Monday, October 29, 2007
Opus Dei: Beyond Dan Brown's fiction
Opus Dei is Latin for "the work of God" but the name has gained a darker association for readers of Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, which has sold more than 40 million copies worldwide. Brown's novel paints the real-life religious organization as a sinister Catholic cult, embodied by the book's villain, Silas. Brown depicted Opus Dei as a secretive, powerful and murderous sect, whose members whip themselves bloody. Members of Opus Dei say their portrayal in the book is a mistaken and exaggerated caricature. But Brown's image will reach an even larger audience when the big-budget movie based on the book and starring Tom Hanks opens in theatres on May 19.
Long before Brown wrote about Opus Dei, a shroud of mystery surrounded the organization. Numerous writers and journalists have tried to pin the group down. And despite the media blitz Opus Dei has launched in anticipation of the film's release, there isn't one clear picture.
What is Opus Dei?
Opus Dei is a worldwide organization of people and priests, within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
"The mission of Opus Dei is to help people, normal people, to integrate their faith in their day-to-day life," says Monique David, the director of the Opus Dei Council of Women in Canada, and a member of Opus Dei's press office.
David says members of Opus Dei hold prayer and study meetings, retreats, classes and workshops. These are held at either an Opus Dei centre - there are 19 in Canada - or at a church or private homes. Members also do charity work in the name of Opus Dei and in connection with other organizations.
It was started in 1928 by Josemaria Escriva, a Spanish priest who became a saint in 2002. Opus Dei had an all-male membership until 1930.
In 1982, the organization became a personal prelature, which means that it is part of the church's structure. Like a diocese, it is overseen by a bishop and has its own clergy and lay representatives, but instead of being defined geographically, it is defined by its purpose worldwide. To date, Opus Dei is the only personal prelature under the Vatican. David says Opus Dei members still belong to their local parishes, but participate in the prelature's activities. The governing bishop - or prelate - is elected by members, and approved by the Pope. The current prelate is Bishop Javier Echevarria. Opus Dei is seen as a conservative organization - remaining true to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Who are the members of Opus Dei?
There were 87,116 members worldwide in 2005, 1,902 of whom are priests. Members are in 61 countries, including Canada and the United States. About 55 per cent of members worldwide are women. In Canada, about 60 per cent are female.
Catholics who have been involved in Opus Dei activities may become members if they make a lifelong commitment and are at least 18 years old, although it takes five years after the initial devotion to become a full member. Anyone, even if not Roman Catholic, can take part in Opus Dei activities.
There are three types of members:
"Numeraries" commit to celibacy but do not become priests. They make up less than 30 per cent of the organization and often live in Opus Dei centres.
"Supernumeraries" are generally married Opus Dei members, and make up about 70 per cent of the organization. Their "path to holiness" is generally achieved through the sanctification of their family duties.
"Numerary assistants" are generally women who perform domestic duties full-time in Opus Dei centres.
Other volunteers, known as "cooperators" or friends of Opus Dei, help with prayers or give their work or their time. They don't necessarily need to be Catholic or even Christian.
How much of what is portrayed about Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code is accurate?
Dan Brown, on his website, says his book is a work of fiction, but he adds, "[it is] based on numerous books written about Opus Dei as well as on my own personal interviews with current and former members."
Brown characterizes the group as a reclusive organization - with monks who kill at will - and wield special influence in the Roman Catholic Church.
David disputes this, and says they're just a small organization of religious people. "There is no monk in Opus Dei. There is no murder," she laughs.
David says Brown got only one thing right: "The way [Brown] has spelled Opus Dei. That's the only thing that is OK. All the rest is pure caricature, mistaken and misleading."
John Allen, a journalist for the National Catholic Reporter and CNN's Vatican correspondent, says the truth is somewhere in between. Allen was the first journalist who was given insider access to Opus Dei. He wrote the book Opus Dei: an objective look behind the myths and the reality of the most controversial force in the Catholic Church.
"I think the bottom line is there's a lot less there than people might think," said Allen, during a November 2005 interview with CBC Radio's The Current. "They are simply not as rich, not as influential, not as successful in gaining new recruits, and so on, as people imagine."
But Dianne DiNicola, an American whose daughter is a former numerary, says Opus Dei has "questionable practices." She says her daughter Tammy became reclusive and her personality changed after she joined the group. DiNicola says her daughter was strictly controlled, turned over her paycheque to Opus Dei and needed permission to leave for outings.
"They condition a person so that they get their mind, and they don't realize that they don't have freedom," she says. "And in my daughter's case, she left after a family intervention."
DiNicola started the Opus Dei Awareness Network in 1991 to tell people what they experienced. She says their website posts testimonies from about 25 other former members.
Still, DiNicola says Brown's depiction is inaccurate and "is a sensationalist view of Opus Dei."
Do Opus Dei members practise corporal mortification - the practice of wearing a spiked chain around the leg or striking themselves with a small whip once a week?
Yes, but it's voluntary and not violent, says David. She says it's only practised by about 30 per cent of members, only the numeraries.
The cilice - a spiked chain worn around the leg - is used for two hours a day. David says it leaves "a little pinch in the skin." But, she emphasizes, there is no blood.
"In the Da Vinci Code, it is a grotesque caricature of the reality."
The discipline they perform on themselves is done with a rope with knotted strands and is used once a week. David says this is used on the back, lightly, and for a short period of time while reciting a prayer.
"If you know the Hail Mary, I think it's 40 words. That's it. … It's more symbolic than anything else."
Both the cilice and the discipline are used as a reminder of Jesus' suffering on the cross, she says.
"It's not for everybody," says David. "But it's not Opus Dei who invented it either." Many saints of the church used it as well, including Mother Teresa, she says.
Allen agrees. "It would certainly be something that most Catholics would have a hard time understanding or accepting," he said. "But it is a practice that comes with the full approval and warrant of church authority."
However, Escriva once left blood on the walls after using the discipline. The event was described in Allen's book and in an Escriva biography by Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli.
It happened in Madrid during the Spanish civil war. Escriva and his followers were stuck in the Honduran consulate. Escriva's chief aide - and eventual successor as prelate of Opus Dei - Alvaro del Portillo, was sick and couldn't leave the room. Escriva asked Portillo to cover his head with a blanket while he used the discipline. Portillo said he heard "more than a thousand terrible blows" and "the floor was covered with blood, but he cleaned it up before the others came in." But, David notes, Escriva explicitly told members not to imitate this.
How wealthy and influential is Opus Dei?
This, too, is hard to pinpoint. Their assets are estimated at $2.8 billion, with an annual budget of $1.7 million, according to Allen. These figures are based on financial statements for programs in Rome, Spain, the United States, the United Kingdom, Kenya, Peru and Argentina. However, this isn't a complete financial profile. Because many of their "corporate works" like schools, and universities do not "belong" to Opus Dei, but rather are owned by the laypeople, who also operate them. This includes the $69 million, 17-storey headquarters in New York City.
David, however, adds that the building's purchase was covered largely by a donation from an Opus Dei cooperator. She adds there is no specific amount of money members are required to give to the organization. But, she says, numeraries usually give the remainder of their paycheques after living expenses are taken, amounting to about 20 per cent of their income.
Some critics say that Opus Dei wields considerable power in politics, but specifically within the Catholic Church. Many arguments centre on Escriva's "fast-track" to sainthood. Pope John Paul II canonized Escriva in 2002, 27 years after his death.
David agrees that's faster than normal, but says no steps were skipped. And, she adds, the canonization process was sped up for all candidates, not just for Escriva.
Other criticisms include that as the only personal prelature, Opus Dei has a special place within the church. David, however, refutes that. "It's not a special status for Opus Dei," she says. "It is a juridical form that exists in the Catholic Church. And the goal of that is to perform some specific mission that is entrusted to them by the Vatican."
The group has a reputation for being secretive, but Opus Dei has recently gone on a public relations blitz, in anticipation of The Da Vinci Code film release. David says Brown's novel - and the movie - may help the organization in the end.
"Before, we were not interesting for the media," she says. "And now, the media is interested in knowing what the real Opus Dei is, so we're taking advantage of it."
INDEPTH: CATHOLICISM IN CANADA CBC News Online May 12, 2006
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/catholicism/opusdei.html)
The Real Story On Opus Dei
In Brown's thriller, Silas and some of the other 'bad guys' are identified as members of the real-life Roman Catholic organization, Opus Dei (Latin for "the work of God"), a crucial plot point. Even before his prologue, on a page he labels "Fact," Brown describes Opus Dei as "a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion and a dangerous practice known as 'corporal mortification.'" He points out, correctly, that the U.S. home of Opus Dei recently opened its $47-million national headquarters in New York City. Then he kicks off his story of mystery, murder and mayhem, with Opus Dei at the centre. Three pages into the narrative, as Silas ensures a victim's death will be slow and agonizing, he says, "Pain is good, monsieur." If you're one of the world's 87,000 devout conservative Catholics who belong to Opus Dei, that has to hurt.
