8.1 The secrecy and conspiracy myths

Mr Walsh is particularly keen on two myths, frequently espoused by certain types of media, and equally frequently denied by Opus Dei, namely secrecy and conspiracy. The latter word occurs at least four times in his text and, although he veers away from complete adherence to any particular construct, he is clearly attracted by such possibilities. In his 'Acknowledgements' (p.7) he says he wishes he could believe the conspiracy theory of an American friend. (Why? One wonders. This unguarded admission says a lot about the author’s dispositions.) Later in the book he is happy to repeat conspiracy theories beloved by professional Vatican-watchers and a handful of political journalists in Latin countries.

Note that 'conspiracy' (such as conspiracy to international fraud) means plotting with others to do something illegal, and it's a serious criminal charge. But the need to back it up with even vaguely convincing evidence doesn't seem important to the author.

His fascination with the secrecy myth distorts his whole outlook. He is very categoric: 'The charge of secrecy will not go away, despite constant denials by Escrivá and lesser members that it is a secret organization' (p.65). A mind attuned to secrecy finds it where it will. The searcher who spends his life on a fruitless search for the 'philosopher's stone' becomes ever more convinced that the mysterious 'secret' is there to be found. The claim of secrecy is self-perpetuating since, if nothing turns up, it is because the elusive secret is still intact: the very lack of evidence becomes proof.

Also, one might add, it does no harm to the sales of a book if the front cover announces, in big letters, with glossy illustration to match, that inside is revealed a whole 'Secret World.' The promise of being admitted to some deep secrets is a powerful marketing ploy of proven success.

But a person who, while claiming to be investigating, refuses to contact sources, or to put questions to those who could answer them, or who distorts his evidence and conceals his sources, is not in a strong position to level charges of secrecy. What secret organization sets up information offices around the world and places entries in telephone directories to encourage use of the service? Opus Dei centres also provide a wide range of books, articles, regular film shows, and so on, for anyone who is interested: there's no shortage of information available on the topic, and it's there for the asking.

As on many other issues, a major part of his difficulty may have arisen originally due to insisting on thinking of Opus Dei as a religious order. Religious generally wear some kind of habit, and have letters after their name to show their order, as well as other public manifestations of their status. Indeed such public witness is generally an important aspect of their vocation. By contrast, for lay people to wear a badge saying, in effect, 'I'm trying to be an exemplary Christian' would not be secular. In fact, one of the central messages of Opus Dei, and of Vatican II, is that lay people don't have to do 'different' things (such as wearing badges or special clothes) if they want to be holy, to become saints. On the contrary, lay folk can, and indeed should, seek holiness precisely where and as they are.

For this reason, while members of Opus Dei certainly don't hide their membership, and their friends and family will know all about it, neither do they publicise it. Why should they? It's something very personal, private, ultimately between themselves and God.

Furthermore it's not, in principle, a matter of public concern. It is of no direct relevance to others, and no reason to treat, or be treated, differently, in the same sense that a person's faith (or lack of it) is not relevant in social and work relations in civilised countries. It would only be relevant if Michael Walsh's allegations about Opus Dei's control of members' jobs, finances, and so on, were true. So we're back to his assuming what he's trying to prove.

In a key passage in his book, the author states that section 89 of Opus Dei's 1982 Statutes obliges members to maintain secrecy. Once again, he has interpreted in his own way one part of the text, and then omitted the following part which says almost the exact opposite, namely that members 'must not hide their membership of the Prelature, because the spirit of Opus Dei is to absolutely avoid secrecy and clandestinity.'

The official report of the Italian Minister of Home Affairs to the Italian Parliament that 'Opus Dei was not secret, either in law or in fact', has already been noted.

Minister Scalfaro in his statement also dismissed 'the thesis that secrecy is equated with a lack of publicity.' Non-publication of documents is not, in itself, cause to classify them as secret. Doctors, lawyers and other professional men hold much information which is regarded as confidential, and rightly so. Many civil rights activists today are much concerned by the need to guarantee such confidentiality in this age of data-banks. It would be odd if Opus Dei and its directors did not also observe this ethic.

