Fair enough, Joe. We can certainly agree that Opus Dei is "the wealthiest and most powerful" neoconservative organisation (I would say "cult") in the Catholic church, and is seeking a return to the authority-blind obedience model of religion (I would say the "blind obedience to authority" model).

I was reacting to your somewhat forlorn-sounding effort earlier to find middle ground, where in my view there isn't any. (For instance: "I can't bring myself to see it as a threat in any way - just an annoyance.")

Opus Dei bought its way into favour with John-Paul II by bailing the Vatican out of its Ambrosiano bank scandal. It is a cult formed around the personality of its founder, Josemaria Escriva, it long resisted all attempts to classify it within the existing church structure, intending to make itself a church within a church.

It shares the cult of personality with more extreme catholic factions: Communion and Liberation (founder Luigi Giussani), the Neocatechumenate (Kiko Arguello) and Focolare (Chiara Lubich - hello, how did she slip in?). In the case of the last two, one might even say "personality worship."

These factions have majored on luring the vulnerable young into their clutches, sometimes tearing families apart in the process. And their numbers are not small - both Opus Dei and the Neocatechumenate have their own openly declared parishes in London, though the UK is far from their most productive hunting ground.

Why on earth did the pope take these dubious factions under his wing? Because he needed the shock troops they could deliver, at a time of catastrophic decline in vocations.

A degree of concern about Kelly's dabbling in such circles is entirely reasonable. But unless or until it influences her behaviour in government, it is enough that her involvement is in the public domain.