Copyright © 2003-2017 by E.B.E. – The text of this book has been registered and is protected by Copyright laws. All right reserved.

The sources on Opus Dei, quoted in this book, were previously  published in the book Opus Dei as divina revelation, 2016.

Translation into English: E.B.E. (the author).

First English edition: 2017.

Distributed by: Amazon.

ASIN: B0753GXRMP

Table of Contents

About the author

Warning

Preface

Vocation to Opus Dei

A negative definition

The vocation according to Pious Union (1941)

The vocation according to Constitutions (1950)

Consecrated lays?

Religious?

The vocation according to Statutes (1982)

Laity and Prelature

Vows and states

Vocational vacuum

Epilogue

About the author

The author was numerary member of Opus Dei for more than two decades. He did not hold management positions. He studied Social Science in South America. Later he moved towards the computer field until today. Driven by his desires to understand his experience in Opus Dei, he writes on Opuslibros.org about different aspects of the life in Opus Dei.

Warning

The author of this book, as well as several others authors mentioned here, does not use the real name but a pen name. This could surprise some readers. The reason to do this is very simple: in many cases, these people have suffered very painful experiences and do not want to repeat the same episode nor be exposed, and prefer to protect their privacy. By reading this book, the reader could get a better idea about the reason to proceed that way.

Sometimes, the use of the pen names is to protect other people who are bonded to the author: parents, relatives, friends, etcetera.

Former members have lost their jobs after leaving Opus Dei or suffered different kind of personal attacks (moral harassment, etc.). One of the most known cases was the persecution suffered by María Angustias Moreno because of the book she published in 1976[1].

There is no doubt that anyone could criticize in many ways those who write under pseudonyms (considering them coward, unreliable, etc.) but it is also very significant that many former members consider necessary to use the anonymity to protect themselves from Opus Dei and from its most intransigent believers.

While in many places in this book I use the past tense to narrate historical facts and Opus Dei’s organizational practices that I have witnessed, many of those practices are still in force. The doctrine taught by the founder J. M. Escrivá has a permanent value and —inside the organization— is considered, in many aspects, like a dogma.

«(...) from the moment that we do not make a human work, because our company is divine, it is not in our hands to give in, cut or change anything that the spirit and organization of the God's Work relates»[2]

No one can challenge or question the teachings of Msgr. Escrivá without putting oneself in a dangerous position:

If someone tried «to divert The Work from the divine characteristics that our Founder has given us, then that The Lord confused him, if [someone] tried to undermine The Work of God (...) he would be entitled to the divine curse»[3]

Preface

In 2012, I published a book titled "Opus Dei as divine revelation", focused on some critical aspect of Opus Dei as organization. In 2016, I published an English translation. At the suggestion of some readers, since that book is very comprehensive (576 pages), I decided to publish separately what probably is one of the most important chapters of it, related to the vocation to Opus Dei, so that readers could easily learn what it is about before joining Opus Dei. Catholics are invited to live a lay vocation, but the life they start living within Opus Dei (in particular, celibate members) is proper to religious. During his whole life, Msgr. Escrivá denied that such a situation could ever be possible, but in fact, that was what happened and still happens today. The phenomenon that could be called “dissociation” is one of the most peculiar characteristic of Opus Dei: its celibate members astonishingly live in a denial (double standards) without being aware that their lay identity is in conflict with their way of life (religious).

The text of this book was written originally in Spanish (2012) and translated by me into English (2016). I am very aware of the limitation and risk of doing this work by myself. I apologize for the errors the reader may found. Unless otherwise stated, the use of underline is not in the original text.

Those readers who would like this book and would want to know more about Opus Dei from a critical point of view could be interested in reading the previous book I wrote, which include several annexes and very important historical documents drawn from the National Foundation Francisco Franco and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain.

E.B.E.

Vocation to Opus Dei[4]

«How could I commit the iniquity of forcing you to follow a different vocation?»[5]
Escrivá, Letter, 25-V-1961

«Neither are we religious, nor do we seem religious, and there is no authority in the world that can force you to be religious»[6]
Escrivá, Conversations, n. 43

«We are being seen as if we were religious who hide their status»[7]
Escrivá, “Instrucción” 8-XII-1941

A negative definition

The vocation to Opus Dei could be defined in two ways: by a negative approach (its members are not religious) as well as a positive approach (the call to holiness for lay people). The first one can be used to say what Opus Dei is not, but that would not reveal very much what Opus Dei is, actually. That would be the purpose of a positive definition: “achieving holiness is possible for lay people and Opus Dei will show you how to get it”. Another way would be this: “in the past, only religious people had been saint, from now on all Christians are called to sainthood and Opus Dei will have the mission to spread out this message by seeking saintliness in daily life”. However, that is not what happened but the opposite.

Msgr. Escrivá promised his followers a secular way for seeking holiness and he denied that his organization could have any relation with religious orders or any other religious organization. “We are not like religious”, he used to say all the time. That idea was very clear from the beginning, and it would not have been necessary to repeat it so much, as the founder did. The real question is to know what Opus Dei should have been in the past and should be at the present.

«From the very beginning of Opus Dei’s foundation, my dear children, from October 2, 1928, I saw the Work as an organization which its members would never be religious, would never live like religious and could never be –in any way- compared with religious.»[8]

At the same time, he started, from the beginning, to add different elements from religious orders to his organization. That was problematic. However, it will explain two things: Escrivá’s continued need to deny any relation with religious traditions and the absence (emptiness) of a positive definition of Opus Dei: it will be defined as what “it is not” (we are not religious) instead of what “it is” (to say “we are ordinary Christians” does not add too much). To talk about “what Opus Dei is, actually” would mean to talk about what Opus Dei “should not be” (full of religious traditions).

The vocation according to Pious Union (1941)

«The approval as pious union was the next step of any organization that wanted either to take the road to religious life and to become a religious congregation, or to adopt the flexible model of societies of common life without public vows. In other words, a group of people that becomes pious union expresses its will to be distinguished from the rest of faithful under the associative-institutional aspect.» [9]

The identity problem, about what Opus Dei members are, appears already in the first official document that regulates Opus Dei as Pious Union (1941). That document was secret until recent years, when was published on Opuslibros.org:

«Msgr. Eijo, to avoid difficulties, decided that the whole document (Regulation, Regime, Ordinance, Customs, Spirit and Ceremonial) were not stored in the ordinary archive of the curia but in the secret one, restricting the access to this source by no one, except him and his successors.»[10]

That legal document has five sections. In the section named “Spirit”, the first article reads as follows:

«Opus Dei members are not religious, but the life they live –with full dedication to Jesus Christ— is, essentially, not different from the religious life.»[11]

It is very curious that the book “The canonical path” does not transcribe this text but only makes the following comment:

«The number 1 of the document Spirit [V], states, on a net basis, about Opus Dei members: “they are not religious”»[12]

That is not true, but almost the opposite. The authors of “The canonical path” do not show the source but tell what the document does not say. They seem to follow the same Escrivá's behavior: to deny any relation or trace of religious traditions. By doing that, they are changing Opus Dei's history.