The author also 'discovers' secrecy elsewhere. Commenting on the book Particular Churches and Personal Prelatures, he says, 'The author, Pedro Rodriguez, is, of course, a member of Opus, though this fact is not stated in the English-language edition, and Opus Dei is scarcely mentioned, certainly not discussed' (p.81). In fact, the very first paragraph of the book is specifically about Opus Dei and personal prelatures; the second paragraph says 'what interests me particularly is the theological and canonical significance of this juridical entity ... and its first implementation to accommodate the theological and pastoral phenomenon of Opus Dei'; in the same paragraph he talks of his association with the University of Navarre, an internationally renowned corporate undertaking of Opus Dei; and the complete text of the Apostolic Constitution Ut sit whereby Opus Dei was established as a personal Prelature, together with the text of the accompanying Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, are given in full in the book. (By the way, note again the implied downgrading of the book simply because it is written by a member).

Mr Walsh insists on viewing Opus Dei's old 'Constitutions' and its 1982 'Statutes' (incorrectly referred to also as 'Constitutions') as highly secret documents. In the first place, Opus Dei has never been empowered to publish unilaterally what the Holy See has deemed confidential or for the use only of the prelature and the bishops in whose dioceses it operates. Everyone who was entitled to a copy had one. The old Constitutions, moreover, were always somewhat provisional because not fully appropriate, as already explained. Two months before the first edition of his book, another book was published called El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei: Historia y Defensa de un Carisma ("The Juridical Itinerary of Opus Dei: History and Defence of a Charism" A. de Fuenmayor, V. Gómez-Iglesias, J.L. Illanes; EUNSA, Pamplona 1989). One of the many documentary appendices in this scholarly work contains the Statutes of Opus Dei in full. The founder had always said he would be happy to see them published, and this has now taken place with ecclesiastical approval as part of a juridical history that should prove of great interest to specialists.

Michael Walsh's polarisation around the 'Rule' is another example of viewing things from the religious point of view. As he rightly argues, for religious, the rule defines the particular path to holiness they have bound themselves (Latin: 'religare') to follow, and so is decisively important as a legal and spiritual document in their daily lives. For lay people, on the other hand, the 'prime matter' of their sanctity is found in the duties of their state in life: so, for members of Opus Dei, the Statutes are more a background framework than a day-to-day guide, the importance of which is at another level.

8.2 Solidarity, Matesa, Rumasa, Banco Ambrosiano

Moving to Eastern Europe, the author airs a threadbare story about Opus Dei sending money for the support of the Solidarity movement in Poland (p.129). The author raises the idea as an explanation for the present Pope's esteem for Opus Dei! The fact is that neither Opus Dei nor any of its apostolic entities have ever sent money to Solidarity. Pope John Paul II has known Opus Dei at least since the days of the Vatican Council (and, by the way, long before Solidarity became active) when he got to know several priests of Opus Dei who were working on the same commissions.

There are a variety of accusations with regard to Opus Dei and its members in Spain. The Matesa business scandal is dealt with mainly on pages 145 and 146. It is important to note that Juan Vila Reyes who headed the company, and his legal adviser Jose Luis Villar Palasi, were not members of Opus Dei. So all the author can do in an attempt to establish his circumstantial connections is to state that Vila Reyes attended a business studies course at the IESE business school in Barcelona, and that Villar Palasi 'moved in Opus Dei circles', whatever that means. It is also quite untrue to suggest that the then Minister of Industry, Gregorio López Bravo, who was a member of Opus Dei, had anything to do with approving credits to Matesa. The body involved, 'Banco de Crédito Industrial', came under the Spanish Ministry of Finance, not the Ministry of Industry. The Minister's career, naturally, was not affected by the affair and he went on to hold the Foreign Affairs portfolio.

Furthermore, Opus Dei received no donations whatever from Matesa. Vila Reyes did make some personal donations over several years to the IESE business school. These totalled two million pesetas (£12,000) and were well documented. The assertion that he gave 2,400 million pesetas (£14 million) to various Opus Dei institutions in Spain, Peru and the United States is absolutely false. The author admits that he is once again dealing here with mere rumours and unsubstantiated allegations. These seem to have originated in the Italian newspaper Avanti! in 1970. Some of them are historically impossible. The 'university in Peru' can only be that of Piura. How could it receive substantial gifts when it was only founded in 1969, after the Matesa scandal broke? In fact the author's details differ significantly from those given in the Italian original, possibly because of relying on the English language edition of Le Monde that he refers to in the notes at the back of the book. Avanti! said that Matesa funds went to Opus Dei collegi or high schools in the United States, not student residences as the author suggests. No high school was founded by Opus Dei or any of its members in the United States until September 1969, again too late to fit the accusation, and anyway, no student residences there ever received funds from Matesa or Vila Reyes. The Italian canard was, in fact, answered in the same newspaper a week after its publication. It is difficult to see how this mess of feverish allegations, without any foundation in fact, 'threw some light on Opus-approved ways of doing business' (p.146). If anything it throws light on a certain author's approach to research.

