6.1 A preconceived thesis?

There is ample evidence that the author set out with a preconceived thesis. He then gave great weight to rumours and opinions which supported it, while he failed to report crucial facts, opinions and events which did not support it, or ran counter to it.

The author is furthermore willing to admit as 'evidence' not just the circumstantial, but also items with the most slender of slender connections with Opus Dei (and even at times with no connection whatever).

In this context it is worth remarking that his topic, as he has defined it, is as wide and varied as the individual lives and work of many, many thousands of individuals, from all walks of life and from all parts of the world, over more than sixty years; furthermore, it also involves hundreds of collective projects, affecting in turn hundreds of thousands of other individuals. It would hardly be surprising therefore, given his way of establishing connections, if he found 'evidence' to support almost any thesis. Somebody, somewhere, with some kind of link with Opus Dei must have done something at some time which will fit under almost any given heading.

In my opinion, the challenge of the true investigative journalist then, not to mention the professional historian, is to assess the evidence critically and scientifically, to identify prejudices in witnesses, to distinguish the important from the anecdotal, the circumstantial link from the real link, and to be uncompromising in seeking the truth, with sufficient integrity to put aside personal prejudices.

Here is how our researcher goes about his work.

6.2 Use of 'key sources'

His key sources, 'without the special assistance' of whom 'the book would never have been written', were four named ex-members (p.7).

Perhaps the first point to note therefore is that, while there have been some who have left Opus Dei, in general they have remained in close and cordial contact with the Prelature. Not one of these however is citied by the author. Instead he relies completely on a tiny subset of a subset to build his picture, selecting precisely those who self-professedly are hostile.

The reliability of these his key sources is undermined within the book itself, by the author's own unwillingness to believe them on selected points. Thus he discards the evidence of one former member who makes it plain that (contrary to the point he's trying to establish, on p.153) Opus Dei does not control the business activities of its members, and another is declared to seem 'to verge at times on the paranoid' and is 'difficult to believe' (p.166). Yet both are quoted repeatedly and at length on all sorts of issues throughout the book. Which parts of their testimonies then should be believed, and on what criteria?

Furthermore, when one tries to line up these testimonies with external data, they are frequently found to be patently wrong on simple matters of fact, or so unlikely as to beggar belief. Take Maria del Carmen Tapia: on p.72 she is in the headquarters of Opus Dei in Rome (in fact it was between 1954 and 1956), in 'close contact with Escrivá', before she went to Venezuela. On p.167 we find her again in Rome in 1965 'virtually under house arrest for eight months.' The author gets more than dates wrong: he reports 'she told me that she had once heard him [Monsignor Escrivá] say of Paul VI that "God in his infinite wisdom should take this man away."' Now when did she hear this direct quote? Was it while in close contact in 1954-56, when Pope Paul VI's election as Pope was still 7 years off, or in 1965 when reportedly virtually under house arrest? In any case, the very notion runs counter to so many testimonies of individuals, so many published writings, so many matters of fact, and so much of what Monsignor Escrivá held dearest, that it's no wonder the author himself doubts her testimony on other matters.

While it is not surprising, given his own personal background (a 'former Jesuit' the book announces on the cover), that the author should give more credence than most to the retrospective views of a tiny number of ex-members, it is important to assess the weight to be given them. There has always been a market for the critical accounts of those, like Blanco White in nineteenth-century Oxford, who have abandoned vocations within the Catholic Church, and still more for the sensational revelations of characters like Newman's opponent, Achilli. But discerning people have never taken them very seriously. Why is this? Most people, for example, would hesitate to evaluate marriage on the bitter recollections of a few divorced persons, or judge the rights and wrongs of a broken marriage on the evidence of only one of the partners. No one can judge consciences or probe the depths of human psychology, but everyone is entitled to put a question mark on such testimonies, whether about matrimony or about Opus Dei.

6.3 Other 'sources' and 'connections'

Michael Walsh’s choice of bibliography and press articles is extraordinarily selective, largely confined to those in some way hostile to Opus Dei. Many contain false allegations and errors on matters of fact which were denied or clarified by Opus Dei at the time, normally in the same newspapers or magazines as soon as possible afterwards, but the reader will find no reference to most of these denials and clarifications.