It was never clearly defined by Msgr. Escrivá what the difference between Opus Dei members and religious are. The only thing he usually did was to deny any relation between both. But the ordinary Christians (as Opus Dei members are supposed to be) do not need to state that they are not religious or to define themselves as opposed to religious. Opus Dei members are neither religious, nor ordinary Christians.

«It should be noted, however, that we are not a circumstantial organization: we want to be really like a religious institute —with all its consequences— which has to last until the end.»[13]

As we can see, according to Escrivá´s own words, Opus Dei members’ identity is defined by two contradictories approaches: by denying any relation with religious and by associating them with religious. Opus Dei members are not [religious] but in a certain sense they seem to be like them. That text from 1934 gives the impression of an insecure Escrivá, who does not know what he is really looking for. Seven years later, in 1941, he will be more explicit: «[our life] is not different from religious life». Alvaro del Portillo wanted to clarify the sense of Escrivá’s words but he does not appear to have been successful:

«In this passage our Founder did not say that we have to be a religious institute: he inserts the adverbial “like” and adds “with all its consequences”, precisely in order to make it clear that we do not have to be a religious institute —“like” does not mean “equal to”— but an organization that requires a dedication, a “full commitment”: this is the meaning of “with all its consequences”»[14]

It would seem that Del Portillo is trying to explain the inexplicable: “to be like a religious institute” cannot mean the opposite, “not to be a religious institute”. This is obvious, but Del Portillo seems to prefer the more difficult interpretation in order to save Escrivá from his own contradictions. If Opus Dei members «cannot be in any way compared to religious»[15], then it is problematic that Escrivá himself uses the word “like” to precisely compare Opus Dei members to religious.

«It was not possible then —it was 1934— that the Father [Escrivá] explained things in another way: there was not accurate canonical terms, which would be found years later; he also kept seeking those [terms] because some people had tried, by ignorance or imprudence, to undermine the words used by the Father in order to apply them incorrectly. It was a titanic battle, in this and other fields, that Father had to deal with to defend the canonical, theological and ascetic nature of the Work. For those early years, there were people that, with admiration, said to Father, do you want to create a new canonical status? The answer of the Father was always the same: I do not (…).»[16]

It is strange what A. del Portillo says (in 1967) because Escrivá himself expressed in 1948 (“La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given by J.M. Escriva in Madrid, December 17, 1948) his delight in the new canonical status of perfection.

«There arise now (…) a new form of life of perfection whose members are not religious and they do not separate themselves from the world, living in the century the evangelical counsels.»[17]

It does not seem to be a problem of terms the reason why Escrivá failed “to explain things in another way” but the lack of clarity on Escrivá’s mind. There is a third possibility: he knew exactly that Opus Dei members were —and are— what he had already said: “like religious”, “not essentially different” and so on. Another interesting thing is that A. del Portillo does not say which are those canonical terms that did not exist at the time of Opus Dei’s foundation. One possible explanation is that the secular institute was the answer to the precarious situation pointed out by A. del Portillo: the new state of perfection would be the new term to explain what Escrivá was not able to describe before 1947 (and that would be the reason for the comparison to religious in early text of 1934 and 1941). In addition, Escrivá himself gave a conference to present the new status. However, Escrivá himself will later reject the secular institute status because of «the present meaning of the concept [Secular Institute] differs too much from the authentic sense»[18].

Even at the present, Opus Dei has trouble to find the appropriate terms to explain, for instance, the bond between members and prelature[19]. The problem are not the words but the lack of identity of its celibate members: they are not canonically religious but they live as religious and they pretend to be as any ordinary Christian. Escrivá was unable to explain Opus Dei without appeal to the analogy of religious life, the same one that he rejected and denied, once and again.

«Nothing distinguished my children from their fellow citizen. In contrast, apart from the Faith, they do not have anything in common with the members of the religious congregations.»[20]

The lay vocation to Opus Dei lacks of historical references that could show that it was ever fully lay, at least at the beginning. The religious elements of the Opus Dei vocation appear early. There was no transition from religious life to a full secular one: the early religious characteristics added by Escrivá will remain forever because they are considered “foundational”, that is, unalterable.

The vocation according to 1950 Constitutions

«The 1950 Constitutions are a rewriting of those of 1947. Therefore, to repeat the analysis would lead us to useless repetitions.»[21]

We would have liked to have the complete text of the 1947 Constitutions instead of a summary elaborated according to the criteria of others authors. Opus Dei does not supply a full copy of the Constitutions, neither 1947’s nor 1950’s versions, only the 1982 Statutes (in Latin exclusively, there is neither an English nor a Spanish official versions). The criteria used by the authors of “The canonical path” book to select the most important parts of those Constitutions is questionable: we have pointed out before how they ignored important passages of the 1941 Regulations, for instance, where the secularity of Opus Dei members were involved. We will focus on the 1950 Constitutions (its text is available on Internet, Odan.org and Opuslibros.org) and the 1947’s will be ignored.

By 1950, only numeraries were Opus Dei members, in strict sense of the term. For that reason, we will focus on them when we speak about vocation to Opus Dei according to 1950 Constitutions.

«In the Institute, members properly speaking include all Numeraries, cleric and lay, who devote themselves to acquiring evangelical perfection, dedicate themselves, with all their strength, to the particular apostolic works of the Institute; and they live family life in the Institute, from which they cannot be dispensed except in keeping with the prescriptions of these Constitutions.»[22]

The objectives of the Institute specify central aspects of the vocation:

«The general orientation of the end of the Institute is the sanctification of the members through the exercise of the Gospel counsels and by the observance of these Constitutions.»[23]

The aim is not different from others secular institutes according to the Provida Mater Ecclesia:

«Societies, clerical or lay, whose members make profession of the evangelical counsels, living in a secular condition for the purpose of Christian perfection and full apostolate shall be distinguished from all other associations (C.I.C. Pars Tertia, Lib. II) by the name of Institutes or Secular Institutes and shall be governed by this present Apostolic Constitution.»[24]

However, Opus Dei is differentiated by its own specific mission:

«Specifically, it is to work with all its strength so that the so-called intellectual class —which is a guide for civil society so much as by the learning it possesses, the posts it holds or prestige by which it is distinguished— embraces the precepts of Christ the Lord and puts them into practice; and also to nurture and spread the life of perfection in the world among all the classes of civil society and to teach all men and women to do apostolate in the world..»[25]

Opus Dei´s primary target —in accordance with 1950 Constitutions— are the intellectuals, and its main mission is to influence on the society:

«I intensely dislike anything that might sound like blowing one's own trumpet. But I think it would not be humility but blindness and ingratitude to the Lord, who so generously blesses our work, if we did not recognize that Opus Dei has a real influence on the life of Spain [1967]. It is logical that in those countries where we have been working for quite a few years (…) the influence of Opus Dei should already have a noticeable social impact which reflects the progressive development of our apostolate»[26]

There was an important change between these Constitutions and the previous 1941 Regulations. To the surprise of many, in this secret document the public administration appears as the major target for Opus Dei's apostolic work, therefore its members would strive for a place at the public administration:

«Members exercise apostolate ordinarily holding offices in public Administration, offices that they have to serve with exemplar loyalty.»[27]

This explicit aim, although it was later removed from the 1950 Constitutions, can explain the fact that several members of Opus Dei would be appointed to form part of the Franco’s government between 1957 and 1974. As Carmen Franco y Polo recalls,

«[the technocrats were] many of them members of Opus Dei and my father accepted that government because they seemed to him the most qualified people for that phase. And he was very friendly with some of them. López Bravo was a friend of his, and he liked him quite well. My father received visits from José María Escrivá Balaguer (the subsequently canonized founder of Opus Dei). Relations with him were very good, very good, though toward the end perhaps a bit less, but he received him every two or three months, and they talked. He had written a little book called Camino [The Way], a book of meditations that my mother had on her nightstand. It was a little like a Catholic Masonry, because they had the habit of helping the other members… Many People didn’t like them.»[28]

With regard to lay vocation, the 1950 Constitutions state that its members (let us remember, only numeraries) are not religious (take no vows) and they wear no especial clothes:

«The members of the Institute profess the evangelical counsels, although they do not take religious vows nor exhibit in their persons nor in their houses any external sign which shows them to be a religious family. The clerics wear the cleric dress common in the place in which they live; the laity, for their part, wear the clothing customary for those who are in the same or similar profession or social condition.»[29]

However, the supernumeraries (who are members in a broad sense) differ from the numeraries in two interesting points:

«These members [supernumeraries] not only do not live family life in the Institute, but whether publicly or privately, their life develops just like that of any lay person.»[30]

The two differences are these: no life in common and their life develops just like any ordinary Christian. That implies that numerary members are not merely lays. What kind of lay, according to the 1950 Constitutions, are numerary members?

Consecrated lays?

«By its very nature, the state of consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.» (Can. 588 §1)[31]

As we shall see, the numeraries of the Opus Dei secular institute seem to be more than simple lays: as if they were “religious but without being called religious”. Even better: “to be a religious but cannot be called religious” (creating the paradoxical effect mentioned earlier). A similar idea appears in the book “The Way”:

«You want to be a martyr. I’ll place a martyrdom within your reach: to be an apostle and not call yourself an apostle, to be a missionary—with a mission—and not call yourself a missionary, to be a man of God and to seem a man of the world: to pass unnoticed!»[32]

Why is that a martyrdom? What a type of martyrdom is that? Martyrdom is not synonym of humility or of modesty but means suffering and torture. The martyrdom that Escrivá proposes seems Kafkaesque: implies living in a constant denial and a continuous hiding. That is insane and is exactly what happens inside Opus Dei and the reason why so many members end depressed and leave the organization. They live like religious but they must deny it.

By reading the Code of Canon Law, the chapters related to consecrated life (can. 573-755), we can realize that Opus Dei members, under the 1950 Constitutions, were much more[33] than consecrated lay but without being, strictly speaking, religious. In 1950, Opus Dei was more than a Secular Institute and the same can be said after the 1982 canonical approval: Opus Dei is much more than a simple personal prelature. But that has passed unnoticed, like the book “The Way” teaches.

The term “consecrated” is here used to express those persons who have taken a solemn act of consecration to God, in the presence of witnesses (a priest among them) in front of a naked black Cross placed in the chapel (that was my case), as it happens in Opus Dei when members (especially the celibate ones) make the Oblation (temporal profession) and the Fidelity (perpetual profession). Regardless of whether these acts of consecration are vows, they create a sacred bond. Since 1982, Opus Dei is a personal prelature but —in several aspects— still works internally —by passing unnoticed— like a secular institute, in spite of the change of names.

«In Opus Dei Centers there is a schedule like in any home; neither there ever is any talk —because there is no one— of regulation; and nor there are acts in common but family meetings. The family life in Opus Dei Centers is not regulated —and cannot be— by canon law’s rules on the religious life; in fact, it is not comparable, even minimally, to the religious communities»[34].

The canon law cannot regulate the family life in Opus Dei’s Centers. That is true. However, the real question is, why did Escrivá himself regulate the life of the Centers as if Opus Dei were a religious community? The number 848 of “The Way” seems to be the explanation: to be one thing but to seem another one. Once and again, Opus Dei brings to center stage the wrong answer that distracts us from the right question. The problem is not what the canon law can do (that diverts attention) but what actually Opus Dei regulates and why.

The Catechism says that Opus Dei’s family life is not comparable, even minimally, to the religious communities. That is not true. In Opus Dei, the word “regulations” is never spoken but one lives as if they really exist. In fact, they actually exist but nobody calls them by their name: that is forbidden. Probably that is part of the martyrdom proposed by Escrivá. The “family meetings” are no less than “acts in common” to such an extent that a permission (dispense) is required to absence from them. The “tertulia” or get-together every day is not spontaneous as it could be if Opus Dei were like any other family. The level of control, from the directors, is more likely to occur at a religious congregation than a family. There are guidelines on “tertulias” to be followed:

«The local Counsel [directors of a Center] makes sure that in those moments [“tertulia”] the supernatural and human tone proper to the Work will be maintained. (…) One of the most frequently subject will be apostolate and proselytism (…). Sometime, especially on the occasion of family celebration, the “tertulia” will move towards more intimate subjects of the life of the Work, its history, etc. (…). On occasions, the “tertulias” are on social events or political and economic questions etc. In these cases, the Director —and every one— will avoid that, due to inadvertency or lack of clarity, doctrinally erroneous approaches to be expounded.»[35]

Before 1982, Opus Dei members were living a life, in several aspects, proper to religious orders. This happened to them without knowing and without giving an explicit consent for this. For instance, the acts of consecration that take place in the Oblation and the Fidelity ceremonies —as we will see later— are more than “preces” or prayers, as Opus Dei presents them before the members. After 1982, and since then, the situation have not changed but is more serious, actually, because those acts of consecration take place within a very different framework: a personal prelature (clerical structure) instead of a secular institute (association).

Let us see what the Code of Canon Law demands on religious but not on consecrated lays. The same requirements are laid down for celibate members of Opus Dei, before 1982 (secular institute) and after 1982 (personal prelature):

Member of a Religious Institute

Associate/Numerary

Consecrated lay

To make a will (can. 668, §1)

YES

NO

Daily conscience exam (canon 664)

YES

NO

A religious community must live in a legitimately established house under the authority of a superior designated according to the norm of law. Each house is to have at least an oratory in which the Eucharist is to be celebrated and reserved so that it is truly the center of the community. (can. 608) y (can. 665)

YES
(Numeraries)

NO

Religious are to live in their own religious house and are not to be absent from it  (can. 665)

YES
(Numeraries)

NO

Superiors are to reside in their respective houses, and are not to absent themselves from their house (can. 629)

«The Director of a Center for numeraries are not to absent himself from the city where they live for more than one day –except urgencies- without informing before to the Commission»[36]

NO

Restricted use of television, movies, etc. (can. 666)

YES

NO

Whatever a religious acquires through personal effort or by reason of the institute, the religious acquires for the institute (can. 668)

YES

NO

Restrictions on the professional work (can. 671)

YES

NO

Before candidates are admitted to the novitiate, they must show proof of baptism, confirmation, and free status (can. 645 §1)

YES

The Code does not mention them, but those requirements are supposed to be necessaries.