Right? Isabelle St-Maurice just laughs. The Montreal-based director of Opus Dei's Canadian press office prefers to see The Da Vinci Code as a marketing tool. "It's free publicity," she says. "So many people have begun to ask questions and want to know about us, so we give them the information. We explain the reality of Opus Dei. It's a good opportunity. "That approach reflects Opus Dei's position internationally. The organization's website (www.opusdei.org), which had more than three million visitors last year, has just launched a renovated version that is modern, comprehensive and user-friendly. The sophisticated educational outreach even devotes a section to Brown's bestseller, in an effort to correct what it says are inaccuracies in both theology and the depiction of the organization. ("It would be irresponsible to form any opinion of Opus Dei based on The Da Vinci Code," it states flatly.) The website, which went online a decade ago, is available in specific national versions (including opusdei.ca) and 22 languages. Through it, the organization says, it receives thousands of e-mail queries. "Everything is open and on the website," notes St-Maurice, a member of Opus Dei for 36 years. The 51-year-old former music teacher is a "numerary," a member who lives in a special Opus Dei residence and practises celibacy and corporal self-punishment. Thirty per cent of the organization's members are either numeraries or "associates" (priests), while the remaining 70 per cent -- "supernumeraries" -- consists mostly of married people. There is also a layer of participants called "co-operators," who like the Opus Dei message and support it through prayer, participation in activities and financial contributions. But co-operators are not actual members of Opus Dei, and some of them are not even Catholic.
Supernumeraries, numeraries and associates share the organization's driving credo that each of life's activities, at work and at home, is an occasion for holiness and good works. That principle has been at the core of Opus Dei since it was founded in Spain by Josemaria Escriva in 1928. The conservative organization and its founder were close to the heart of the equally conservative Pope John Paul II. The late Pope oversaw the canonization of Escriva in 2002, 17 years after the Spanish priest's death. St-Maurice says there is nothing on the outside to distinguish a member of Opus Dei from anyone else. "But inside, there is a light. We just try to be closer to God in our daily lives. "When she was growing up in Valleyfield and Quebec City, St-Maurice says she was influenced but never coerced by her parents, who were Opus Dei supernumeraries. "They helped us to live our faith, but in freedom. "It sounds so sunny -- the devotion, the camaraderie, the essential goodness of the goal -- that the vitriol Opus Dei also generates seems puzzling. But there's no denying that, outside the loving circle of its adherents, Opus Dei does not gladden all hearts. In fact, it inspires emotional responses ranging from mixed and wary to outright hostile. Dianne DiNicola heads a Massachusetts-based international group called ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network) that has existed for more than 14 years to warn people about the organization. The group was founded by a number of families who, like DiNicola, had had life-altering negative experiences with Opus Dei. Many were parents who had seen sons and daughters become different people, increasingly estranged from their families. "All of us were practising Catholics, and we were so wounded by the organization. "Today ODAN, a registered non-profit organization staffed entirely by volunteers, operates a comprehensive website (www.odan.org) and acts as a conduit for the cautionary testimonials of thousands of former Opus Dei members and their families throughout North and South America, Europe and Australia. Two other organizations operating in Spanish and Portuguese have the same mission. Even within the clerical ranks of the Catholic Church (John Paul designated Opus Dei a "personal prelature" in 1982, which means it is answerable only to the Vatican), it is viewed by many with more than a little apprehension. The late Cardinal Basil Hume, for instance -- Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales -- was openly critical of what he described as the group's unacceptable behaviour, particularly its infiltration of organizations. And liberal Catholics mistrust its aggressive and extreme ideological and religious conservatism. "Opus Dei does not see a dynamic relationship between faith and contemporary perspectives," says David Perrin, diplomatically. Perrin, an Oblate priest and professor in the faculty of theology at Ottawa's Saint Paul University, is one of those liberal Catholics. "God is calling us to love him," says St-Maurice simply, as if that were all you have to know about Opus Dei. But the taint of some associations, facts and images is difficult to erase. Although not a political man, Escriva did make comments interpreted as sympathetic to dictators such as Spain's Francisco Franco, who had several cabinet ministers belonging to Opus Dei. The organization's critics have accused it of cosiness with other suspect figures, such as dictators Antonio Salazar of Portugal and Juan Peron of Argentina. Opus Dei has defended itself against such charges by suggesting that the historical evidence for them is either misinterpreted or out of context. Even today, liberals are unhappy with the organization's possible influence in upper secular circles, such as the United States Supreme Court, where justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have been linked to it. Opus Dei's website says it "would like to dispel once and for all the rumours that (former FBI chief) Louis Freeh, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Mel Gibson are members." But critics maintain there are connections, even without membership. Freeh was said to have sent his son to an Opus Dei school, and Scalia's son is an Opus Dei priest. They don't have to be formal members of Opus Dei, observes DiNicola, to share their mindset. She points out that Cherie Blair, wife of the British prime minister, attended an Opus Dei event. "Opus Dei is very good at going to people of influence and promoting their own agenda. And sometimes these people don't even know they're doing Opus Dei's bidding. "That happens as well at the level of the "co-operators," she says, who are described as "supporters" of Opus Dei's work. "Define what 'support' means," she says. "You have to ask them very specific questions to get any real answers. I think Opus Dei uses the co-operators for its agenda, and they ask them for money. I talked with one man, a former co-operator, who told me he finally saw through it, and it just turned him off. "The organization has more unsavoury associations. Twenty-five years ago, when a scandal erupted involving the Vatican Bank -- complete with charges of money laundering and the suspicious death of bank chairman Roberto Calvi -- the Opus Dei name came up in possible affiliations with the principals.
More recently, there was the case of Robert Hanssen, likely filed deep in the organization's "Bad Apples" folder. Hanssen was an FBI agent sentenced in 2002 to life imprisonment for spying. For $1.4 million, plus diamonds, he had sold U.S. state secrets, including details of national security, to Russia. A vociferous conservative who told a friend that anyone who voted for Al Gore should be shot, Hanssen was also revealed during the investigation to be obsessed with pornography, going so far as to install a hidden camera in his bedroom to film himself and his wife having sex, and sharing the video with a friend.
Invariably described as "a devout Catholic," Hanssen was also a devout member of Opus Dei. One of the powerful Opus Dei characters who flits darkly through Brown's famous piece of fiction mentions Hanssen, referring to him as "the ultimate embarrassment."
Other facts are undeniable. Opus Dei is an ultra-conservative organization. It is wealthy and secretive. It is international, operating in more than 60 countries with more than 87,000 members, and it does wield influence at the highest Vatican levels. And a good number of its members do wear the cilice (a tight barbed chain) against their skin, take cold showers regularly and whip themselves with a nasty little corded device they call the Discipline.
By the popular standards of the modern world, that makes Opus Dei look pretty weird. But does it make them bad?
Ask Isabelle St-Maurice if Dan Brown got anything right about Opus Dei when he wrote The Da Vinci Code, and she thinks hard. "Well," she says slowly, "he spelled it right."
St-Maurice says she read the book strictly for its entertainment value. "You have fun reading it, because it's a thriller. But it's fiction. It's not something that sticks."
What she found disturbing was the fact that Brown's obvious research is so mixed up with his created material that people can confuse the fact and fiction far too easily. And she didn't much care for its theology.
Dianne DiNicola, 63, didn't much care for the theology, either. Still a practising Catholic, she was bothered by the questions the novel raised about the divinity of Jesus. But she found one thing in The Da Vinci Code absolutely spot-on.
"The blind obedience in Opus Dei -- that's true. In Opus Dei, there's no free will, really. They're proselytized and recruited aggressively and worked on."
DiNicola speaks from personal experience. Her daughter Tammy was a recruit.
Today, at 38, Tammy is the mother of three sons and a small-business owner with her husband. But as a fresh high-school graduate from Pittsfield, Massachusetts, away from home to attend Boston College, a respected Catholic university, she was essentially ripe for the picking.
Befriended by an Opus Dei member, she was eventually convinced to join the organization. She didn't tell her parents, because it was suggested to her that she should not.
"We began to see a personality change in Tammy," says her mother. "She had always been so happy-go-lucky, and now she was not. We had always communicated, and now she didn't. It was as if her life was being controlled."
DiNicola says Tammy's mail was being read, and she was coming home less and less, participating in fewer and fewer family activities. "It was as if she had died."
By now, DiNicola and her husband Carlo knew that Tammy had joined something called Opus Dei. Both active Catholics, they tried unsuccessfully to get help from their church. "But they didn't understand, and Opus Dei had a lot of influence anyway."
Eventually, they heard about "exit counselling" -- sessions designed to help people out of an organization they feel powerless to leave -- and convinced Tammy to go, a strategy that finally released her.
The DiNicolases had known nothing about Opus Dei before their youngest child went off to college, but learned a great deal about it in time and through bitter experience. They realized they were not alone when they came across another family who had experienced something similar. In 1991, the DiNicolases and a group of 50 other people -- mostly parents and former Opus Dei members -- formed ODAN. In the years since, they have been contacted by former members and their families from around the world, as well as priests, campus ministers and others who have had direct contact with Opus Dei. They were even cited in The Da Vinci Code.
The ODAN site is filled with information and often shattering testimonials about everything from perceived emotional manipulation and mind control, to habits of secrecy, to details of corporal self-mortification.
"We just wanted to tell the world about Opus Dei's questionable practices," says DiNicola. And so they have. If Opus Dei is being swamped with requests for information since the publication of Dan Brown's novel, so too is ODAN.
Among the most dramatic of those questionable practices -- certainly the one that gets the most ink -- is the personal corporal punishment. Opus Dei's official line these days is to downplay it, describing it as no more severe than a small denial of comfort.
"It should just be called a sacrifice, really," says St-Maurice, who admits to wearing the cilice. "It's just something that bothers." Numeraries, the nearly 30 per cent of the organization who have chosen a dedicated life of celibacy, are the Opus Dei members expected to practise the corporal mortification that includes cold showers, kissing the floor first thing in the morning, silences, fasting, the cilice and self-flagellation with the Discipline.