On p.12 he talks about an earlier article of his, published in 1970 and attacking in style, entitled 'Being Fair to Opus Dei.' He says 'I felt it was fair because, for the most part, I had avoided what had been said about them by their detractors.' On his own criterion then how 'fair' is his latest writing on the topic?

One person who had been a member and who spoke with him when he was preparing the book says, in a published review of book, that 'he [Michael Walsh] directly contradicts what I told him.' (Christopher Howse in The Spectator, London, 2 September 1989).

As already noted, he frequently edits quotes in a way which, on checking with the original, often turns out to be quite forced. Readers relying on the book, without easy access to the omitted material, are therefore frequently left with only half the story, at best.

Furthermore serious allegations are made without any source whatever. On page 129 he's suggesting that the spirit of Opus Dei appeals to the Pope, at least partly because, 'as it is alleged, Opus money was sent for the support of Solidarity in Poland'. No footnote, no reference, no source, no authority, no date. Who 'alleged' that the Pope's interest could be bought in this way? And whoever he was, did he have any evidence whatever for the factual aspect of his story? (Of course, nothing remotely like it ever happened, nor could happen given the nature of Opus Dei.) And was the allegation made publicly or privately? Furthermore, if it did appear in public somewhere, sometime, did Opus Dei deny it? We're not told any of this. The writer simply passes on, as if the notion didn’t deserve even the slightest comment.

On page 157, on the topic of financial scandals, we have 'Some commentators suspect that again Opus has helped out.' Again, no source, no credentials for these far-seeing 'commentators', nor even a hint as to why (whoever they might be) they 'suspect.'

On page 169, on the topic of suicides (to which we'll have to return), his named informant 'knows directly of one Opus Dei suicide in Kenya, and has heard of two more.' What is 'an Opus Dei suicide' in any case? And what does 'know directly' mean? Has he facts, evidence, or reliable testimonies? (In fact, no such thing happened). Similarly, regarding the two more he has 'heard of', where is the evidence?

On the same topic, 'A Columbian Jesuit reported suicides' (p.169). Again, to whom? When? Where? On what evidence? Did anything come of it? And, even if they were verified, was there any connection established (however tenuous) with Opus Dei?

Often, when a reference number suggests that there is indeed a source, you check the corresponding entry at the back of the book to find that, there too, it is based on nothing more than an 'It is alleged', or is from notes referring to 'private conversations' (sometimes with persons un-named), or 'unpublished texts.' There must be very few allegations on any topic that could not find support in 'private conversations' (anonymous or not) and 'unpublished texts.'

Besides one might query the propriety of using such sources which no-one else can check. Why, one wonders, is the 'unpublished text' unpublished? Were the topics in these 'private conversations' off the record (and so published without the person's consent): or on the record (and if so, why not give the details)? Or was it the case that people said things privately that they were not prepared to stand over in public?

In a note on page 202 Mr Walsh admits to having adapted a translation given by one of his sources in order to emphasize an idea of his own. This note and translation refer to a statement supposedly made by an unnamed priest of Opus Dei on page 180 (the text of which is indented on the page, to give the impression of a direct and reliable quote) and the authority given for the statement is a witness whose testimony he himself admits elsewhere to be verging 'on the paranoid' (p.166). How is he sure that she is sure that these were the words used, and anyway, of over a thousand priests in Opus Dei, which one is supposed to have said them, and with what authority, and on what occasion?

How does the author make a connection, for example, between a military coup and Opus Dei in Argentina? Was the organiser a member? Well not quite: his information is that a leader of the uprising once did a retreat with Opus Dei. Similarly, a link with a Spanish business scandal is established by mentioning that one of those implicated had taken a course at the IESE business school (a corporate undertaking of Opus Dei) in Barcelona. Since when have priests giving retreats been held responsible for the future actions of those attending? When was Harvard Business School last blamed for Wall Street scandals involving alumni?