There is more falsehood in the author's treatment of the Rumasa company and its head, José María Ruiz Mateos. Like every other member of Opus Dei he carried on his work or business affairs completely on his own responsibility. Opus Dei had nothing to do with them, directly or indirectly. The prelature made this quite plain in a public statement given in Madrid on 20 June 1986. Ruiz Mateos terminated his membership of the prelature in August 1986.

The author implies impropriety in Ruiz Mateos' various personal donations to apostolic activities of Opus Dei. The reality is that he made donations to many religious and philanthropic institutions, amongst which were some directed by members of the prelature. The prelature itself has never been financed in any way by Rumasa. Ruiz Mateos himself said in a statement of 21 July 1983: 'Rumasa never had a connection of any type, much less a financial one, with Opus Dei.' Opus Dei has no banks or businesses in Spain, Switzerland, the Channel Isles, or indeed anywhere else. Individual members who choose to work in banks or businesses do so on their own initiative and the prelature has neither the power nor the desire to interfere in their professional affairs. Allegations regarding Ruiz Mateos and Opus Dei in Britain are dealt with below.

The author's conspiracy theory reaches its high-point in connection with the Banco Ambrosiano affair in Italy. He even tries (p.156) to allege involvement by Ruiz Mateos, who denied categorically on 2 August 1983 that there had ever been any connections between Rumasa, Opus Dei and the Vatican Bank. Ruiz Mateos said he had never even met Roberto Calvi or Archbishop Marcinkus.

Opus Dei has repeatedly stated that neither the prelature nor any of its members ever had any dealings with Calvi or the Banco Ambrosiano. On 8 October 1982 the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano confirmed this in an editorial. Much of the Calvi story originated in emotional speculation made by Signora Calvi after her husband's death. The Regional Vicar of Opus Dei in Italy wrote immediately to her pointing out that her statement was baseless and asking her to produce evidence. He has never had a reply. The Holy See and some of the personalities mentioned (e.g. Cardinal Palazzini) have refuted what she said.

It is absolutely false to suggest that Opus Dei provided the Vatican with $250 million (p.157), or even 1 cent thereof, to help the IOR (the Institute for the Works of Religion, or Vatican Bank) bail out the Banco Ambrosiano. It has already been made quite plain that banks of Opus Dei cannot and do not exist.

Before leaving these charges, it is surely important to note, though the author does not, that these Matesa, Rumasa and Ambrosiano affairs were not merely media scandals based only on rumours and gossip. They were all formally investigated by both criminal courts and responsible government agencies in highly publicized and drawn out court cases. Indictments, trials and convictions followed. At no time in the course of these public investigations was Opus Dei implicated, or even mentioned. Neither the prelature nor any of its directors were ever accused, charged, or brought to trial. There was no accusation of wrongdoing from the responsible authorities because there were no grounds at all for such. The author relies once again on a highly selective collage of the more colourful press speculation which surrounded these scandals, ignores all meatier material, and 'forgets' to report the existence and outcome of official investigations and legal proceedings.

8.3 Grandpont House, Oxford

On pages 69-70 the author refers to the setting up of Grandpont House in Oxford, a corporate apostolic undertaking of Opus Dei:

'The university authorities were not having it. Moreover, the university area of the city of Oxford lies in the diocese of Birmingham whose formidable Archbishop (a Cambridge graduate as it happened) was George Patrick Dwyer, a blunt Englishman with little time for the Hispanic affectations of Opus. After the confusion over the attempt to open a hall, he forbade them in his territory. Luckily for Opus a house came on the market – Grandpont – which was just across the river, still in Oxford, but in the much more compliant diocese of Portsmouth. It was acquired and opened as a kind of lodging house catering for post-graduate students of the university.'

