|
BEYOND THE THRESHOLD -- A LIFE IN OPUS DEI |
|
9. REPRISALS Correspondence Between My Father and Monsignor Escriva [1] The day after the conversation with my family, when my father arrived home at lunch time, he asked me to read the draft of a letter to Opus Dei requesting my personal documents. He was outraged that they had been retained. "No matter what you may have done, they have no legal right to retain your personal documents. They don't even do that in prison." Although the letter was addressed to Monsignor Escriva, it was answered by Francisco Vives. A translation of both letters follows: Madrid, October 4, 1966
Very Reverend Monsenor Josemaria Dear Monsignor Escriva: I take the liberty of writing to ask you to have the kindness of ordering the following documents, that my daughter Maria del Carmen left in Rome and that are now most necessary, be sent to me at the address below: 1) Her Venezuelan identity card. valid until 1970, similar to our Spanish identity document. Specifically, this document was inside a little weekly planning book, which Miss M. Morado took from Maria del Carmen. 2) The international vaccination certificate, a booklet with yellow covers issued in Caracas. 3) Papers recording her grades at the Madrid Central College of Commerce and other public educational institutions, Secretarial School, and so forth. 4) Birth and baptismal certificates. 5) Official Gazette of Venezuela in which her Venezuelan nationality was published. 6) Spanish Social Service Certificate [2] 7) International driver's license, valid until April 1967, issued in Caracas. 8) Any other personal documents which I might not expressly list now, but which evidently have strictly personal utility, among which are, for example, a smallish, black notebook with addresses, etc. That is to say, I repeat, papers, documents, etc., which could only concern my daughter, as, to give another example, passport-size photos. I would like to express particular appreciation for any inconvenience my request might cause and hope you will indicate any expense you may incur so that I can reimburse you immediately.
Signed, ***
FRANCISCO VIVES Rome, October 11, 1966
Mr. Francisco Javier Tapia
Cervantes-Pinelo Dear Mr. Tapia: Your letter of October 4 arrived when Monsignor Escriva de Balaguer was out of Rome. However, I have had the opportunity to speak with Monsignor by telephone and in his absence, would like to answer you personally. I will send you with pleasure those things belonging to Maria del Carmen that are here. I will wait for the opportunity of a friend's trip in the near future, which seems more secure than ordinary mail. However, I truly regret having to say that my conscience does not permit me to send the things related to your daughter's stay in Venezuela. What I have just said doubtless requires an explanation particularly if, furthermore, one considers that quite probably you have received a notably partial and deformed version of events. Please believe that with these lines I do not intend to increase your concerns, but rather to contribute to your daughter's wellbeing. Accordingly, I feel obliged to say that if you were aware of some of the details of your daughter Maria del Carmen's behavior in Venezuela, you would be deeply hurt, for she not only harmed herself but also seriously wronged other souls. You will now understand better why I cannot send you anything related to your daughter's stay in Venezuela. This is likewise the reason why your daughter was absolutely advised -- and I want you to know -- not to consider returning to Venezuela. I must say with all honesty that Maria del Carmen's going to Venezuela might lead to great unpleasantness, because matters would come to light there which until now -- out of consideration for you and your wife and out of charity toward your daughter -- we have diligently silenced, maintaining total discretion. I have tried, my dear Mr. Tapia, to be clear and tactful, bur not crude. In order that you may realize more fully the importance of what has occurred, I only wish to add that all of the means that might assist your daughter were employed during a long period. Finally, in view of her having lost her way, there was no choice but to open a process, fulfilling the norms of Canon Law with maximum justice and charity and using the utmost delicacy at each step. I hope you will also understand why we have not informed you about these matters. We have wished to cover her faults with the mantle of charity, and the proof is that we have not informed even you about these lamentable events. By contrast, it is evident to me that Maria del Carmen does not maintain this silence-nor does she honor the truth-which astounds me, because if we permit the truth to be known, it would be most painful for her. I must not end without expressing my deep sorrow at what has occurred and the hope that Maria del Carmen will finally reorient her life and forget the past, as those of us whose duty required that they be involved in this matter, have done.