6.4 Bias against members

As noted before, the testimony of a member is frequently dismissed, or treated as clearly suspect, simply because it is from a member. This approach is an example of what one reviewer has called 'poisoning the wells' (Christopher Howse in The Spectator, London, 2 September 1989).. The author is not only questioning the truthfulness of all members, but (if he were to be taken seriously) he's also making it more difficult for them to reply. So for example on the same basis this present text can be dismissed in advance simply because the author is a member: such a person’s version of the story really doesn't deserve to be heard. To paraphrase the logic: 'Of course they'll deny it: given all I've been telling you, what would you expect?' It is also a further example of assuming what he's trying to prove: the testimony of members is clearly unreliable simply because the testimony of members is clearly unreliable. Postulates become axioms simply by dint of repeating them often enough.

6.5 Choice of language

Prejudice is also seen in the choice of language. Thus Opus Dei has no 'history', but plenty of 'mythologies'. Biographies of the founder are 'hagiographic in intent', there being 'no works that attempt an unbiased assessment.' Members didn't simply deny they were a political party, they 'bitterly resented' the suggestion. Similarly, to say Opus Dei is a religious order is not to make a mistake but 'to sin grievously against their self image.' Explanations from Opus Dei are called 'claims', a decision of the head and his council becomes 'a whim', members are 'devotees', whose actions are 'tactics', following the 'official line', 'no matter how bizarre', and so on, and on.

To refer to Opus Dei throughout the book, the word 'sect' is frequently used, beginning with the front cover. In recent times the word 'sect' has acquired strongly pejorative connotations of illegal and immoral activity by closed fanatical groups, who, for example, practise almost hypnotic control over members, and act outside all mainstream churches or institutions. In Chapter 8 the author has an extended but inconclusive discussion on whether or not the term “sect” can fairly be applied to Opus Dei, yet he has no hesitation in so applying it, and his clear intention is to use it in its pejorative sense. To take just one example, he asserts that Opus Dei is 'as a sect, less than Catholic. It is less than Christian' (p.196).

Even all the photo captions come with a barb or two. Thus the caption of a picture of the Pope meeting the Prelate has the remark that 'Mgr del Portillo adopts the style of dress of a bishop, although he isn't one.' Unfortunately he doesn't mention how a prelate should dress on formal occasions, such as when meeting the Pope, and so that we laymen could see what he's referring to, if anything.

6.6 Contact with Opus Dei

As mentioned before, Michael Walsh was never a member of Opus Dei, nor is there any evidence in the text that he ever even attended any activity organised by Opus Dei, nor even entered any of its centres or visited any of its corporate apostolic initiatives. (One might speculate that the schoolboy "good guys ~ bad guys" image he presents might have been slightly complicated had he experienced the reality).

Throughout the period of writing, he eschewed contact with the Opus Dei information offices which exist in most countries in which the prelature operates. On one occasion he is known to have explained why to a person who is not a member (Mr Bob Metcalfe, director of St. Peter’s Tours, travel agent, London) and who was surprised at this furtive approach to gathering material: it was because his book would be 'unfriendly.'

Opus Dei's contact with the publishers of the book tells its own story. The author is not the only one who receives surprise packages of hard-to-obtain documents in his office (p.16). Around Christmas 1988 review copies of an uncorrected proof were sent out by Harper & Row, New York. One reviewer passed a copy on to a member of Opus Dei, who naturally had an interest. In late January 1989 the Regional Vicar of the prelature in the United States wrote to the Chief Executive Officer at Harper & Row, Mr George Craig, attaching a memo pointing out some of the grosser errors in the book. This was followed by additional memos detailing and documenting further errors. In February the Opus Dei Information Office in the U.S. was told that the publishers had appointed outside counsel to look into the matter. At the time of writing the book has not yet appeared. Whatever the eventual outcome, at least there has been a courteous and open contact in the United States.

The attitude of Grafton Books (Collins) at the British end of the publishing operation has been very different. When a copy of the book was requested in January 1989, there was not even the courtesy of a reply. The Regional Vicar wrote in February and received a dismissive rejoinder a few days later from the Managing Director of Grafton Books. He wrote again later, this time to the Mr Craig mentioned above who is also Chairman of Collins in Britain (both companies are controlled by Mr Rupert Murdoch). Grafton published the book in May 1989.

6.7 The Latin American visit

In the acknowledgements (p.7) he thanks several people in various South American countries (Peru, Chile, Columbia) for their hospitality on his travels there. He also says that he started the book in the autumn of 1983 but could not press a key of the word-processor till he had travelled in Latin America in the summer of 1986.