The facts tell a rather different story. The purchase of Grandpont House was completed on 2 July 1959, as H.M. Land Registry attests. The Archbishop of Birmingham until his death on 22 March 1965 was the Most Reverend Francis Grimshaw. Archbishop Dwyer was appointed on 7 October 1965. This is some six years after the events the author describes, including the purchase of Grandpont House. Furthermore, on 9 December 1977, that is, while Dr Dwyer was Archbishop of Birmingham, his auxiliary bishop with pastoral responsibility for Oxford, Bishop Leo McCartie, gave Opus Dei permission to set up a centre for women in Oxford. Neither Archbishop Grimshaw nor Archbishop Dwyer ever forbade Opus Dei from their territory.

To put to rest various rumours on the subject, garbled versions of which may have been relayed to Michael Walsh, it is worth recording the history of the purchase of Grandpont House. In the summer of 1958 the founder of Opus Dei, Monsignor Escrivá, was in England. He visited Netherhall House in London, the hall of residence for students which had opened six years earlier with his encouragement, and suggested to the members of Opus Dei that they consider setting up other halls of residence for students in Manchester and Oxford. Professor Parker, a Catholic at King's College, London, was one of those consulted at this early stage. He was a Cambridge graduate, and well acquainted with university affairs. He encouraged the Oxford project, and advised on it.

Bishop Craven, the Auxiliary of Westminster, was told about this idea at the same time. He in turn informed Monsignor Wheeler (then Administrator of Westminster Cathedral). They were both enthusiastic. Fr Crozier (a priest of the Portsmouth diocese) had been asked by Bishop Beck of Salford (as President of the Catholic Committee for Education) to acquire Grandpont for the use of the hierarchy. It could become available because a projected Catholic Institute for Higher Studies, which the Hierarchy had been considering, might not go ahead.

Early in September Monsignor Escrivá, before returning to Rome, suggested that, through Monsignor Wheeler, the permission of the Bishop of Portsmouth be sought for the setting up of a centre of Opus Dei in Oxford. Monsignor Wheeler told Father Galarraga (then Counsellor or head of Opus Dei in Britain) about Grandpont House, a site that the Portsmouth Diocese had an option to buy from Brasenose College. At the same time Fr Galarraga met Monsignor Wheeler and the chaplain for university students in Oxford, Monsignor Elwes, who was glad to hear that Opus Dei was intending to go to Oxford. Monsignor Wheeler then mentioned the Opus Dei project to Bishop Beck, who suggested it would be better if members of Opus Dei were to buy Grandpont House. He was also happy to hear that Opus Dei was going to begin apostolic work in Oxford, and thought that its taking over Grandpont could be a good solution.

In mid-September a meeting held at Strawberry Hill in London discussed the Catholic Institute. The meeting ended with a decision to recommend to the hierarchy the setting up of the Catholic Institute and also the purchase of Grandpont House. On 22 September Fr Galarraga went to Oxford and visited Grandpont with Monsignor Elwes and Fr Crozier. Fr Crozier indicated that he had instructions to hold on to the option he had to purchase the house for the hierarchy or for the needs of Opus Dei.

As it was not clear whether or not Grandpont would be purchased, and since Oxford lies for the most part in the Birmingham diocese, arrangements were set in motion by Fr Galarraga in early October to see Archbishop Grimshaw of Birmingham and also Bishop Beck in Salford. The latter meeting went ahead in Manchester on 12 October. At the request of Archbishop Grimshaw's secretary, on 11 October Fr Galarraga sent a written memorandum detailing plans to the Archbishop. He received a reply dated 16 October, recommending that the advice of Bishop Matthew be sought, as he was very knowledgeable about Oxford. (This was done, and the Bishop of the Forces was most encouraging and helpful). Archbishop Grimshaw added that he had discussed the plans with the other bishops, and that the matter affected all the bishops, since it was Oxford.

On 14-15 October there had been a meeting of the hierarchy. A committee of three bishops who studied the matter of the Catholic Institute decided not to purchase Grandpont. Monsignor Wheeler communicated this to Fr Galarraga on 16 October.