Yours sincerely, With Father Francisco Vives' letter to my father were enclosed my final examination grades from the Central College of Commerce, the weekly grade booklet from the French Dominican Sisters School in Valladolid, and a few other final examination grades of miscellaneous courses, but nothing else. I did not find out that my father had received this letter until a couple of weeks later. My father was a very calm man, opposed to violence, unable to hurt a human being. He was a good colleague and a good superior. He was a man of integrity. Everybody under his orders deeply revered him because he was always fair. I do not recall that my father ever spoke badly of anyone. He always tried to give in to "the other side" to calm tempers. Even when he was denounced in the civil war, he never took reprisals against those responsible. Given my father's character, he could not conceive that Monsignor Escriva had ordered that anything of this sort could be written; my father was certain that it would hurt me deeply. He resolved to go to England, where, as he had discovered, Dr. Panikkar was delivering the Tape Lectures at Cambridge. He wanted to ask him if he ought to show me that letter. He sought this advice because he knew Dr. Panikkar was a priest, had been my spiritual director, and had left Opus Dei. That my parents should travel to England did not surprise me, because they went frequently on account of my father's professional activities. Raimundo Panikkar told my parents two things: first that they should show me the letter, and second, that Father Vives' letter was blackmail. It was important that I be made aware of its content. When my parents returned, they gave me the letter. After my experiences in Rome, nothing surprised me anymore. After reading the letter, I finally told my parents in detail about my time in Rome and Monsignor Escriva's insults. At the time my father received Francisco Vives' letter the only specific charge I had heard was that I had "murmured," that is, dared to criticize notes sent by Monsignor Escriva to Venezuela as irrelevant for that country. The uninitiated may find it difficult to believe that for Opus Dei this is of capital importance. Two years ago, in a public statement issued by the Opus Dei central directress, I heard for the first time that "I was planning a coup d'etat in Venezuela." For anyone familiar with the rigid centralism within Opus Dei, it is hard to imagine a more preposterous accusation. My familiarity with the internal workings of Opus Dei made me dangerous outside the institution. Toward me, as toward others who have left and might talk about the association, the tactic has been to intimidate and then to launch vague accusations that generally involve insinuations of mental instability or sexual deviation. Opus Dei never accuses up-front and clearly, but always uses unspecific terms that, nevertheless, can be easily interpreted. In subsequent chapters, I will present the charges that Opus Dei made against me to the Holy See in 1981, as they are recorded in the Acts of Monsignor Escriva's process of beatification in the Vatican archives. By describing me as a "perverse" person, Opus Dei managed to dissuade Vatican authorities from calling me as a close observer of Monsignor Escriva's life. The description was presented to the Vatican by Monsignor Javier Echevarria. Monsignor Echevarria never heard my confession nor talked to me alone. Curiously, his recent election to the post of Opus Dei prelate was based, according to its Constitutions, on his "prudence, piety, charity toward the prelature and zeal for his fellow men." [3] My father was very concerned. When I explained that there were people who witnessed Escriva's words and insults to me, my father said to me: "Those people, as insects, are ready to give their lives for the sake of the cause, not for the sake of the truth." He was afraid that they might do something to me. We seriously considered legal action, because of my father's fear of recriminations. He preferred to wait several months, but in March 1967, since my documents never arrived, he felt it was appropriate to send another letter to Monsignor Escriva, which follows. No reply was ever made to this letter, although I have the return receipt confirming that it was received in Rome. My father died in September 1969 and he never received a reply from Rome. Madrid, March 9, 1967
Very Reverend Josemaria Escriva de
