Many people have been purposely fooled by propaganda disseminated by Opus Dei leaders, which infers its members practice heroic mortification by their use of [mandatory] penitential devices such as whips and cilice's. Read an excellent letter (below) which unmasks for all, Opus Dei's error-filled policy of "mandatory self-flagellation" by its members. The author of this letter, by applying Traditional Church Teachings, clearly shows Opus Dei's policy to have nothing in common with the virtue of mortification and/or holy penitential exercises, but is in fact, a sadistic novelty, which is completely foreign to the Mind of the Church. "Therefore is it that the Catholicity of a great number of people in our times is a Liberal Catholicity, or, rather, a false Catholicity. It is really not Catholicity, but mere naturalism, a pure rationalism; it is in a word paganism disguised in Catholic forms and using Catholic language." -Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany, excerpt from his classic book, Liberalism is a Sin.

[Our Lady and Our Lord were both Humble and Poor]

[*This letter was originally sent by its author on 01/08/02 (Documented) to the "leaders" of the Vatican II sect "holed up in Rome," who in their spirit of dialogue, promptly shredded it.]

I read Carmen Tapia’s book, and despite her long sojourn into the Opus Dei, she is credible. She draws few, if any, conclusions because her experience of being deceived has hampered that ability, but the facts she relates speak clearly to a Catholic. Her recollections were consistent with a lapse of time of some 20 years, and when her recollection was more detailed, her explanation for the additional detail is also credible. Lastly, her book was documented when documentation was called for, and the documentation was very condemning of the subject she wrote about.

Ms. Tapia states that when she became a numerary with Opus Dei, she was given a whip to whip herself, a cilice to tie around her thigh (designed to cut off the circulation and cause pain), and she was shown a room with a bed without mattress that she was told to sleep on. She did not ask for these things. The idea of corporeal mortification did not emanate from her own interior reflection. The idea, direction and torture devices were handed to her for their obvious purpose by persons in authority at Opus Dei, by persons to whom she stood in obedience. Under a contrived duty of obedience, she whipped herself and cut off her own blood circulation on a weekly basis, and weekly, she was asked to confirm that she used the torture devices on herself. The instruments of torture and the direction for numeraries to use them was something conjured up by Msgr. Escriva, who is said to have reached the height of sanctity in his life.

Photo of Monsignor Escriva which is widely distributed by Opus Dei itself.

I am very much aware that saints in the past have engaged in severe corporeal mortifications, and I have a Catholic understanding of it. Such severe corporeal mortifications of the saints, kept secret while they lived, came to be known after their deaths. They were acts of heroic virtue, and they cannot be imposed under pain of sin or under obedience. I have never read of a saint handing someone else a whip, or any other torture device, with an authoritative direction that they use these extraordinary and severe mortifications upon themselves. However, I have heard of extraordinary people who were far from sanctity doing such things to other people. The saint would provide for others all the creature comforts that he denied for himself, often doing the penance for others who were unwilling or who could not penance. When we read about the saints, we learn of these acts of heroic virtue. Some of us, not many, follow their example, not their order.

In the Opus Dei examination of conscience, which is used by its members, the Opus Dei penitent is asked, "Did you engage in your corporal mortifications?" An examination of conscience is done to raise a consciousness of our "sins." Clearly, by constructing such an examination of conscience, Opus Dei is informing its lay members that their failure to engage in acts of heroic virtue are sins, which is false.