On 19 November 1958 Bishop King of Portsmouth was asked for permission for the setting up of a centre of Opus Dei in his part of Oxford, and also for an appointment to see him. On 21 November Bishop King gladly granted the permission.

In the spring of 1959 the Grandpont site was acquired by Fr Crozier, partly for a church and partly for a residence which would be a corporate undertaking of Opus Dei. In July 1959 Grandpont House was purchased by the "1954 Trust", Fr Galarraga being one of its trustees, and the house was made ready for the academic year 1959-60.

The same year (1959-60), while plans were being prepared for a development on the site, a letter was sent to Archbishop Grimshaw as well as to other bishops who had previously been informed about the project. The Archbishop replied on 21 January 1960. He expressed his concern that good relations be maintained with the Chaplaincy. Nowhere in the letter is there anything which could be interpreted as supporting an allegation that he (Archbishop Grimshaw not Dwyer) 'forbade them in his territory' or that the purchase of Grandpont House was a way of circumventing this alleged ban.

In preliminary discussions with Oxford University officials, the Delegacy of Studies showed interest; the Registrar said the University would not object; members of the Hebdomadal Council saw no objection, one saying he would back it, one showing reserve. The Vice-Chancellor seemed favourable. The first stage was to be the approval by the Delegacy of Lodgings on 14 October 1960. Rather unexpectedly, and contrary to the views that had been shown until then, the Delegacy of Studies did not approve the project. It was generally accepted at the time that influence was brought to bear on the Delegacy of Lodgings, and that this was done against the wishes of the Cardinal of Westminster and other members of the hierarchy,

Thus, Grandpont House was the first house considered with a view to Opus Dei starting in Oxford. And the availability of this site was brought to the attention of Opus Dei by members of the ecclesiastical authority. Opus Dei always worked with their knowledge and advice. Opus Dei has never been forbidden to start in the Birmingham diocese or in the Portsmouth diocese.

The bishops have always wanted good relations between the university chaplains and members of Opus Dei running halls of residence. Bishop Petit of Menevia, for instance, asked for, and obtained, a priest of Opus Dei to be chaplain in Bangor in the 1960s, precisely at the time of the 'Oxford affair.'

8.4 Netherhall House, London

'At Opus's London residence for students, Netherhall House, Vladimir Felzmann, the director, was much taken by the reforms in the liturgy and determined to re-align the altar with the priest facing the people. This he did, with full approval at the time of the Opus authorities. The work was undertaken in the best possible taste and very expensively. It looked attractive. Then a message came from Rome: there were to be no altars facing the people. Felzman's work was dismantled, again at great expense, and the old, back-to-the- congregation position restored' (p.73).

Mr Felzmann, as a layman, was Director of Netherhall House, a residence for students, until September 1965 (when he went to Rome to continue his studies). He was responsible for the day-to-day running of the hall of residence in the Victorian buildings fronting on Netherhall Gardens.

Construction of a new wing began in the summer of 1964 and it was first used in June 1966. (The offical opening by the Queen Mother took place in November 1966.) As far as I am aware, Vladimir Felzmann had no say in its design or construction. The chapel, as it was being built during the Second Vatican Council, was among the first to have an altar facing the people as a result of the new liturgical directives. A Westminster liturgical conference (which included Fr Edward Matthews, the liturgical spokesman of Westminster diocese at the time) was organised in Netherhall House precisely because of this.

The solution that had been adopted was to have the main altar facing the people, with the tabernacle at the centre of an altar at the back. Apart from Mass, the chapel was used mostly as a Blessed Sacrament chapel, for people to visit and use for prayer. Bishop Casey, then Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster, consecrated both altarsin December 1968.

When Fr Felzmann returned to London in March 1970, after his ordination, and was appointed chaplain at Netherhall, the arrangement of the chapel was as described above. In 1974, having studied the best way of combining the use of large oratories in which Mass was said facing the people, and where the tabernacle needed to be in a central, visible and dignified place for use as a Blessed Sacrament chapel, it was decided that until a new solution was found, the main altar facing the people would be moved to the rear wall and have the tabernacle on it. In 1982 an altar facing the people was reinstalled.