Balaguer y Albas Dear Monsignor Escriva: I have received Dr. Francisco Vives' letter of the past October 11, in which he responds in your name to my letter of October 4. The letter was hand delivered at my office, accompanied by some of the documents mentioned in my letter. Since that date I have been waiting to receive the remaining personal documents belonging to my daughter, Maria del Carmen, also requested in my letter. I was confident that, in spite of what Dr. Vives declared in his letter, you would understand that, as these are personal documents which belong purely and simply to my daughter, they ought to be returned to me. However, these documents have not been sent to me, and therefore, I beg you once again, to arrange to have them sent as soon as possible. These are personal documents that she must have at her disposal; the unavailability of these documents may cause legal consequences. For these reasons, there is no justification for their retention by you. In regard to your reference to my daughter's possible trips to Venezuela, there is nothing I can tell you. Only God knows the future of each particular person. Neither you nor I can limit her freedom of movement. As you well know, we all must respect personal freedom. While I await the requested documents I am,
Yours sincerely, FJT/lal Toward the end of 1966, while I was at work in the Garrigues law firm, my mother called me at work one day to say that Dr. Lilia Negron and her husband, Dr. Jose Nunez, had phoned me at home. My poor mother, burned by her experience with Guadalupe Ortiz de Landazuri, merely told them to call that evening, without giving them my work number, but they had left the number of the hotel where they were staying. I called at once with great delight and we made an appointment to meet that very afternoon. The reunion moved me deeply. I narrated my Roman odyssey and said that while, on the one hand, I was afraid of going mad, on the other, I was terrified by the possibility that they might shut me up in an insane asylum. They glanced at each other and said: "There you go. Do you realize?" They had been greatly puzzled by my failure to answer any of the series of letters they wrote. That was compounded by the mysterious attitude of the superiors in Venezuela -- however much Lilia asked for me, they never revealed where I was -- and by the fact that they had also sent Ana Maria Gibert and Begona Elejalde to Spain without explanations. Putting the pieces together, it became clear that the fact that Ana Maria Gibert was my directress and that I had written to her while I was in Rome led Opus Dei superiors to behave toward her in the deplorable way described earlier and then, as a punishment, sent her to Spain. Knowing Opus Dei's modus operandi, Lilia and her husband took very seriously the possibility that they might have committed me to an asylum to get me out of the way. The idea shocked them, but they did not reject it, resolving to go to Spain. Since Lilia was a psychiatrist, they reasoned that they were the only people who could get me out of wherever I was. The first step they took on reaching Madrid was to telephone Beatriz Briceno, a Venezuelan Opus Dei numerary, now a journalist and in Madrid for some time, to ask for my address. Beatriz said she did not know it, because "I lived in a village without a telephone." Naturally, they did not believe her. (In fact, Beatriz Briceno knew perfectly well where I lived; she herself resided in the next block from my parents' house and through my younger brother I discovered that Beatriz used to visit my parents occasionally.) So, Lilia and her husband began to go through the Madrid telephone directory calling all the Tapias listed, until my mother answered one of the calls. Of course, when they left Madrid, Lilia and her husband went to bid Beatriz goodbye and let her know that, I didn't "live in any village." On Dr. Panikkar's return from Argentina he asked me to work part-time for him and to take care of his publications, to which I agreed. He returned to India, where he was living, and I continued to work for the Madrid law firm until February 1967, when I became convinced that I could not do two jobs. I resolved to leave the law firm to work full time for Dr. Panikkar. The United States In May 1967, I came to the United States for the first time. Professor Panikkar had accepted an invitation from Harvard University and had begun to teach in February 1967. I spent the summer of 1967 at Manhattanville College in White Plains, New York, where a routine medical checkup discovered uterine tumors that needed to be removed as soon as possible. Since I had no health insurance and was alone, I left for Caracas at the invitation of my friends, the Nunez's, who sent me a plane ticket. Dr. Romulo Lander, who had been my personal physician for years, was also in Caracas. I stayed at the Nunez's home in Caracas. The emotions at my return to that beloved country were almost indescribable. I renewed my acquaintance with many cherished friends. Among them was Cecilia Mendoza, a former numerary, who