Opus Dei, the Da Vinci Code and ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network)

http://www.odan.org/davinci.htm ^

[fishtank]

Opus Dei, the Da Vinci Code and ODAN

For those of us who have witnessed firsthand Opus Dei’s deceptive and manipulative practices, it has not been easy watching Opus Dei stage a large public relations campaign in order to dispel the image the book ‘The DaVinci Code” has projected about them. It is equally hard to watch Opus Dei not be honest about their questionable practices. An inaccurate explanation of what exists within Opus Dei is being projected through their public statements and media appearances. The timing of their response to the movie appears highly choreographed and feels more like a high powered Madison Avenue public relations firm is behind all the activity, rather than a “disorganized organization” as Opus Dei has recently portrayed itself.

Recently, high ranking Opus Dei men (no women!) convened in Rome in order to draft a campaign they call “Operation Lemonade,”[1] a light-hearted name that masks the controlled environment that exists within the group. The name does not lend itself to the reality of what Opus Dei truly practices - deceptive recruitment and manipulative control of its membership. “Operation Lemonade” produced three goals: 1. Turn publicity into an opportunity to proselytize; 2. Ally itself with other Catholics (essentially, hide behind the Church); 3. Maintain a non-aggressive tone.[2] In recent weeks, Opus Dei has tried to equate criticism of its organization with criticism of the Catholic Church. An example of how Opus Dei piggybacks itself with the Catholic Church is demonstrated in the statement “According to Brian Finnerty, U.S. Media Relations Director for the Catholic group Opus Dei, the novel [The Da Vinci Code] is a completely inaccurate portrayal of the Catholic Church.”[3] Does that include Opus Dei? To the casual observer Opus Dei could be taken as the Catholic Church.

ODAN does not agree with The DaVinci Code’s depiction of Christianity and does not question the divinity of Christ. However, where the Da Vinci Code is accurate is in its depiction of the blind obedience of the fictional Opus Dei character, Silas the albino monk. His behavior demonstrates the absolute control and obedience that exists in Opus Dei today. Former members have contacted ODAN with stories of pressure exerted by Opus Dei and a culture that demands obedience in every situation. Former members testify that they have been forced by Opus Dei directors to hand over their salaries, abandon past friendships, ignore dubious financial irregularities, turn over their mail to be read (without the senders’ knowledge), aggressively recruit, prepare monthly statistical reports about potential members, and even not attend siblings’ weddings. If they did not go along with what Opus Dei requested of them, in some cases dishonest acts,[4] they were told they risked eternal damnation and some were eventually asked to leave. Members who question Opus Dei practices are reprimanded and often led to the following quote from Opus Dei’s Founder, “If one of my children abandons the fight, or leaves the war, or turns his back, let him know that he betrays us all, Jesus Christ, the Church, his brothers and sisters in the Work…it would be treason to consent to the tiniest act of unfaithfulness…in these moments.” (Cronica, ii, 1972)[5]

A recently posted website, Jesus DeCoded,[6] explains among other things, the inaccuracies in The DaVinci Code regarding Christianity and the divinity of Christ. There is also a section “The Real Opus Dei”[7] by Peter Bancroft, the communications Director for Opus Dei in the United States. He gives his organization’s official description of itself. People who have been deceived, manipulated and hurt by Opus Dei would not agree with his assessment. He uses the opportunity to elevate Opus Dei as a benign organization. Because many uninformed people in regard to Opus Dei will be looking at this website, this Opus Dei spokesperson errs by projecting an image of Opus Dei that is only partially true.

Another source for information about The Da Vinci Code is “The Real History Behind The Da Vinci Code” by medieval scholar and historian Sharan Newman. Written in encyclopedic form alphabetically, there is a section on Opus Dei and ODAN. She reveals historical truths and myths in her book[8]

In the previews of the Da Vinci Code movie, the use of corporal mortification, specifically the discipline[9] (whip) and the cilice[10] (spiked chain) are depicted as violent, bloody acts. The sound magnifies their impact. This is a sensationalistic image and Opus Dei members mostly do not bring this practice to such heights, nor does the average Opus Dei member’s life resemble Silas’. This horrible depiction has given Opus Dei the opportunity to focus on the extremes of the movie and mask the real problems within Opus Dei.