Its members are preparing to receive holy orders (can. 659 §3)

YES
«All numeraries and many associates are usually ready (…) to be priests, if they are invited by the Father.» (Catechism, 5 ed. n. 44.).

“That institute is called lay which (…) does not include the exercise of sacred orders.” (588, 3)

The Art. 2 of Provida Mater Ecclesia states quite clearly:

«Not having the three public religious vows (canons 1308 1 and 488, 1) and being under no obligation to lead the canonical common life under the same roof» [the Secular Institutes] «neither are nor, properly speaking, can be called Religious Orders or Congregations (canons 487 and 488, 1) or Societies of Common Life (c. 673, 1)»

However, numeraries have the obligation to lead the common life under the same roof, as well as religious.

«They live family life in the Institute, from which they cannot be dispensed except in keeping with the prescriptions of these Constitutions.»[37]

Even though the Statutes of the Prelature do not mention it, this obligation has not changed after 1982: numeraries live family life in the Prelature, from which they cannot be dispensed except the prelate allows it.

«As a rule, when they reach adulthood, Numeraries live family life in a Center of the Prelature.»[38]

On the other hand, consecrated lays cannot be part of a personal prelature because they need some kind of association to belong to and a prelature is not an association of lay.

That kind of life, proper to religious, is forced on numeraries and associates, without their knowing, therefore without their permission. This gives rise to the thought that Opus Dei members could be victims of a religious fraud: the life they live and the obligations they are forced on are not proper to ordinary lays and they must have been deceived into accepting such a situation without offering resistance. There seems to be no other explanation for that situation. Finally, we could ask how Opus Dei has found ways to circumvents Holy See’s controls for more than sixty years, since 1947.

Religious?

In addition to the above, there are some other elements that link Opus Dei and the religious traditions.

Life in Opus Dei

Life in Religious Institutes

Annual retreat

“They are to observe faithfully an annual period of sacred retreat” (canon 663, §5)

“Family life”

“Observing common life, religious are to live in their own religious house and are not to be absent from it except with the permission of their superior.” (665).

«A numerary or associate member who is absent from the Center he is ascribed, and cannot be traced, the Commission must be informed immediately but no one else.»[39]

“A member who is absent from a religious house illegitimately with the intention of withdrawing from the power of the superiors is to be sought out solicitously by them and is to be helped to return to and persevere in his or her vocation.” (665 § 2)

«The Circle is a collective mean of formation for Numeraries and Associates, which seeks to preserve and improve the spirit of the Work in each one.»[40]

«[The Circle is the equivalent of] the Conventual Chapter of any Friars or Nuns Convent, especially the cloistered ones, where each week the Friars come together to review some particular aspect of the Constitutions, to exam their conscience, to review some spiritual issue or receive indications and guidance from the Superiors.»[41]

«The “emendatio” is the act whereby some faithful, in the Circle, manifest voluntarily and humbly some defect in carrying out the Norms or an external fault that is not a sin»[42]

A chapter of faults is held regularly by many religious communities at which members accuse themselves of their faults and ask for a penance to be prescribed.[43]

«The body is like a donkey (…). In order to work hard and well, we must rest according to what it has been indicated: a weekly walk and the monthly excursion. (…) Our Father taught us that, for us, the rest is a must.»[44]

«It is not proper of religious to take vacations outside the Order houses, nor to undertake pleasant but expensive journeys in order to take a rest, or even to possess a working tool for personal and exclusive use», words of Pope Pious XII to the Company of Jesus.[45]

Incorporation Stages

Admission (12 a 18 months maximum)

Novitiate (24 months maximum can. 648 §3)

Oblation (5 years, annual renewal)

Temporary Profession (3 to 6 years, can. 655)

Fidelity

Perpetual Profession (can. 658)

Dispense or Indult

«During temporary incorporation or when the definitive [incorporation] has already been made, for anyone to voluntarily leave the Prelature, he needs a dispensation which the Prelate alone can grant, after hearing from his own Council and Regional Commission.»[46]

«A perpetually professed religious is not to request an indult of departure from an institute except for the gravest of causes considered before the Lord. The religious is to present a petition to the supreme moderator of the institute who is to transmit it along with a personal opinion and the opinion of the council to the competent authority.» (691 §1)

Testament or will

«Preceding the Fidelity of a numerary or associate, the Director remind him to making a will and that he is free to dispose of his own assets except those that come from his own work»[47]

«Before first profession, members are to cede the administration of their goods to whomever they prefer and, unless the constitutions state otherwise, are to make disposition freely for their use and revenue. Moreover, at least before perpetual profession, they are to make a will which is to be valid also in civil law.» (canon 668, §1)

Secular Institutes versus Personal Prelature

«A secular institute is an institute of consecrated life in which the Christian faithful, living in the world, strive for the perfection of charity and seek to contribute to the sanctification of the world, especially from within.» (can. 710)

«[personal prelatures] consist of presbyters and deacons of the secular clergy, to promote a suitable distribution of presbyters or to accomplish particular pastoral or missionary works for various regions or for different social groups» (can. 294)

The secular institute is a canonical status that best fits with Opus Dei’s needs. In contrast, the personal prelature status is not suitable for the complex interior world of Opus Dei: of commitments, duties, acts of incorporation and dispensation or indult, etc., and an intensive spiritual life more of a religious institute than a secular institute.

«The current Opus Dei, according to its Statutes, is a mix or hybrid of a secular institute and a personal prelature. And that mixture has contributed to change or misrepresent the ideal image of what a personal prelature should be. This issue was studied by Elena Longo in her wonderful article published in Claretianum review N. 46 (2006), pages 413-497, where she shows that the ordinary life of a numerary of Opus Dei is exactly the same –if not more demanding and rigid- of a consecrated person of a secular institute.» [48]

Internally, Opus Dei works like a secular institute and religious institute (a mixture of both) without Holy See controlling it, since —from the canon law point of view— Opus Dei is a prelature and it reports to the Congregation of Bishops, not to the Congregation for Religious, from which secular institutes depend.

«I suspect that the Prelature of Opus Dei runs the risk of ceasing to be dependent on the Congregation for Bishops and to return to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, or at best, to be placed under the supervision of a mixed Congregation. The reason for happening this is important. The Prelature of Opus Dei behaves like an institute of consecrated life and has the same organic and functional structure. Theirs activities and problems have little to do with the activities and problems of a diocese. They are, instead, the same those that Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life generate.»[49]

The vocation according to 1982 Statutes

The “Catechism” of Opus Dei, 2010 edition, explains that,

«To be part of the Opus Dei Prelature it is necessary a divine vocation, which is a specific determination of the Christian vocation »[50]

However, the Catechism does not explain what “specific determination” means.

