis­graced Opus Dei mem­ber Rev. John McCloskey. Anoth­er cur­rent mem­ber of the board is Leonard Leo, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety. Recall how Leo is behind the Judi­cial Cri­sis Net­work and a series of oth­er enti­ties that played a major role in back­ing the the Supreme Court nom­i­na­tions of Neil Gor­such and Brett Kavanaugh. Also recall how the financ­ing for the Leo’s orga­ni­za­tions was heav­i­ly financed by the bil­lion­aire Cork­ery fam­i­ly who are Opus Dei mem­bers. So, at a min­i­mum, Barr is a mem­ber of Opus Dei in spir­it. White House coun­sel Pat Cip­polone is also a for­mer board mem­ber Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, high­light­ing the pow­er­ful influ­ence Opus Dei-affil­i­at­ed indi­vid­u­als have on the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

    Ok, first, here’s a Dai­ly Beast arti­cle about Bar­r’s views on gov­ern­ment and reli­gion dur­ing the 1990’s. His high­ly puri­tan­i­cal Opus Dei-like views that he felt should be enforced by the gov­ern­ment:

    The Dai­ly Beast

    William Barr, Trump’s Attor­ney Gen­er­al Pick, Want­ed Gov­ern­ment to ‘Restrain Sex­u­al Immoral­i­ty’
    In 1995, he blamed ‘sec­u­lar’ gov­ern­ment for every­thing from ris­ing crime to STDs and called for sub­si­diz­ing reli­gious schools to turn back ‘assault’ on ‘tra­di­tion­al val­ues.’

    Jay Michael­son
    12.09.18 8:41 PM ET

    William Barr, Don­ald Trump’s nom­i­nee for attor­ney gen­er­al, is wide­ly regard­ed as a respect­ed, expe­ri­enced mod­er­ate like­ly to win sup­port from Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans alike.

    But in a 1995 essay, Barr expressed an extreme view that Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment should not be sec­u­lar, but instead should impose “a tran­scen­dent moral order with objec­tive stan­dards of right and wrong that… flows from God’s eter­nal law.”

    Barr went on to blame every­thing from crime to sex­u­al­ly trans­mit­ted dis­eases on a gov­ern­ment-led attack on “tra­di­tion­al val­ues.” He explic­it­ly called for the gov­ern­ment to sub­si­dize Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion and to pro­mote laws which “restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty,” a ref­er­ence to homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and extra­mar­i­tal sex.

    These views are no longer those of a pri­vate cit­i­zen. As attor­ney gen­er­al, Barr would have more influ­ence than any­one else in the coun­try in how laws deal­ing with reli­gion, LGBT rights, civ­il rights, and women’s rights are enforced or not.

    Barr served as attor­ney gen­er­al from 1991 to 1993. After he left gov­ern­ment, he laid out his views in an essay, “Legal Issues in a New Polit­i­cal Order” pub­lished in the St. John’s Uni­ver­si­ty Law School jour­nal The Catholic Lawyer.

    “The Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment,” he wrote, “was pred­i­cat­ed pre­cise­ly on [the] Judeo-Chris­t­ian sys­tem” that “flows from God’s eter­nal law.” But since the 1960s, Barr wrote, “the state no longer sees itself as a moral insti­tu­tion, but a sec­u­lar one.”

    Specif­i­cal­ly, Barr con­tin­ued, “through leg­isla­tive action, lit­i­ga­tion, or judi­cial inter­pre­ta­tion, sec­u­lar­ists con­tin­u­al­ly seek to elim­i­nate laws that reflect’ tra­di­tion­al moral norms. Decades ago, we saw the bar­ri­ers to divorce elim­i­nat­ed. Twen­ty years ago, we saw the laws against abor­tion swept away. Today, we are see­ing the con­stant chip­ping away at laws designed to restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty, obscen­i­ty, or euthana­sia.”

    In fact, those “bar­ri­ers to divorce” often forced women to remain in abu­sive or mis­er­able mar­riages, and treat­ed men as the “head and mas­ter” of the house­hold with near absolute pow­er, espe­cial­ly over shared prop­er­ty. And the “laws designed to restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty” crim­i­nal­ized gay sex, con­demn­ing mil­lions of les­bian and gay peo­ple to lives of mis­ery, iso­la­tion, and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion and vio­lence.

    In anoth­er spe­cif­ic exam­ple, Barr bemoaned the fact that “laws are pro­posed that treat a cohab­i­tat­ing cou­ple exact­ly as one would a mar­ried cou­ple. Land­lords can­not make the dis­tinc­tion, and must rent to the for­mer just as they would to the lat­ter.” In oth­er words, it would be bet­ter to allow hous­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion against unmar­ried cou­ples, gay or straight (and all gay peo­ple, if same-sex mar­riage were not an option).

    All of these posi­tions would have pro­found effects on the Depart­ment of Jus­tice.

    If Barr wish­es laws to “reflect tra­di­tion­al moral norms” or “restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty” he can decline to enforce those which, in his view, do not. As we have already seen, vast “reli­gious exemp­tions” have already been imple­ment­ed by the Depart­ment of Jus­tice under Jeff Ses­sions that pro­tect land­lords (and restau­rant own­ers, hote­liers, and every­one else) from pros­e­cu­tion for dis­crim­i­na­tion. An entire DOJ office—head­ed by Roger Sev­eri­no, the author of the recent memo claim­ing trans­gen­der peo­ple don’t exist—has been cre­at­ed to pro­tect such indi­vid­u­als.

    Barr’s view of gov­ern­ment rais­es a num­ber of impor­tant questions—questions that should be asked dur­ing Barr’s con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings.

    Does Barr still believe that the state should become (or per­haps become again) a non-sec­u­lar insti­tu­tion? Does Barr believe that the Unit­ed States is a Chris­t­ian nation? Should it, like Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale, enforce reli­gious law?

    Will Barr enforce fed­er­al anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws, or ignore those that con­flict with the Catholic con­cep­tion of “nat­ur­al law,” as he defines it in his essay?

    What alter­na­tives does Barr see to a “pow­er­ful state that sees itself as a sec­u­lar insti­tu­tion alle­vi­at­ing the con­se­quences of mis­con­duct and often pro­mot­ing moral rel­a­tivism?”

    Is same-sex mar­riage a form of “sex­u­al immoral­i­ty,” and if so, how would a Barr-led Jus­tice Depart­ment act to pro­tect or under­mine it?

    Does Barr still think that “the state is called upon to remove the incon­ve­nience and the costs asso­ci­at­ed with per­son­al misconduct”—and what are some spe­cif­ic exam­ples of laws that do so, and that he would thus leave unen­forced?

    Barr also has a dis­turbing­ly puri­tan­i­cal view of the last 50 years of Amer­i­can his­to­ry. In his essay, he com­plains that “since the mid-1960s, there has been a steady and mount­ing assault on tra­di­tion­al val­ues.” As a result of that “assault,” Barr writes, “we have lived through thir­ty years of per­mis­sive­ness, the sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion, and the drug cul­ture…. We have had unprece­dent­ed vio­lence. We have had soar­ing juve­nile crime, wide­spread drug addic­tion, and sky­rock­et­ing vene­re­al dis­eases.”

    Of course, we’ve also lived through the civ­il rights move­ment, the cul­tur­al flow­er­ing of the 1960s and 1970s, and the par­tial lib­er­a­tion of women and LGBT people—but these are unmen­tioned. Barr’s jere­mi­ad reads like some­thing out of Foot­loose or, again, The Handmaid’s Tale.

    And Barr has a high­ly dual­is­tic, sim­plis­tic, and moral­is­tic view of con­ser­v­a­tives and lib­er­als. His essay describes a “his­toric strug­gle between two fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent sys­tems of val­ues.” On the one hand is the “tra­di­tion­al Judeo-Chris­t­ian moral sys­tem.” On the oth­er is “sec­u­lar­ism and the doc­trine of moral rel­a­tivism.”

    This is obvi­ous­ly false: in fact, mod­er­ate reli­gion­ists and the ‘spir­i­tu­al but not reli­gious’ com­prise a large plu­ral­i­ty of Amer­i­cans, and they are nei­ther wed­ded to tra­di­tion­al­ist doc­trines nor to rel­a­tivism. They under­stand that prin­ci­ples such as treat­ing peo­ple fair­ly, min­i­miz­ing suf­fer­ing, and pro­vid­ing access to jus­tice are indeed fun­da­men­tal eth­i­cal val­ues. Lib­er­als do not believe, as Barr alleges, that “every­one writes their own rule book.” They sim­ply do not believe that moral­i­ty depends on God-giv­en nat­ur­al law.

    Once again, these are not per­son­al state­ments of faith, but polit­i­cal state­ments as well. The pos­si­bil­i­ty is real that the next attor­ney gen­er­al may actu­al­ly believe that the state should become a non-sec­u­lar insti­tu­tion. That world­view is pro­found­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic. If laws are decid­ed by God, what’s the point of a leg­is­la­ture? Can vot­ers legit­i­mate­ly over­turn God’s will? And if not, what is the job of an attor­ney gen­er­al?

    The con­clu­sion of Barr’s essay is per­haps the most trou­bling part of all.

    “The real mes­sage,” Barr wrote to his puta­tive­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic audi­ence, “is that we are going to have to do more than joust around the mar­gins. We must reen­ter the fray in an effec­tive way; take the bat­tle­field and enter the strug­gle.”

    That is a mil­i­taris­tic, us-ver­sus-them mes­sage. And the essay’s pro­pos­al for undo­ing the sec­u­lar state is to sub­si­dize Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion so that Catholics can “reassem­ble the flock” and fight on the polit­i­cal bat­tle­field as true believ­ers: “This means vouch­ers at the state lev­el and ulti­mate­ly at the fed­er­al lev­el to sup­port parental choice in edu­ca­tion. We should press at every turn for the inclu­sion of reli­gious insti­tu­tions. We need to fight those cas­es in the states up to the Supreme Court. Whether or not we pre­vail on pro­grams should make no dif­fer­ence. The mes­sage will get stronger.”

    The views that Barr has expressed are not those of a mod­er­ate as he is being por­trayed but of an arch-con­ser­v­a­tive with an extreme, hos­tile view of most of Amer­i­can soci­ety. In his world, the Chris­t­ian nation has been cor­rupt­ed by decades of post-1960s rel­a­tivism and sec­u­lar­ism. Unless he has revised his posi­tions in recent years, Barr’s appoint­ment would be a dis­as­ter for the civ­il rights of women, LGBTs, non-reli­gious peo­ple, and oth­ers.

    ...