"When I first started watching them," says DiNicola, "they denied practising self-mortification. Now they say it exists, but it's up to the individual. And that is not true. We've been contacted by thousands of former members, and I've not heard one individual who's been in Opus Dei say that there was any free choice involved in self-mortification."
There is certainly no doubt that the practice was very much part of the spiritual life of their founder, who was said to have left his blood in streaks on the walls and floors after his self-flagellation. In his published memories of Escriva, Bishop Javier Echevarria, the current prelate of Opus Dei since 1994, describes the "severe corporal penances" willingly undertaken by the organization's saintly founder.
David Perrin of Saint Paul University points out that, abhorrent as it appears today, the practice was not unknown in the Roman Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council. That council, which opened in 1962, brought the fresh air of reform to the Church, including the suggestion that corporal self-punishment was no longer to be encouraged. Until that time, many congregations of priests, brothers and nuns had the practice on their books, even if they were no longer doing it.
But Perrin questions its purpose today. "What kind of holiness does it reflect? What kind of duality?" Since Vatican II, he says, there has been a greater appreciation of corporality and the idea that the integrated wholeness of a person -- body, mind, sexuality -- plays a role in the journey toward holiness. The ancient notion of dichotomy, that the material is bad and the spiritual good, stems from the Church's earliest days, he says. But it no longer fits.
"Two thousand years later, does it make any sense to separate those two things, which is what is suggested by this flagellation? Does corporal punishment make sense, or is the cosmology behind it defective? We in the broader, mainstream Roman Catholic Church today no longer find that acceptable or even helpful. We have a more holistic sense of ourselves."
Perrin says he can't even imagine where you'd find a cilice. "You could try Desmarais & Robitaille here in Ottawa for church supplies," he jokes, "but I suspect you won't find one."
DiNicola says she's heard that the cilices and Disciplines are specially made for Opus Dei by a convent of Spanish nuns.
There are also other things about Opus Dei that disturb mainstream Catholics. The organization has been criticized by less conservative elements for its rigidity. While many in today's Church are calling for openness, debate, reform and an acknowledgement that the Church must exist in the contemporary world even as its core values transcend it, Opus Dei's traditional inflexibility is viewed as a stumbling block to any kind of progress.
There is no question that the organization has members operating at the highest Vatican levels, suggesting ultra-conservative influences on policy. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, for instance -- director of the Vatican Press Office under John Paul II and re-appointed by the current Pope -- has been called the most visible representative of the Church in Rome after the Pope. Navarro-Valls has been a numerary of Opus Dei (that is, one of those who commit to celibacy and self-mortification) since the 1970s.
Perrin gives full credit to Opus Dei for its founding principle -- the notion that all individuals, both lay people and clerics, have the same access to holiness -- which he says was, in 1928, ahead of its time.
But he does take issue with other aspects of the organization. He wonders about its "personal prelature" status, which makes it exceptional and removes it from the authority of the local church. He finds its practice of leadership overly clerical, with power and influence in the hands of its priests, rather than the laity it was founded to empower. He thinks the role of women in Opus Dei is suspect. (The organization preaches equality, but is adamant about separate, and clearly defined, roles based on gender.) He questions its openness to dialogue with other religions. He is uncomfortable with the depth of Opus Dei's conservatism, which does not allow for the kind of discussion currently going on in the larger Church, where a number of traditional elements -- the role of women, for example -- are being debated and re-examined.
Nor does its obsessive secrecy serve it well, Perrin says. "Opus Dei does have well-defined initiation practices, and what those are tend to be kept on the quiet. When things aren't divulged, we fill them in with all kinds of information or fantasies."
He also acknowledges the charge made by some people that Opus Dei is power-hungry. "I really don't know. But they do tend to set themselves up close to prestigious universities -- and who goes to prestigious universities? The wealthy. Extrapolate that further, and you have people with influence and position and power. Obviously, if you can recruit those kinds of people, you're going to achieve that kind of presence in the world."
That presence is found in some surprising places, too. Ottawa's Justina McCaffrey, wedding-dress designer to the internationally rich and famous, has said that both she and her husband are Opus Dei members.
In fact, the aggressiveness of Opus Dei's recruiting has been the subject of strong criticism for some time. In a 1995 article on Opus Dei in America, a Catholic weekly magazine, Jesuit priest James Martin interviews Russell Roide, another Jesuit priest and the former director of campus ministry at Stanford University. After students flooded his office with complaints, Roide contacted Opus Dei and asked them to be less aggressive. When they weren't, he banned them from the campus. After that, he told Martin, they became "subtle and deceptive."
The official line from Opus Dei is that they are not aggressive and that "recruiting" only happens when people are willing. But as Martin notes in the same article, Escriva emphasized it. "In the internal magazine, Cronica, he wrote in 1971: 'This holy coercion is necessary, compelle intrare, the Lord tells us.' And, 'You must kill yourselves for proselytism.'"
The organization says it has 600 members in Canada and 3,000 in the U.S., but DiNicola questions the numbers.
"Twenty years ago, they were saying they had 3,000 members, and today they're still saying 3,000. I know a huge number of numeraries leave, but not the supernumeraries. These are families with kids. A lot of those kids are then recruited to become numeraries."
Whether or not they exist as proselytizing opportunities, there are numerous Opus Dei-run venues throughout Canada and the U.S. Apart from the Opus Dei centres, there are educational institutions, educational and social programs, student residences (including Parkhill and Valrideau in Ottawa, for men and women respectively), retreat houses, conference centres, summer camps and even some Catholic parishes and chaplaincies. Perrin frames the question of the day. "Is all of that scary for some people? I guess it is."
Scary or not, one thing is certain. The staggering popularity of The Da Vinci Code, as a bestselling book and soon as a box-office film, has shone an unprecedented spotlight on Opus Dei in ways the organization never envisioned. While the image has been the antithesis of flattering, Opus Dei seems to have adopted the time-honoured principle that has served so many spotlight subjects so well.
As long as they spell your name right.
Since the novel appeared in 2003, says St-Maurice, Opus Dei has been deluged with expressions of interest. Still, it's too early to say if that interest will translate into increased membership.
"It's a vocation," she says. "It goes slowly." The person who shows interest in Opus Dei must develop an understanding of the organization, the life commitment it requires and his or her suitability within that. It doesn't happen overnight.
Ask St-Maurice about the impact of The Da Vinci Code on membership, and she laughs.
"Maybe I will call you in three years."
In the meantime? "We say to Dan Brown, thank you very much."
Dianne DiNicola's view is darker. "Opus Dei had a horrible reputation way before The Da Vinci Code. Now they're putting on this big PR campaign. I think they're worried they're going to be found out."
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=db572eef-929e-4986-954f-b4ad923a01e3
"Opus Dei had a horrible reputation way before The Da Vinci Code." From The Ottawa Citizen/Canada.com, Canada.
Propaganda work in other languages
"Founder's Love of Mary" - Japanese Subtitle
Propaganda of the work - "The Sacrament of Penance"
Opus Dei always use penance as a form of control and to maintain cohesion of the group.
Opus Dei's Questionable Practices
Opus Dei's Questionable Practices
The following practices of Opus Dei are not common knowledge and need to be examined and questioned. The serious issues ODAN raises are based on a collection of first-hand personal experiences.
1. Corporal mortification
2. Aggressive recruitment / undue pressure to join
3. Lack of informed consent and control of environment
4. Alienation from families
Corporal Mortification
Corporal mortification (self-inflicted pain and deprivation) is perhaps the most shocking practice. See the corporal mortification web page for more details.
Aggressive Recruitment
“University residences, universities, publishing houses. . . are these ends? No, and what is the end? . . . to promote in the world the greatest possible number of souls dedicated to God in Opus Dei…”(Founder of Opus Dei, Cronica, v, 1963)
Within Opus Dei, a heavy emphasis is placed on getting individuals to commit their lives to Opus Dei. Members' pursuit of potential members is aggressive and similar to the tactics used by totalistic groups. Because of this, ODAN believes the group violates the personal freedom of individuals.
Opus Dei has a highly structured apostolate. Opus Dei members form "teams" and develop strategies to attract new members. For example, if the potential recruit is an avid skiier, then the numeraries may plan a weekend ski trip, when the "numerary friend" is pressured to tell the recruit that she may have a vocation, after which the numerary must report back to the Director. If the recruit is receptive, then the Director may talk more in depth about the vocation. They discuss "promising recruits" at their daily get-togethers (for members only) and during spiritual direction with Opus Dei priests and lay members. Opus Dei members often know which recruits are closest to joining, even if the person is hundreds of miles away.
Opus Dei members are typically taught to always have twelve to fifteen "friends," with at least three or four who are very close to joining. This leads to the utilization of friendship as "bait." Far too often, Opus Dei members drop friendships with those who are unlikely to join Opus Dei.
Opus Dei members are required to report regularly to their lay Spiritual Directors on the progress of their personal recruiting. They also fill out statistics on their "friends," which may include the following: number of apostolic visits made; Opus Dei meditations attended; Opus Dei retreats made; confessions with an Opus Dei priest, etc. How does Opus Dei use this information? Why is it necessary? The recruits do not know they are being discussed and targeted in this way, a violation of their freedom and privacy.