«Our desire, our duty of preserving intact the specific nature of the vocation God has given to us, has led us, leads us and will lead us with tireless perseverance to offer countless Holy Masses, (which can already be counted in many thousands) and also innumerable personal sacrifices, plus the merit of our daily professional work, for this common prayer we ardently desire to see carried out.»[51]

«Specific: clearly defined or identified».[52] The word “specific” applied to Opus Dei vocation implies that it should be clearly defined. However, that is not what happens. Governing documents and Escrivá’s writings mention the word “specific” but never define what that means. They never define the specific character of the vocation but only say the vocation is specific. This let us to wonder if the vocation to Opus Dei is rather generic more than specific, something that led other authors to think that Escrivá did not know what really wanted by founding Opus Dei.[53]

Maybe, a better definition of the vocation to Opus Dei would have been the following: “it is the same generic Christian vocation which its own peculiarity or specificity would be to have organizational skills”[54], in this case, for Opus Dei as organization. This is very specific. Vocation to Opus Dei would not be about sanctifying work (this is something generic), but “to be suitable for working for Opus Dei”. As we saw early, the life within Opus Dei is very peculiar, the opposite of what Opus Dei says.

«The members of Opus Dei are ordinary people. They work like everyone else and live in the midst of the world just as they did before they joined. There is nothing false or artificial about their behavior. They live like any other Christian citizen who wants to respond fully to the demands of his faith, because that is what they are»[55]

These words of Escrivá could be interpreted in a wide range of possibilities. However, some aspects can be easily challenged. For instance, it is not true that the members live «as they did before they joined», especially for numeraries and associates. When they join Opus Dei, they start to live a very different life —that is very specific of Opus Dei—, more similar to the religious than to the ordinary Christians. But this is something Opus Dei does not want to talk about, because if Opus Dei openly revealed how “specific” the vocation is, it would be much less attractive. People enters Opus Dei with the promise of not being religious but, in the end, they live as religious: this seems to be a spiritual fraud with very serious consequences in the material life for those affected by Opus Dei. People enters Opus Dei misled by its propaganda.

«The whole Opus Dei’s Center is the home of those who live there, though each one has his own personal room; so, whoever occupy the room must not leave at sight photographs or portraits of parents or brothers, etc.; whoever wish it could keep those photos in the privacy.»[56]

It is banned to have familiar portraits at sight, even in the private room. Is this not an artificial behavior? Does any ordinary Christian behave in that way?

Escrivá does not say the true when he states that Opus Dei members are ordinary people, but he does not say what to be a member implies, specifically, either. When he talks about the vocation to Opus Dei, Escrivá denies some aspects and leaves others unanswered. As a result, the vocation to Opus Dei remains as mystery (until each member manages to solve it):

«That specific, lay and secular vocation is neither an imaginary construction or a false mysticism, nor a prophetic idea, born and cherished in the mind of some theology scholar with no more real life than the abstraction of an idea.» [57]

In the Code of particular law for Opus Dei approved in 1982, the vocation of numeraries and associates (celibate members) are insufficiently specified concerning what happens in reality. Even more, there has been a notable change in relation with the previous framework of 1950:

«15. The lay members who are Numeraries take on or retain responsibilities and offices of public service, or teach in the civil Universities or Institutes, or practice the private professions as lawyers, doctors or other similar things and also dedicate themselves to business and financial activities.  In the exercise of all these activities, they should take care to set out for themselves principally a true apostolic action which they certainly pursue with perfect fulfillment of their profession or position by spreading Christian mentality and by exemplifying all the virtues, for example, friendship and conversation» (1950 Constitutions).

In 1950, the stress had been put on the professional work. With the new canonical approval of 1982, the emphasis was given to the internal work within the Prelature, without mentioning the professional work carried out “in the midst of the world” outside the Prelature. The reason for this is simple: according to cann. 296, laypersons can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of a personal prelature (organic cooperation). That is their specific relationship with the prelature: to cooperate with its apostolic works. Everything else is secondary.

«8 §1. Numeraries are those clerics and laity who, by a special motion and gift of God live apostolic celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:11).  They devote themselves to the particular apostolic undertakings of the Prelature, with all their strength and with maximum personal availability to work.  Ordinarily, they live in Centers of Opus Dei in order to care for the apostolic undertakings and to dedicate themselves to the formation of the other faithful of the Prelature» (1982 Statutes).

Let us recall that, in accordance with 1941 Regulations and 1950 Constitutions, only numeraries are Opus Dei members in the strict sense of the term (cf. footnote 22). After 1982, not any lay of the prelature is a member, in the strict sense of the term: only priests are (incardinated).

Laity and Prelature

This issue has been largely debated on Opuslibros[58]: are the organic cooperators (cann. 296) members, in the strict sense of the term? Firstly, we have found that Opus Dei lays are not as lay as Opus Dei claims. Secondly, we have asked what they belong to, since before 1982 they had been part of the secular institute and after 1982 it is not clear where they are been placed.

«If they were incorporated, the prelature would take care of them, as in the case of priest, and the prelate’s jurisdiction could not be limitative, but the prelate could arrange for lays as he does for the priests to pursue the aims of the Work. If they [lays] are not [incorporated] and still are subordinated to the Bishop, why is the term “incorporation” used by Opus Dei, which means a full membership to an institute (be it as religious or secular)? Unless —something that is not specified neither in the Declaratio nor by its commentators— those terms (incardination, for priest, and incorporation, for lays) are related to different realities, as the use they receive let us to think that.»[59]

If you read the canons of the Code of Canon Law related to Personal Prelatures, it seems that lays have no role to play in the prelature but secondarily:

«Can. 294 After the conferences of bishops involved have been heard, the Apostolic See can erect personal prelatures, which consist of presbyters and deacons of the secular clergy, to promote a suitable distribution of presbyters or to accomplish particular pastoral or missionary works for various regions or for different social groups.

Can. 295 §1. The statutes established by the Apostolic See govern a personal prelature, and a prelate presides offer it as the proper ordinary; he has the right to erect a national or international seminary and even to incardinate students and promote them to orders under title of service to the prelature.

§2. The prelate must see to both the spiritual formation and decent support of those whom he has promoted under the above-mentioned title.

Can. 296 Lay persons can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of a personal prelature by agreements entered into with the prelature. The statutes, however, are to determine suitably the manner of this organic cooperation and the principal duties and rights connected to it.

Can. 297 The statutes likewise are to define the relations of the personal prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises or desires to exercise its pastoral or missionary works, with the previous consent of the diocesan bishop.»[60].

The personal prelature «consists of presbyters and deacons», therefore is a clerical structure, neither a lay organization nor a structure where lays could be part of it. Lay people can «cooperate» with the apostolic works «by agreements entered into with the prelature». As Rocca has pointed out, priests and lays belong to the prelature in a very different way: whereas priest are incardinated, lays are associated by agreements. In addition, lays «cooperate in apostolic works», but in any way the canons mention something like a «full dedication to God», as what happens in the case of secular institutes:

«Can. 722 §2. Candidates are properly to be formed to lead a life according to the evangelical counsels and are to be taught to transform their whole life into the apostolate, employing those forms of evangelization which better respond to the purpose, spirit, and character of the institute.»