    ———-

    “William Barr, Trump’s Attor­ney Gen­er­al Pick, Want­ed Gov­ern­ment to ‘Restrain Sex­u­al Immoral­i­ty’” by Jay Michael­son; The Dai­ly Beast; 12/09/2018

    “But in a 1995 essay, Barr expressed an extreme view that Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment should not be sec­u­lar, but instead should impose “a tran­scen­dent moral order with objec­tive stan­dards of right and wrong that… flows from God’s eter­nal law.”

    Gov­ern­ment should­n’t be sec­u­lar. Instead, it should impose “a tran­scen­dent moral order with objec­tive stan­dards of right and wrong that… flows from God’s eter­nal law. And that includes gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies for Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion and laws that pun­ish homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and extra­mar­i­tal sex. These were the views he shared in the 1995 essay pub­lished in the St. John’s Uni­ver­si­ty Law School jour­nal The Catholic Lawyer:

    ...
    Barr went on to blame every­thing from crime to sex­u­al­ly trans­mit­ted dis­eases on a gov­ern­ment-led attack on “tra­di­tion­al val­ues.” He explic­it­ly called for the gov­ern­ment to sub­si­dize Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion and to pro­mote laws which “restrain sex­u­al immoral­i­ty,” a ref­er­ence to homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and extra­mar­i­tal sex.

    ...

    Barr served as attor­ney gen­er­al from 1991 to 1993. After he left gov­ern­ment, he laid out his views in an essay, “Legal Issues in a New Polit­i­cal Order” pub­lished in the St. John’s Uni­ver­si­ty Law School jour­nal The Catholic Lawyer.

    “The Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment,” he wrote, “was pred­i­cat­ed pre­cise­ly on [the] Judeo-Chris­t­ian sys­tem” that “flows from God’s eter­nal law.” But since the 1960s, Barr wrote, “the state no longer sees itself as a moral insti­tu­tion, but a sec­u­lar one.”

    ...

    And Barr has a high­ly dual­is­tic, sim­plis­tic, and moral­is­tic view of con­ser­v­a­tives and lib­er­als. His essay describes a “his­toric strug­gle between two fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent sys­tems of val­ues.” On the one hand is the “tra­di­tion­al Judeo-Chris­t­ian moral sys­tem.” On the oth­er is “sec­u­lar­ism and the doc­trine of moral rel­a­tivism.”

    This is obvi­ous­ly false: in fact, mod­er­ate reli­gion­ists and the ‘spir­i­tu­al but not reli­gious’ com­prise a large plu­ral­i­ty of Amer­i­cans, and they are nei­ther wed­ded to tra­di­tion­al­ist doc­trines nor to rel­a­tivism. They under­stand that prin­ci­ples such as treat­ing peo­ple fair­ly, min­i­miz­ing suf­fer­ing, and pro­vid­ing access to jus­tice are indeed fun­da­men­tal eth­i­cal val­ues. Lib­er­als do not believe, as Barr alleges, that “every­one writes their own rule book.” They sim­ply do not believe that moral­i­ty depends on God-giv­en nat­ur­al law.

    Once again, these are not per­son­al state­ments of faith, but polit­i­cal state­ments as well. The pos­si­bil­i­ty is real that the next attor­ney gen­er­al may actu­al­ly believe that the state should become a non-sec­u­lar insti­tu­tion. That world­view is pro­found­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic. If laws are decid­ed by God, what’s the point of a leg­is­la­ture? Can vot­ers legit­i­mate­ly over­turn God’s will? And if not, what is the job of an attor­ney gen­er­al?
    ...

    Beyond that, Barr tells his con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic audi­ence in this essay that, “we are going to have to do more than joust around the mar­gins. We must reen­ter the fray in an effec­tive way; take the bat­tle­field and enter the strug­gle,” in ref­er­ence to a polit­i­cal bat­tle­field:

    ...
    The con­clu­sion of Barr’s essay is per­haps the most trou­bling part of all.

    “The real mes­sage,” Barr wrote to his puta­tive­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic audi­ence, “is that we are going to have to do more than joust around the mar­gins. We must reen­ter the fray in an effec­tive way; take the bat­tle­field and enter the strug­gle.”

    That is a mil­i­taris­tic, us-ver­sus-them mes­sage. And the essay’s pro­pos­al for undo­ing the sec­u­lar state is to sub­si­dize Catholic reli­gious edu­ca­tion so that Catholics can “reassem­ble the flock” and fight on the polit­i­cal bat­tle­field as true believ­ers: “This means vouch­ers at the state lev­el and ulti­mate­ly at the fed­er­al lev­el to sup­port parental choice in edu­ca­tion. We should press at every turn for the inclu­sion of reli­gious insti­tu­tions. We need to fight those cas­es in the states up to the Supreme Court. Whether or not we pre­vail on pro­grams should make no dif­fer­ence. The mes­sage will get stronger.”

    The views that Barr has expressed are not those of a mod­er­ate as he is being por­trayed but of an arch-con­ser­v­a­tive with an extreme, hos­tile view of most of Amer­i­can soci­ety. In his world, the Chris­t­ian nation has been cor­rupt­ed by decades of post-1960s rel­a­tivism and sec­u­lar­ism. Unless he has revised his posi­tions in recent years, Barr’s appoint­ment would be a dis­as­ter for the civ­il rights of women, LGBTs, non-reli­gious peo­ple, and oth­ers.
    ...

    So that gives us an idea of who Bill Barr was in 1995: an arch-con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic with a theo­crat­ic world­view. And when you learn about polit­i­cal­ly con­nect­ed arch-con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics with a theo­crat­ic world­view, one of the first obvi­ous ques­tions to ask is whether or not this per­son is a secret mem­ber of Opus Dei.

    And while we don’t yet have a con­fir­ma­tion of Bar­r’s Opus Dei mem­ber, here’s a pair of arti­cles from Jan­u­ary of this year about a now-dis­graced Opus Dei mem­ber who Barr appears to have been close to. Rev. C. John McCloskey was a high-pro­file Catholic priest dur­ing ear­ly 2000’s who would rou­tine­ly show up on polit­i­cal shows like NBC’s Meet the Press. McCloskey is also an open mem­ber of Opus Dei.

    McCloskey con­vert­ed some polit­i­cal fig­ures to Catholi­cism dur­ing this time, includ­ing Newt Gin­grich, Sam Brown­back, and Lar­ry Kud­low. Note that Kud­low replaced Gary Cohn as Pres­i­dent Trump’s chief eco­nom­ic advis­er last year and appears to be cur­rent­ly try­ing to stack the Fed­er­al Reserve for far right lunatics who pro­mote the gold stan­dard. And recall how Brown­back does­n’t just have ties to Opus Dei. He’s also a mem­ber of “The Fel­low­ship”. It’s a reminder that there’s prob­a­bly a great deal of over­lap between the mem­ber­ship and activ­i­ties of these two theo­crat­ic groups.

    But then, in 2003, McCloskey sud­den­ly dis­ap­peared from the spot­light for mys­te­ri­ous rea­sons. We learned in Jan­u­ary of this year the rea­son: mul­ti­ple women had accused McCloskey of sex­u­al harass­ment.

    Where does Bill Barr fit into the rise and fall of Rev. McCloskey? Well, one of McCloskey’s endur­ing lega­cies is the trans­for­ma­tion he made to Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter. When McCloskey arrived in 1998 to be the new direc­tor of the cen­ter he had the goal of trans­form­ing it was a sleepy oper­a­tion into a spir­i­tu­al hub in DC and he large­ly suc­ceed­ed. As the arti­cle puts it, the “small cen­ter — its mem­bers and its lead­ers — con­tin­ue to have an out­size impact on pol­i­cy and pol­i­tics. It is the con­ser­v­a­tive spir­i­tu­al and intel­lec­tu­al cen­ter that McCloskey had imag­ined and its influ­ence is felt in all of Washington’s cor­ri­dors of pow­er.” Sit­ting today on the board of the cen­ter today is Leonard Leo. And White House coun­sel Pat Cipol­lone and Bill Barr are both for­mer board mem­bers:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    ‘Quite a shock’: The priest was a D.C. lumi­nary. Then he had a dis­turb­ing fall from grace.

    By Joe Heim
    Jan­u­ary 14, 2019

    When the Rev. C. John McCloskey returned to his home­town of Wash­ing­ton in 1998 at age 44, he had a mis­sion. As the new­ly appoint­ed direc­tor of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, he want­ed to trans­form it from a sleepy oper­a­tion down­town to a vibrant spir­i­tu­al and intel­lec­tu­al hub. He want­ed to com­mu­ni­cate his enthu­si­asm for his faith and bring oth­ers to it. And he want­ed to do this, not just for ordi­nary Catholics, but for the capital’s movers and shak­ers, Catholic or not.

    In what seemed like no time at all, McCloskey — a mem­ber of Opus Dei, a small, ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive and con­tro­ver­sial Catholic com­mu­ni­ty — made his mark. The cen­ter moved to its cur­rent K Street NW loca­tion, just two blocks from the White House, and became a bustling gath­er­ing place for con­ser­v­a­tive aca­d­e­mics, politi­cians, jour­nal­ists and young pro­fes­sion­als. Week­day Mass­es in the center’s chapel were always packed. McCloskey was an ener­getic evan­ge­list for his unyield­ing vision of the church, wel­com­ing strangers and polit­i­cal celebri­ties alike to com­mit to its rad­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive beliefs.

    Soon, the telegenic priest was shar­ing his views as a reg­u­lar on polit­i­cal talk shows such as “Cross­fire” and “Meet the Press,” and on the Eter­nal Word Tele­vi­sion Net­work, a Catholic cable chan­nel. Polit­i­cal Wash­ing­ton didn’t just take notice, it embraced him. He kept com­pa­ny with a rotat­ing cast of right-of-cen­ter big­wigs, includ­ing Judge Robert H. Bork, Sen. Sam Brown­back (R‑Kan.), econ­o­mist Lar­ry Kud­low and for­mer House speak­er Newt Gin­grich (R‑Ga.), all of whom he helped con­vert to Catholi­cism. Arti­cles described him as the “Catholic Church’s K Street lob­by­ist,” “a firm voice, fos­ter­ing faith” and a “cru­sad­er.”

    But what no one envi­sioned was his rapid fall just five years after arriv­ing in Wash­ing­ton for rea­sons that weren’t dis­closed until last week.

    At his peak, McCloskey was a cen­tral fig­ure in polit­i­cal Wash­ing­ton.