A supernumerary member of Opus Dei recently appeared on a TV program and was asked to give her explanation of the use of corporal mortification within Opus Dei. When asked to comment about the use of the discipline, she said “a few people in Opus Dei just mildly slap it on their back while reciting prayers.”[11] Opus Dei numeraries do not “slap” their backs with the discipline, they hit their buttocks, and describing it as a slap is an attempt to soften the intensity of using it. Continuing she says “only a few people in Opus Dei use corporal mortification”[12]. Not one former numerary member has told ODAN in its 14 years of existence that they were not compelled to use the cilice and discipline. As a supernumerary member of Opus Dei, she does not have accurate information about what a numerary member’s life consists of. That Opus Dei nearly always puts forth supernumerary members for media interviews is in itself a deception. It is yet another example of Opus Dei secrecy and the ways it keeps the general public and even a portion of its members uninformed to what the other part is doing.

On March 22, 2006 Opus Dei launched a revamped web site in 22 languages[13]. On April 16, 2006 it issued a statement through most of their websites requesting a disclaimer on the upcoming film.[14] In an April 6, 2006 letter to Sony Corporation, Opus Dei wrote “Any such decision by Sony would be a gesture of respect toward the figure of Jesus, to the history of the Church and to the religious beliefs of viewers”.[15] The timing has allowed Opus Dei to be the driving force on media coverage prior to the film’s release and mixes criticism of Opus Dei with the Catholic Church. For the general public not familiar with Opus Dei, it would seem that individuals who criticize Opus Dei would also be criticizing the Catholic Church, which is simply not true. In almost fifteen years in existence, ODAN has never seen any significant sign that Opus Dei is open to honest criticism or willing to change harmful practices. In fact, the Founder himself wrote the following, “…as Jesus received his doctrine from the Father, so my doctrine is not mine, but comes from God and so not a jot or tittle shall ever be changed.”[16] The DaVinci Code did not cause Opus Dei’s bad reputation, they earned it themselves a long time ago.

To further demonstrate the depth and scope of criticism of Opus Dei, ODAN has received two separate letters from anonymous parents whose children attend several different Opus Dei schools. Both letters talk about manipulation and Opus Dei’s deceitful tactics: Letter 1[17] and Letter 2[18] They speak of not being able to question anything in Opus Dei without fear of repercussion. The aggressive recruitment that exists in Opus Dei is known far and wide by people who have been hurt by them, but especially at Opus Dei affiliated schools. Some schools do not even admit their ties with Opus Dei.

Joining in the criticism of Opus Dei are two other web sites, the Spanish Opus Libros [19] site located in Spain and the Portuguese Opuslivre[20] located in Brazil. The two websites were created separately from each other and ODAN and provide a critical view of Opus Dei. They provide a much needed connection about Opus Dei’s activity in other parts of the world. They are our sister websites and we welcome their existence. It clearly negates the statement on the part of Opus Dei that there are only a few critics.

Another example of Opus Dei’s dual reality is the case of Dennis Dubro, a former numerary member who has spoken out about Opus Dei’s controlling ways and dishonest practices. In his financial role at an Opus Dei dormitory in Sydney, Australia, Dubro recalls “The accounts were in complete chaos. We didn’t know how much was in the bank. There was money missing. Some account balances were off by hundreds of percents.”[21] (A spokesman for Opus Dei says he is not familiar with the details of this case but that “nobody was trying to cheat anyone.”)[22] How can the Opus Dei spokesperson know that nobody was trying to cheat anyone when he did not know the details of the case? Is it because Opus Dei makes blanket statements about their activity and will not admit wrongdoing? If anything, this statement by an Opus Dei spokesperson reveals Opus Dei’s true unhealthy nature and its inability to be truthful and honest about itself.

In John Allen’s book about Opus Dei, he states “think of it (Opus Dei) as the Guinness Extra Stout of the Catholic Church. It’s a strong brew, definitely an acquired taste, and clearly not for everyone.”[23] Yes, Opus Dei may seem to be a Stout Beer, but think of this possibility; it has purposely changed the label on its drink to something else, all the while keeping its true contents secret.