Opus Dei fits better into a secular institute than to a personal prelature. Escrivá stated that Opus Dei members do not change the member’s status condition, but the same applies to Secular Institute. This is what the Catechism says:

«This vocation does not change the member’s status and condition within the civil society and the Church.»[61]

The Secular Institute does not change those conditions either:

«Can. 711. The consecration of a member of a secular institute does not change the member’s proper canonical condition among the people of God, whether lay or clerical, with due regard for the prescripts of the law which refer to institutes of consecrated life.»

Alvaro del Portillo was aware of the problem involving lays and their place in the prelature:

«Being Opus Dei consisted of lays mainly, it was right, therefore that we made use of the expression “cum proprio populo”: on the contrary, it would have seemed that we had requested the Prelature only for one part –the priests- and that we had desired that lays –more than 60.000- remain as part of the secular institute».[62]

The problem is that the juridical form requested by Opus Dei was finally discarded. There was no personal prelature “cum proprio populo” but without it. Then, following the same reasoning of A. del Portillo, the lays were left outside of the Secular Institute and, at the same time, out of the Personal Prelature. The only way for the lays to engage with the prelature is “by agreements” that enable an “organic cooperation” (cann. 296). Well, this is what the Canon Law says. In fact, Opus Dei lay members are not usually aware of this situation, therefore they believe that they are part of the prelature as well as the priests are. The question to ask, then, is this: what are the risk for those lays? Because lays seems to be like “undocumented members”. This issue should be analyzed by expert in canon law. Not only this question but also several others. There are many irregularities and singularities in regard to Opus Dei’s Statutes (e.g., the dispensation requested to abandon the prelature, as if it were a religious institute; the testament or will, proper to religious, etc.). There are several aspects that those Statutes and any secular institute have in common, which would imply that this personal prelature has a secular institute inside.

«Fortunately, in December 1980, the Pontifical Commission for reviewing the Code of Canon Law (…) said that the expression “cum proprio populo” had been suppressed from the canon projects, since, for various technical reasons, that expression was inconvenient. Naturally —I would say, with satisfaction— we accommodated ourselves to that precise juridical norm, without any need for changing the content of our request: the same as the Holy See has, definitively sanctioned now.»[63]

When A. del Portillo says “we accommodated ourselves to that” it means that they had to settle for very little in order to obtain the personal prelature and to put an end to the previous irregular situation (let’s remember that since 1958 Opus Dei was “in fact” not a secular institute —according to Escrivá’s words—, therefore it did not have a proper juridical identity).

The Bull Ut Sit (n. III), the Papal document by which Opus Dei was erected as personal prelature, reads as follows:

«III. The jurisdiction of the personal Prelature extends to the clergy incardinated in it, and also—only in what refers to the fulfillment of the specific obligations undertaken through the juridical bond, by means of a contract with the Prelature—to the laity who dedicate themselves to the apostolic activities of the Prelature: both clergy and laity are under the authority of the Prelate in carrying out the pastoral task of the Prelature, as established in the preceding article.»[64]

As well as the Code of Canon Law, when refers to the personal prelatures, this Bull neither mentions a “specific vocation” for the laity as requisite to be part of the prelature, nor uses the word “incorporated” to refer to the laity. As expected, the Bull refers to “tasks” and “contracts”, only. The prelate’s jurisdiction extends to specific obligations that clergy and laity have to accomplish. However, still today Opus Dei denies what the Bull says and insists on —teaching and spreading in academic environments— two things: lay members of Opus Dei are ordinary Christians without any consecration, and are incorporated to the prelature, in the same way as the priest are.

The transition from secular institute to personal prelature was very smooth, almost unnoticed. That was, at least, my experience and those of many other members I have talked with. It is possible, therefore, that the question of whether laity are incorporated to the prelature goes unnoticed the same as the transition from one canonical form to another one. In 1982 prelature authorities told us “nothing will change” with the prelature and “everything will continue just as before”, meaning that there had only been a “change of suit” and the daily life would remain the same as before.

«Namely, that our holy mother the Church gives the Work a new juridical form, so that what we are not de facto a secular institute, we also cease to be de iure».[65]

Today the situation seems to be the other way around. “What we are not de iure we will be de facto”.

***

Vows and states

«If Opus Dei members personally make promises or vows, those vows and promises are a particular devotion that they may have, something belonging to their own conscience: the Work ignores them.»[66]

These Escrivá's words are truly striking. It is as if Escrivá were saying this: “if Opus Dei members privately use religious habit (for instance, inside their rooms) that is something of conscience of each one, the Work ignores that”. There would seem to be some kind of dissociation here, as if he said, “I do not care if Opus Dei members privately are feeling religious in as far as they publically live as laity”. How could Escrivá ignore or not care the existence of vows that go to the heart of lay vocation?

«In an old paper written by the Father, I read that if state is “stabilis vivendi modus”, seeking the Christian perfection permanently according to particular norms is state of perfection: but he wanted that situation remains in the internal forum.»[67]

This testimony of Alvaro del Portillo confirms the duality pointed out before: Opus Dei members seem to be religious in the internal forum and lays in the external forum. The state of perfection accepted by Escrivá in 1948 (and later rejected because of its relationship with consecrated life) is not contested by him in that old paper, in as far as “it remains in the internal forum”. A. del Portillo continues:

«Between 1946 and 1947 a study was finalized by redacting and promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater Ecclesia, which created a new secular or juridical state of perfection, very different from the religious one, and it was conceded to us an approval that the Father accepted because of the urgency of getting a recognition from the Holy See. But the Father did not want the juridical recognition of the new state of perfection but the seeking of Christian perfection, as well as he was not interested in vows but in virtues.»[68]

As we saw before, the conference of 1948 is an important obstacle for the historical version that A. del Portillo tells us. It is very difficult to accept that Escrivá never wanted the new state of perfection when he showed a preference for it. Furthermore, Escrivá himself stipulated that the members of the then Secular Institute —that is, numeraries and associates— were incorporated by some kind of sacred bond, as we will see next, and also he imposed on them a lifestyle proper to religious.

Since 1934, Escrivá began to impose the practice of taking vows on the few members who were available at that time. The authors of “The canonical path” explain that Escrivá made such a decision because of environmental pressures. The curious thing is that Escrivá, on the one hand, imposed the vows and, on the other hand, ignored them.

«But with time and growth, around 1934 some of those who had answered the founder’s call were made uneasy by certain people who claimed their dedication had no value and their way of life no stability. Circumstances, environment, meddling by these persons, some priests, led Fr. Escrivá to allow Opus Dei members to make private vows, with no external manifestation.»[69]

According to Escrivá’s teachings, the vocation is irreversible, irrevocable:

«You have vocation and you always will. You should never have doubts about this truth, since the vocation is given once and after that it never disappears, unless it is thrown out the windows.»[70]

It seems that Escrivá had been afraid of critical opinions from some priests and he decided to impose vows on his followers. The decision contradicted Escrivá’s preaching about the permanent nature of the vocation and it showed him unconfident. Even worst, he accepted the vows, imposed them on members and pretended that “they do not exist” but only in the internal forum of the members, whereby these vows demonstrated what the critical voices said, “vocation to Opus Dei has no value in the absence of vows”. This view is probably the reason why Escrivá added so many religious elements —in force to the present day— to the lay vocation to Opus Dei, in addition to the vows.