The founder of Opus Dei insisted that chapels in Opus Dei apostolic undertakings must always obey the regulations laid down by the Holy See and the instructions given by the bishop of the diocese. In areas where options were allowed, solutions were adopted which most suited the pastoral and liturgical uses of the chapel or oratory in question, but always fully within the official guidelines. A point worth mentioning in this context is that altars facing the people were installed in some of the oratories in Opus Dei's central offices in Rome in the 1950s, well in advance of the Second Vatican Council.

On page 162 reference is made to Greygarth Hall in Victoria Park, Manchester, 'which the university authorities had rejected as a recognised hostel because of the "proselytizing" going on there.' In fact, Greygarth became a licensed hall two years after its opening in January 1962 and remains so to this day.

'In a girls' public school not far from London, on the other hand, the headmistress banned Opus from its premises after she discovered pupils newly arrived from Spain being invited to unauthorized assignations on the lawn at 5.00 p.m. with Opus priests' (p. 161). Two members of Opus Dei did visit a student at the school at her request. There was no meeting with any priest of Opus Dei then or at any other time.

8.5 Australia

Various allegations are made in different parts of the book with regard to Opus Dei and its members in Australia. On page 14 he presents a tale of 'extraordinary events' ... 'heard from a friend in Australia.' No reference or evidence is given. 'Computer codes' are said to have been broken at the newspaper The Australian to gain access to 'supposedly secret' articles on Opus Dei before publication. In fact only one member of Opus Dei worked for the company and never has he been accused of any such activity. It is said also that Opus Dei threatened legal action before publication. This is untrue. The Regional Vicar of Opus Dei in Australia did make a complaint to the editor about the manner in which an interview was carried out, but at no time did he threaten legal action.

On page 66 Michael Walsh refers to the report of a university committee of inquiry into the running of Warrane College (a 200-bed student residence and corporate undertaking of Opus Dei) in Sydney. He quite rightly notes that the report exonerated Opus Dei, but goes on to suggest that the occasions of 'individual zeal' noted in it reflected on the management of the College. Such a construction cannot be put on the official report. Indeed it was very positive in its assessment of the management and of Warrane College in general. (See chapter 10 of Opus Dei. Exploding a Myth for the full story, and extracts from the report).

Also on page 66 it is alleged that 'in 1985 his priest advisers recommended to the Archbishop of Melbourne that Opus be refused permission to open a house in that diocese.' It is true that the Senate of Priests of the Melbourne Archdiocese considered the possibility of Opus Dei opening a centre there, but they did not recommend that permission be refused out of hand. They proposed that the undertaking be delayed until it could be established whether it could be incorporated into the work of the diocese.

8.6 A forced eviction in Rome?

On pages 68-69 the book affirms that Opus Dei had the Oratorians, a society of priests, evicted from some buildings where St Philip Neri had lived out his last days in Rome, 'much to the distress of the sons of St Philip.' The Opus Dei information office in Rome has a copy of a letter from the Procurator General of the Oratorians, dated 18 November 1988, testifying that this story is untrue, and that the society's relationship with the Prelature and its members remains cordial. This could have been confirmed simply by calling the central house of the Oratorians in Rome.

8.7 Other financial details

It is Opus Dei's wish and policy to own as little as possible. This reflects both its purely spiritual aims and its spirit of detachment and poverty.

The corporate apostolates of Opus Dei are those educational or social undertakings where the prelature accepts responsibility for spiritual and doctrinal formation. In Britain the buildings (whether a hall of residence, a club for young people, or a conference centre) are usually owned or rented by a registered charity like the Netherhall Educational Association (NEA).

NEA is a company limited by guarantee and incorporated in 1964. It is a registered charity. Its aims are educational with a Christian ethos. Its activities are open to people of all religious beliefs. The activities of NEA, and the financial reports of its assets and its liabilities, are in the public domain. Its accounts, which are audited annually, and the annual report of directors, are available for inspection at Companies House, at the Charity Commission, or at the Association's headquarters in Hampstead, London.

Members and Cooperators of Opus Dei, as well as many other people who wish to contribute towards the undertakings owned by NEA, do so in various ways: straightforward donations, interest-free or low-interest loans, or donations in kind. In common with other charities, some donors willingly accept publication of their names as a way of showing their support. Others prefer to remain anonymous. The wishes of all are respected.