Jesus did not lie nor was He secretive about His ministry while He walked on earth. In John 18:20, Jesus answers His critics “I have spoken openly to the world…I have said nothing in secret.” His ministry was out in the open for all to see. When can we say the same about Opus Dei?

Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. May 10, 2006

[fishtank]

Do you know what happened to Full Court?

It looks like the account has been banned.

Thanks for the post, by the way.

No, I am NOT in agreement with TdVC, the book or the movie.

On a side topic, I've been hoping that someone would make a movie from almost any of Malachi Martin's books.

[fishtank]

Hey. I've been quiet a lot lately. I just got DSL at home, so that helps a lot. I'm able to be a lot more active online.

Our church is finishing the DaVinciCode video critique series by Lee Strobel.... pretty good.

[Campion]

Do you know what happened to Full Court?

Don't look at me, I didn't do it.

But I'm sure now someone will start spreading rumors that FR is really run by Opus Dei. After all, Full Court posts pictures of cilices and disciplines ... and see what happened to her ...

Seriously: I'm sorry Full Court was banned or suspended and had nothing to do with it. But describing Opus Dei as "fleecing the flock" and blaming them for David Hanssen is unjust.

On corporal mortification: practiced by practically every great Catholic saint since ... the 2nd century, maybe? St. Paul hints that he practiced it. Mother Teresa's nuns use the cilice and discipline. All of the monks who copied all of the Bibles which preceded yours, the Benedictines who saved western civilization, used corporal mortification of one sort or another.

Only O.D. numeraries (celibate full-timers) use it, and only under the advice of their confessor. They're supposed to wear the cilice for 2 hours a day, and use the discipline only for the duration of a short vocal prayer (e.g. an "Our Father" -- maybe 20 seconds or so). It doesn't draw blood, it doesn't even produce welts or bruises; it's only supposed to sting a bit.

(Look, St. Francis of Assisi -- that notorious sicko! -- once rolled around in a thornbush to quiet his sinful urges; this is mild stuff by comparison.)

The rest of us are encouraged to practice mortification by, say, forgoing my nasty comment to Full Court a few posts back (for which I'd like to apologize), or maybe not chewing out people who cut in front of us in traffic.

As far as required weekly confession to Opus Dei priests: I strongly doubt it; there's not much point in requiring someone to go to weekly confession if they have nothing to say (it just wastes everyone's time).

Opus Dei priests are basically under orders to give people light penances (and I can speak from personal experience here); St. Josemaria said that they (the priests) should make up the difference by their own penances to teach themselves to be good mediators in persona Christi.

To sum up: Opus Dei is Catholic. It's not full of perfect people, it's full of sinners. It's not Catholic-lite, or Catholics wanting to be Protestants*, or cafeteria Catholic, or schismatic ultra-traditionalist, or a "sect," or a "secret society," or anything like that.

It's just people exploring the spirituality of plain, undiluted serious Catholicism as a path to heaven through the merits of Christ.

The people who hate the Catholic Church will hate Opus Dei.

The people who love the Catholic Church ought to love Opus Dei.

And that is as it should be.

*Both of the supernumeraries in my local region are converts from Protestantism. One started out an extreme Calvinist, then became Episcopalian; the other started out Episcopalian.

[fishtank]

I have family members who are involved in work against Opus Dei. They are Catholic, I am not. I agree with their efforts, based on what they they have told me, which is summarized below. This is NOT a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. In that regard, I am not in agreement with Full Court on this thread. On this thread, my objections to OD were not meant to be from a Protestant perspective, since I have so many family members who oppose OD, and these family members are either Tridentine Rite or conservative Novus Ordo Catholics. So for me, this thread was not meant to involve a Reformation redux.

---

Repost of #27.

"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"

#27 posted on 05/20/2006 12:00:43 PM MDT by fishtank (http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm)

[Campion]

First of all, everything in your post applies only to numeraries.