    “There’s no ques­tion that he was the chap­lain of Wash­ing­ton con­ser­v­a­tives and he held a real appeal for them,” said jour­nal­ist Mark Shields, who met McCloskey only a few times, but knew him through his friend and long­time polit­i­cal spar­ring part­ner, Robert Novak. Shields, a lib­er­al Catholic, said he often joust­ed over faith issues with Novak, who was drawn to McCloskey’s tra­di­tion­al Catholi­cism and was lat­er bap­tized and con­firmed by him.

    As his rep­u­ta­tion grew, McCloskey opined often on mat­ters of faith and church and cul­ture. He crit­i­cized lay groups that want­ed more con­trol over inves­ti­ga­tions of cler­gy sex­u­al abuse. He advo­cat­ed force­ful­ly against abor­tion and said mar­ried Catholic cou­ples using birth con­trol should refrain from tak­ing Com­mu­nion. He argued that Amer­i­can men suf­fered from “Friend­ship Deficit Syn­drome” and said wives should encour­age their hus­bands to spend more time with their male friends and less time at home. He added that men were afraid to go out in groups in big cities, because observers would think they were gay.

    If oth­er Catholic cler­gy mem­bers were cir­cum­spect about shar­ing their views, McCloskey didn’t hold back. “A lib­er­al Catholic is oxy­moron­ic,” he told Slate in 2002. “The def­i­n­i­tion of a per­son who dis­agrees with what the Catholic Church is teach­ing is called a Protes­tant.”

    For friends and fol­low­ers, McCloskey’s approach was over­due. And his mes­sage was one they want­ed offi­cial Wash­ing­ton to hear.

    “I’d like to unleash him on Capi­tol Hill,” Kud­low told the Wash­ing­ton Times in 2001. “A few dos­es of Father McCloskey, and we’ll turn this coun­try around. He’s an old-fash­ioned evan­gel­i­cal pas­tor. In some ways, the Catholic Church has fall­en short in its evan­ge­liz­ing mis­sion, and I think Father John is awak­en­ing that.”

    And then in late 2003, as his pro­file grew ever larg­er, McCloskey was gone. Not dis­ap­peared exact­ly, but nowhere to be seen, at least in any offi­cial capac­i­ty. He left, he told some friends and asso­ciates, for an oppor­tu­ni­ty to study in Eng­land. The work of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter would con­tin­ue, but with­out the direc­tion of the man who had reignit­ed its flame.

    ‘Quite a shock’

    McCloskey’s abrupt depar­ture left some scratch­ing their heads, but they assumed he had good rea­sons for giv­ing up on the Wash­ing­ton grind of green rooms and galas. Last week, the real expla­na­tion for McCloskey’s hasty exit from Wash­ing­ton was revealed.

    A woman who had gone to him in 2002 for spir­i­tu­al guid­ance told The Wash­ing­ton Post that the pop­u­lar prelate had vic­tim­ized her. On sev­er­al occa­sions dur­ing and after pri­vate spir­i­tu­al coun­sel­ing ses­sions in his office to dis­cuss her trou­bled mar­riage, he put his hands on her hips and pressed him­self against her, kissed her hair and caressed her, the woman said. She said she had smelled alco­hol on his breath.

    The glob­al Opus Dei com­mu­ni­ty con­firmed last week that it ordered McCloskey to leave Wash­ing­ton in 2003 and said his priest­ly duties were restrict­ed. Sub­se­quent reports have raised ques­tions about whether his duties were restrict­ed and in which ways. He was lat­er sent to Chica­go and Cal­i­for­nia. Opus Dei paid the woman a $977,000 sex­u­al mis­con­duct set­tle­ment in 2005.

    For her, McCloskey’s actions were a deep and humil­i­at­ing betray­al.

    “He absolute­ly radi­at­ed holi­ness and kind­ness and car­ing and charis­ma,” the woman said Thurs­day in an inter­view. “He per­suad­ed me that I need­ed to be hugged, which of course I did, but I need­ed to be hugged by my hus­band, not by him.” The Post does not name vic­tims of sex­u­al assault with­out their con­sent.

    Anoth­er woman told Opus Dei that she was “made uncom­fort­able” by the way McCloskey hugged her, the group told The Post. The com­mu­ni­ty says it is inves­ti­gat­ing a third claim described by an Opus Dei spokesman as poten­tial­ly seri­ous. In a state­ment, Mon­sign­or Thomas Bohlin, the Opus Dei vic­ar, said McCloskey’s actions at the cen­ter were “deeply painful for the woman” who made the ini­tial com­plaint “and we are very sor­ry for all she suf­fered.”

    McCloskey, 65, is once again liv­ing in the Wash­ing­ton area and has advanced Alzheimer’s dis­ease, Opus Dei offi­cials said.

    The rev­e­la­tion about McCloskey’s actions and the rea­son he was sent away stunned many who knew him at the height of his pow­ers in the cap­i­tal.

    “This whole thing has come as quite a shock to me,” said Rus­sell Shaw, who co-wrote a book with McCloskey, “Good News, Bad News: Evan­ge­liza­tion, Con­ver­sion and the Cri­sis of Faith.” “I thought it was abrupt when he left and now I won­der why I didn’t dream of any­thing like this.”

    Hele­na Met­zger, a long­time vol­un­teer and for­mer board mem­ber at the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, said she was sur­prised when McCloskey left and shocked when she found out the rea­son a few years lat­er from anoth­er Opus Dei priest.

    “He was a very vis­i­ble priest and I knew him quite well, and there were nev­er any signs that any­thing like this was tak­ing place,” she said.

    Many of those clos­est to McCloskey when he was in Wash­ing­ton — includ­ing Brown­back, Gin­grich and Kud­low — did not return mes­sages seek­ing com­ment.

    ‘A brash­ness about him’

    McCloskey did not take a typ­i­cal path to the priest­hood. After grad­u­at­ing from St. John’s Col­lege High School in North­west Wash­ing­ton, he went to Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty, where he majored in eco­nom­ics. With his Ivy League degree in hand, he head­ed not to the sem­i­nary, but to Wall Street, where he worked for Citibank and Mer­rill Lynch. A few years lat­er, he moved to Rome to begin his train­ing to become a priest.

    After his ordi­na­tion in 1981, McCloskey returned to the Unit­ed States and with­in a few years was installed as the Catholic chap­lain at Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty. He soon became enmeshed in cam­pus con­tro­ver­sies. Crit­ics said he told Catholic stu­dents to steer away from cer­tain class­es he con­sid­ered insuf­fi­cient­ly Chris­t­ian, reports at the time said. Oth­ers were angered by his uncom­pro­mis­ing posi­tions on birth con­trol and pre­mar­i­tal sex. McCloskey had a way of find­ing con­tro­ver­sy and atten­tion no mat­ter where he went.

    “There was a brash­ness about him that I always asso­ci­at­ed with the Wall Street ethos,” the Rev. John Paul Wauck, an Opus Dei priest who knew McCloskey, wrote in an email. “You could say that, as a priest, he main­tained an entre­pre­neur­ial atti­tude. For some, this was off-putting; for oth­ers, it was, I’d say, invig­o­rat­ing and even enter­tain­ing.”

    McCloskey har­nessed that entre­pre­neur­ial spir­it to per­suade peo­ple, most­ly men, to become Catholics. In New York in 1997, he con­vert­ed Kud­low, who was recov­er­ing from addic­tion. Mark Bel­nick, a for­mer gen­er­al coun­sel of Tyco Inter­na­tion­al, who described McCloskey as a “great friend” in a New York mag­a­zine arti­cle, soon fol­lowed. They would be among the first in a long line of high-pro­file con­ver­sions that McCloskey facil­i­tat­ed.

    “It’s just like the bro­ker­age busi­ness or any busi­ness of sales,” McCloskey told the Nation­al Catholic Reporter in 2003. “You get a rep­u­ta­tion, you deal with one per­son and they men­tion you to anoth­er per­son .?.?. and all of a sud­den you have a string of peo­ple.”

    The con­ver­sions came nat­u­ral­ly to McCloskey because “he just had an absolute cer­tain­ty about what he was propos­ing, and he had no hes­i­ta­tion at all about unapolo­get­i­cal­ly offer­ing Catholi­cism as an option,” said Shaw, his co-author.

    Although he left Wash­ing­ton at per­haps the height of his fame, McCloskey’s lega­cy is the ongo­ing influ­ence of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter. The center’s board includes Leonard Leo, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety, which helped shep­herd the Supreme Court nom­i­na­tions of Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gor­such. White House coun­sel Pat Cipol­lone is a for­mer board mem­ber, as is William P. Barr, who served as attor­ney gen­er­al under Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush and is now Pres­i­dent Trump’s nom­i­nee for the same posi­tion.

    The small cen­ter — its mem­bers and its lead­ers — con­tin­ue to have an out­size impact on pol­i­cy and pol­i­tics. It is the con­ser­v­a­tive spir­i­tu­al and intel­lec­tu­al cen­ter that McCloskey had imag­ined and its influ­ence is felt in all of Washington’s cor­ri­dors of pow­er.

    ...

    ———-

    “‘Quite a shock’: The priest was a D.C. lumi­nary. Then he had a dis­turb­ing fall from grace.” by Joe Heim; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 01/14/2019

    “Although he left Wash­ing­ton at per­haps the height of his fame, McCloskey’s lega­cy is the ongo­ing influ­ence of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter. The center’s board includes Leonard Leo, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety, which helped shep­herd the Supreme Court nom­i­na­tions of Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gor­such. White House coun­sel Pat Cipol­lone is a for­mer board mem­ber, as is William P. Barr, who served as attor­ney gen­er­al under Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush and is now Pres­i­dent Trump’s nom­i­nee for the same posi­tion.”

    So on top of pen­ning that 1995 essay where he basi­cal­ly called for a Catholic theoc­ra­cy, Attor­ney Gen­er­al Barr is also a for­mer board mem­ber of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter which was start­ed by the now-dis­graced Opus Dei mem­ber John McCloskey. Accord­ing to Bar­r’s own answers to a Sen­ate ques­tion­naire, he was serv­ing on the board from from 2014–2017. So Barr was serv­ing in a high lev­el posi­tion in an Opus Dei enti­ty short­ly before tak­ing his cur­rent job.

    It’s also rather inter­est­ing that McCloskey start­ed off work­ing for Wall Street before train­ing to become a priest:

    ...
    ‘A brash­ness about him’

    McCloskey did not take a typ­i­cal path to the priest­hood. After grad­u­at­ing from St. John’s Col­lege High School in North­west Wash­ing­ton, he went to Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty, where he majored in eco­nom­ics. With his Ivy League degree in hand, he head­ed not to the sem­i­nary, but to Wall Street, where he worked for Citibank and Mer­rill Lynch. A few years lat­er, he moved to Rome to begin his train­ing to become a priest.
    ...