Opus Dei members befriend and cultivate young idealistic individuals through front groups at universities and schools and/or through affiliation with groups like Right to Life, young adult Catholic groups and St. Thomas More Societies. Some groups are completely Opus Dei-run and exist primarily for the purpose of attracting potential Opus Dei members. The groups' affiliation with Opus Dei is typically not immediately recognizable nor initially disclosed. An example of an Opus Dei "front group" is UNIV, an international convention of college students that is used by Opus Dei to attract "select" individuals who could potentially become members, particularly by participating in a yearly trip to Rome during Easter week when unsuspecting participants are aggressively pursued to make a commitment to Opus Dei while in Rome at the Opus Dei headquarters. These statements are based on the personal testimonies of former members, who also witnessed first hand the targeting of potential Opus Dei members while participating in groups not necessarily run by Opus Dei. The Opus Dei members joined these groups in order to find and befriend individuals who would more likely join Opus Dei.
In addition to groups targeting young people, Opus Dei also attempts to attract potential "supernumerary" members by infiltrating parishes throughout the world. It is often very difficult to determine the extent of Opus Dei's influence in a given parish. Opus Dei members very often conceal their identity to "outsiders."
Undue Pressure to Join
Selected individuals are relentlessly pursued to consider a vocation or calling to Opus Dei.
Opus Dei members carefully stage "vocational crises" at vulnerable moments in recruits' lives. The recruits are often told that God calls people at certain times in their lives, and if they say "no" they will never receive God's grace in their lives because they are "on the wrong track."
Opus Dei members often tell their "friends" that failure to follow a calling to Opus Dei will lead not only to a life of misery and discontent, but possibly to eternal damnation.
Lack of Informed Consent and Control of Environment
When recruits decide to join Opus Dei, they vaguely commit themselves to live "the spirit of Opus Dei" without knowing the details of that commitment. The initial commitment, called "whistling," involves the writing of a letter to the prelate of Opus Dei asking to become an Opus Dei member. From that moment, new members are greeted with exuberance and welcomed into the fold. Eventually, the details of new memberships are revealed, and the new members are expected to comply, even if they object or have reservations. A great psychological burden is placed on the new members: they must be faithful to the commitment they have made by obeying all that their directors tell them is "the spirit of Opus Dei;" otherwise, they are turning their back on God. If they decide to leave Opus Dei, they have often already heard that they will surely live a life without God's grace, and may even be damned.
Opus Dei tightly controls the lives of its members, especially the numerary members who pledge celibacy and typically live in Opus Dei residences. The following are some examples of the controls placed on Opus Dei numeraries, which are part of the "spirit of Opus Dei:"
Opus Dei numeraries are expected to hand over their entire salaries to Opus Dei, and generally may not hold their own bank accounts. The numeraries are told to use money as if they were the mother in charge of a large and poor family. They ask for the money they need each week and are then required to report how it was spent to the penny. Opus Dei does not provide any financial report that indicates how the members' money is spent.
Both incoming and outgoing personal mail is generally read by the Directors of each Opus Dei residence, without the knowledge or consent of family and friends.
Reading material is strictly controlled, as are television viewing, listening to the radio, and other forms of recreation and entertainment.
Opus Dei numeraries notify their Directors of (and secure permission for) their comings and goings.
Opus Dei numeraries are required to practice corporal mortification such as the use of a cilice (a spiked chain worn around the thigh), flagellation, and sleeping on the floor or on boards.
Opus Dei numeraries are required to confess weekly and are strongly discouraged from confessing to a non-Opus Dei priest.
Opus Dei numeraries typically may not attend events which are not conducive to proselytizing, such as athletic games, theater, concerts, movies, etc. In the rare instances when they may attend these events, permission must be secured from the Opus Dei directors.
Opus Dei members are enjoined to confess even their slightest doubts to Opus Dei priests and/or Spiritual Directors; otherwise, "the mute devil takes over in the soul."
Alienation From Families
Communication to family about involvement with Opus Dei is limited and even discouraged.
Opus Dei teaches individuals (despite their ages) that it is acceptable and even advantageous to leave parents and loved ones out of the decision-making process because "they will not understand." Most parents learn of their child's lifetime commitment to Opus Dei months and even years later. Many times, parents do not realize their children have joined because the numeraries are told to remain in university residences and do not move into centers designated exclusively for numeraries, so as not to raise any suspicions. Gradually, the bond of trust between child and parent is broken.
Display of pictures of loved ones is discouraged, not by rule, but by subtle example.
Revised November 16, 2003
From ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Rising Spectre of Opus Dei
BRITISH CHURCH NEWSPAPER 1 & 8 November 2002 Clive Gillis
Opus Dei (‘Work of God’) is short for "The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei".
Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, was canonised on October 6. The ceremony passed quietly enough but the process which led to it had been pushed through at break neck speed.
The media celebrated the occasion by republishing past revelations concerning St. Escriva’s fascism, secrecy, elitism and accumulation of vast wealth, beneath headlines tactfully referring to him as "controversial". But there was a deafening silence concerning the menace posed by Escriva’s huge, shadowy organisation which originated in obscurity in Spain in the 1930s and blossomed in the Spanish Civil War.
Storm of controversy
The present writer well remembers the storm of controversy which surrounded the beatification of Escriva in May 1992. The Jesuits, world over, cried foul as the ghost of Escriva arose from nowhere to overtake the Jesuit causes for sainthood of Newman and Pope Pius XII (The holocaust Pope). Shock –horror media reports and TV documentaries exposed the major part played by filthy lucre in the process of Roman saint making.
However, when the day for Escriva’s canonisation came, 250,000 pilgrims attended an orderly, ticket-only ceremony at St Peter’s, Rome. The BBC caught the angry reaction of latecomers refused entry to St Peters Square, but the cultic orderliness of the pilgrims kneeling on the cobbles, with priests distributing wafers, attended by minions sheltering them under white umbrellas, seemed anything but controversial. Rather it conveyed the haughty detachment of Opus.
Dr Ian Paisley intends publishing some old articles by the present writer under the title, Contemporary Rome Viewed Through History. Chapter 4 deals with the origins of Opus Dei. Little reliable information about Opus has appeared since 1992, despite increasingly aggressive media enquiries.
Cult of Founder
The present leader of Opus is Madrid-born Bishop Xavier Echevarria, 70. He is only the third leader in Opus 74-year history. Echevarria was Escriva’s former private secretary from 1953 until 1975. A leader for life, he replaced his predecessor bishop Alvaro Portillo on Portillo’s death in 1994. This slow succession serves to preserves the sinister personality cult of the founder and safeguards the deadly ethos of the organisation for the future.
Pope John Paul II, who is anti-Jesuit, "granted it (Opus) the status of ‘personal prelature’ in 1982, meaning that its members’ activities fall under Opus Dei jurisdiction rather than directly under their local bishop". It is amazing that Opus should have been granted such a lofty status even by a pro-Opus Pope. It is the key to the organisation’s power. Opus does as it wishes, and an ambitious Bishop who crosses Opus does so at his own peril.
Reliable estimates of the membership have grown from between 75,000 and 80,000 in 1992 to between 80,000 and 85,000 today. It is well over three times the size of the Society of Jesus. Escriva once said, "I would prefer a million times that a daughter of mine die without the Last Sacraments than that they be administered to her by a Jesuit," yet he wept when the Jesuits had him to dinner.
Fabulous wealth
The organisation’s Spanish roots led naturally to its spread in Latin America and other colonial Spanish regions. However its current growth in the USA shows that it has widened its non-Latin appeal in recent years.
The opening of a new 17-storey skyscraper headquarters in Manhattan, variously quoted as costing between 42 million and 54 million dollars, demonstrates the fabulous wealth of Opus.
The Opus business empire was built up by recruiting company directors while they were still at Business School. It was originally dubbed the "Holy Octopus" in Spain, but now its tentacles extend around the world. Research into Opus affiliated organisations suggests assets of half a billion dollars in the USA alone. There are known Opus business affiliates in over 20 countries and no doubt there are many more not known.
London headquarters
The London head quarters are at 5 Orme Court, London W2 4RL. Opus still recruits bright, idealistic and well connected children through education at sixth form or University level. Repressed Escriva always maintained total separation of the sexes. The UK London colleges are Netherhall House in Hamstead for men and Ashwell House in Islington for women. The rigid own-room policy, with a heavy educational programme, suits the agenda both of Opus and of fee-paying parents. Each college advertises separately and is run by a different charity. Ashwell is at present concentrating on medical education which is always popular with ambitious parents and children. The publicity now contains a small Opus disclosure: "The spiritual dimension of life," at Netherhall House/Ashwell House, "is entrusted to Opus Dei, a personal Prelature of the Catholic Church. There is a Chapel and a full-time Chaplain".
Scandals
The last 10 years have not been scandal free. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993 to 2001 was exposed as an Opus member after the department was heavily pruned and allegations had surfaced that pyrotechnic devices were used to speed the end of the Waco Adventist siege.
The disgraced FBA agent, Robert Hansen, who was jailed for life in 2001 for spying for the Russians over a 15-year period in return for payment of almost a million pounds, was exposed as a devout Opus Dei member. It surfaced that "Hansen’s brother-in-law was an Opus Dei priest in Rome whose office is mere steps away from the pope. One of their daughters is an Opus Dei numerary, a woman who has taken a vow of celibacy while remaining a layperson".
Hansen’s motive for his treachery was a desire to afford the Opus Dei lifestyle, and send his children to Opus schools. He justified his actions by the maxim of the old Jesuit moral theology of the greater or lesser good. Other psychological explanations are probably just Opus disinformation. Roman Catholics have held many of the top posts in the CIA for some decades and it seems reasonable to conjecture that this is how Opus gained entrance.
