Huge Crowds as Pope Makes Saint of Opus Dei Founder

Reuters News Service ^ | October 6, 2002 | Shasta Darlington

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul made a saint Sunday of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the controversial founder of the conservative Roman Catholic group Opus Dei, before one of the biggest crowds ever to flood the Vatican.

About 300,000 soberly dressed pilgrims from 80 countries filled St. Peter's Square and spilled into surrounding piazzas for the ceremony in front of Christendom's largest church.

"We declare the blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer a saint and include him in the annals of saints," the gold-robed Pope said, reading from a Latin formula.

He urged the faithful to follow in Escriva's footsteps and seek God in everyday life.

Escriva is the 468th saint proclaimed by Pope John Paul, who has declared more saints than all of his predecessors in the last four centuries combined.

Thousands of pilgrims turned out for the canonization of the Spanish priest who taught that Catholics could be saints by living completely ordinary lives and seeking holiness in everything they did, whether as a banker or a baker.

Escriva founded Opus Dei, which means "God's Work," in Spain in 1928. There are now 1,800 Opus Dei priests. The rest of the 84,000 members worldwide are ordinary Catholics, many of them professionals.

"For me he was important, as he managed to bring holiness into everyday life, he showed that we can all be saints," said Maria Siera Ramillan, who traveled from Spain for the ceremony.

CONTROVERSIAL SAINT

But in the years leading up to Escriva's 1992 beatification -- the last step before sainthood -- Opus Dei was frequently accused of having a dangerous, secret, fundamentalist agenda.

The group appears to have gradually opened up to outsiders, and even past critics have acknowledged that.

One of those who continue to criticize Opus Dei is Kenneth Woodward, author of the book "Making Saints -- How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn't, and Why."

Recently he wrote that Opus Dei's "wealth and influence have silenced most opponents...even admirers know little about the inner workings of this shadowy Church within the Church."

Supporters say the group is simply misunderstood.

Part of the controversy surrounding Opus Dei is that some of its lay members make commitments similar to the vows taken by priests and nuns, even though they work at ordinary jobs.

Sunday, the group's conservative nature was evident as huge crowds, many from Spain and Latin America, calmly made their way into St. Peter's Square.

The pilgrims' mood was markedly different from those at the canonisation of mystic Italian monk Padre Pio in June, when fireworks, street hawkers and loud cheers were the norm.

FAVORED BY POPE

Escriva died in 1975 and by 1992 was declared a "blessed" of the Church -- in record speed at the time, due in great part to the Pope's streamlining of the sainthood process.

The Pontiff has shown Opus Dei great favor. His spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls is one of the group's best-known members.

"The daily life of a Christian who has faith, when he works or rests, prays or sleeps, in all moments is a life in which God is always present," the Pope said Sunday, citing Escriva.

The ceremony lured many Italian luminaries, including the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Rome's mayor and deputy prime minister, Gianfranco Fini.

Manuel Nevado Rey, a Spanish doctor whose recovery from a debilitating skin disease was judged by the Vatican to be a miracle achieved through Escriva's intercession, was also expected to attend.

To reach out to the huge crowd, the 82-year-old Pontiff was driven down the long avenue from St. Peter's to the river and back.

[Siobhan]

Surprise - he IS a saint, and you are no angel. And Pope John Paul II is a good pope. Three strikes, and you are out.

Good-bye.

[ultima ratio]

Surprise--this canonization is as bogus as everything else coming out of Rome these days. By their fruits you will know them. Corruption. Fakery. Apostasy.

[Siobhan]

The only thing bogus is your authority to judge the Pope's actions. Ciao.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. The authority is the truth. The fix was in. You think you can pull rank and that settles it? Not even the Pope can dare claim the process was objective and honest. It was controlled at all times by Opus Dei.

[EODGUY]

Based on my knowledge of Pope John Paul II and the opinions of Salvation and Siobhan, I disagree with your comment, but have no interest in debating the issue with you.

Your reputation precedes you.

God bless,

EODGUY

[ultima ratio]

You refer, no doubt, to my reputation for telling it like it is. I notice that none of those you mention, nor you yourself, actually ever debate a point.

[EODGUY]

Yawn....wrong again.

Save your breath on someone who might buy your tripe.

End of conversation.

[saradippity]

You need to stop knee jerk reactions and start reading for content.I was referring to the glowing accounts sinkspur has been posting from the National unCatholic Reporter on the marvelous fruits of Vatican II.I hardly think you would agree with any of them,quite the contrary.However,whatever your objectives or their objectives,the damage you do to the Church you both claim to love is equally devastating.

[NYer]

He was known to have been dishonest, he loved worldly luxuries and honors, he was short-tempered with subordinates and turned away the poor. He sucked up to the rich and famous. What's to emulate?

What are your sources?

[Catholicguy]

<> St. Josemaria Escriva produced something of value - he even caused a splendid addition of the Bible to be written. He has MILLIONS of followers and he is a Saint. Look at the photo of St. Peter's Square.

Sadly, ultie, you can't even join in the joy celebrating the Blessed success of a Saint. Even raising a great man to the Altars is, for you, a source of consternation.