    So it prob­a­bly should­n’t come as a sur­prise that McCloskey is appar­ent­ly a hard core free-mar­ke­teer who defends the com­pat­i­bil­i­ty of pro-busi­ness poli­cies with Catholic the­ol­o­gy. In oth­er words, he’s the per­fect reli­gious leader for the Repub­li­can Par­ty.

    Or at least was a per­fect reli­gious leader until the mul­ti­ple sex­u­al harass­ment charges. He would pre­sum­ably still be in good stand­ing in the Age of Trump. But, alas, it does­n’t sound like McCloskey has time to make a come­back due to advanced Alzheimer’s dis­ease at the age fo 65. Although, as the fol­low­ing arti­cle notes, McCloskey has been pub­lish­ing a num­ber of arti­cles in recent years, includ­ing one in 2018. So either some­one else write those arti­cles or the church is lying about McCloskey’s Alzheimer’s:

    The Dai­ly Beast

    Did Opus Dei Lie to Pro­tect Priest Who Bap­tized Newt Gin­grich?
    The secret order of Catholic elite paid near­ly $1 mil­lion to set­tle with the vic­tim of Father-to-the-stars John McCloskey, and con­tin­ues to lie about remov­ing him from min­istry.

    Bar­bie Latza Nadeau
    01.10.19 10:28 AM ET

    For many years, Father John McCloskey was a sort of priest to the stars, espe­cial­ly to high-pro­file and often Repub­li­can con­verts to Catholi­cism like Newt Gin­grich and the cur­rent White House eco­nom­ic advis­er Lar­ry Kud­low.

    ...

    Opus Dei says McCloskey left active min­istry in ear­ly 2017 when they say it became clear he was suc­cumb­ing to “advanced Alzheimer’s” dis­ease and could no longer serve the pub­lic or, for that mat­ter, com­ment on the alle­ga­tions against him.

    Accord­ing to a state­ment by Mon­sign­or Thomas Bohlin, the vic­ar of Opus Dei, pub­lished Jan­u­ary 7, “Father McCloskey cur­rent­ly suf­fers from advanced Alzheimer’s. He is large­ly inca­pac­i­tat­ed and needs assis­tance for rou­tine dai­ly tasks. He has not had any pas­toral assign­ments for a num­ber of years and is no longer able to cel­e­brate Mass, even pri­vate­ly.”

    But The Dai­ly Beast found dozens of com­plex arti­cles he wrote in 2017 and at least one arti­cle he authored as late as 2018—a book review of Aquinas and Evo­lu­tion titled “How Does St. Thomas Aquinas Approach Evo­lu­tion?” in Nation­al Catholic Reg­is­ter in which McCloskey is iden­ti­fied as a “church his­to­ri­an who writes from Vir­ginia.”

    If Father McCloskey is tru­ly inca­pac­i­tat­ed, as his reli­gious order says he is, it is noth­ing short of a mir­a­cle that he can write about such com­plex top­ics. And if he’s not, it is noth­ing short of a lie.

    ...
    ———-

    “Did Opus Dei Lie to Pro­tect Priest Who Bap­tized Newt Gin­grich?” by Bar­bie Latza Nadeau; The Dai­ly Beast; 01/10/2019

    “If Father McCloskey is tru­ly inca­pac­i­tat­ed, as his reli­gious order says he is, it is noth­ing short of a mir­a­cle that he can write about such com­plex top­ics. And if he’s not, it is noth­ing short of a lie.”

    So over 15 years after he basi­cal­ly dis­ap­pears, we learn that McCloskey was forced to leave pub­lic life due to sex­u­al harass­ment. And now that this is known, Opus Dei is telling us that McCloskey has dis­ease that just hap­pens to waste away his mem­o­ries. But they appear to be lying. Imag­ine that.

    And this is the cir­cle Bill Barr runs in: the DC Opus Dei cir­cle. So as we watch­ing the bat­tles between Con­gress and the White House play out, it’s impor­tant to keep in mind that Barr would like to see a fun­da­men­tal over­haul of the US gov­ern­ment in the direc­tion of a fas­cist theoc­ra­cy and has a lot of pow­er­ful allies that share those goals. So if it seems like Barr is behav­ing like he active­ly wants to break the gov­ern­ment, maybe that’s because he actu­al­ly does.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 8, 2019, 2:41 pm
  7. Here’s a sto­ry that could almost be seen as a kind of tan­gen­tial update on the Jef­frey Epstein saga. Or per­haps more like a pre­quel. But also an update on the ongo­ing theo­crat­ic polit­i­cal cap­ture of the Unit­ed States by a MAGA move­ment that is joined at the hip by the theo­crat­ic forces of the Coun­cil for Nation­al Pol­i­cy (CNP). Along with an update on the decades-old child abuse scan­dal that still haunts the Catholic church:

    It appears Pope Leo has tak­en a spe­cial inter­est in Opus Dei, the bizarre far right Catholic cult with a remark­ably pow­er­ful and influ­en­tial ros­ter of mem­bers. Amaz­ing­ly, Pope Leo has report­ed­ly tak­en a keen inter­est in the alle­ga­tions pub­lished in a 2024 book, Opus, describ­ing decades-long abus­es by the group that have a num­ber of alarm­ing par­al­lels to the Epstein sto­ry. An glob­al oper­a­tion of recruit­ing vul­ner­a­ble youths into a cult-like lifestyle where they are traf­ficked, forced to work essen­tial­ly for free, and abused phys­i­cal­ly, psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly, and sex­u­al­ly. But also an oper­a­tion of recruit­ing pow­er­ful and influ­en­tial indi­vid­u­als in gov­ern­ments and insti­tu­tions across the world. Impor­tant­ly, the book describes how Opus Dei’s abil­i­ty to main­tain this scan­dalous glob­al oper­a­tion under wraps was direct­ly tied to the pro­tec­tion offered to group by Vat­i­can, and in par­tic­u­lar, Pope John Paul II’s deci­sion to declare the founder of the group, Jose Maria Escri­va, a saint in 2002 despite the abun­dant oppo­si­tion from inside the Vat­i­can due to the abuse alle­ga­tions that were already known. Pope John Paul II appar­ent­ly view the group as a fel­low con­ser­v­a­tive ally inside the Vat­i­can.

    In the fol­low­ing inter­view of the author of the book, Gareth Gore, he recounts how he was stunned to receive a direct invi­ta­tion to vis­it with Pope Leo ear­li­er this year. And not only did that meet­ing hap­pen, but Pope Leo appar­ent­ly asked a num­ber of inci­sive ques­tions and even allowed two cam­era­men in at the end of the inter­view to make it pub­lic. It real­ly is a remark­able turn of events giv­en that Gore is plac­ing much of the blame for Opus Dei’s decades of abus­es square­ly on the Vat­i­can and call­ing for a rescind­ing of Escriva’s saint­hood sta­tus.

    As Gore lays out in the book, the role the Vat­i­can has played in pro­tect­ing the group’s activ­i­ties from scruti­ny isn’t lim­it­ed to the fact Opus Dei’s found was declared a saint in 2002. The group had been grant­ed a “per­son­al prela­ture”, mak­ing them answer­able to no one but the pope. As a result, any abuse alle­ga­tions against the group couldn’t be han­dled in the nor­mal way through the local bish­op or arch­bish­op. No oth­er Catholic group before or since has been grant­ed such sta­tus. Gore describes how this arrange­ment emerged from the fact that the Vat­i­can become reliant on funds from Opus Dei in the 1970s. So there was a kind of per­verse quid pro quo where the Vat­i­can grant­ed the group untouch­able sta­tus in exchange for funds.

    The book also describes the hier­ar­chi­cal nature of the group’s mem­ber­ship, where there’s “numer­aries” and “numer­ary assis­tants” who have to live in sin­gle-sex dorms under strict, cult like, con­di­tions where phys­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal, and sex abuse are ram­pant. The “numer­ary assis­tants” are pri­mar­i­ly women and girls from under­priv­i­leged who are recruit­ed under the pre­text of being offered a bet­ter life. Cock­tails of drugs that include anti­de­pres­sants, seda­tives and even Rohyp­nol, an infa­mous “date rape” drug.

    But then there’s the “super­nu­mer­aries”, who com­prise the major­i­ty of Opus Dei’s mem­ber­ship. These indi­vid­u­als are invite-only mem­bers hail­ing from posi­tions of wealth and influ­ence and who do not have to live under the strict con­di­tions demand­ed of the numer­aries. It is appar­ent­ly one of the top respon­si­bil­i­ties of numer­aries to recruit super­nu­mer­ary mem­bers who can make large dona­tions to the group. So we have an orga­ni­za­tion that recruits vul­ner­a­ble youths into a life of abuse, includ­ing sex­u­al abuse, but also recruits wealthy and influ­en­tial mem­bers who get to live under a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent set of rules. Again, it’s hard not to notice the Epstein par­al­lels here.

    Except Opus Dei’s abus­es long pre-date Epstein’s abus­es. In fact, the group, which is almost a cen­tu­ry old, appar­ent­ly hijacked Ban­co Pop­u­lar back in the 1940s, turn­ing the bank into a kind of cash machine for the orga­ni­za­tion. As Gore describes in his book, from the 1950s and onward, funds from the bank were used to finance Opus Dei’s growth around the world, along with its recruit­ment and human traf­fick­ing oper­a­tions. Ban­co Pop­u­lar unex­pect­ed­ly col­lapsed in 2017 fol­low­ing a run on the bank in the wake of ques­tions about its abil­i­ty to ser­vice non-per­form­ing real estate loans. But Ban­co Pop­u­lar isn’t the only time we’ve heard about the col­lapse of an Opus Dei-affil­i­at­ed bank. Recall how the fig­ure who was at the head of the Vat­i­can Bank dur­ing its col­lapse in 2010, Ettore Got­ti Tedesci, was not only an ardent sup­port­er of ‘free-mar­ket’ eco­nom­ic ortho­doxy. He was also an Opus Dei mem­ber.