‘Pope’s Secret Army’
Opus can apparently take direct action on occasions. In September 1994, the popular Portuguese magazine VISAO carried an article entitled, The Pope’s Secret Army which was critical of Opus. VISAO was subsequently bombarded with unending Opus correspondence. This raised the cry that Opus only look after its own, for the magazine was renowned for criticising Rome in general and not publishing Roman Catholic responses. We are informed that, "Curiously enough, the offices of VISAO went up in flames shortly thereafter and since then VISAO has lost their appetite to criticize Opus Dei".
The alleged Opus connection with the extreme right wing and pro-Nazi movements in Europe keeps surfacing. So far the organisation has kept the lid on any evidence. Opus does this by lauding and only advancing those demonstrating fanatical devotion to secrecy. This is termed "holy discretion". However The Belgian Government were not fooled for a Belgian Parliamentary Commission Report on April 28, 1997 officially classified Opus as a sect.
The necessary miracle for Escriva’s beatification was the overnight healing in 1976 of a Carmelite nun who was suffering from swellings. The miraculous cure was authenticated "in part" by Opus doctors. The second miracle, which was necessary for Canonisation, was the healing of Dr. Manuel Nevado Rey’s skin condition. Here Opus has denied any complicity, but according to Jesuit Fr Reese’s scholarly book, Inside the Vatican, it is understood that there are "members (of Opus) in every (Vatican) department", which renders Opus assurance valueless.
Doctors know how "intractable" skin conditions can suddenly heal. As for Opus purchasing Escriva’s sainthood, Father Esser a chief Vatican Saintmaker, has confirmed that Opus money eased the passage of the cause.
Illegal canonisation
The Canonisation of Escriva transgressed canon law. Kenneth Woodward, a journalist and an insider, has proved that the ‘Devil’s advocate’ system was bypassed and witnesses hostile to Opus were not called.
Opus claims that eleven critics of Escriva’s canonisation were heard, but Woodward says there was only one. The "consultors" were mainly Italian and members of Opus. This prevented Escriva’s many critical Spanish peers upsetting the procedure. But it broke the convention that "consultors" should be the fellow countrymen of the proposed saint. Opus argues that Escriva was too "international" to need this.
What is more, it was out of order for forty per cent of the testimony to come from Escriva’s two henchmen, both of whom have since become Opus leaders. Wealthy Opus is alleged to have pressurised "hundreds" of Bishops, especially from the cash hungry third world, to send favourable reports to Rome’s saintmakers. It is alleged that 1300 Bishops sent in glowing reports. Yet of these only 128 had personally met Escriva. Furthermore, it appears that Opus have tightly restricted the Canonisation material even within the Vatican.
The De-humanising, anti-Christian spirit hidden within Opus, has recently been exposed by several courageous women who have left the movement. Escriva now faces damming charges that disqualify him from being regarded as a gentleman amongst natural men, let alone a saint and a type of God the "Father." The most complete of these accounts comes from founder member and former Opus high-flyer Maria del Carmen Tapia, who has now left the movement in disgust. Her manuscript entitled Beyond the Threshold was published in the face of massive Opus opposition, particularly to the English edition.
There are still anti-Opus websites clandestinely putting out snippets of the book in English, dating from when the book was secret and hot property.
Holy discretion
Opus met Tapia’s accusations with total public silence ("holy discretion"). At the same time Opus secretly engaged a prominent Romanist who was too important to ignore, namely the Pope himself, to put his name to a refutation of Tapia which had been written for him by Opus top men. This is an ancient Jesuit tactic. Thus it was that while VISAO had lost its appetite for anti-Opus material and Maria del Carmen Tapia was struggling to get the English edition of Beyond the Threshold published, an enormously well publicised book by Pope John Paul II entitled Crossing the Threshold of Hope was published simultaneously in 38 countries and in 21 languages.
Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican Director of the Public Relations Office of the Holy See, the highest profile member of Opus, was at a loss to explain why "neither the style of prose nor the central philosophies of this book are coherent with all other writings and words attributed to Pope John Paul II". Neither had he any credible defence against the charge that well-known chronological facts demonstrated beyond doubt "from a logistics and mechanical point of view,…(that John Paul II) would not have written the said book".
Tapia’s expose has all the marks of genuineness. It is written in a gentle tone of sadness rather than anger. It is unique in that it gives not just appalling facts but more importantly, the deadly spiritual atmosphere of Opus. Tapia is revealed as a well-qualified and scholarly woman writing in her maturity. She realised that information on Opus is "scarce and unreliable" and simply asks that Escriva be more "justly appraised". Her book deserves wide distribution as the only recent major expose of Opus itself rather than of Opus scandals.
Certainly someone who had the time could use it to refute point by point, the official, saintly picture of Escriva as found in his official biography by German Professor Peter Berglar and published by Opus publisher Scepter.
Make her talk
Irascible Escriva is found to be continually raging over trivialities, particularly amongst the junior women who cold not respond. His pride and vanity are all too clear to see. "Filiation towards the Father," far from being a relationship with God, is an exaltation of the man himself.
Escriva’s true character is particularly vividly portrayed in the events of Tapia’s final departure. Words cannot describe the harrowing scene in those pages as the Father demotes Tapia and her colleagues. "Monsignor Escriva breathed deeply…. You will no longer work for the Central Advisory… When Gladys left the sessions chamber Monsignor Escriva told the central directress .. in the presence of the priests… (what follows is not fit to print) …until she talks. MAKE HER TALK".
May the judgement of the Whore of Babylon be soon.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The empire strikes back
The empire strikes back
Edition: 1 - All-round Country
Section: Features, pg। 013
Attempting to hold back the tide of atheist literature and popular fiction, the Pope has launched a tome about Jesus, and it's set to be a bestseller, writes Jill Rowbotham.
WHEN The Da Vinci Code opened in cinemas across the world a year ago and became a box office hit, Pope Benedict XVI, then a year into his reign, remained silent on the theme that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had produced a line of descendants whom the Catholic Church and its subsidiary, Opus Dei, had long conspired to conceal.
The Pope was in fact working on a blockbuster of his own and last week his version of Jesus' story, Jesus of Nazareth, went on sale in the world's largest English language market, North America.
German, Polish and Italian versions of his book have already rung up sales of one million since their release last month.
When his new work hit the bookshops, the 80-year-old leader of the world's one billion Catholics, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was on a tour of Latin America.
Last week Newsweek published an excerpt from the new book about Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, saying: ``Benedict's portrait may contribute little to our historical understanding of Jesus, but what he does give is a window into his own, passionate and uncompromising faith, a faith that faces constant challenge in the world of ideas.''
Newsweek points out that Benedict, an elderly German theologian once labelled God's rottweiler, has been notoriously disapproving of unauthorised views of Jesus, even suspending an American priest for writing a book about Jesus that did not give sufficient credence to the resurrection.
``But for orthodox Christian believers, Benedict's book is a gift, a series of homilies on the New Testament by a masterful scriptural exegete,'' Newsweek says.
In Australia, religious scholar Francis Moloney has greeted the Pope's book enthusiastically. ``What's exciting to a person in my trade is here we have not just a historical report of what may or may not have happened, he's interested in what it means and what it means for him is that the baptism points to the cross, which links
it to Christian baptism.''
Moloney, who heads the Salesian order of John Bosco in Australia and the Pacific, is also an author. His latest book, The Gospel According to Judas, co-written with Jeffrey Archer, was released before Easter to widespread publicity.
He is interested to see what the Pope's books -- this is the first of two volumes -- will make of some of Christianity's abiding knotty problems: that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and part of a trinity with God the father and the holy spirit. ``It will be much more nuanced than most mainstream believers who would have it that Jesus of Nazareth walked around Palestine saying he was the second person of the divine trinity.''
Paul Collins, a former priest and now a commentator on the Catholic Church, declares the Newsweek excerpt ``vintage Ratzinger'', a reference to the Pope's long academic career in Germany before he was seconded to the Vatican.
``It's a theological interpretation of Jesus' life, not a conventional look at the Gospels in the sense that it is a verse by verse commentary,'' Collins says. ``In many ways he looks for the deeper symbolic meaning in the text and that in some ways is new, not in the church's traditions but in terms of modern scholarship of Jesus.''
In the baptism scene, Collins says Ratzinger struggles with the theology of Jesus being both divine and human. Although contemporary theological study emphasises Jesus as sharing in the human condition, the papal view is emphatic about Jesus' access to God and his reflection of the will of God.
Moloney and Collins zero in on the Pope's reassertion of the divinity of Jesus and reject that it was written in response to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, saying it has been in production for decades -- Moloney claims up to 30 years, Collins estimates up to 20 -- and with a number of chapters completed before Ratzinger became
Pope.
They have differing theories about a passage picked up by the media in the earlier translations released last month, which refers to ``the worst books, which destroy the figure of Jesus and dismantle faith'' and the interpretation of the Bible going down ``mistaken paths''.
Moloney speculates that the books the Pope refers to would not be popular fiction such as Brown's. ``The holy father would be concerned about much more dangerous books, serious scholarly books, particularly those coming out of the Jesus Seminar, that reduce Jesus to a mere 1st century wandering charismatic prophet.''