Such corporeal mortifications are acts of heroic virtue. Heroic virtue always emanates from interior reflection, from the mind of the saint alone. Heroic virtue cannot be imposed, if it is to be considered heroic, nor, if these acts are to remain virtuous, they cannot be performed in obedience to your superior. These carefully scrutinized acts were extraordinary, but most importantly, voluntary. And our intentions in engaging in such acts must be scrutinized by our confessors in order to insure that the idea to engage in it did not emanate from perversion, but from sanctity. A person engaging in such acts is required to seek "permission" from their spiritual directors. But is it "permission" that is sought when the idea and direction comes from your superior, from your boss? How can it be deemed "voluntary" when the idea and directions given en masse for all numeraries are given by the boss in charge. What’s worse, the Opus Dei Spiritual Director or confessor who is supposed to be scrutinizing the motives and granting permission, also stands in obedience to the one handing out the whips! How can there be proper scrutiny of motives of the individual, when both spiritual director and numerary are motivated by obedience to the whipmaster, for the simple reason that the idea was conjured up in his mind, and not theirs. How then can these acts of imposed self-torture be sanctified and be made holy? And what are we to think of the person who imposed them? It is inconceivable that they have made such a man a saint.

One small thing askew, and charity turns on its heels. The watered-down muddle in Church teaching blurs all the fine distinctions that must be made if we are to stop ourselves from crossing that thin line between love and hate - and if we are to know who is a saint and who clearly is not.

In her book, Ms. Tapia did not state whether Msgr. Escriva engaged in the torture that he imposed upon others under his authority, and there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial that he did. One can certainly draw more than one inference from the blood on the walls that witnesses attest to, and therefore the blood is neither direct evidence, nor circumstantial evidence of his sanctity. As a matter of fact if the inference to be drawn is that it was his blood on the wall that everyone gawked at while he lived, then for the simple reason that he did not wipe it off, tells you that he wanted people to know that he was doing to himself, which would tend to negate his sanctity, not confirm it.

"The greatest wisdom of all is to seek the kingdom of heaven by despising the things of this world."
-St. Benedict Joseph Labre

What we do know from Ms. Tapia and many other authors is that the Opus Dei residences were furnished elaborately and as replicas of famous places. Ms. Tapia said that the food at Opus Dei was not meager, but inclined more to the gourmet’s appetite. It was reported that one Archbishop who dined there stated that the food and presentation were so elaborate (gold dinnerware, the finest gourmet food) that he grew sickened by it and could not eat. The food and furnishings sought after by Msgr. Escriva, is not consistent with a finding that the blood on the wall constitutes sanctity. The blood on the walls, should it be his, begs another inference, contrary to sanctity.

[Opus Dei's $54 Million Headquarters in Manhattan with Six Dining Rooms in it.]

Even if there were direct eye witnesses to Msgr. Escriva's self-flagellation, then we know that engaging in such an act with others watching takes it out of the realm of sanctity, and puts it in an abhorrent place. And if there were no witnesses, and we have only his blood on the wall, then we can know what it signifies by drawing the reasonable inferences which are compatible with his visible life, which we know is the life of a whipmaster who demands the best food and furnishings to surround him.

That a person in natural authority would dare to hand a layman under his authority, (particularly a man in authority over a woman), a whip and a cilice with directions to use them and with a weekly review to insure that they were used is certainly not a sign of sanctity, but a clear sign of sadistic perversion.

Rome had an absolute duty to interview Ms. Tapia, and so many other eye witnesses who observed him for long periods of time and who had evidence that negates his sanctity. This was an essential part of its investigation, and it is inconceivable that there was no interview or investigation into her allegations. The old norms stated that if any member of the public had reasons that negated sanctity, he must come forward. I understand that thousands have already taken the time to write to you. The chronicle of Ms. Tapia stands on its own and speaks for itself. It is a chronicle that must be examined for truth by the methods we are given for finding truth and for finding sanctity. For the facts related by Miss Tapia clearly disclose that Msgr. Escriva, in his Catholic cloak, crossed that thin line that separates love from what is hatred and perversion. Ms. Tapia’s credibility is not affected by Rome’s decision to ignore her book. Rome’s omission condemns Rome, not Ms. Tapia, and certainly not her book.

You have an absolute duty to stop this perversion of the faith, for this man is no ordinary sinner.

Yours in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,

(The webmaster has deemed it prudent to keep the name of the writer of this letter private)

Fair Use Notice: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.