    Anoth­er part of what makes Pope Leo’s inter­est in the group rather notable is the fact that Pope Leo is an Amer­i­can pope and the US polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment is one of the group’s biggest areas of influ­ence. Two very notable Opus Dei mem­bers Gore men­tions in the inter­view are Kevin Roberts, pres­i­dent of the Her­itage Foun­da­tion, and Leonard Leo, one of the lead­ing fig­ures in the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety. As we’ve seen, both Roberts and Leo hap­pen to be mem­bers of the CNP, a theo­crat­ic enti­ty that includes a num­ber of Catholic and Protes­tant polit­i­cal reac­tionar­ies. In Robert­s’s case, his theo­crat­ic ties also include a long-stand­ing alliance with theo­crat­ic bil­lion­aire Tim Dunn and the Texas Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Foun­da­tion (TPPF). Recall how the TPPF and the Clare­mont Insti­tute ran the “79 Days Report ‘sim­u­la­tions in 2020 imag­in­ing con­test­ed elec­tion sce­nar­ios. Kevin Roberts, John East­man, and fas­cist busi­ness­man Charles Hay­wood all par­tic­i­pat­ed in the sim­u­la­tions. And it was Roberts who declared him­self the head of Project 2025 and who declared in July of 2024 that the “Sec­ond Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion” was under­way, which could remain blood­less if “the Left allows it to be”. Leonard Leo, of course, is behind the Judi­cial Cri­sis Net­work and a series of oth­er enti­ties that played a major role in back­ing the the Supreme Court nom­i­na­tions of the first Trump admin­is­tra­tion. Recall how Leo sat on the board of the Catholic Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, the DC-based Opus Dei-owned orga­ni­za­tion long run by Father C. John McCloskey, before McCloskey had to step down in 2003 over sex abuse alle­ga­tions. McCloskey was known for facil­i­tat­ing the reli­gious con­ver­sions of Sam Brown­back, Supreme Court Jus­tice Clarence Thomas, Newt Gin­grich, Robert Bork, econ­o­mist Lawrence Kud­low, financier Lewis Lehrman, and jour­nal­ist Robert Novak, among oth­ers.

    Anoth­er notable Opus Dei mem­ber is for­mer Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bill Barr, who, of course, played a cen­tral role in the cov­er up sur­round­ing Epstein’s 2019 ‘sui­cide’ while in fed­er­al cus­tody. Recall how Barr refused to recuse him­self from the Epstein inves­ti­ga­tion despite con­flict of inter­est con­cerns due to the fact that Barr once worked for a law firm that rep­re­sent­ed Epstein. It was Bill Barr’s father how hired Epstein as a high school math teacher at the elite Dal­ton pri­vate school (despite lack­ing a col­lege degree) before he moved into the world of child sex black­mail.

    And, of course, let’s not for­get about that report from back in 2011 when Sey­mour Hersh revealed that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff was dom­i­nat­ed by mem­bers of both the Knights of Mal­ta and Opus Dei. Opus Dei real­ly is one of the most pow­er­ful forces in the US gov­ern­ment today, along with its CNP allies. And yet, this real­i­ty remains bare­ly known or acknowl­edged to this day. Which is part of what makes the appar­ent inter­est of Pope Leo so fas­ci­nat­ing. He’s pick­ing a very seri­ous fight here if that’s what he’s real­ly doing.

    At this point it’s unclear who exact­ly is accused to doing the sex­u­al abuse. Were ‘numer­aries’ and ‘numer­ary assis­tants’ turned into sex slaves for the plea­sure of the super­n­u­mi­nary bene­fac­tors? If so, are we look­ing at a sim­i­lar kind of elite blackmail/influence oper­a­tion that appeared to com­prise much of what Epstein’s oper­a­tion was all about? That’s unclear, but those are all the kinds of ques­tions we have to hope the pope is now look­ing into. Adding to the high stakes nature of Pope Leo’s appar­ent inter­est in the group is the fact that pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors in Argenti­na have already con­duct­ed a two-year inves­ti­ga­tion into alle­ga­tions of abus­es by over 40 women. And since those alle­ga­tions have gone pub­lic, more women have come for­ward in Ire­land, Mex­i­co, France, and Spain. And with Opus Dei oper­at­ing rough­ly 300 pri­vate Catholic schools around the world, odds are there are a lot more alle­ga­tions to come. Might that explain the pope’s sud­den inter­est? Are we see­ing the Vat­i­can get­ting out ahead of anoth­er major abuse scan­dal? Either way, we can be con­fi­dent the group isn’t just going to roll over and allow the new pope to expose and it and strip it of its long-held priv­i­leges. In oth­er words, Opus Dei’s ‘answers to the pope and only the pope’ sta­tus is about to get a major stress test. Hope­ful­ly:

    The Guardian

    He spent years inves­ti­gat­ing Opus Dei, a Catholic group accused of a vast con­spir­a­cy of abuse. Then Pope Leo asked to meet

    Gareth Gore’s 2024 book Opus alleges decades of manip­u­la­tion, which the group has denied. He believes the pope want­ed to send a clear mes­sage

    Sam Wolf­son
    Mon 6 Apr 2026 07.00 EDT

    Gareth Gore was on a research trip to Cal­i­for­nia ear­li­er this year when he was told to expect a call from the Vat­i­can arrang­ing a one-on-one audi­ence with the pope.

    Gore was stunned. In 2024 he pub­lished the book Opus, a metic­u­lous­ly researched and grip­ping account of the abus­es alleged­ly per­pe­trat­ed by Opus Dei, the high­ly secre­tive Catholic group start­ed by the Span­ish priest Jose­maría Escrivá in the 1920s. Over a cen­tu­ry Opus Dei estab­lished itself as a deeply reli­gious order that, they claim, helps ordi­nary peo­ple “love God and serve oth­ers through work well done, car­ried out with hon­esty and integri­ty”.

    Gore’s book lays out claims the organ­i­sa­tion is at the heart of a con­spir­a­cy involv­ing child groom­ing, human traf­fick­ing, and psy­cho­log­i­cal and emo­tion­al con­trol, with for­mer mem­bers say­ing the group used pri­vate con­fes­sions as lever­age against mem­bers and drugged those under its sway – claims Opus Dei cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly denies. Gore report­ed that Opus Dei col­lab­o­rat­ed close­ly with the bloody dic­ta­tor­ship of Fran­cis­co Fran­co in Spain, before sup­port­ing rightwing caus­es around the world.

    Gore laid much of the blame for these alleged abus­es with the wider Catholic church, which relied on Opus Dei for finan­cial sup­port in the 1970s and in return gave it free­dom to oper­ate as a legit­i­mate branch of Catholi­cism, but out­side the Vatican’s nor­mal struc­tures. In 2002, Escrivá was made a saint after fero­cious lob­by­ing by Opus Dei, despite much protest from with­in the Vat­i­can, as abuse alle­ga­tions mount­ed and some Catholic lead­ers began to raise ques­tions about the organ­i­sa­tion.

    ...

    Gore began report­ing on Opus Dei almost by acci­dent. He was a finan­cial jour­nal­ist look­ing into the col­lapse of Ban­co Pop­u­lar, one of Spain’s largest banks, in 2017. At the time, the world couldn’t under­stand how such a pil­lar of Euro­pean bank­ing had failed so spec­tac­u­lar­ly. Gore dis­cov­ered that the bank had been hijacked by Opus Dei since the 1940s (the bank’s chair was a life­time mem­ber, as were many on its board, and com­pa­nies con­trolled by Opus Dei turned out to be the bank’s largest share­hold­ers). Opus Dei had used the bank “as its per­son­al cash machine”, Gore alleged, “siphon­ing off” funds to finance its expan­sion around the world. (The tri­al of Ban­co Popular’s for­mer lead­er­ship, fac­ing alle­ga­tions of fraud, is sched­uled to begin in Spain’s nation­al court in 2027. For its part, Opus Dei has denied that it was involved in the man­age­ment of the bank and said it “does not get involved in com­mer­cial activ­i­ties”.)

    Through hun­dreds of inter­views with for­mer Opus Dei mem­bers, Gore’s book traces how from the 1950s onwards, Ban­co Popular’s wealth went into cre­at­ing a vast recruit­ment net­work tar­get­ing chil­dren and vul­ner­a­ble teenagers, build­ing pala­tial Opus Dei cen­tres across the world, and even­tu­al­ly form­ing one of the most for­mi­da­ble clan­des­tine polit­i­cal influ­ences in the US. Its US mem­bers would become cru­cial in erod­ing repro­duc­tive rights, fund­ing the Wash­ing­ton march that led to Jan­u­ary 6, and heav­i­ly influ­enc­ing Project 2025, accord­ing to Gore’s report­ing.

    Gore’s book also sheds light on the inner work­ings of Opus Dei. Its most reli­gious mem­bers, called numer­aries, live in sin­gle-sex dor­mi­to­ries in a life of servi­tude and self-fla­gel­la­tion: they fast for dan­ger­ous­ly long peri­ods, wear a small spiked chain called a cil­ice around their thighs, and whip them­selves with ropes, for­mer mem­bers told Gore. Every ele­ment of their life is strict­ly con­trolled and manip­u­lat­ed by the group’s leader and senior priests, Gore said. Men­tal ill­ness, com­mon in an atmos­phere of con­stant phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal abuse, was treat­ed with a report­ed cock­tail of anti­de­pres­sants, seda­tives and even Rohyp­nol, accord­ing to claims made by vic­tims in inter­views Gore con­duct­ed.

    Female mem­bers known as “numer­ary assis­tants” – women and girls from most­ly under­priv­i­leged back­grounds – staffed the Opus Dei res­i­den­cies, work­ing long days cook­ing and clean­ing. Many of them were alleged­ly cut off from their fam­i­lies, trans­port­ed inter­na­tion­al­ly and, in many cas­es, expect­ed to give their entire salaries to Opus Dei in an oper­a­tion that Gore believes meets the UN def­i­n­i­tion of human traf­fick­ing. Some made claims to Gore of sex­u­al abuse.

    In Argenti­na, fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors are lead­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion into senior lead­ers of Opus Dei who they accuse of over­see­ing the exploita­tion and traf­fick­ing of women and girls; Opus Dei in Argenti­na set up a “heal­ing and res­o­lu­tion” office to hear the women’s com­plaints. In 2024 it also said alle­ga­tions that girls were coerced into join­ing the orga­ni­za­tion on promis­es of edu­ca­tion at its schools were “false and mis­lead­ing”. Opus Dei said it was com­mit­ted to safe­guard­ing minors and vul­ner­a­ble adults.

    Most Opus Dei mem­bers don’t live in these con­di­tions. These “super­nu­mer­aries” can mar­ry and live in their own homes. The most crit­i­cal mis­sion of the numer­aries is to recruit super­nu­mer­aries to make large dona­tions back to Opus Dei and influ­ence pol­i­tics and soci­ety to fur­ther Opus Dei’s con­ser­v­a­tive goals. An Opus Dei priest in Wash­ing­ton DC, who Opus Dei acknowl­edged has cred­i­ble accu­sa­tions of sex­u­al mis­con­duct against him, over­saw the 2009 con­ver­sion of the for­mer speak­er of the House Newt Gin­grich to Catholi­cism.