When it wishes to purchase a property, NEA raises capital with loans and mortgages. Where it can obtain loans, small and large, at favourable rates from individuals, companies or charitable institutions, both at home and abroad, it does so. That a good number of individuals and institutions willingly offer help in this way is a tribute to the work of the Association and reflects good management. Any international support received is unspoken praise. For the balance of NEA's borrowing requirements, it goes to the market, and obtains mortgages from banks, building societies, etc. All of this is subject to the annual scrutiny of auditors. During its twenty-five year existence, NEA's auditors have been Arthur Andersen and Ernst & Whinney, two firms of international repute. And each firm, as the accounts also show, have done this work for nominal fees.

On page 148 the author says that the Regional Vicar has complete control 'over the nomination and dismissal of directors from every company associated with Opus.' He must have been working from documents which are out of date. Since 1984 such powers have been removed from the Articles of Association of NEA. They were never in fact used. The power to nominate or to dismiss a director lie entirely with the other directors of the NEA.

'Ruiz-Mateos admitted giving money to Opus charities in the UK, and it is clear from the NEA's accounts that quite substantial loans came from abroad in dollars, Swiss francs or marks, at remarkably favourable rates of interest' (p. 149). Ruiz-Mateos did make donations while he was in the UK. They totalled approximately £6,000. None of this was donated to NEA, nor has NEA received money from him either before or after his stay in the United Kingdom. Also none of the loans referred to were made by Ruiz-Mateos or his company Rumasa.

On page 147 the author says: 'He (Ruiz Mateos) did not deny, however, that he had donated considerable sums of money – some £7 million was mentioned – via the Channel Isles to an educational institute associated with Opus in the UK.' In case not denying it is here being interpretted as asserting it, then let it be said that it is absolutely false. The Directors of Opus Dei in Britain have emphatically denied any knowledge of any institute associated with Opus Dei in the UK receiving any money via the Channel Islands.

On page 165 the author alleges:

'In its lengthy report for the year ending 30 September 1986, the Netherhall Educational Association makes no mention anywhere that this limited company controls not only Netherhall but also Ashwell House in west London and Grandpont in Oxford as international halls of residence for students; Lakefield Housecraft and Educational Centre, Elmore (Orme Court), Westpark in south-west, and Kelston (a club and study centre for school boys) in south London; the Wickenden Manor Conference Centre in Sussex and Dunreath in Glasgow.'

The fact is that the first six pages of the report in question carry nothing but accounts of activities at these centres.

The accounts of the 'Trust Deed dated 2 April 1954', called the 'Sacerdotal Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei)' were prepared by the same auditors as the NEA. They are available for inspection at the Opus Dei Information Office in London. It is correct to say that they have not been filed with the Charity Commisioners (p. 148). This was through an oversight, on account of which the trustees have expressed their regret. However they have been sent regularly to the Inland Revenue, proof if it were needed that there neither was nor is anything to hide.

On page 158 the Banco Hispano-Americano in London is described as 'an Opus Dei bank.' Once again, let it be said that Opus Dei does not own or control any banks. Its aims are purely spiritual. Membership of Opus Dei would not disqualify a person from owning a bank or holding shares in it, just as it would not disqualify a person from exercising any honest job. And, once again let it be emphasised that Opus Dei never exerts any influence on a person's professional decisions. In any case, no member of Opus Dei works for the bank the author refers to, nor indeed for its parent company.

8.8 Ireland and Columbia

Professor Timoney, a member of Opus Dei in Ireland, is mentioned in Michael Walsh's book. Since Opus Dei never interferes in the professional affairs of its members, it is not possible to comment in this book on statements made by the author against Professor Timoney. However, in so far as some of the issues refer to Opus Dei, the following must be clarified.

'According to an article in the Irish monthly magazine Magill (now defunct), the Netherhall Educational Trust has been asked to contribute to a group of private engineering companies built up by Seamus Timoney, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at University College Dublin ... Again according to Magill, Timoney was able to make use not just of Opus funds for his various companies, but also Opus expertise' (p. 150).

These statements are false. Magill refused at the time to publish a letter replying to the article, because it was, they said, the magazine's policy not to do so. According to an affidavit signed by Professor Timoney, a gift share in the company in question was allocated to NET in November 1975. This, however, was for no consideration whatsoever, nor was any contribution sought. Further, no funds of Opus Dei have ever been sought by Professor Timoney, nor been given to him. The defamatory nature of these statements has also been brought to the attention of Collins by Professor Timoney.