«These most private vows, never received by the Work’s directors, took nothing away from our secularity and gave my children in those moments when I did not want to use the word vocation, a psychological weapon, as I told you before, interiorly, whereby to reject the bad advice they could receive.»[71].

The bad advice members could receive came from priests who believed that Opus Dei members could have religious vocation, actually, and the vocation to Opus Dei would have no value.

«He did not like the solution, but in the end he gave in. He felt almost forced to it “out of a psychological motive” (an expression used many years later) to help those coming to Opus Dei to be clearly conscious of the commitment they were making.»[72]

The psychological weapon —vows— that Escrivá mentioned earlier was nothing more than a temporal fix to combat the inconsistency of a weak vocation[73]. That temporal fix would become permanent, from a simple weapon —vows— to a solid armor —uncountable religious practices incorporated to the daily life of numeraries and associates—. The vows were a very useful tool to create a deep commitment in the internal forum of each member. Today, that commitment is generated by Oblation and Fidelity declarations, which look just like vows.

«We are interested in all virtues (…) we are not interested, on the other hand, in promises, or vows, even though they are theologically worthy of all respect, and with much more respect we see them in others.»[74]

Escrivá used to say that he was not interested in promises but he wanted a permanent commitment in order to create a stable bond between Opus Dei and its members. Then, what could be the difference between promises and commitments? Perhaps Escrivá would have believed that promises are proper to religious and commitments are proper to lays. However, the results would be the same: vows, promises or commitments are necessaries in order to strengthen a weak lay vocation. Although Opus Dei “ignore them”, it needs them. In spite of being a personal prelature, Opus Dei needs to commit his members by means of sacred acts (Oblation and Fidelity) very similar to vows: neither the contractual bond nor the agreements entered into with the prelature are enough. Without the sacred bond, the vocation to Opus Dei is weak.

«The founder could not find any point of reference allowing him to give legal form to a reality such as that implied in Opus Dei.»[75].

The fact that Escrivá would need a point of reference means that he needed some mirror in which he could see his work reflected. That is in contradiction with the fact that he came supposedly to found a new organization. According to the present results, it seems that he ended up setting the reference point on the religious organizations. It should not be a surprise that Escrivá modelled his foundation on religious ones.

«We were always told that [vows] were an imposition from the Holy See that the founder had to give in, without giving up, eager to win it back. This explanation is false. The vows were imposed around 1935, when there was no canonical reason to request that; from the beginning, members practice a state of perfection spirituality, a life in common and an obedience regime. Here it is opportune to recall that he had in mind to design an especial clothing or coat -such as the orders of knights- in order to assist the mass celebrated in Opus Dei centers. Escrivá commissioned the drafts to one of the first members but it never took place.»[76]

The doubts in what Escrivá was in the early years, contrast markedly with the certainties he would express years later when he tells how Opus Dei was founded. In addition, in documents supposedly dated in 1934, it appears very confident statements about the nature of the foundation:

«The Work of God comes to fulfill the will of God. Therefore, have a profound conviction that the heaven is engaged in it to be carried out.»[77]

Escrivá is standing as someone vested with the authority to found an organization in the name of God, and at the same time, as a founder who are in doubts and resorts to third parties for help.

«In March of that year, [Escrivá] consulted this problem, among others priest, Norberto Rodriguez, one of the priests helping him and with Valentín Sánchez Ruiz, S.J., his confessor, seeking a theological opinion or advice. “All were in agreement with the need to unite ourselves with a spiritual bond, which for the moment would be constituted by private vows made for one year”, Escrivá recorded in his personal notes of these conversations»[78]

More than “defense of a charism”, this seems “a capitulation”. The authors of “The canonical path” wanted to present Escrivá as a restless fighter because of his heroic defense of the charism received from God in 1928. However, when Escrivá compromised with the vows because of the critics he received from some priests —he never mentioned the bishop of Madrid-Alcalá—, he exposed the weakness of the charism and the vocation to Opus Dei.

Although, another interpretation is also possible. He would have blamed others for what he was actually responsible. Moreover, he had said, «I was putting my soul at risk, I could not adulterate God’s will»[79] to express how heroic his actions had been defending the charism. However, what if he himself wanted the vows to create a permanent bond (between members and Opus Dei) and, at the same time, wanted to preach the laity nature of the vocation? He would have needed to blame others (for the presence of vows) to present himself as a heroic fighter. If he was forced by the critics to do things he did not want to do, why did those things become permanent characteristics of members’ life? Not only the sacred bond, established by Oblation and Fidelity, but uncountable elements proper to religious life that members are obliged to practice. The defense of the charism Escrivá claimed he had carried out is in flat contradiction of how he compromised the lay character of the vocation to Opus Dei. That is why, among other things, many former members believe they were misled by Escrivá.

With the arrival of the personal prelature, vows were not necessary anymore but only an agreement or contractual bond. According to governing documents, the contractual declaration is carried out outside of the chapel, where the member on their knees before the representative of the prelate and two witnesses reads the declaration, and then the representative of the prelate reads his part of the contract. The second step is «to pray in the chapel (…) the prayers indicated by our Father»[80]. Those “prayers” are not “Hail Mary” but the formula for the incorporation (temporal or definitive, as the case may be), which is rather similar to vows, promises, or solemn declaration. However, Opus Dei states that while those prayers are important, the contractual declaration —carried out outside the chapel— is the essential element.[81]

After considering the question of the vows, the authors of “The canonical path” point out how the bond with Opus Dei is established:

«[Escrivá] established that the bond between the members and Opus Dei should consist in a simple manifestation of the willingness to commit one’s life to the pursuit of holiness and the exercise of apostolate. Thus it was defined, when the founder, at the advice of the bishop of Madrid-Alcalá, presented documentation for the approval in scriptis.»[82]

And the footnote 78 of “The canonical path” reads as follows:

«The formula for the definitive incorporation to Opus Dei is found in the document Ceremonial of 1941 and reads as follows: "Domine Jesu: suscipe me tibi in servum sempiternum (ancillam sempiternam) Operis Dei, in obsequium et sacrificium laudis perpetuae: voluntarie et in aeternum meipsum (meipsam), cum omnibus viribus et affectibus meis, quanto intimius valeo, offero.  "Et intercedente beata et gloriosa María semper Virgine, cum beato Joseph, beatis Archangelis Michaéle, Gabriele et Raphaele, ac beatis Apostolis tuis Petro, Paulo et Joanne,, et omnibus Angelis Custodibus, da, Domine, pacem in diebus meis: ut ope tuae misericordiae adjutus (adjuta), adimplere possim tuam sanctissimam voluntatem. Amen". This formula (…) has always remained unaltered throughout the entire “canonical path” as the expression of the unchanged criterion of the founder.»

Those texts allow us to draw, at least, two conclusions:

1)       The bond with Opus Dei is defined by the declaration found in the Ceremonial (similar to a vow; it is prayed in the chapel) and not by the contractual declaration, as the governing documents tell us. By means of that declaration, the member declares to be “perpetual slave” (servum / ancillam sempiternum) and offers himself/herself in sacrifice of perpetual worship, with all their might and love that he or she could be able.