left Opus Dei because she refused to testify against me to the Opus Dei priest who arrived as an official visitor to inquire about my behavior. Cecilia, who was in Maracaibo, was questioned about anything that she might have noticed in my behavior against the spirit of the Work. She replied that I had a strong and straightforward character and that she had not seen anything in my attitude against the spirit of Opus Dei. Persistently interrogated and asked to dig down into her consciousness about my behavior, she told the priest that she could make no other statement. She left Opus Dei, upset and furious about the grilling. Shortly after leaving, she met Tomas Gunz, whom she married a year later. Her husband, Tomas, likes to say that thanks to me he met his wife. The primary objective, however, for my trip to Caracas was to visit the Nuncio and His Excellency Cardinal Quintero, to tell them that Monsignor Escriva had said that if I went back to Venezuela he would tell the Cardinal "who I was." The Nuncio listened in silence and said that I should not worry, because "God sees the truth of human beings in their hearts." At my insistence that he interrogate me about whatever and however he pleased, Cardinal Quintero repeated: "Don't forget, daughter, superiors, too, make mistakes." Dr. Lander's evaluation concurred that I needed to undergo surgery. He offered to do it himself, but given that my parents were in Madrid, I returned to Spain, where Dr. Leon Lopez de la Osa performed the surgery. Fortunately, I had no cancer. The topic of Opus Dei faded into history, or so I thought. There followed a period of readjustment to normal life, until I came across Opus Dei again. Responsibility for Dr. Panikkar's publications required extensive travel, since he resided in India and taught at Harvard. Eventually, I decided to stay in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for six months of the year and divide the rest of my time between Europe and South America. The dominant recollection of the years from 1966 to 1971 is of difficulty and isolation. However, my work, the travel, new acquaintances, new countries, and my religious faith helped dissipate my inner isolation. God helped by giving me the insight to reconstruct my new personal life: new friends in different countries and new languages; involvement again in things I always enjoyed like art, music, and reading. My time at Harvard was very interesting and helpful. I spent long hours at the Harvard libraries and attended English classes and French literature lectures. The University of Santa Barbara offered Dr. Panikkar a position as full professor in 1971, a move that made me come to the West Coast for the first time and establish residence in California. Correspondence to Obtain My Certificate of Studies The University of California started the paper work for my application as a permanent resident of the United States. I then stumbled onto an unexpected problem while trying to fill one of the immigration questionnaires. I had to list my occupation and addresses during several years when I had belonged to Opus Dei. It was easy to list addresses of the houses where I had lived in Opus Dei. The difficulty was to explain my professional occupation to the Immigration Service. As a secular institute, Opus Dei did not confer any juridical status on its members. So, to tell the State Department that I had been an Opus Dei numerary and had occupied leadership positions was more or less like saying that I had been a YMCA member, or rather less, since the YMCA is infinitely better known that Opus Dei in the United States. Hence, it was as if I had been in limbo for a number of years. The dean of foreign students and scholars counseled me in this tedious process and advised that the best thing would be to explain what courses of studies I had completed during my affiliation with Opus Dei. In other words, I should request of Opus Dei a certificate -- not a transcript -- where those studies would be listed. Needless to say, the Immigration Service and, in the last analysis, the State Department require such information as a condition for consideration for permanent residence status in the United States. The questionnaires are taken seriously, and vague answers are not tolerated. Copies of the entire official correspondence dealing with the request for a certificate of Opus Dei studies appear in Appendix A in chronological order. It includes a series of replies systematically denying that I had ever studied as a member of the Work. The replies were given to government agencies. There is also a somewhat confused explanation of the matter sent by Opus Dei to the Holy See. The affair was serious because a file developed in the international office of the