The vast majority of people involved with Opus Dei aren't numeraries, but supernumeraries and coöperators. (Supernumaries and coöperators aren't celibate and live their lives like ordinary Catholic Christians. I'm a wannabe coöperator. I expect that when I become a real coöperator, my wife will start reading my mail, hmm? ;-))

Second, some of the stuff you describe was common to virtually all religious orders prior to Vatican II. For example, virtually all convents or monasteries read (past tense) personal mail. Unaccompanied travel was generally not permitted for women religious; nuns always travelled in twos or threes. It was that way up until the mid 1960's, BTW.

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."

Hmm, I seem to remember some Scriptures pointing in that direction.

Look, we're talking about adults, not little kids. They're exercising a free choice to do what they're doing. What if they were entering a cloister? Then they'd never get to see their parents again except through a grille. That's again part and parcel of life as a vowed religious, which is what a numerary is.

Finally, I would take what you read on ODAN with a grain of salt. It's a website with an agenda.

People who don't like the life of a numerary and don't feel that God is calling them in that direction ... shouldn't be numeraries.

[maine-iac7]

Post #46 is a flat-out calumny

How do you figure that?

(Fullcourts Post 46: in answer to my remark re: Opus Dei )

My remark: "Or might one have reason to suspicion they perform other functions?"

Fullcourts answer: " Yeah, like fleecing the flock and turning out spies like Robert Hanssen?"

Why is it calumny? That's a little like, if someone says, "The sun rises in the east" - you call it calumny,

Do a GOOGLE on "Robert Hannsen spy Opus"

I'll give you a hint - he was Opus, his kids were in Opus schools, he was and did despicable, traitorous acts and, according to reports, had less morals than an alley cat.

Fullcourts post was hardly "calumny"

[Campion]

I'll give you a hint - he was Opus, his kids were in Opus schools, he was and did despicable, traitorous acts and, according to reports, had less morals than an alley cat.

Ever heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

Do you have the slightest evidence that Opus Dei encouraged Hanssen's spying or excused it in the slightest?

How is it that O.D. is at fault for Hanssen, but gets no credit for the thousands of productive, happy people who get a lot out of the Work?

One bad Jew means all Jews are bad; one bad Opus Deista means all Opus Deistas are bad. That's the logic of bigotry, calumny and stereotype, not of reasonable discussion.

As for "fleecing the flock," that's also a calumnious accusation. Care to specify who has been "fleeced," and by whom? Care to provide evidence that that is Opus Dei's "function"?

Of course not. If someone said, "What is the Southern Baptist Conference's function?" and someone else answered "Promoting dishonest televangelists and providing treasonous Bible-toting presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton" would that be calumny, in your view?

Because it would be in mine, and the two comments are exactly the same as far as their accuracy is concerned.

[fortheDeclaration]

Indeed Jesus did pay it all. Don't get me wrong, I would never advocate the use of a fishook thigh bracelet, but I do wonder what you, who is obviously Protestant, would think of what St. Paul said. Now I know that the KJV translators changed this statement of St. Paul's, but other Protestant translators have not.

Actually Tyndale had 'I tame my body and bring it under subjection'.

This ofcourse had to do with self-discipline (something very lacking in Christian churches today I might add), but not bodily abuse,

Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which indeed things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship and humility, and neglecting of the body not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (Col.2:21-23).

Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei?

We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican!

[FJ290]

Actually Tyndale had 'I tame my body and bring it under subjection'.

Which translation is right? One that was written closer to the time of the translation of the original Apostles writings or one that is translated centuries later? Why do some Protestant Bible translations agree with the Catholic Bible translation?

Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei? We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican!

Oh no! You found out about the great Jesuit conspiracy too? Shh... and be very careful.. I know several and if you make me too mad, I may send them after you.;-)

[fortheDeclaration]

Actually Tyndale had 'I tame my body and bring it under subjection'. Which translation is right? One that was written closer to the time of the translation of the original Apostles writings or one that is translated centuries later? Why do some Protestant Bible translations agree with the Catholic Bible translation?

Some 'Protestant' translations agree with the RCC translation because they follow the same corrupt Alexandrian text type dominated by the manuscripts Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph).

There are two streams of Bibles, one that follows the Received Text line (Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Geneva, King James) and then the others that go the route of the RCC and follow the Alexanderian line (Westcort/Hort, RV, ASV, NASB, NIV)

The NKJ is really an Alexandrian bible disguising itself as a King James.

Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei? We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican! Oh no! You found out about the great Jesuit conspiracy too? Shh... and be very careful.. I know several and if you make me too mad, I may send them after you.;-)

I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James.

[FJ290]

Some 'Protestant' translations agree with the RCC translation because they follow the same corrupt Alexandrian text type dominated by the manuscripts Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph).

Corrupt? The Catholic Bible was written centuries before any of the Protestant Bibles. I see we have a KJV Bible devotee here because I've seen this same argument from Protestants before. Let me tell you something, you better think about what you are saying. If the Bible we have was corrupt, then so is yours. The NT you read is possible because of the Catholic Church and you guys didn't change much about that. Heck! Even the original KJV had the seven books in the OT the Protestants later eliminated.

I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James.

Oh but you're wrong! See, that's all part of the great Jesuit cover-up. They make you think they only go after the big shots so that they can get unsuspecting people like you. You can probably read all about it in Dan Brown's next autobiographical publication, "Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist." Good night!

[fortheDeclaration]

Some 'Protestant' translations agree with the RCC translation because they follow the same corrupt Alexandrian text type dominated by the manuscripts Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). Corrupt? The Catholic Bible was written centuries before any of the Protestant Bibles. I see we have a KJV Bible devotee here because I've seen this same argument from Protestants before. Let me tell you something, you better think about what you are saying. If the Bible we have was corrupt, then so is yours. The NT you read is possible because of the Catholic Church and you guys didn't change much about that. Heck! Even the original KJV had the seven books in the OT the Protestants later eliminated.

It is clear that you know very little of Bible transmission.

The Apocrypha books were never part of the Canonical OT, even Jerome would not make them part of the Vulgate.

It took Trent to do that.

As for the Catholic Bible, there was always a pure line of the Greek text, largely preserved in the Byzantine East.

When those texts became available in the West, Erasmus put them together into a Greek Text that was the pure text of the 1st century Apostles.

Those same readings were also found in other translations of the Goths and the Waldensians.

Ofcourse, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons.

I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James. Oh but you're wrong! See, that's all part of the great Jesuit cover-up. They make you think they only go after the big shots so that they can get unsuspecting people like you. You can probably read all about it in Dan Brown's next autobiographical publication, "Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist." Good night!

So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange?

They didn't attempt to kill King James?

They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome?

Now, who are you trying to kid?

Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened!

[fortheDeclaration]

even Jerome would not make them part of the Vulgate.

Let me reword this, even though Jerome put them in the Vulgate, they were not considered as Canonical and equal to the Hebrew Books in authority.

[FJ290]

It is clear that you know very little of Bible transmission. The Apocrypha books were never part of the Canonical OT, even Jerome would not make them part of the Vulgate. It took Trent to do that.

That isn't correct. Trent only reaffirmed the books that were in the Canon for centuries. What the Council addressed is that the new Protestant versions that were coming out were not official, acceptable translations.

Of course, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons.

You've been reading too much Dan Brown or the spurious publication "Trail of Blood" that even honest Baptists will admit is a totally fabricated work of fiction.

So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome? Now, who are you trying to kid? Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened!

HUH??? William of Orange died of pneumonia after falling from his horse and breaking his collarbone!! I suppose you are going to tell me that the Jesuits were there and caused him to fall off his horse? Please.. where are you getting this information?

BBC info on William of Orange

As to King James..the Jesuits didn't attempt to kill him, it was a group led by Guy Fawkes that wanted to kill him because of the mistreatment of Catholics in England at the time. The co-conspirators were "Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter, the originators, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, Robert Keyes, Guy Fawkes, a soldier who had been serving in Flanders, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Ambrose Rookwood, and Thomas Bates."

Not a Jesuit among them. Now I have to go to because I've got to meet a client by 10 in the morning. I've wasted enough time talking to someone that is dredging up past wounds and doing so with information that is completely false.