    ...

    I spoke to Gore, who lives in Lon­don, two weeks after his 16 March vis­it to the Vat­i­can about what hap­pened when he met Pope Leo.

    This inter­view has been edit­ed and con­densed for clar­i­ty.

    You’ve spent almost a decade com­pil­ing this dossier on Opus Dei that impli­cates the Vat­i­can. How on earth does it hap­pen that you’re invit­ed to present these find­ings to the pope?

    Hon­est­ly, I don’t know. I was on a work trip in the States and I got a call from some­body I know in Peru who’s quite close to the pope. And he had heard from the pope him­self, that the pope want­ed to meet me and to hear more. I remem­ber putting the phone down and hav­ing to take a moment: is this for real?

    ...

    How much do you think Pope Leo already knows about the orga­ni­za­tion?

    Who knows how much infor­ma­tion actu­al­ly gets to him. Opus Dei is renowned for hav­ing pen­e­trat­ed the Vat­i­can. It’s high­ly like­ly there are peo­ple there who are lim­it­ing what infor­ma­tion gets to the pope – per­haps for mali­cious rea­sons, but also, as with any oth­er kind of big com­pa­ny or big insti­tu­tion, some­times it’s bet­ter that the boss doesn’t know every­thing so that there can be some kind of deni­a­bil­i­ty.

    In the lim­it­ed time you had to speak with Pope Leo direct­ly, what was the cen­tral sto­ry that you want­ed to tell him?

    I think peo­ple on the out­side don’t real­ize the founder of this move­ment, this Span­ish priest Jose­maría Escrivá, told his mem­bers that the idea for Opus Dei had come direct­ly from God. He’d received this vision which he wrote down in metic­u­lous detail.

    These writ­ings are the source of all of this con­trol and manip­u­la­tion and polit­i­cal manoeu­vring that’s ongo­ing today. And so with­out under­stand­ing the inter­nal doc­u­ments, inter­nal rules, and with­out under­stand­ing that the mem­bers tru­ly believe that these rules came direct­ly from God, it’s impos­si­ble to under­stand the men­tal­i­ty of how Opus Dei works. So I was try­ing to con­vey that mes­sage to [the pope], while also try­ing to explain why reform­ing this group will be unbe­liev­ably dif­fi­cult, because the founder is revered as a saint, which he is. He was made a saint by the Vat­i­can in 2002.

    So the pope can’t just say, “You guys have got to stop doing this,” because the true believ­ers will con­tin­ue believ­ing that all of these prac­tices and all of this manip­u­la­tion is what God wants of them.

    How does one ham­mer things home to the pope? Did you feel like you had the free­dom to be per­sua­sive, or do you have to adopt a respect­ful tone?

    I went into the meet­ing with this kind of bur­den of want­i­ng to real­ly get this infor­ma­tion to him, but I had this atti­tude of not giv­ing a damn. Maybe I want to rephrase that: I was unafraid of offend­ing him or of breach­ing eti­quette. I just thought: no one else has been giv­en this oppor­tu­ni­ty and if they throw me out after five min­utes, I can live with that because I’ve tried to do what I think is right.

    ...

    How did he respond?

    Hon­est­ly, the meet­ing could not have gone any bet­ter. He asked a num­ber of very inci­sive ques­tions. It went on for much longer than was sched­uled. There were two cam­era­men there. And at the end of the meet­ing, the pope said to me that it had been his deci­sion to invite the cam­eras in and to make the meet­ing pub­lic. I think he quite clear­ly want­ed to send a sig­nal to Opus Dei that he’s tak­ing these alle­ga­tions seri­ous­ly.

    Opus Dei is only 100 years old, and per­haps the rea­son it’s not treat­ed like oth­er groups of the 20th cen­tu­ry that have accused of cultlike behav­iour is the seal of reli­gious author­i­ty that has been stamped on it by the Vat­i­can. Does the Vat­i­can have real pow­ers to rein in Opus Dei if it chose to?

    The Vat­i­can helped to cre­ate this mon­ster, not least Pope John Paul II because he saw them as polit­i­cal allies in his con­ser­v­a­tive cru­sade. He saw them almost like his per­son­al green berets that he could send off to any part of the world where there was some kind of pro­gres­sive priest or bish­op who was caus­ing trou­ble. He could send Opus Dei there to do his work or be his eyes and ears. He gave them this spe­cial sta­tus that has nev­er been grant­ed before or since in the his­to­ry of the Catholic church.

    What is that sta­tus?

    He made them into this thing called the “per­son­al prela­ture”, which basi­cal­ly meant that they were answer­able to no one but the pope. They could oper­ate any­where they want­ed to in the world and any abuse alle­ga­tions against [Opus Dei] couldn’t be han­dled in the nor­mal way through the local bish­op or arch­bish­op. Ordi­nary Catholics wel­come this group into their homes, they allow their kids to go to its schools, they attend its meet­ings because [it has] this stamp of approval from the Vat­i­can.

    Pope Fran­cis, to his cred­it, start­ed to take action [before his death in April 2025]. He issued a papal decree in 2022 where he basi­cal­ly ordered Opus Dei to get its house in order. But there was no effort to speak with any for­mer mem­bers, no effort to speak with jour­nal­ists such as myself who inves­ti­gat­ed the group.

    The point I was try­ing to make to Pope Leo is that if you’re try­ing to solve a prob­lem, the first step is to under­stand exact­ly what the prob­lem is. Which is why I sug­gest­ed to him that the next log­i­cal step would be to open a full inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion into all alle­ga­tions of abuse [by Opus Dei] – whether they are spir­i­tu­al, psy­cho­log­i­cal, emo­tion­al, phys­i­cal.

    Pros­e­cu­tors are start­ing to look into the orga­ni­za­tion too.

    Cer­tain­ly in Argenti­na, pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors there have con­duct­ed a two-year inves­ti­ga­tion into the alle­ga­tions made by 43 or 44 women. And after the inves­ti­ga­tion, these pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed that there were absolute­ly grounds to charge the group with human traf­fick­ing and seri­ous labour offences. But that’s just the tip of the ice­berg. Since the Argenti­na alle­ga­tions have come out, we’ve had more women com­ing for­ward in places like Ire­land, Mex­i­co, France, Spain.

    Opus Dei oper­ates about 300 [pri­vate Catholic] schools around the world, includ­ing in the UK and the US. Not far from my home in south Lon­don there are two Opus Dei schools where kids my kids’ age go. The next big step is for gov­ern­ments and for social ser­vices to real­ly look into safe­guard­ing prac­tices at these schools and to begin to ask ques­tions about whether this group, which is accused of very seri­ous abus­es and crimes, is fit to be look­ing after young kids and young adults. I would argue that it absolute­ly is not.

    One of the things you’re push­ing for is for the can­on­iza­tion of Escrivá to be undone? Would that be ter­mi­nal for Opus Dei?

    Unfor­tu­nate­ly peo­ple are brain­washed into believ­ing cer­tain things, so whether remov­ing the saint­hood of Escrivá would result in this group just dying out, I’m not sure. But it would go a long way to remov­ing this stamp of legit­i­ma­cy and approval from the Vat­i­can. If all the Vat­i­can does is make a few tweaks around the edges but leaves this guy as a saint, that’s going to send very mixed mes­sages. We have [the founder’s] actu­al writ­ings in black and white where these prac­tices are not only out­lined but man­dat­ed and ordered of the mem­ber­ship, which is why this is such an enor­mous headache for the pope.

    Peo­ple might think that this is an obscure reli­gious group that has lit­tle to do with them. Opus Dei says it does not take polit­i­cal posi­tions oth­er than the stances of the Catholic church. But you describe them as hav­ing piv­otal influ­ence when it comes to the makeup of the supreme court and abor­tion.

    The founder of Opus Dei made it clear that he saw his fol­low­ers as part of a mili­tia who were going to enter into bat­tle against what he called the “ene­mies of Christ”. So right from the begin­ning, this is a polit­i­cal group that uses reli­gion as almost a veneer to hide behind – con­trol­ling and manip­u­lat­ing the mem­ber­ship to get them to do things that might ben­e­fit Opus Dei polit­i­cal­ly or finan­cial­ly.

    In places like Wash­ing­ton, [Opus Dei has] made a real con­cert­ed effort to infil­trate the cor­ri­dors of pow­er and has been immense­ly suc­cess­ful. I would argue that today, Opus Dei with­in the Maga Repub­li­can move­ment is one of the pre-emi­nent forces. There are sev­er­al very high-rank­ing fig­ures inside the White House and the wider Maga ecosys­tem who are either full-on mem­bers of Opus Dei or big sup­port­ers. Peo­ple like Kevin Roberts, the pres­i­dent of the Her­itage Foun­da­tion [and the force behind Project 2025], is a reg­u­lar at the Opus Dei cen­tre in cen­tral DC and gets his spir­i­tu­al direc­tion from them. You’ve got Leonard Leo, who helped to orches­trate the con­ser­v­a­tive takeover of the supreme court and sits on the board of the Opus Dei cen­tre in cen­tral Wash­ing­ton. The list goes on.

    This is a group that is by invi­ta­tion only and they tar­get the elites: politi­cians, judges, busi­ness peo­ple, jour­nal­ists, aca­d­e­mics.

    ...

    ————

    “He spent years inves­ti­gat­ing Opus Dei, a Catholic group accused of a vast con­spir­a­cy of abuse. Then Pope Leo asked to meet” by Sam Wolf­son; The Guardian; 04/06/2026

    Gore’s book lays out claims the organ­i­sa­tion is at the heart of a con­spir­a­cy involv­ing child groom­ing, human traf­fick­ing, and psy­cho­log­i­cal and emo­tion­al con­trol, with for­mer mem­bers say­ing the group used pri­vate con­fes­sions as lever­age against mem­bers and drugged those under its sway – claims Opus Dei cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly denies. Gore report­ed that Opus Dei col­lab­o­rat­ed close­ly with the bloody dic­ta­tor­ship of Fran­cis­co Fran­co in Spain, before sup­port­ing rightwing caus­es around the world.”