university, in which Opus Dei superiors denied in writing what I had affirmed as true in the questionnaires. If my supporting material had been reviewed within a certain time period, the result would have been that I would seem to have committed perjury. I struggled to obtain the certificate of studies for six years. Finally, an Opus Dei priest who had been a professor in the majority of the courses realized the grave harm that the groundless refusal of the Opus Dei superiors might occasion, possibly including deportation. One does not play games with the State Department. He decided in conscience to give me the certificate himself. Unfortunately, that action led to serious reprimand, from Opus Dei superiors, a break in communications with me and others and the threat that if he contacted me again, he would be expelled from the association. Since he became the object of Opus Dei's customary interrogations and isolation, I have inked out his signature in the Appendix. You must understand that all these letters, which Opus Dei sent to persons who, in their official capacity, sought information regarding my studies, were written with the consent of Monsignor Escriva. In Opus Dei any member, superior or not, signs anything whatever requested by "our Father" (as Monsignor Escriva has been called within Opus Dei since his death) or the Father (as the reigning prelate is familiarly called). This is true even though the author of a letter knows that he is distorting the truth. If it "suits the good of the Work" nobody would dare not to sign or write what they are given, even though they clearly know that the facts are misrepresented. A patent example is the case of Father Roberto Salvat Romero, Monsignor Escriva's representative in Venezuela. Besides being a Spanish lawyer, he was also my professor in the ethics course and he claimed on different occasions that I had not done any studies in the institution in Caracas. I have often wondered why they did not want to give me a certificate for the courses I had completed, which would not have involved any degree, but a confirmation that I had taken a number of subjects based on syllabi established by Opus Dei and had obtained certain grades in them. Doubtless this is simply a reprisal, with the hope of discrediting me by making me appear as a liar before government agencies. This is the standard practice of Opus Dei. Besides, the question of Opus Dei's internal studies has not been totally resolved in regard to outside educational authorities. Opus Dei prefers not to clarify the nature of its internal studies to avoid any possible evaluation by outside academics. A blatant example of a more violent and hurtful reprisal was the campaign organized against Maria Angustias Moreno, when she published her book El Opus Dei: Anexo a una historia (Barcelona: Planeta, 1976), which portrayed Opus Dei in detail. By order of the superiors, the volume was swept up from bookstores, exhausting an edition, thus impeding its diffusion. I managed to buy the book during a trip to Madrid. I had never met the author although she was an Opus Dei numerary for many years. Criticisms of the book or better against the book from persons who were unquestionably close to Opus Dei culminated in a campaign of character assassination, which led Maria Angustias Moreno to publish a second book, La otra cara del Opus Dei (Barcelona: Planeta, 1979), which documents these attacks. Exclusions of Witnesses Considered Not Suitable Opus Dei does not play fair. Though Monsignor Escriva used to repeat that "we must drown evil in an abundance of goodness," his association engages in reprisals in order to reach its goals. It uses slander to defend itself, and given its own obsession, the slander always hints at sexual misconduct. At the risk of jeopardizing my own reputation, I believe it is important to stress the extent to which Opus Dei employs this strategy. It is very sad that an institution of the church that uses the word "pax" as the customary greeting among its members, whose Founder claimed that "we are sowers of peace and joy," can stoop so low as to denigrate persons in writing, even hiding behind official ecclesiastical secrecy. In late 1991 and early 1992 Opus Dei stated to the press, sometimes without mentioning names, that a number of persons had not been called to testify in Monsignor Escriva's beatification process, because the tribunal for the Process for the Cause of Beatification had decided that the persons were not suitable. What Opus Dei never said was why those persons were not suitable, nor who supplied the Tribunal with such information. Popular wisdom is generally right. The Spanish saying that "there is nothing hidden between heaven and earth" is very true. Sooner or later