The Jesus Seminar is a group of modern scholars concerned with establishing what is historically reliable about the Gospels and Jesus. Its The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? by founder Robert W. Funk was published in 1997. Benedict XVI believes it gets the balance between Jesus' humanity and divinity wrong. There also has been a slew of anti-religion writers gaining a lot of media attention, among them Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (also showing as a two-part series on ABC television); Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great; American writer Sam Harris, with Letter to a Christian Nation; and, most recently, France's Michel Onfray, with The Atheist Manifesto.
Collins detects papal concern about another modern theological movement. ``He's obviously still quite critical of the way in which certain interpretations of scripture would work, for example liberation theology,'' he says. Liberation theology argues it is the church's responsibility to support human rights activism and to agitateor social change.
One of the movement's champions, San Salvador's archbishop Oscar Romero, was shot dead in 1980 after a sermon urging soldiers to stop carrying out the government's repressive orders. The movement has been a strong influence in Latin America in recent decades, angering the Vatican.
John Paul II aggressively opposed it -- Collins says he regarded it as a ``deviant exegesis [interpretation] of scripture'' -- and so did then cardinal Ratzinger. Moloney says: ``Cardinal Ratzinger was very opposed to it in the early days because he felt it was linked to a Marxist theology.''
There was clear evidence of that during the Pope's five-day visit to Brazil. The world's ``most Catholic'' country with 125 million followers was targeted to try to stop the significant outflow of faithful to Pentecostalism. The Pope is not the only church leader with this problem: the denominations that come under this category are experiencing satisfying rates of growth across several countries, including Australia, where they are represented by congregations such as Sydney's Hillsong and the Christian City Churches. Pentecostals tend to have a demonstrative style of worship, with an emphasis on music, and a conservative attitude to the Bible.
While in Brazil, the Pope attacked ``ethical relativism'', reiterated the church's opposition to contraception, abortion and divorce, and slammed rampant capitalism.
The Brazil visit is the biggest stir BenedictXVI has made since his famous speech in September at the University of Regensburg in Germany. He caused an uproar by quoting from a dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and ``an educated Persian'' that probably took place at the turn of the 14th century: ``Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.''
Eruptions of Muslim protest greeted these remarks and there was forensic examination of their meaning and context, but it was clear that intentionally or not, the pontiff profoundly offended some sections of that community. Collins attributes the impolitic remark to a changing of the guard in the Vatican: the trip fell between the departure of Cardinal Angelo Sodano as secretary of state and the arrival of his replacement, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. He points out it was taken out of context, the response to it was an overreaction and that the Pope made up for it with his trip to Turkey in December, when pictures of him in Istanbul's Blue Mosque were published across the world.
Like any world statesman the Pope juggles a range of issues: reconciliation with Anglican and Orthodox Christians, relations with Islam and relations with China, sexual abuse by clergy, pressure for concessions on condoms and celibacy, and dealing with AIDS.
While he has been trying to shore up relations and numbers in South America, bemusement has been building about when he will announce that Catholics are allowed once more to say the ancient Tridentine Mass in Latin, as opposed to saying the modern mass in Latin. The Second Vatican Council did away with the right to the former as part of the 1960s reforms that modernised the church. Collins says the old Latin mass's return has been ``predicted more often than Dame Nellie Melba's retirement'', noting it is an indication the Pope sometimes has difficulty making up his mind.
The feeling in Rome, says Collins, is that the Pope is getting more people to his public audiences than John Paul II, and that the composition of the crowd is fewer tourists and more followers.
``I certainly think the Pope has softened and he thinks it is his responsibility to be more universal, a reconciler of the community, but nonetheless he has not in any way compromised on a lot of the themes that were typical of him before his elevation.''
Australians will be able to make their own assessment in July next year, when the pontiff is due to make his first visit here to conduct the closing mass for World Youth Day in Sydney.
Copyright 2007 / The Australian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Australian, The, MAY 25, 2007 Item: 200705251013009640
Opus Dei - A Vatican Cult That Teaches SadoMasochism
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp83MqjO9tg)
Dominos Pizza owner creates special catholic town in Florida
(B24379 / Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:37:09 / "War on Terror")
A FORMER marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a £230m plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles.
Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.
Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.
The town will be centred around a 100ft tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university’s president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should “help rebuild the city of God” in a country suffering from “catastrophic cultural collapse”.
Monaghan, 68, sold his takeaway chain in 1998 for an estimated $1 billion (£573m). A devout Catholic who has ploughed millions into religious projects — including radio stations, primary schools and a Catholic law faculty in Michigan — Monaghan has bought about 5,000 acres previously used by migrant farmers.
The land on the western edge of the Everglades swamp will eventually house up to 30,000 people, with 5,000 students living on the university campus. Florida officials have declared the project a development bonanza for a depressed area, and Governor Jeb Bush attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new university earlier this month.
Yet civil rights activists and other watchdogs concerned about the separation of church and state are threatening lawsuits if Ave Maria attempts to enforce Catholic dogma. Environmentalists have also complained the town will restrict the habitat of the Florida panther, an endangered species.
None of which has deterred Monaghan, who initially tried to build his new university in Michigan but could not get permission. Asked recently about possible lawsuits in Florida, he replied: “That’s great. That would be the best publicity we could get.”
The Florida developers managing the project claim more than 7,000 people have already expressed interest in buying homes in the town. Retailers and other businesses are reportedly close to leasing 60% of the intended commercial space.
Monaghan was sent to a Catholic orphanage with his brother James after the death of their father on Christmas Eve 1941. After serving with the US Marines and later dropping out of university, he founded Domino’s in 1960 with his brother, who sold back his share for a Volkswagen Beetle.
Monaghan then set about building what became America’s second-largest pizza chain. He collected antique cars, bought a yacht and became the owner of the Detroit Tigers baseball team.
About 15 years ago he read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. “That was a big turnaround,” he said recently. “I decided to simplify my life. No more airplanes, no more yachts. It’s been a big relief.”
Sources close to the project said Monaghan was particularly disturbed by what he regards as the failure of western civilisation to resist Islamic fundamentalism. In a speech to students last year Healy warned that Islam “no longer faces a religiously dynamic West”.
Healy described the “virtual collapse of Europe” as “one of the most profound and unsettling developments of our new century”. He added: “If you consider the more telling signs, such as its plummeting birth rate, Europe does not even seem to believe in a future . . . children are a sign of hope and the fruit of obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.”
Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town’s commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases — notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Simon said the US Supreme Court had already ruled “ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion”. “If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that’s fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority.”
Frances Kissling, president of a liberal Catholic group supporting women’s rights to contraception and abortion, said the idea of a Catholic town was “very disturbing”.
“We have to learn to tolerate the fact that there are other religions — as well as non-believers — and the interplay of cultures helps make each of us more productive members of society. A Catholic-only town goes totally against that.”
Lawsuits appear inevitable once the new town begins functioning in 2007, but Monaghan believes he has more than the law on his side। “I think it’s God’s will to do this,” he said.
Hail Mary
Chastity fashion, paintball theology, golf-course mansions, and a Vatican-approved college: Domino’s pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan builds a city on a swamp.
Bill DonahueMarch/April 2007 Issue
Sadly, i missed the “modesty pool jump.” I was not on hand when a gaggle of students at Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, leapt fully clothed into their campus natatorium, so as to protest the rampant ungodliness of today’s bathing attire. I was absent, too, when Ave Maria’s Ch astity Team hosted its first-ever fashion show. I will need forevermore to satisfy myself with club founder Stephanie Smith’s tantalizing preshow promise, “It’s not going to be frumpy stuff,” for I visited Ave Maria—one of the nation’s newest, and perhaps most reactionary, Catholic universities—on a quotidian week in late autumn. The school mascot—Jax, a wrinkly English bulldog who often wears a blue blanket emblazoned “Marines“—was roistering about amid a succession of little prefab buildings, and the Ave Maria basketball squad was shambling back from the gym, looking battered. “What was the score?” I asked one player, a short, pudgy youth still in his game jersey. “One hundred twenty-six to thirty-seven,” he said between drags on his cigarette. “Pray for us. Pray for us.”
The whole scene might have been charming in its ultra-silliness were it not for the fact that the Naples campus of Ave Maria, which now boasts 400 students, is only the bud of the huge vision imagined by a billionaire Catholic hardliner. Tom Monaghan—who founded Domino’s Pizza in 1965, then sold it 33 years later, for $1 billion—has given generously to antiabortion groups and has recently made headlines with his pledge to help bankroll the long-shot presidential campaign of Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican who is the Senate’s most fervent pro-lifer. But Monaghan, now 70, sees his principal mission and legacy as founding Catholic schools. In 2000, he opened Ave Maria School of Law near the Domino’s headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Three years later he launched the school that I visited, using a former retirement home as a temporary campus, and is spending $400 million to construct his dream—a sort of right-wing Notre Dame University designed for 6,000 students that will, this fall, become the permanent home of all Ave Maria undergrads. (The law school may relocate there, too, but not before 2009.)
Now only partially built, the future Ave Maria University sits amid a flat, swampy, and desolate expanse of tomato fields and orange groves 30 miles northeast of Naples. A brawny, 100-foot-tall, arching Gothic oratory is already rising, soon to be flanked by the nation’s largest crucifix and encircled by an entire Catholic community, Ave Maria Town, which will welcome 25,000 residents. In keeping with the tenor of Naples, where the average home costs $1.95 million and Republicans outnumber Democrats by nearly 4-to-1, the town will not be a hive of spartan monks’ cells. Rather, it will feature a mix of “affordable” $175,000 town houses, $665,000 condos, and far more palatial Corinthian-columned manses equipped with lavish swimming pools. The golf course will be “championship” caliber, and the retail core will be at once walkable and pious. “Our plan,” Monaghan told a gathering of Catholics last year (sending constitutional lawyers into a kerfuffle), “is that no adult material will appear on the town’s cable system, and the pharmacy will not sell contraceptives.”