    A decades-long con­spir­a­cy of child groom­ing, human traf­fick­ing, and psy­cho­log­i­cal and emo­tion­al con­trol. That’s the hor­rif­ic his­to­ry of Opus Dei laid out in Gareth Gore’s book pub­lished in 2024. But the book isn’t just a con­dem­na­tion of Opus Dei. As Gore makes clear, the wider Catholic Church, includ­ing past popes, have played a major role in the pro­mo­tion and appar­ent val­i­da­tion of the group’s dan­ger­ous beliefs, seem­ing­ly in exchange for Opu Dei’s finan­cial sup­port in the 1970s. 2002, Pope John Paul II made the group’s founder, Jose­maria Escri­va, a saint, despite the abuse alle­ga­tions that were already lev­eled against the orga­ni­za­tion by that point and much protest inside the Vat­i­can. The pope even made the group into the “per­son­al prela­ture” that is answer­able to no one but the pope, thus ensur­ing that alle­ga­tions would­n’t be han­dled through nor­mal chan­nels. No oth­er Catholic group has ever had sta­tus. Opus Dei has been oper­at­ing as a kind of ‘above the law’ Catholic enti­ty for decades, osten­si­bly with a mis­sion deliv­ered to Escri­va direct­ly from God, with the bless­ing of a pope, no less! That’s all part of the stun­ning con­text of Pope Leo seek­ing out an audi­ence with Gore. The Opus Dei mega-scan­dal is a papal mega-scan­dal and, if we’re lucky, the present pope is going to do some­thing about it:

    ...
    Gore was stunned. In 2024 he pub­lished the book Opus, a metic­u­lous­ly researched and grip­ping account of the abus­es alleged­ly per­pe­trat­ed by Opus Dei, the high­ly secre­tive Catholic group start­ed by the Span­ish priest Jose­maría Escrivá in the 1920s. Over a cen­tu­ry Opus Dei estab­lished itself as a deeply reli­gious order that, they claim, helps ordi­nary peo­ple “love God and serve oth­ers through work well done, car­ried out with hon­esty and integri­ty”.

    ...

    Gore laid much of the blame for these alleged abus­es with the wider Catholic church, which relied on Opus Dei for finan­cial sup­port in the 1970s and in return gave it free­dom to oper­ate as a legit­i­mate branch of Catholi­cism, but out­side the Vatican’s nor­mal struc­tures. In 2002, Escrivá was made a saint after fero­cious lob­by­ing by Opus Dei, despite much protest from with­in the Vat­i­can, as abuse alle­ga­tions mount­ed and some Catholic lead­ers began to raise ques­tions about the organ­i­sa­tion.

    ...

    In the lim­it­ed time you had to speak with Pope Leo direct­ly, what was the cen­tral sto­ry that you want­ed to tell him?

    I think peo­ple on the out­side don’t real­ize the founder of this move­ment, this Span­ish priest Jose­maría Escrivá, told his mem­bers that the idea for Opus Dei had come direct­ly from God. He’d received this vision which he wrote down in metic­u­lous detail.

    These writ­ings are the source of all of this con­trol and manip­u­la­tion and polit­i­cal manoeu­vring that’s ongo­ing today. And so with­out under­stand­ing the inter­nal doc­u­ments, inter­nal rules, and with­out under­stand­ing that the mem­bers tru­ly believe that these rules came direct­ly from God, it’s impos­si­ble to under­stand the men­tal­i­ty of how Opus Dei works. So I was try­ing to con­vey that mes­sage to [the pope], while also try­ing to explain why reform­ing this group will be unbe­liev­ably dif­fi­cult, because the founder is revered as a saint, which he is. He was made a saint by the Vat­i­can in 2002.

    So the pope can’t just say, “You guys have got to stop doing this,” because the true believ­ers will con­tin­ue believ­ing that all of these prac­tices and all of this manip­u­la­tion is what God wants of them.

    ...

    Opus Dei is only 100 years old, and per­haps the rea­son it’s not treat­ed like oth­er groups of the 20th cen­tu­ry that have accused of cult like behav­iour is the seal of reli­gious author­i­ty that has been stamped on it by the Vat­i­can. Does the Vat­i­can have real pow­ers to rein in Opus Dei if it chose to?

    The Vat­i­can helped to cre­ate this mon­ster, not least Pope John Paul II because he saw them as polit­i­cal allies in his con­ser­v­a­tive cru­sade. He saw them almost like his per­son­al green berets that he could send off to any part of the world where there was some kind of pro­gres­sive priest or bish­op who was caus­ing trou­ble. He could send Opus Dei there to do his work or be his eyes and ears. He gave them this spe­cial sta­tus that has nev­er been grant­ed before or since in the his­to­ry of the Catholic church.

    What is that sta­tus?

    He made them into this thing called the “per­son­al prela­ture”, which basi­cal­ly meant that they were answer­able to no one but the pope. They could oper­ate any­where they want­ed to in the world and any abuse alle­ga­tions against [Opus Dei] couldn’t be han­dled in the nor­mal way through the local bish­op or arch­bish­op. Ordi­nary Catholics wel­come this group into their homes, they allow their kids to go to its schools, they attend its meet­ings because [it has] this stamp of approval from the Vat­i­can.

    Pope Fran­cis, to his cred­it, start­ed to take action [before his death in April 2025]. He issued a papal decree in 2022 where he basi­cal­ly ordered Opus Dei to get its house in order. But there was no effort to speak with any for­mer mem­bers, no effort to speak with jour­nal­ists such as myself who inves­ti­gat­ed the group.

    The point I was try­ing to make to Pope Leo is that if you’re try­ing to solve a prob­lem, the first step is to under­stand exact­ly what the prob­lem is. Which is why I sug­gest­ed to him that the next log­i­cal step would be to open a full inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion into all alle­ga­tions of abuse [by Opus Dei] – whether they are spir­i­tu­al, psy­cho­log­i­cal, emo­tion­al, phys­i­cal.

    ...

    One of the things you’re push­ing for is for the can­on­iza­tion of Escrivá to be undone? Would that be ter­mi­nal for Opus Dei?

    Unfor­tu­nate­ly peo­ple are brain­washed into believ­ing cer­tain things, so whether remov­ing the saint­hood of Escrivá would result in this group just dying out, I’m not sure. But it would go a long way to remov­ing this stamp of legit­i­ma­cy and approval from the Vat­i­can. If all the Vat­i­can does is make a few tweaks around the edges but leaves this guy as a saint, that’s going to send very mixed mes­sages. We have [the founder’s] actu­al writ­ings in black and white where these prac­tices are not only out­lined but man­dat­ed and ordered of the mem­ber­ship, which is why this is such an enor­mous headache for the pope.
    ...

    Intrigu­ing­ly, as Gore points out, Opus Dei is also known for hav­ing pen­e­trat­ed the Vat­i­can and is like­ly play­ing an active role in shap­ing the infor­ma­tion made avail­able to the pope about the group’s oper­a­tions. So when Gore met the pope and found that he was ask­ing one inci­sive ques­tion after anoth­er, and even filmed the meet­ing, we have to won­der about the inter­nal dynam­ics between the group and the cur­rent papal admin­is­tra­tion. It’s the kind of ques­tion that serves as a reminder that, while Opus Dei has undoubt­ed­ly served as a mech­a­nism of papal influ­ence on impor­tant peo­ple and insti­tu­tions around the world, the group pre­sum­ably also work­ing to influ­ence the pope too. This is a group with its own far right agen­da that isn’t going to nec­es­sar­i­ly be aligned with every upcom­ing pope:

    ...
    How much do you think Pope Leo already knows about the orga­ni­za­tion?

    Who knows how much infor­ma­tion actu­al­ly gets to him. Opus Dei is renowned for hav­ing pen­e­trat­ed the Vat­i­can. It’s high­ly like­ly there are peo­ple there who are lim­it­ing what infor­ma­tion gets to the pope – per­haps for mali­cious rea­sons, but also, as with any oth­er kind of big com­pa­ny or big insti­tu­tion, some­times it’s bet­ter that the boss doesn’t know every­thing so that there can be some kind of deni­a­bil­i­ty.

    ...

    How did he respond?

    Hon­est­ly, the meet­ing could not have gone any bet­ter. He asked a num­ber of very inci­sive ques­tions. It went on for much longer than was sched­uled. There were two cam­era­men there. And at the end of the meet­ing, the pope said to me that it had been his deci­sion to invite the cam­eras in and to make the meet­ing pub­lic. I think he quite clear­ly want­ed to send a sig­nal to Opus Dei that he’s tak­ing these alle­ga­tions seri­ous­ly.
    ...

    And that brings us to the hor­rid alle­ga­tions against the group. Alle­ga­tions that sure have quite a few par­al­lels to the elite sex trafficking/influencing activ­i­ties of Jef­frey Epstein. On one lev­el, we have a kind of slave class in the orga­ni­za­tion, the “numer­aries”, who live in sin­gle-sex dorms where their lives are strict­ly con­trolled, phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal abuse is ram­pant, and drug cock­tails that. There’s even “numer­ary assis­tants” – women and girls from most­ly under­priv­i­leged back­grounds – who staff the Opus Dei res­i­dences, liv­ing a life that Gore describes as fit­ting the UN def­i­n­i­tion of human traf­fick­ing, includ­ing sex abuse. But then there’s the “super­nu­mer­aries”, the wealthy and influ­en­tial mem­bers who com­prise the bulk of the Opus Dei mem­ber­ship and who get to live lives unen­cum­bered by the group’s harsh restric­tions. The recruit­ment of these super­nu­mer­aries, who, in turn, make large dona­tions to the group, is seen as an essen­tial mis­sion of the orga­ni­za­tion. In oth­er words, Opus Dei is a group that relies on the sys­tem­at­ic recruit­ment, con­trol, and abuse of large num­bers of young, under­priv­i­leged peo­ple, in order to sup­port a sys­tem designed to recruit the wealthy and pow­er­ful. It’s not exact­ly like Epstein’s oper­a­tion, but the par­al­lels are hard to ignore. Incred­i­bly influ­en­tial mem­bers like Kevin Roberts, the head of the Her­itage Foun­da­tion, and Leonard Leo, the key archi­tect of the Fed­er­al Soci­ety’s takeover of the fed­er­al judi­cia­ry. As we’ve seen, Roberts is much more than the head of the Her­itage Foun­da­tion. As the we’ve seen, Roberts is a mem­ber of theo­crat­ic CNP and the for­mer pres­i­dent of the TPPF, an enti­ty close­ly aligned with bil­lion­aire Texas theo­crat Tim Dunn. Recall how the TPPF and the Clare­mont Insti­tute ran the “79 Days Report ‘sim­u­la­tions in 2020 imag­in­ing con­test­ed elec­tion sce­nar­ios. Kevin Roberts, John East­man, and fas­cist busi­ness­man Charles Hay­wood all par­tic­i­pat­ed in the sim­u­la­tions. And it was Roberts who declared him­self the head of Project 2025 and who declared in July of 2024 that the “Sec­ond Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion” was under­way, which could remain blood­less if “the Left allows it to be”. Roberts might be a mem­ber of Opus Dei, but that’s far from the only theo­crat­ic orga­ni­za­tion he’s part of. Sim­i­lar­ly, Leonard Leo, also a mem­ber of the CNP and a high­ly influ­en­tial fig­ure in the con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment, has a track record of work­ing with all sorts of theocrats and oth­er types of pow­er mon­gers. Which is a reminder that Opus Dei’s ulti­mate­ly agen­da is less about the ele­va­tion of some sort of bizarre Catholic cult and more about raw pow­er. The cultish part of Opus Dei is more about manip­u­lat­ing the young vic­tims:

    ...
    Gore’s book also sheds light on the inner work­ings of Opus Dei. Its most reli­gious mem­bers, called numer­aries, live in sin­gle-sex dor­mi­to­ries in a life of servi­tude and self-fla­gel­la­tion: they fast for dan­ger­ous­ly long peri­ods, wear a small spiked chain called a cil­ice around their thighs, and whip them­selves with ropes, for­mer mem­bers told Gore. Every ele­ment of their life is strict­ly con­trolled and manip­u­lat­ed by the group’s leader and senior priests, Gore said. Men­tal ill­ness, com­mon in an atmos­phere of con­stant phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal abuse, was treat­ed with a report­ed cock­tail of anti­de­pres­sants, seda­tives and even Rohyp­nol, accord­ing to claims made by vic­tims in inter­views Gore con­duct­ed.