things always unravel. The summary of the Acts of the Madrid Tribunal for Monsignor Escriva's beatification (p. 2133) declares in regard to the "exclusion of some possible witnesses": b) Existence of a campaign of defamation against the servant of God and Opus Dei. In the search for other possible contrary witnesses to be cited by us, the Tribunal examined individual attitudes of several possible candidates, and after having gathered the necessary evidence, reached the conclusion that these also were to be rejected, just as Miss Moreno had been. The Tribunal further came to demonstrate the existence of a campaign of defamation seeking to put obstacles to the Cause of the Servant of God.... The larger part of those persons was made up of individuals who, after having been part of Opus Dei for some years, had abandoned their vocations and presently cultivate intense resentment.... In this regard, the Madrid Tribunal gathered a rather eloquent documentation. Particularly significant was Miss Carmen Tapia (who turned out to have been involved in the preparation of the program La Clave and to have suggested furthermore that Opus Dei priests lacked respect for the sacramental seal).... The Tribunal made the statement based on the information gathered, that the behavior of these persons made them unsuitable to testify in a Canonical Process and in fact unreliable to clarify the truth. [4] The actual facts are that there exists no campaign of defamation against the beatification of Monsignor Escriva, nor against Opus Dei, nor is there a group organized to these ends. [5] Opus Dei has invented this to claim martyrdom. The simple truth is that I did not participate in any session of La Clave, as can easily be confirmed by the television chain that broadcasts the program. I was invited to participate in the program in May 1984, but I was not part in any way of its preparation. What is more, the refusal by its organizers to tell me who the Opus Dei participants were in the program, while, by contrast, Opus Dei did know the names of the other guests, led me to decline the invitation. Indeed, the Madrid newspaper, El Pais, published a note with this information. [6] Let us consider now other paragraphs from pages 2136 and 2137 of the Documentary Appendix of the Summary of Monsignor Escriva's process of beatification, which refer to me: 6. In effect, during the process, the Tribunal attempted to obtain information about persons who had had relations with the Servant of God and could or should be called as witnesses. We thus were able to discover that there is a group of persons that appears to be associated with Miss Maria Angustias Moreno in that same fundamental attitude of aversion toward Opus Dei. When they can, these individuals do not hesitate to direct such aversion against the Servant of God as the founder of this institution.... The majority of these persons signed a collective letter against Opus Dei, which appeared in the Diario de Barcelona, January 30, 1977, subsequently reprinted in other sensationalist or pro-Marxist periodicals and magazines. We attach a photocopy of that letter in Appendix III. 10. Although she does not appear among the signatories of the mentioned letter, Miss Maria del Carmen Tapia, who used to belong to Opus Dei, is also part of this group. We have found out that she had a major share in the preparation for the program La Clave, which Spanish Television devoted to Opus Dei (Cf. Appendices I and II). In Appendix IX there are photocopies of notes by Miss Tapia sent to Spanish Television for the development of that program. During the program she was mentioned on several occasions both by the director of La Clave and by Miss Maria Angustias Moreno. She generally resides in California (USA) but makes frequent trips to Spain and has been in contact with Miss Moreno. Her open hostility to Opus Dei and incidentally to the Cause was obvious also in two long letters, one published in the daily paper El Pais (February 17, 1988), and the other earlier, directed to Miss Moreno to express her solidarity with Miss Moreno's first book against Opus Dei. The letter was reproduced in Miss Moreno's second book (Appendix X). [7] Opus Dei obstinately asserts that I belong to some group. The truth is that I ended up so burned by having belonged to their group, the Opus Dei, that today I shun the G in group! I did not participate in the planning of the program. I do not recall the letter they say I wrote to El Pais. What is frightening, really frightening, is the spy network Opus Dei seems to have organized to check my correspondence and follow my movements. Moreover, obvious questions remain. How does anything set forth in those Acts and Summary constitute an impediment to my testimony about a person