[fortheDeclaration]

It is clear that you know very little of Bible transmission. The Apocrypha books were never part of the Canonical OT, even Jerome would not make them part of the Vulgate. It took Trent to do that. That isn't correct. Trent only reaffirmed the books that were in the Canon for centuries. What the Council addressed is that the new Protestant versions that were coming out were not official, acceptable translations.

Jerome did not accept the Apocrypha books as equal to the Canon.

Other Catholic scholars held to the same view.

It was Trent that made the Apocrypha part of the Canon.

Before that they were considered secondary works.

Of course, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons. You've been reading too much Dan Brown or the spurious publication "Trail of Blood" that even honest Baptists will admit is a totally fabricated work of fiction.

No, that is simple history.

How many Protestants did Bloody Mary burn at the stake?

Over 300 wasn't it or is that myth also?

So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome? Now, who are you trying to kid? Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened! HUH??? William of Orange died of pneumonia after falling from his horse and breaking his collarbone!! I suppose you are going to tell me that the Jesuits were there and caused him to fall off his horse? Please.. where are you getting this information?

BBC info on William of Orange

That is the wrong William of Orange.

William the Silent or William of Orange (William I, prince of Orange), 1533–84, Dutch statesman, principal founder of Dutch independence. 1 Early Life A descendant of the Ottonian line of Nassau, he was born at Dillenburg, near Wiesbaden, Germany, of Protestant parents. After inheriting (1544) the holdings of the branch of the Nassau family in the Low Countries and the principality of Orange in S France, William was reared a Roman Catholic at the insistence of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, whose favorite page he became. In 1555 he was made stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht. 2

Struggles with Spain William ably served Philip II of Spain as a diplomat, particularly in the making of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559), but Philip’s encroachments on the liberties of the Netherlands and the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition by Cardinal Granvelle led William to turn against the king. In 1563, with the help of counts Egmont and Hoorn, he succeeded in obtaining the removal of Granvelle, but under the regency of Margaret of Parma disorders grew in the Netherlands.

3 In 1566 the party of the Gueux was organized with William’s connivance, and when Alba was sent to the Netherlands to quell the rebels, William withdrew to Germany. When he refused Alba’s summons to appear before a tribunal, his property was confiscated. William and his brother Louis of Nassau raised an army to drive the Spanish out of the Netherlands. They at first met defeat, but in 1576 the provinces of the Netherlands, taking advantage of the mutiny of the Spanish army under John of Austria, united under William’s leadership in the Pacification of Ghent for the purpose of expelling the Spanish. In 1573, chiefly for the sake of policy, William had become a Calvinist.

4 The struggle with Spain continued. The Union of Utrecht (1579) proclaimed the virtual independence of the northern provinces, of which William was the uncrowned ruler, but the victories of the Spaniards under Alessandro Farnese forced William to seek French support by offering (1580) the rule over the Netherlands to Francis, duke of Alençon and Anjou. Philip II denounced William as a traitor, and a high price was set on his head in 1581.

5 William replied with his famous Apologia, in which he not only sought to vindicate his own conduct, but hurled violent accusations at the Spanish king. In the same year the representatives of Brabant, Flanders, Utrecht, Gelderland, Holland, and Zeeland solemnly declared Philip deposed from sovereignty over those provinces. William’s support of the unpopular Francis resulted in the wane of William’s own popularity during his last years. He was assassinated at Delft by a French Catholic fanatic, while the struggle against Spain was still in a critical stage. 6 http://www.bartleby.com/65/wm/WmSil.html

As to King James..the Jesuits didn't attempt to kill him, it was a group led by Guy Fawkes that wanted to kill him because of the mistreatment of Catholics in England at the time. The co-conspirators were "Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter, the originators, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, Robert Keyes, Guy Fawkes, a soldier who had been serving in Flanders, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Ambrose Rookwood, and Thomas Bates." Not a Jesuit among them. Now I have to go to because I've got to meet a client by 10 in the morning. I've wasted enough time talking to someone that is dredging up past wounds and doing so with information that is completely false.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a desperate but failed attempt by a group of provincial English Catholics to kill King James I of England, his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. The conspirators had then planned to abduct the royal children, not present in Parliament, and incite a revolt in the Midlands.