Seldom, in the field of human word-processing, has someone waited so long, and travelled so far, for so little first-hand material.

The selling babies in Peru story he admits he heard, not in Latin America, but in London. He 'could not check out the story' (p.10) because, as he explains, he never made it to the particular town in Peru (the name of which, remember, has now been removed). It’s not clear why he didn't telephone the orphanage, from the comfort of England, to verify even the background to such an outrageous story. The telephone number is 51-64912909. Most of the rest of his South American material is easily available in press cuttings and books.

So all he got for his book from his long journey to a far continent was a picturesque description of the garden of the seminary in Abancay which scandalized him, because (to paraphrase) the seminarians look after the garden a little too well; too well, that is, for a third world type operation (p.9). Clearly they don't know their place. The seminary, by the way, is totally under the jurisdiction of the local Catholic diocese, and its telephone number is 51-84321041.

Having gone so far, why not mention, for example, the University of Piura which provides third-level education in a very underdeveloped area of the High Andes, or the dispensaries and centres for primary health care in Cañete and Yauyos, or the agricultural training schemes, both residential and over the airwaves, all associated with Opus Dei. But then he doesn't talk much about any other social projects associated with Opus Dei around the world, so I suppose we can't expect him to begin here.

6.8 Begging the question

It is a myth of the modern age that scholarly work in the realm of religion must remove all hint of the supernatural. This rather presumes what it seeks to prove, that the supernatural does not exist. It is rather unscholarly and unscientific for that reason, but still the work of 'demythologization' goes on. Opus Dei claims to have been divinely inspired in the soul of its founder on a very precise date in 1928. The Church accepts this, as her various recognitions make clear, as does, for example, the opening words of the Apostolic Constitution Ut sit of 1982.

Michael Walsh's book, on the other hand, displays an unease with the supernatural and the spiritual. He attempts to turn the founding into a stop-go or trial-and-error experience of Monsignor Escrivá over a number of years. The same approach is carried on through the rest of the book. At times he presents himself as a Catholic historian, writing from a Catholic standpoint, as a member of the Church. Yet, for example, he frequently adopts a secularist or rationalist approach to something that has been recognized by the Church as coming from God. Indeed this may also partly explain why throughout the book 'Opus Dei' is almost invariably shortened, even in the initial list of chapter headings, to 'Opus' – a subtle 'theological' point, one wonders, or simply a sign of disdain for his topic?

6.9 Some more serious omissions

His bibliography suggests he was well aware of the fuss stirred up in Italy a few years ago by some journalists and a few laicist politicians who indulge in occasional target practice at Church institutions. Questions were asked in Parliament and the then Prime Minister (not, incidentally, a Christian Democrat) asked the Minister of Home Affairs, Signor Scalfaro, to carry out an investigation before reporting to Parliament. Anyone who wishes may look up the Minister's statement of 24 November 1986, but they will not find it, nor any reference to it, in Mr Walsh's text, or in the bibliography he gives. The Minister gave a lengthy address; the following quotes speak for themselves:

'Opus Dei is not secretive in law or in practice; the duty of obedience relates only to spiritual matters; there are no rights or duties beyond those laid down in the Codex iuris particularis, and even these are of a strictly spiritual nature; no right or duty of the previous legal structure remains, unless specifically laid down in the new one, following the establishment of the Prelature.'

Rebuttals are omitted even when these come from patently objective third parties and external bodies; the above Italian government report is an example, as is the denial in the L'Osservatore Romano editorial of 8 October 1982 of Opus Dei's supposed involvement in the Banco Ambrosiano affair. Perhaps more significant still is the author's failure to give the details of the 1985 Munich court affair. The way he starts his chapter on "Politics and Business" shows that he knew the case took place, yet he fails to report the result.