    Female mem­bers known as “numer­ary assis­tants” – women and girls from most­ly under­priv­i­leged back­grounds – staffed the Opus Dei res­i­den­cies, work­ing long days cook­ing and clean­ing. Many of them were alleged­ly cut off from their fam­i­lies, trans­port­ed inter­na­tion­al­ly and, in many cas­es, expect­ed to give their entire salaries to Opus Dei in an oper­a­tion that Gore believes meets the UN def­i­n­i­tion of human traf­fick­ing. Some made claims to Gore of sex­u­al abuse.

    ...

    Most Opus Dei mem­bers don’t live in these con­di­tions. These “super­nu­mer­aries” can mar­ry and live in their own homes. The most crit­i­cal mis­sion of the numer­aries is to recruit super­nu­mer­aries to make large dona­tions back to Opus Dei and influ­ence pol­i­tics and soci­ety to fur­ther Opus Dei’s con­ser­v­a­tive goals. An Opus Dei priest in Wash­ing­ton DC, who Opus Dei acknowl­edged has cred­i­ble accu­sa­tions of sex­u­al mis­con­duct against him, over­saw the 2009 con­ver­sion of the for­mer speak­er of the House Newt Gin­grich to Catholi­cism.

    ...

    Peo­ple might think that this is an obscure reli­gious group that has lit­tle to do with them. Opus Dei says it does not take polit­i­cal posi­tions oth­er than the stances of the Catholic church. But you describe them as hav­ing piv­otal influ­ence when it comes to the makeup of the supreme court and abor­tion.

    The founder of Opus Dei made it clear that he saw his fol­low­ers as part of a mili­tia who were going to enter into bat­tle against what he called the “ene­mies of Christ”. So right from the begin­ning, this is a polit­i­cal group that uses reli­gion as almost a veneer to hide behind – con­trol­ling and manip­u­lat­ing the mem­ber­ship to get them to do things that might ben­e­fit Opus Dei polit­i­cal­ly or finan­cial­ly.

    In places like Wash­ing­ton, [Opus Dei has] made a real con­cert­ed effort to infil­trate the cor­ri­dors of pow­er and has been immense­ly suc­cess­ful. I would argue that today, Opus Dei with­in the Maga Repub­li­can move­ment is one of the pre-emi­nent forces. There are sev­er­al very high-rank­ing fig­ures inside the White House and the wider Maga ecosys­tem who are either full-on mem­bers of Opus Dei or big sup­port­ers. Peo­ple like Kevin Roberts, the pres­i­dent of the Her­itage Foun­da­tion [and the force behind Project 2025], is a reg­u­lar at the Opus Dei cen­tre in cen­tral DC and gets his spir­i­tu­al direc­tion from them. You’ve got Leonard Leo, who helped to orches­trate the con­ser­v­a­tive takeover of the supreme court and sits on the board of the Opus Dei cen­tre in cen­tral Wash­ing­ton. The list goes on.

    This is a group that is by invi­ta­tion only and they tar­get the elites: politi­cians, judges, busi­ness peo­ple, jour­nal­ists, aca­d­e­mics.
    ...

    And then we get to this very inter­est­ing his­to­ry of the group’s ties to Ban­co Pop­u­lar, which was appar­ent­ly hijacked by Opus Dei in the 1940s and turned into the group’s cash machine. But Ban­co Pop­u­lar wealth was­n’t just used to expand the group’s influ­ence. It also went into cre­at­ing a vast recruit­ment net­work tar­get­ing chil­dren and vul­ner­a­ble teens. The sys­tem­at­ic abuse of young peo­ple was a core func­tion of this incred­i­bly pow­er­ful orga­ni­za­tion that seem­ing­ly exists to pro­mote its own pow­er and influ­ence. It’s as if the Epstein oper­a­tion was based on Opus Dei:

    ...
    Gore began report­ing on Opus Dei almost by acci­dent. He was a finan­cial jour­nal­ist look­ing into the col­lapse of Ban­co Pop­u­lar, one of Spain’s largest banks, in 2017. At the time, the world couldn’t under­stand how such a pil­lar of Euro­pean bank­ing had failed so spec­tac­u­lar­ly. Gore dis­cov­ered that the bank had been hijacked by Opus Dei since the 1940s (the bank’s chair was a life­time mem­ber, as were many on its board, and com­pa­nies con­trolled by Opus Dei turned out to be the bank’s largest share­hold­ers). Opus Dei had used the bank “as its per­son­al cash machine”, Gore alleged, “siphon­ing off” funds to finance its expan­sion around the world. (The tri­al of Ban­co Popular’s for­mer lead­er­ship, fac­ing alle­ga­tions of fraud, is sched­uled to begin in Spain’s nation­al court in 2027. For its part, Opus Dei has denied that it was involved in the man­age­ment of the bank and said it “does not get involved in com­mer­cial activ­i­ties”.)

    Through hun­dreds of inter­views with for­mer Opus Dei mem­bers, Gore’s book traces how from the 1950s onwards, Ban­co Popular’s wealth went into cre­at­ing a vast recruit­ment net­work tar­get­ing chil­dren and vul­ner­a­ble teenagers, build­ing pala­tial Opus Dei cen­tres across the world, and even­tu­al­ly form­ing one of the most for­mi­da­ble clan­des­tine polit­i­cal influ­ences in the US. Its US mem­bers would become cru­cial in erod­ing repro­duc­tive rights, fund­ing the Wash­ing­ton march that led to Jan­u­ary 6, and heav­i­ly influ­enc­ing Project 2025, accord­ing to Gore’s report­ing.
    ...

    Final­ly, note how this isn’t just a sto­ry about a remark­able inter­est tak­en by Pope Leo into the alle­ga­tions in Gareth Gore’s book. Inves­ti­ga­tions are already under­way in Argenti­na, with more abuse vic­tims com­ing for­ward in places like Ire­land, Mex­i­co, France, Spain. It’s the kind of con­text that does­n’t just make Pope Leo’s appar­ent inter­est quite sig­nif­i­cant, but also sug­gests that Opus Dei is going to be feel­ing increas­ing­ly vul­ner­a­ble and, pre­sum­ably, increas­ing­ly anti-Pope Leo. Which rais­es the ques­tion of what kind of response we should expect from Opus Dei and its arch-con­ser­v­a­tive allies inside in Vat­i­can. This is one of the most pow­er­ful and influ­en­tial orga­ni­za­tions on the plan­et with reach into gov­ern­ments around the world. They aren’t just going to allow their priv­i­leged sta­tus to be stripped away by the pope with­out a fight:

    ...
    In Argenti­na, fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors are lead­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion into senior lead­ers of Opus Dei who they accuse of over­see­ing the exploita­tion and traf­fick­ing of women and girls; Opus Dei in Argenti­na set up a “heal­ing and res­o­lu­tion” office to hear the women’s com­plaints. In 2024 it also said alle­ga­tions that girls were coerced into join­ing the orga­ni­za­tion on promis­es of edu­ca­tion at its schools were “false and mis­lead­ing”. Opus Dei said it was com­mit­ted to safe­guard­ing minors and vul­ner­a­ble adults.

    ...

    Pros­e­cu­tors are start­ing to look into the orga­ni­za­tion too.

    Cer­tain­ly in Argenti­na, pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors there have con­duct­ed a two-year inves­ti­ga­tion into the alle­ga­tions made by 43 or 44 women. And after the inves­ti­ga­tion, these pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed that there were absolute­ly grounds to charge the group with human traf­fick­ing and seri­ous labour offences. But that’s just the tip of the ice­berg. Since the Argenti­na alle­ga­tions have come out, we’ve had more women com­ing for­ward in places like Ire­land, Mex­i­co, France, Spain.

    Opus Dei oper­ates about 300 [pri­vate Catholic] schools around the world, includ­ing in the UK and the US. Not far from my home in south Lon­don there are two Opus Dei schools where kids my kids’ age go. The next big step is for gov­ern­ments and for social ser­vices to real­ly look into safe­guard­ing prac­tices at these schools and to begin to ask ques­tions about whether this group, which is accused of very seri­ous abus­es and crimes, is fit to be look­ing after young kids and young adults. I would argue that it absolute­ly is not.
    ...

    Pres­sure is ramp­ing up. Does the pope have the author­i­ty to reign this orga­ni­za­tion in? Pub­lic pros­e­cu­tors? Time will tell. But giv­en that we’re talk­ing about a cen­tu­ry-old orga­ni­za­tion that has man­aged to cul­ti­vate one of the most influ­en­tial ros­ters of mem­bers on the plan­et, and poten­tial­ly oper­ates an Epstein-like elite black­mail net­work, you prob­a­bly don’t want to hold your breath.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 9, 2026, 12:54 am
  8. @Pterrafractyl–

    In the first of the long AFA shows about the shoot­ing of the Pope (AFA#17) we dis­cuss Opus Dei, found­ed by Escri­va under Fran­cis­co Fran­co and inex­tri­ca­bly linked with his regime.

    One won­ders if Ban­co Pop­u­lar was a Franco/Opus Dei project?

    https://spitfirelist.com/anti-fascist-archives/rfa-17–21-who-shot-the-pope/

    Posted by Dave Emory | April 9, 2026, 1:23 am

Post a comment