Essentially, Monaghan plans to draw a line in the sand against a trend he deems evil. Even as the rapidly growing church lists right worldwide and a few rock-ribbed Catholic orders—most notably Opus Dei—are surging, American Catholics are becoming ever more progressive.
Thirty-seven percent favor an easing of the church’s abortion policies, according to a recent cnn/USA Today/Gallup Poll, and fifty-five percent support the ordination of women. Meanwhile, several Catholic universities—among them Holy Cross and St. Scholastica—have gone so far as to play host to the dread Vagina Monologues.
Monaghan’s campaign may be a first in Catholic history. For centuries, the church’s schools have always been headed up by a religious order—the Benedictines, for instance, or the Jesuits. Monaghan, though, is stealing a page from Protestant evangelicals such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and invoking a decidedly corporate structure. “I’m a businessman,” he’s pronounced. “I get to the bottom line…. And the bottom line is to help people get to heaven.”
To conservatives, Monaghan is a deep-pocketed savior. Florida governor Jeb Bush, a converted Catholic, made Ave Maria Town a special tax district like Disney World, giving the self-appointed Board of Supervisors (run by Monaghan’s development partner) wideonging powers and exempting the town from state and local laws. John DiIulio Jr., once George W. Bush’s director of faith-based initiatives, is on the university’s board of regents, and Pope Benedict XVI—who has bemoaned the “dictatorship of relativism“—sees great hope in Monaghan’s school. A former student of the pope, Reverend Joseph Fessio, is the provost there, and when Fessio visited Rome recently, he reported that the pope asked, “How’s Ave Maria?”
It’s a question that few people can answer. The university insists that all interviews—with Monaghan, students, or faculty—be arranged through a PR office. When I sent in my request, noting that I’m a believing Catholic, I got the cold shoulder. “Why should I grant interviews to someone who’s going to kick the shit out of us?” publicist Rob Falls asked me. He added, “The campus is private.”
And so I trespassed in silence, mostly, until one Saturday evening when I saw a procession of students wandering the temporary campus, saying the rosary. I fell in behind them, my voice high and plaintive in prayer. And soon I was sitting in the student center, scribbling notes as four of my co-petitioners crowded around me, monitored—and then interrupted—by a lean, crew-cut young man with a lantern jaw, who rushed the table. “Whoa, whoa, whoa,” this student said, identifying himself as a resident assistant. “Is this, like, an interview? With the media? You can’t say anything to him—that’s official policy.” So we ventured off campus, to Applebee’s.
“The first time i ever kissed a guy,” a gentle, soft-spoken Ave Maria freshman named Mersadis said over her mozzarella sticks, “I thought it was disgusting. And now I don’t want another guy to kiss me before marriage.” She took a sip of her iced tea, then continued. “In high school, I found myself looking at every girl and asking, ‘Has she given up her virginity? Is she still pure?’ Here, I’ve stopped asking. I know everyone is.”
Beside me sat a stern and erudite priest-in-training, a freshman named Aaron. “Here at Ave Maria, we follow the teachings of the magisterium,” he intoned, meaning that students regard the pope’s guidance as infallible. “We have not prostituted ourselves…. Other Catholic schools—and the rest of America—have embraced modernism and the culture of death. They have given wholehearted support to the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. The value of the human person is now entirely relative.”
Aaron argued that the United States can only be saved from moral perdition if it, like Ave Maria, embraces the magisterium as supreme. “We don’t believe in the separation of church and state,” he said, “and this country should orient itself toward Christ. The foundation of Western civilization rests on Christendom, which means that America owes its existence to the Catholic Church.”
But Catholicism, as Aaron sees it, has been straying ever since the early 1960s, when Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council of bishops to update and humanize the church. Revising cobwebby doctrine, the council acknowledged that other denominations and religions also offered “sanctification” and “truth.” And Vatican II radically altered the standard Mass.
Prayers became shorter and simpler—and, as conservatives see it, a lax, unholy relativism gnawed its way into the church’s holiest rite. Where once the priest blessed the Eucharist in Latin, with his back to the congregation, he now faces his parishioners and speaks in the local tongue. “The offertory in the new Mass,” griped Aaron’s friend, an energetic and sandy-haired youth named Mike, “is essentially a Jewish table grace.”
A student at Florida Gulf Coast University, Mike has a fiancee at Ave Maria, and every weekend, when he pays her a chaste visit, he shuttles her two hours east to Miami, so that together they can take in a rarity not even offered on the Ave Maria campus: a Tridentine Mass, which uses the Latin and ancient prayers of the pre-Vatican II service. Quoting a 19th-century theologian, Frederick Faber, Mike called the ceremony, with its wafting incense and quietude, “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.” Mostly, though, Mike’s faith seemed dismissive in spirit. He was disdainful of “those dissenting Catholics. They’re just going to contracept themselves out of existence,” he snickered.
Aaron, meanwhile, spoke of Ave Maria with a smug, William F. Buckleyesque swagger. He called it “the bulwark of orthodoxy. And if you are devout,” he added, “the calling of celibacy is not a problem…. Christ did not marry Mary Magdalene and all that hogwash.”
Not everyone at ave maria shares Aaron’s self-certainty and resistance to change. In fact, one student tracked me down outside a dorm and in urgent, secretive tones said, “Don’t use my name, but I saw you talking to Aaron, and you should know that most people here think he has very extreme views on modernism.”
To Aaron’s chagrin, modern Masses take place often at Ave Maria, and indeed on the weekend I visited, four Franciscan friars from New York were there, barefoot and clad in simple gray robes as they treated students to a nonstop 40-hour retreat that looked very much like a pajama party love-in. The friars were strumming winsome and lyrical folk music on their guitars and getting hip in their homilies, depicting Christ as a survivalist paintball player, and unleashing rap riffs: “You gotta go with the Jesus flow / All of us gotta know.” One brother twisted low, hips swiveling, as, prayerfully, he sang, “I want to see-eee-eee you.” The students all swayed, barefoot themselves and ardent, like so many ecstatic pilgrims at a Grateful Dead concert, before a six-foot-tall, wooden, Ikea-ish structure—a “burning bush” appointed with candles.
And for a moment I thought, hopefully, that they were getting subversive and channeling a looser-limbed Catholicism, a faith not based on persnickety rule-mongering but on a generosity of spirit—the sort that historian Thomas Cahill believes suffused the Catholic Church in its early, most formative years. Cahill is a graying don of liberal Catholicism, and in his new book, Mysteries of the Middle Ages, he depicts his spiritual forebears as social revolutionaries who laid the groundwork for modern feminism by exalting women such as Hildegard of Bingen, a mystic nun. He calls the Franciscans, who commit themselves to aiding the poor, “the world’s first hippies“—and it is his version of Catholicism that sings to me. I am with St. Martin de Porres when he argues that the precept of charity trumps that of obedience. Sitting in Stella Maris Chapel, wondered if that Catholicism was somehow thriving at Ave Maria beneath Tom Monaghan’s radar.
I soon discovered that it most decidedly is not. The students are far too controlled for that to happen. They are forbidden to live off campus, unable to take any elective courses during their first two years, barred from having TVs in their rooms, and (according to the student handbook) subject to fines if they listen to “any music which is sacrilegious, obscene or violent.” One Ave Maria adjunct music professor, Lan Lam, told me, “They seem very sheltered, very polite. It’s as if they don’t know how to act up.”
The celebrants of the burning bush were, I learned, not radical lefties but rather Franciscan Friars of the Renewal—that is, affiliates of an obscure, newly minted conservative branch of the order. “I thank God for Bill Clinton,” preached a friar/priest named Father Juniper, “because he led me to pray more, by disrespecting the sanctity of human life and the sacredness of marriage.” Juniper’s spiritual brother, David, told a long, complex story about “rescuing” a pregnant woman outside an abortion clinic. The woman, he said, fled out to the sidewalk after her abortion was already in progress, and he kept talking about the pins that, he said, were protruding from the woman’s uterus. He described his rushing her to the hospital, through New York City, as a hilarious high-action chase scene. “But, sir,” he told a police officer in frantic, pinched tones, “we’ve got this girl with us who’s got sticks in her uterus!”
I left the chapel. On the walkway outside, I crossed paths with Lantern Jaw, the sober RA who’d hassled me earlier. He was looking very Secret Service now, in a crisp black suit, so I ducked away. I went to the library. The New Yorker was there on the periodical rack, along with the Weekly Standard, the American Conservative, and Human Life Review, but I leafed through Ave Maria’s campus paper, the Angelus. University president Nicholas J. Healy Jr. writes a column for each issue. In one he calls Islam “a hostile and aggressive religion,” and goes on to lament a “widespread loss of the Christian moral vision,” most evident in Europe, where “birth rates far below replacement levels have already allowed millions of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East to…heavily influence the political agenda.”