The Gunpowder Plot was one of a series of unsuccessful assassination attempts against James I, and followed the Main Plot and Bye Plot of 1603. Many believe the Gunpowder Plot to have been part of the Counter-Reformation.(emphasis mine)

The aims of the conspirators are frequently compared to modern terrorists, however, their actions were not designed to merely influence government policy by evoking terror; their real aims were nothing short of a total revolution in the government of England and the installation of a Catholic monarch. (emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

The exercise was becoming costly and more hands were required, so Catesby drew more accomplices into the inner circle of the plot, including his servant Thomas Bates, John Wright's brother Christopher Wright, and Thomas Wintour's brother Robert Wintour. In the ensuing months, Parliament's sitting was continually delayed, allowing Fawkes to return to Flanders to get more powder to replace the powder which had begun to spoil, and Catesby to organise further support (and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard. John Grant,(emphasis added) Sir Everard Digby, Robert Keyes, Ambrose Rookwood, and Catesby's cousin Francis Tresham were subsequently brought into the plot. Tresham was the son of Sir Thomas Tresham, one of the leading Catholics of the later Elizabethan period, and one who had suffered greatly for his faith at the hands of the government. Grant was the brother-in-law of Robert and Thomas Wintour, and Digby, Keyes and Rookwood were also disaffected members of Midland Catholic families. All but Fawkes and Bates were related either by blood or marriage.

http://www.britannia.com/history/gunpowder2.html

[FJ290]

No, that is simple history. How many Protestants did Bloody Mary burn at the stake? Over 300 wasn't it or is that myth also?

No, the Trail of Blood is a Baptist MYTH. There's not a historical fact to it. How many Catholics have Protestants killed? How many did Queen Elizabeth mow down? King James? Others?

That is the wrong William of Orange.

State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!

(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard.

Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, that is simple history. How many Protestants did Bloody Mary burn at the stake? Over 300 wasn't it or is that myth also? No, the Trail of Blood is a Baptist MYTH. There's not a historical fact to it. How many Catholics have Protestants killed? How many did Queen Elizabeth mow down? King James? Others?

And who is talking about the Trial of Blood?

I never even mentioned that work.

Stop throwing up smoke!

That is a Jesuit tactic!

LOL!

As for killing Catholics, well how many did Elizabeth kill?

Very few in comparsion.

Likewise with King James.

Compared to Rome, Protestants were tolerant to the exteme.

That is the wrong William of Orange. State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!

William of Orange is his name as well.

A Spanish agent?

You mean a Roman Catholic agent?

As for being killed by a Jesuit, aw come on now, you know how well those rascially Jesuits cover up their trial!

(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard. Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.

What I have shown is that it is historical fact that the plot was considered part of the Counter-Reformation, of which the Jesuits were the militant branch of.

Stop kidding around!

[FJ290]

Should have edited that better:

No, the Trail of Blood is a Baptist MYTH. There's not a historical fact to it. How many Catholics have Protestants killed? How many did Queen Elizabeth mow down? King James? Others?

State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!

From your article:
(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard.)

Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.

[fortheDeclaration]

As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the Counter-Reformation; the re-conquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the Church, and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm

[FJ290]

What I have shown is that it is historical fact that the plot was considered part of the Counter-Reformation, of which the Jesuits were the militant branch of. Stop kidding around!

You must be getting tired because that is NOT what you originally said is it? You falsely accused the Jesuits of killing William the Silent and attempting to kill King James.

Your own words from post #112:

So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome?

Who is kidding who and who is throwing up smokescreens?

As for being killed by a Jesuit, aw come on now, you know how well those rascially Jesuits cover up their trial!

Yeah, according to those Jack Chick publications you've been reading. Don't deny it either because I saw your admission to that on another thread. You also think all Catholics are condemned to hell because they don't believe as you do. Saw that little number on the Luther/Erasmus threads. Isn't there a rule here against religious bigotry?? Gee, there sure is.. it's right on the front of FR's homepage.

Enjoyed to talking to you until I found out you are a Jack Chick enthusiast and that you take that devil seriously. Well.. gotta run. I can only catch about 4 hours of sleep before I meet with a client. This has gone past being worth losing sleep over.