I knew so well and for so long. My sanctity is not at issue but that of Monsignor Escriva. Are persons not in agreement with Monsignor Escriva ipso facto anathema, even though we continue to be faithful children of the church? Are slander and aggression the doctrine that Monsignor Escriva left as an inheritance to Opus Dei? All this reflects badly on the charity which, as they maintain, Monsignor Escriva lived heroically but which, during the six years that I spent in Rome as a major superior in Opus Dei, I never witnessed. Doubtless, Opus Dei feared that we who knew Monsignor Escriva so very well might tell the truth and that the likelihood of his beatification and eventual canonization would thereby be less likely. To prevent us from testifying in the cause, Opus Dei's approach was to allege deeds which would make us unacceptable witnesses beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since these declarations were secret, and they were convinced that the interested parties would never discover them, they did not hesitate to attack with low, disgraceful slander about sexual conduct. This is demonstrated by the declarations made regarding me by Monsignor Javier Echevatria, then general secretary of Opus Dei and now prelate. They appear on pages 610 and 611 of the "Summary of the Roman Process for the Cause of Beatification of Monsignor Jose Marla Escriva." 2347. Unfortunately, it was not to be, because years later, she attempted to pervert several women with the worst aberrations. As soon as the Servant of God knew certain facts, he called Carmen Tapia -- who was in Venezuela -- to Rome. Here he announced to her that she would not return to that country, and from her reaction deduced that there were more important matters than those already known, in which several persons were involved. In the face of such horrendous depravity, which cost Servant of God many tears on account of the most serious offenses to the Lord, and for which he tried to make reparation with constant prayer and penance, he told this woman that she had two solutions: to seek a dispensation which would be immediately granted, or to not seek it, and then it would be necessary that she be subjected to a process, which would be sent to the Holy See, leaving her -- as she deserved -- completely dishonored on account of her wayward life. That woman sought the dispensation. As the Servant of God understood that she was a person without conscience, he warned her that if she slandered the work with her corruption, there would be no choice but to inform about who was the slanderer. We have found out, unfortunately, that this woman has continued on this disastrous path. [8] The complete lack of charity toward a fellow human being is striking. If this alleged "horrendous depravity" had been real, Monsignor Escriva's task in charity would have been to be silent about it. But it is not Christian to employ slander and defamation to keep a person from testifying in Monsignor Escriva's process. The reader ought in fairness to receive two clarifications: a) Monsignor Escriva never wept for the sins of anyone and did not wish us to weep for anything or anyone. "You must be strong, my daughters." Speaking of his death, he even used to say: "The day I die, a few tears because we are human, but then, to work, hey!" b) Bishop Javier Echevarria, or "Javi" as he was familiarly known in Opus Dei, was never my confessor nor was he a superior of the Women's Branch during the eighteen years that I spent in Opus Dei. I never spoke confidentially with him during all those years nor at any other time. He was, however, present at the scoldings and insults that Monsignor Escriva hurled at me on the occasion of my expulsion. It was he who recorded in an official document (Monsignor Escriva's) admonitions to me. _______________ 1. Copies of my father's two letters to Monsignor Escriva in Spanish as well as the reply from Francisco Vives may be found in Appendix B. 2. Under Franco the Social Service Certificate was required for women as a rough equivalent of military service for men. Consequently, this certificate was necessary in order to get a passport or to obtain work. 3. Codex Juris Particularis Operis Dei, no. 131, para. 3. 