When I stepped outside, finally, I was relieved to find four rowdy guys huddled around the blue glimmer of a cell-phone screen, their mesh shorts drooping, their baseball caps askew and backward. “This shit is fuu-ucked up,” crowed one of them. I approached, thinking that maybe at last I’d located the wild heart of Ave Maria. “So,” I said, “are there any parties on campus tonight?” “Yeah, there’s a kegger over in Dorm 32.” “Really?” I rejoiced. But of course they were simply messing with me. “Dude, we’re Catholics,” said one. “We’ve got a lot of studying to do tomorrow. We’re going to bed.”
The next morning, i set out on my bicycle toward Ave Maria Town, the future site of the university. It was a long ride from Naples—and a journey into a different economy. When I detoured into the town of Immokalee, just six miles from the new Ave Maria, the houses lining the road were decrepit and had peeling paint, and the businesses on the main drag—La Michoacana, El Paraiso Restaurant—had bars on the windows.
Immokalee is the hub of southwest Florida’s agriculture industry, and during growing season upward of 35,000 people live here. The residents are migrant laborers, most of them from Mexico, Guatemala, and Haiti, and often they’re housed miles from town, in trailers chockablock with bunk beds. One Justice Department official has called Immokalee “ground zero for modern slavery.” His agency has successfully prosecuted six cases of involuntary servitude involving Immokalee-area workers in the past decade. A local advocacy group, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, has earned the ardent support of Catholic groups such as Pax Christi. But when I visited ciw’s offices, it was clear that their relations with Ave Maria were icy. No one there would speak on the record about Monaghan’s project.
I rode on toward Ave Maria Town, anticipating a pleasant, if cloistered, new urbanist mecca. On the development’s website, avemaria.com, it says that the community “has been designed to human scale. Street networks, distinctive character, and environmental sustainability are integral to its planning.” One future resident, construction manager Darryl Klein, who has six children, had told me earlier that he’d moved his family from South Carolina because Ave Maria represented “the ideal American community. It’ll be a place where you know your neighbors. We’ll be around like-minded people. The kids that play with my kids—they’ll go to the same church as us. And we’ll be accepted.”
I came around a curve in the road and saw the steel skeleton of the oratory rising out of nowhere, giant and irrefutable above the flat orange groves. The concrete shells of the university buildings surrounding it were gray blobs in the distance. I turned right, following a phalanx of construction rigs—at a distance because I’d been denied a tour of the town, too. Then, as I neared the security gate, I saw my moment. The guards, not hearing a motor, were looking away, so I bent low and pedaled all-out for the holy land. For roughly a quarter-mile I was in the clear. But then a security truck pulled up beside me, its yellow roof lights aglow and fluttering.
“Who are you with?” said the guard, sternly. “I’m just, like, on a training ride,” I said. A few seconds later I was back on the road to Naples I visited the makeshift ave maria campus one more time, on a quiet Tuesday evening, when I went back to the library to leaf through a book that many regard as the manifesto for Catholic educators: The Idea of a University, written by Cardinal John Henry Newman in 1852. The church “fears no knowledge,” Newman says, “but she purifies all; she represses no element of our nature, but cultivates the whole.” Elsewhere, Newman writes, “I wish the intellect to range with the utmost freedom.”
Soon after I jotted down these words, there was a rustling behind me: Someone was stepping in through the library door, and I turned to look. Lantern Jaw. For a second, our eyes locked. And then, not two minutes later, a dapper student security guard in a black tie was stooping beside my study carrel and speaking in murmurous tones: “I’m sorry, sir, but…”
I’d read about Ave Maria’s uniformed forces earlier, in the Angelus, where the school’s director of physical plant and security, Thomas Minick, was quoted saying that, in their vigilance, his boys were “no different than the 18- and 19-year-old Marines, sailors, and Army centurions who are guarding posts all around the world for the military.” I did not have a fighting chance. And so, without protest, I let the guard escort me outside, to my bike.
Then I rode away through the dark. Ave Maria was behind me, a bright island of light in Naples’ endless archipelago of separate, gated, green-grass communities, and I thought of the students sequestered there. I imagined them all huddled together, far from the rest of the world, in fear of their God. And I did pray for them, yes. And for my church.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Power and Control in Opus Dei
Powered by GoodWidgets.com
The photos above are extracted from Bildbyransilver , taken by Erika Larsen.
Foucault Discipline and Punish quotes
Tuesday 12 April 2005, by Neal Andrew
There are many parallels to be drawn between current antiterrorist legal and penal developments and the medieval and modern economies of power that Foucault describes in Discipline and Punish.
Opacity of Criminal Procedures
First, the opacity of current procedures. One of the main controversies of current and proposed antiterrorist legislation in the UK is that suspects are not allowed to see the evidence against them. Turning to Foucault’s historical account we can see some resemblances in the opacity and secrecy of the archaic sovereign regime:
«The entire criminal procedure, right up to the sentence, remained secret: that is to say, opaque, not only to the public but also to the accused himself. It took place without him, or at least without his having any knowledge of the charges or of the evidence. In the order of criminal justice, knowledge was the absolute privilege of the prosecution.» [1]
In the period that Foucault describes, the production of truth forms part of complex economy of power. The means of investigation and the means of punishment coincide. Today, as then, suspicion is the «mark of a certain degree of guilt as regards the suspect and a limited form of penalty as regards punishment». [2]
The procedures of investigation/punishment relate not to transparent codes of law and scientific truth, but to the symbolic affirmation of sovereign power. As Foucault writes:
«The secret ... form of the procedure reflects the principle that... the establishment of truth was the absolute right and the exclusive power of the sovereign...» [3]
The Body in Economies of Truth and Punishment
It is the body that constitutes the central object and point of application of both the means of acquiring the truth of guilt, but also the point of punishment for the guilt that is already presumed:
«The body interrogated in torture constituted the point of application of the punishment and the locus of extortion of truth. And just as presumption was inseparably an element in the investigation and a fragment of guilt, the regulated pain involved in judicial torture was a means of both punishment and of investigation.» [4]
The body is a necessary component in what Foucault describes as the sovereign’s right of life and death. The body, marked by torture, bears the imprints of guilt, the marks of retribution that correspond to the terrible acts committed and the reaffirmation of sovereign power. Unlike the ideal of modern legal proceedings, the truth of the crime is not uncovered by Aristotelian ‘reason without passion’. The sovereign claims ownership of the crime and its truth and therefore claims ownership over the production and demonstration of this truth. The body is not simply the object of punishment, but the site of the production of sovereign truth and the inscription of the symbolic and material reality of sovereign power:
«The body, several times tortured, provides the synthesis of the reality of the deeds and truth of the investigation, of the documents of the case and the statements of the criminal, of the crime and the punishment. It is an element, therefore, in a penal liturgy, in which it must serve as the partner of a procedure ordered around the formidable rights of the sovereign, the prosecution and secrecy.» [5]
Sovereign Power, Vengeance and Exceptionality
A symbolic crime against sovereignty is not simply an affront to the law, but an affront to sovereignty itself.
«It ... requires that the king take revenge for an affront to his very person. The right to punish, therefore, is an aspect of the sovereign’s right to make war on his enemies». [6]
In its symbolic import the spectacle of Guantanamo, however shrouded in mystery, corresponds to the spectacle of public execution in the middle ages.
«Its aim is not so much to re-establish a balance as to bring into play, at its extreme point, the dissymmetry between the subject who has dared to violate the law and the all-powerful sovereign who displays his strength.» [7]
Guantanamo is a contemporary echo of the archaic form of sovereignty that Foucault describes in such detail. As he explains:
«in monarchical law, punishment is a ceremonial of sovereignty; it uses the ritual marks of the vengeance that it applies to the body of the condemned man; and it deploys before the eyes of the spectators an effect of terror as intense as it is discontinuous, irregular and always above its own laws, the physical presence of the sovereign and of his power.» [8] [my italics].
The exceptionality of this archaic power lingers on today in synthesised remnants, reassertions and resurgences.
Disciplinary Power
The central trope of Discipline and Punishis to contrast and separate the old ritualistic forms of sovereign power from the minutiae of the new disciplinary techniques. This theme recurs constantly throughout the text. As Foucault explains here:
«Hitherto the role of political ceremony had been to give rise to the excessive, yet regulated manifestation of power; it was a spectacular expression of potency, an ‘expenditure’, exaggerated and coded, in which power renewed its vigour. It was always more or less related to the triumph.... Discipline, however, had its own type of ceremony. It was not the triumph, but the review, the ‘parade’, an ostentatious form of the examination. In it the ‘subjects’ were presented as ‘objects’ to the observation of a power that was manifested only by its gaze.» [9]
Foucault describes this new mechanism of ‘disciplinary power’ as coinciding with the birth of «an art of the human body». [10]
«What was then being formed was a policy of coercions that act upon the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behaviour. The human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it. A ‘political anatomy’, which was also a ‘mechanics of power’, was being born; it defined how one may have a hold over others’ bodies, not only so that they may do what one wishes, but so that they may operate as one wishes, with the techniques, the speed and the efficiency that one determines. Thus discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.» [11]
Disciplinary power was spawned from and spawned in turn a whole series of techniques and knowledges of the body. Disciplinary power was to be constructed not around the spectacular ritual, but around an intricate focus on the smallest details of human life.
Andrew Neal, School of Politics, Philosophy and International Relations, Keele University
Footnotes
[1] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 35.
[2] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 42.
[3] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 35.
[4] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 42.
[5] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 47.
[6] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 48.
[7] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 48-49.
[8] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 130, my italics.
[9] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 187-188.
[10] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 138.
[11] Foucault, Discipline and Punish, ibid., p. 138.
Extracted from http://www.libertysecurity.org/article203.html