He begins this chapter by saying that 'in December 1985 a Munich court granted Opus Dei an injunction to prevent the publication of a book.' The unreported outcome was as that the court decreed that five groups of defamatory statements were without basis in fact and that the book attacking Opus Dei could not be published if it included them. The authors of the book in question had no evidence whatever for their false assertions. The allegations were that Opus Dei is a financial enterprise; that it was involved in the Matesa and Rumasa companies in Spain (companies allegedly linked with financial scandals); that members of Opus Dei worked closely with Pinochet in Chile; that Opus Dei or certain members worked with death-squads in Argentina; that members of Opus Dei had important positions in the Argentinian dictatorship following the coup of 1966; that Opus Dei has indulged in criminal financial activity, illegally moving money for speculative purposes; that Opus Dei has aided and legitimized fascist movements in Chile and other countries; that enterprises of Opus Dei have been implicated in drugs and arms trafficking; and that Opus Dei has intermixed religious issues with economic interests. Sound familiar? Readers were not told about the court judgment and yet most of chapter 7 has a string of just such baseless allegations. The Munich judicial decision totally undermines this whole chapter, and indeed much else in his book, because Michael Walsh has no more factual basis for his charges than the German authors had.

While on the topic of formal investigations, remember (because the author won't remind you) that before being made a Prelature, Opus Dei was studied, over three and a half years, by the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, then by a specially established technical committee which met twenty-five times and produced a two volume report of over 600 pages, which in turn was entrusted by the Pope to a special commission of cardinals, and finally over 2000 bishops worldwide were consulted. And the Holy See normally moves cautiously and prudently before deciding on major issues, so no doubt any 'evidence' of critics was examined rather thoroughly.

6.10 Self-contradiction

We have already noted several self-contradictory allegations in the book. Here are a few more.

On page 10 he says that 'the organization has many levels of commitment, and not all of those where Opus Dei members are involved can properly be regarded as Opus Dei undertakings.' Later, on page 136, he declares that 'it must be understood that the term "Opus Dei" when speaking of control of businesses, is simply a short-hand for "individuals who happen also to be members of Opus Dei."' Since the definition of what constitutes an Opus Dei enterprise is central to many of his most serious accusations, these contradictory 'explanations' are disconcerting.

His chapter 7, and other sections of the book, seek to advance his claim that Opus Dei as an organization is culpably involved in repressive political activities in far-off places. Yet the exact opposite is also stated at several points in the book. Thus, on page 176 he speaks of Opus Dei 'leaving its members free to act politically as they wish.' And on page 132: 'Nor in Latin America is there any indisputable evidence of direct Opus support as an organization for military dictatorships or any other form of regime, right-wing or otherwise.' And on page 142: 'the widespread influence of Opus elsewhere in Spanish-speaking countries does not constitute a conspiracy to take over the State in the interests of the Church as understood by members of Opus.' Which of his two opposing positions is the reader to accept in this rather far-reaching matter?

One could also point out that the same bizarre chapter 7 (called 'Politics and Business') paints a picture of Opus Dei members as highly trained conspirators, cleverly infiltrating governments and organs of state, controlling big finances across international boundaries, manipulating public opinion, applying pressure in strategic places, and so on. The mafia would be proud to have them. Yet in the previous chapter 6 ('The Spirit of Opus') he was telling readers that the effect of the spirituality on the members was to make them timorous, diffident souls, giving rise to 'the extraordinary naivety that strikes one in many of Opus's members' (p.107).

On page 157 he says that 'If it is to come under the (Spanish Church-State) agreements, then it has to reveal a good deal about itself, its aims, structure and so on. It does not want to do so.' Yet at the beginning of the book he acknowledges (page 28) that 'there is little doubt about what Opus Dei has become. It has a precise legal structure, well-defined aims and clear-cut methods of achieving them.' So after all, its structure, aims and methods are known. (In fact of course they're available in print for the asking, and have been published widely and frequently).

Mr Walsh claims Opus Dei is a sect and a cult (on the dust-cover, in the last 2 sentences of the book already quoted, and throughout), yet he admits on page 172: 'On the face of it, the notion that Opus might be classed as a new religious movement or sect which is operating within Roman Catholicism would seem paradoxical and highly unlikely.' And five pages later (pp.177-8) he says:

'the central authorities of the Roman Catholic Church have displayed considerable interest in the organization over its sixty-year existence and this interest makes it difficult to conceive of Opus as a cult or new religious movement or sect. It appears on the face of it to be an integral part of a worldwide Church, recognized as such by the Church authorities.'