The schism has turned you into a little, bitter man. <>

[ultima ratio]

Again, you people don't address the issue. You call me a little, bitter man. But you can't argue the facts. Opus Dei had control of the canonization process. It prohibited any witnesses from testifying--even those most intimately involved with him--if they might introduce a negative perspective on Escriva. They did away with the office of "Devil's Advocate" or any other safeguard against canonizing someone unworthy. They had only their own physicians examining documents testifying to "miraculous" cures. They kept the process secret and do not even now explain how Escriva was supposed to have lived a life of heroic sanctity. Why should I celebrate such a farcical procedure? Escriva only died a short time ago. There is too much evidence he was not a saint as we understand this word, that he was dishonest, that he was indifferent to the poor, that he was short-tempered and vainglorious and self-indulgent, that he was quick to speak ill of others, behind their backs and to their faces. Despite all this, his cause was placed before others, before that of popes such as Pius XII or John XXIII. Do you think the rush to canonization was not political? It is laughable not to think so. Why then should I celebrate any of this? For absurdity is is right up there with kissing the Koran.

[Catholicguy]

<>The schism has turned you into a little, bitter man. <>

[TotusTuus]

He was known to have been...

Well, the best I can figure is that there were several people who said this, ergo, it MUST be true! (Go to any of the other threads about Escriva/Opus Dei and get sinky's link to ODAN). Maybe it's just me, but I perceive that the one who is the Ultimate of Reason really, REALLY does not like Escriva.

I'm no expert on every moment of Escriva's life, but notice the generalized character of the criticisms against him:

...dishonest... I'm sure at least one or two times in his life he was.

...he loved worldly luxuries and honors... Apparently, the title "de Balaguer" added to his name was a bad thing for some people for whatever reason.

...he was short-tempered with subordinates... Heehee, See St. Jerome!

...and turned away the poor... ??, Generally, he seemed to help the poor.

He sucked up to the rich and famous. Oh my! Give me a break.

[Siobhan]

Pull rank? What are you going on about? Your conspiratorial fantasies belong in a cheap mystery novel not on a FreeRepublic thread. Your purpose here seems to be nothing more than bashing the Pope as well as real Catholics who are in full communion with the Holy See.

Perhaps you are a bitter old man, or maybe you are a 20 year old without a girlfriend -- I have no idea about that, but I do know that you make scandalous accusations without a shred of proof. There is nothing to debate with you when all you do is flash us with your over-exposed hatred of the Holy Father and make ridiculous accusations about a newly canonized saint of Holy Mother Church.

Tchüß.

[ultima ratio]

Oh, come on, there is plenty of proof. Read Ken Woodward's articles in Newsweek. Read the Remnant on occasion. Read Catholic Family News. Read some of the articles that were posted on this site only recently. You won't argue the facts because you can't. The process was rigged in favor of a man who was unworthy. If that indicts the Pope, it is his shame, not mine. He is the one who keeps foisting these farces on the rest of us in the name of the Catholic Church. As for the personal put-down, that has become routine with you people. You never argue the issue, you only take potshots at those who disagree with you. I suspect it is a sign of desperation--you are running out of excuses for supporting the present system.

[Siobhan]

Dream on. You have no proof of anything. The only arrows in your quiver are several flavors of the same unrelenting hatred -- all-consuming hatred for the Pope, a burning hatred for Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, and a sizzling hatred for Opus Dei and for all Catholics who are loyal to the Holy Father Pope John Paul II and the Magisterium.

[ultima ratio]

The "burning hatred" and the "sizzling hatred" are not the kinds of words I ever use. I don't talk about feelings. I don't insult people. I argue a point of view. You people have got to look at your own behaviors to see what it is that prompts you to react with such hostility to anyone who criticizes your fixed views. Here is Kenneth Woodward, writing in First Things (61) on March 1996, in defense of his article in Newsweek:

"The only fair-minded conclusion I can reach given the evidence of the positio itself and interviews with people in Rome involved in the process, is that Opus Dei subverted the canonization process to get its man beatified. In a word it was a scandal--from the conduct of the tribunals through the writing of the positio to the high-handed treatment of the experts picked to judge the cause. That Newsweek caught Opus Dei making claims that were not true is a matter of record."

One of the claims put out by Opus Dei was that there was unanimous approval for the beatification of Escriva. This was false. Two judges--Msgr. Luigi de Magistris and Msgr. Justo Fernandez Alonso--did not approve and even predicted "grave public scandal" should Escriva be approved. One of the most shocking testimonies against Escriva was published by Maria de Carmen Tapia in her book Beyond the Threshold. Tapia was Escriva's secretary for a while and was a witness, along with others, of a shocking outburst in which he called her a whore and a sow and said of another woman numerary that someone "should take her panties and give her a spanking." Others witnessed similar outbursts. Many knew of his duplicity and vanity and love of luxury. Yet no one was allowed to testify who was not approved by Opus Dei. They also controlled the process itself, changing the rules to fit their candidate and eliminating all opposition. Even the physicians judging medical evidence for "miracles" were Opus Dei numeraries.

It is you who have the animus, not I. I am angry, yes--but not for the reasons you state. I am angry that a traditional process set up to guarantee that only the most worthy should be honored by the Catholic Church has been used to push the cause of a phony saint.

[Siobhan]

You denounce and insult the Pope and judge his canonization of Saint Josemaría Escrivá phony. That has been your fixed position from the start, and from your advent here at FreeRepublic you have been constant in your attacks on Pope John Paul II. Such behavior tells any genuine Catholic more than enough about you and your opinions.

[ultima ratio]

If you want to believe Escriva is a canonized saint--fine. But I think he is a phony saint because the process itself was phony. It was rigged from start to finish. Just another example of the falsity coming out of Rome these days. They've even forgotten how to be honest in declaring someone a saint.