In Colombia we read that a certain general, declared to be responsible for the killing of a notorious terrorist, Camilo Torres, is now editor of an 'Opus magazine' (p.131) in Bogotá. The fact is that Arco, the journal in question, is not run by Opus Dei, although a few members are employed by it. Moreover, the military man, who was one of several directors of Arco, is not and never has been a member of Opus Dei.

8.9 Conclusion

The list of inaccuracies and accusations goes on and on, ranging from the trivial to the outrageous. To answer them all would require another hundred pages. Discerning readers of this present book, or of The Secret Worldof Opus Dei, may perhaps have experienced the feeling that he or she had encountered a similar ragbag of charges and vagaries of method somewhere before.

One hundred and fifty years ago Cardinal Newman had to deal with an almost identical catalogue of accusations and array of specious arguments in his role as one of the most distinguished apologists in the English language. The similarities to be found between the efforts of Michael Walsh in his book, and what Cardinal Newman recounts in his 1851 Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, seem almost uncanny. Cardinal Newman too, encountered 'the Prejudiced Man' who 'takes care to mix only in such society as will confirm his views.' His to face were the bitter charges of disgruntled former members of the body he belonged to. Here were the 'newspapers, magazines, reviews, pamphlets'; the anonymous writers; the cases 'given in detail in some manuscript or other, contained somewhere or other'; the parents unhappy with the religious choices made by their grown children; the "proselytising"; the supposed domination by clerics who withheld information from the ordinary faithful; the slurs on the discipline of the Confessional; the innuendo about murder and sexual abuses; the end seeming to justify the means; the peculiarities of architectural and decorative detail.

The polemical techniques are the same: the 'sweeping charges', the 'simple assertion' and the 'imputation.' There is the conviction 'of all manner of crimes on the simple ground of our being notoriously accused of them'; 'the burden of proof ... thrown upon the accused'; the hostile 'assuming the point in debate ... in the very principles with which they set out.' Pilloried is 'the system of judging any body of men by extracts, passages, specimens, and sayings – nay even by their documents, if these are taken by us to be sufficient informants, instead of our studying the living body itself'; and the 'stringing together of certain sentences without any notice of the context.'

Cardinal Newman noted that 'the rhetoric in request' was 'something which will cut a dash, something gaudy and staring, something inflammatory', and the consequent production of 'the prodigious, the enormous, the abominable, the diabolical, the impossible.' It is usual, then as now, to find 'a crime charged ... with such startling vividness and circumstantial finish as to seem to carry its own evidence with it, and to dispense, in the eyes of the public, with the references which in fairness should attend it. The scene is laid ... in the high table-land of Mexico.' (Peru is Michael Walsh's Mexico. It is far enough away to serve the same purpose).

What is the accused to do when faced by an attacker who 'has picked up facts at third or fourth hand, and has got together a crude farrago of ideas, words, and instances, a little truth, a deal of falsehood, a deal of misrepresentation, a deal of nonsense, and a deal of invention'? The author of old deals at length with the virtual impossibility and probable ineffectiveness, as regards public opinion at large, of answering the complex of shifting charges. In all humility he concludes:

'Good is never done except at the expense of those who do it: truth is never enforced except at the sacrifice of its propounders. At least, they expose their inherent imperfections, if they incur no other penalty; for nothing would be done at all, if a man waited to do it so well, that no one could find fault with it.'

It would appear that Michael Walsh's work follows in a long tradition of anti-Catholic and anti-Papal sentiment over centuries, found in certain streams of British life and literature, arguably even approaching the notorious ravings of such as Maria Monk, but focussing the charges on the smaller target of Opus Dei. There is nothing new under the sun. The reader would do well to return to Newman's Lectures for a most perceptive and amusing debunking of the 'arguments' and polemical techniques used in The Secret World of Opus Dei.

-o-0-o-

Any reader who wishes to have further information on any matters dealt with in this book, or in Michael Walsh's book, whether covered above or not, is most welcome to contact, for example, the nearest Opus Dei Information Office. In London, the address is 5 Orme Court, London W2 4RL, and in Dublin, 10 Hume Street, Dublin 2. The telephone numbers can be found in the appropriate directories.