1. "b) l'esistenza di una campagna diffamatoria contra il Servo di Dio e l'Opus Dei. Nella ricerca di altri eventuali testi conrari da citare d'ufficio, il Tribunale esamino le singole posizioni di diversi possibili candidati e, dopo aver raccolto le prove necessarie, giunse alla conclusione che anche costoro andavano scartati, per gli stessi motivi per cui lo era stata la sig.na Moreno. "II Tribunale pervenne anzi all'evidente constatazione dell'esistenza di una campagna diffamatoria mirante ad ostacolare la Causa del Servo di Dio, la cui esponente piu in vista era proprio la sig.na Moreno, ma alla quale collaboravano attivameme anche altri. La maggior parte di castoro era costituita da persone che, dopa aver fatto parte per alcuni anni dell'Opus Dei, avevano abbandonato la vocazione e coltivano attualmente un acceso risentimemo. Pochi avevano avuto rapporti diretti con il Servo di Dio su questi il Tribunale di Madrid raccolse una documentazione assai eloquente. Si trattava, in particolare, della sig.na Carmen Tapia (che risultava essere intervenuta nella preparazione della trasmissione "La Clave", suggerendo addirittura di accusare i sacerdoti dell'Opus Dei di mancato rispetto del sigillo sacramentale).... il Tribunale dichiarava doversi concludere, in base ai dati raccolti, che la loro stessa condotta li rendeva inidonei a testimoniare in un Processo canonico a comunque inattendibili in ordine all acclaramemo della verita;" "Sull'esclusione di alcuni possibili testi: I. Atti del Tribunale Matritense," in Romana et Matriten. Beatificationis et Canonizationis Servi Dei Josephmariae Escriva de Balaguer, Sacerdotis Fundatoris Societatis Sacerdotalis S. Crucis et Operis Dei, Positio Super Vita et Virtutibus: Summarium (Rome, 1988), p. 2133. 5. In the United States ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network), of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, has the goal of supporting persons who have suffered because of Opus Dei. They are not so much concerned with Escriva's beatification as with alerting families about Opus Dei tactics. 6. El Pais, May 26, 1984. 7. "6. Efectivamente, durante el Proceso, el Tribunal trato de obtener informacion sobre personas que hubieran tenido relacion con el Siervo de Dios y que pudieran o debieran ser llamadas como testigos. Pudimos asi averiguar que hay un grupo de personas, en el que todas se muestran unidas a dona Maria Angustias Moreno en esa misma fundamental actitud de aversion al Opus Dei, que no dudan en descargar, cuando pueden, sobre el Siervo de Dios, como Fundador de esta Institucion.... "La mayoria de estas personas son las que firmaron una carta colectiva contra el Opus Dei que aparecio en el Diario de Barcelona del 30.1.1977 y que fue reproducida despues en otros organos de opinion y en revistas de caracter sensacionalista a de inspiracion marxista. Adjuntamos en Anexo III una fotocopia de aquella carta.... "10. Aunque no figura entre los firmantes de la carta citada, forma tambien parte de este grupo dona Maria del Carmen Tapia, que pertenecio al Opus Dei. Hemos sabido que tuvo una decisiva participacion en los preparativos del programa "La Clave", que Television espanola ha dedicado al Opus Dei (cfr. Anexos I y II). En el Anexo IX se recogen fotocopias de unas notas de la Srta. Tapia enviadas a la Television espanola para la elaboracion de ese programa. Durante el programa fue citada en varias ocasiones, tanto par el Director de "La Clave", como por dona Maria Angustias Moreno. Reside habitualmente en California (USA), pero hace viajes frecuentes a Espana y ha mantenido relacion con la Srta. Moreno. Su manifiesta hostilidad al Opus Dei -- y, de rechazo, a la Causa -- queda tambien patente en las dos extensas cartas, una publicada en el diario El Pais (Madrid, 17.XI.1981), y la otra, anterior, dirigida a la Srta. Moreno para solidarizarse con el primer libro publicado por esta contra el Opus Dei, y transcrita en su segundo libro (Anexo X)" Ibid., p. 2136-37. 8. "2347 (p. 769). Desgracidamente no debio ser asi, porque al cabo de los anos intento la perversion de unas cuantas mujeres con las peores aberraciones. El Siervo de Dios, apenas tuvo conocimiento de algunos hechos, llamo a Carmen Tapia -- que estaba en Venezuela -- a Rama; aqui le anuncio que no volveria a ese pais, y por su reaccion, dedujo que habia cuestiones mas importantes que las ya conocidas en las cuales habia involucrado a varias personas. Ante tan horrenda depravacion, que costa mucho llanto al Siervo de Dios por las gravisimas ofensas al Senor, y que trato de reparar con una costante oracion y penitencia, dijo a esa mujer que tenia dos soluciones: pedir la dispensa, que se le concederia inmediatamente, o no pedirla, y entonces habria de someterse a un proceso, que seria enviado a la Santa Sede, quedando -- como se merecia -- completamente deshonrada por su extraviada vida. Aquella mujer pidio la dispensa; y como el Siervo de Dios comprendio que era una persona sin conciencia, Ie advirtio que si calumniaba a la Obra con su corrupcion, no habria mas remedio que informar sobre quien era la calumniadora. "Hemos sabido que, desgraciadamente, esta mujer ha seguido por esos desastrosos derroteros." "Sull'esclusione di alcuni testi: II. Ani del Tribunal Romana," in ibid., pp. 610-11.
|