So again, how can Opus Dei be on the one hand a distinct cult or sect, and on the other 'an integral part of a worldwide Church, recognized as such by the Church authorities'?

He strongly contests that members act individually rather than collectively in many matters, yet then speculates that precisely a lack of collective action may 'decrease its [Opus Dei's] value to the Vatican' 'during an increasingly interventionist papacy' (p.177). So again, which is it to be? Collective action or not?

Members are forced out to find many friends (at least fifteen) outside Opus Dei (p.170), yet when people decide to leave, they suddenly find they have no friends at all, inside or out (p.169).

Note that these and other self-contradictory positions in the book are not mere matters of semantics, highlighted here to score points, as it were, in some student debate. They reveal the author's confusion (conscious or unconscious) on matters fundamental to his chosen topic, upon which he hasn't decided, or changes his mind, depending on his latest line of attack.

So, does Opus Dei involve itself in business activities of members, or does it not? Is it engaged in political activity, or not? Is it a heretical sect, or part of the Church's hierarchical structure? Do members close in on themselves and become sheeplike, or go out to make many friends and infiltrate society? Does it act as a group, or are individual members free to follow their own lights? Is the government of Opus Dei in the hands of priests (rampant clericalism) or in the hands of lay people (a dangerous aberration)? And so on. It's asking too much of us to share his indignation that something is much too black, when, in another chapter of the same book, he's very concerned that the same thing is clearly much too white.

6.11 Suicide and murder

Particularly grotesque and irresponsible are the hints, references, and outright allegations about murder and suicide. One would think that, on matters so serious, any author expecting our respect would feel the need to provide even the pretence of real evidence before going into print on them. But of sustainable evidence Mr Walsh produces not a shred. And to date, as far as this author is aware, he has not withdrawn nor apologised for any of what follows.

On page 169 the author alleges that some members wishing to leave Opus Dei had attempted suicide. This matter has been investigated thoroughly (it was not possible to follow up the anonymous Columbian allegation because the book doesn't give sufficient data even to make a guess at what is being referred to, if anything) and found to be totally without foundation. It is possible to state categorically that no one in Kenya or Britain wanting to leave Opus Dei has ever committed suicide.

He mentions a woman who 'threw herself from the fourth floor of an Opus house.' This probably refers to an incident in 1966 concerning a person who was suffering from a mild menopausal depression. She did not want to leave Opus Dei. One morning, after she had taken her anti-depressive medication during the night, she fell from the window of her room on the second floor. She was treated at the Royal Free Hospital by Mr. Lionel Gracey. She recovered, and was always very happy in her vocation. Twenty years later, in 1986, still a member of Opus Dei and faithful to her vocation, she died a natural death.

The author's reference to the death of Fr Michael Richards, the first member and later the first priest of Opus Dei in England, goes beyond the bounds of decency, quite apart from being particularly injurious to the memory of a well-loved priest. All the author had to do was to check his facts, and in this case in particular it would have been very easy to do so. The death certificate for Fr Richards, and details of all the circumstances of his death, are easily available, and leave no room for doubt or suspicion on any point at issue. Fr Richards was not found 'in a hotel bedroom': he died instantly of a cerebral haemorrhage while staying at his sisters' house at Broadstairs in Kent.

There are two other hints at murder. One of them we're supposed to laugh at. When his friends heard he was 'engaged on this study, they humorously advised I increase my life insurance' (p.14). In another book, by another author, one might manage a smile at this; although one might still wonder about its appropriateness, and the reason for going into print on it.

The second reference caps the extraordinary chapter 7, where the author hints that there was something more than coincidental in the proximity of Blackfriars Bridge, where Calvi died, to the London office of the Banco Urquijo Hispano-Americano (p.158). Neither this bank nor its Spanish operation has anything whatever to do with Opus Dei. In fact, it has been established that no director is, or ever was, a member. Anyway, how many banks are there in the close vicinity of Blackfriars Bridge?

It comes as no surprise, of course, that as with so much of the other material in his book, he did not find sustainable evidence for any of these horrible allegations. Finding evidence for things that never happened is challenging. The real puzzle is why someone like Michael Walsh should even try.