2)      The current formula of incorporation is the same one of 1941, that is, it prevails over all canonical form that Opus Dei has received (Pious Union, Secular Institute, Personal Prelature). At least, since 1941, it has not changed and it is in force because of Escrivá’s will.

The current canonical form of Opus Dei —personal prelature— arises one important question: what are lay members incorporated to? They can be associated with personal prelatures by means of agreements but not by sacred bonds. The contractual agreement is necessary because the Code of Canon Law established that in its canon 296. However, the declaration found in Opus Dei's Ceremonial is not required for the association to a personal prelature. For this reason, we wonder what kind of association the members are incorporated to by the formula that Escrivá established in the Ceremonial. Only the Holy See could answer that question.

***

Let us see now the second point: the states of perfection and Opus Dei.

«Clearly the juridical forms proper to religious orders and congregations or to societies in some way equivalent to them whose members live a complete dedication but in a theological context of public consecration and, to one degree or other, of separation form the world and its activities were not suitable.»[83]

Public consecrations were not suitable for Opus Dei. Would private consecration be suitable for it? Let us quote again some words from Alvaro del Portillo that reflect the lifestyle model that Escrivá had in mind and was not different from the religious life.

«In an old paper written by the Father, I read that if state is “stabilis vivendi modus”, seeking the Christian perfection permanently according to particular norms is state of perfection: but he wanted that situation remains in the internal forum.»[84]

Escrivá was interested in the internal forum more than in the external habit. Apparently, he did not want Opus Dei members were religious, in the classic sense, but lay people with a commitment similar to religious, who would hardly know about their own deep identity beyond the lay dress.

Those who live in state of perfection or are incorporated to a secular institute do not hide their condition. In the case of Opus Dei, the vocation has a peculiar element: the state of perfection has to remain in the internal forum. Using the same words of Escrivá for vows, we could say, «its members live the state of perfection, but Opus Dei ignore that situation». Members themselves are unaware that their lives are proper to the state of perfection. The difference is that Opus Dei chooses to ignore that situation, whereas for members it is not a choice but something really unknown.

The fact that the vocation is a matter of “internal forum” implies two things: it is not possible to talk openly about it except with Opus Dei’s directors (who are, at the same time, superiors and spiritual directors, despite Opus Dei denies that it could happen), and secondly, it has no public manifestation, the vocation has to remain unnoticed.

«In order for the Institute to reach its proper end more effectively, it wishes to live as hidden, therefore it abstains from collective acts and does not have a name or common denomination by which its members are called.  Given the character of the Institute, which externally does not desire to appear publicly as a society, it is not appropriate that its members should engage collectively in certain manifestations of cult like processions.»[85]

This characteristic of “discretion” is something that almost has not changed with the arrival of the personal prelature, as it is the case of the state of perfection.

«Opus Dei did not promote a new state of perfection or modify the religious state.»[86]

However, as we saw, Opus Dei welcomed the new state of perfection proclaimed by Provida Mater Ecclesia and there were grounds for that.

«The state of perfection, as regulated by the Law, does not mean other thing than the admission, by the church authority, of the theological state of perfection. This recognition constitutes legal effects.»[87]

In 1947, this new state of perfection, thanks to Provida Mater Ecclesia, legally reinforced the psychological effects that Escrivá had been sought since 1934 by imposing vows:

«One must not forget the tendency earlier in this [20th] century to identify, at least in practice, the vocation to full Christian life with the religious state or with priesthood.»[88]

Even if this were true, who created confusion was Escrivá himself: he was who imposed vows and other practices proper to religious on Opus Dei members.

«The state of perfection is that “state of Christian life by which faithful are bond by the means of a permanent and stable obligation and particular means (“ex se libres”) in order to obtain and to practice the Christian perfection” (Canals, S.: Institutos Seculares y estado de perfección, Madrid, 1954, p. 42). Accordingly, the elements of the state of perfection are the stability and the obligation, implicit in the state concept, and the full dedication to God that comes from the same concept of evangelical perfection.»[89]

“Stability” and “obligation” seem to have been the two weakest points of the Opus Dei vocation that concerned Escrivá early. Without stability and obligation, vocation would have no value. Then, in 1934, Escrivá imposed vows on Opus Dei members, in order to create a stable bond. The state of perfection, Pérez Hernandez says, involves

«an obligation of conscience (…) to tend towards perfection»

We have here the other important element, apart from canonical stability: the commitment should be, above all, an obligation in the “internal forum” as well as Escrivá presented the vows in 1934.

«It is precisely through the observance of the evangelical counsels that it must tend to this end [perfection].»[90]

We should recall that these words come from Pérez Hernández, a numerary member of Opus Dei, who participated in the National Congress of Perfection (1956) along with other several members of Opus Dei. The “evangelical counsels” term will disappear from Opus Dei’s vocabulary years later.

«Sources of that obligation can be the vow, the oath or the consecration by which a direct bond with God is established, or the promise made to the Superiors –“propter Deum”- by which a bond with God is indirectly established.»[91]

Pérez Hernández spells out four possibilities for the bond: the vow, the oath, the consecration (to God) and the promise (to Superiors). In spite of being a personal prelature, Opus Dei members are tied by some type of sacred bond that makes necessary to request a dispensation to abandon Opus Dei.

«There is, then, a juridical obligation, that even can be coercively demanded, to tend towards perfection through the use of particular means: the practice of the evangelical counsels. This obligation is established “sub gravi”»[92]

The same “juridical obligation coercively demanded” can be found in the ordinary life of any Opus Dei member. It is the same one which Opus Dei directors recall or invoke to impose strict obedience and “spiritual governing” (that is when spiritual direction gets mixed up with government, thanks to a bond that still today remains confused: vow, oath, consecration or promise).

***

The question of the vows has been important to our analysis because they make evident the weakness of the vocation to Opus Dei, since the early years to the present days. Far from being a strong vocation with a strong lay character, it has had to seek help on sacred bond.

The question of the states has allowed us to highlight the mutation suffered by Opus Dei vocation, from the new juridical state of perfection of 1947, approved by Provida Mater Ecclesia, to the rejection of that canonical status, towards 1958-1962, by the Non Ignoratis letter of Escrivá, already mentioned.

Vocational vacuum

The vocation to Opus Dei, in spite of Escrivá’s denials, had neither a clear lay origin nor an evolution to secularity by removing so many elements proper to religious.

«Before joining Opus Dei, also because of reasons of justice, it was well explained to you –in order to take a conscious and free decision- that neither would you ever be religious nor people similar to religious. It was told to you that you would keep your full personality and your ordinary Christian condition, that you would never be segregated or separated from the other people who live in the world and are equal to you; that, when you came to Opus Dei, you would not change of status but would remain in the same you had been before; and that your professional vocation and your social responsibilities would remain integral part of the divine vocation you have received.»[93]

As Escrivá said, “because of reasons of justice”, the aspirant members should be told what specifically a full commitment means. Members were promised a divine vocation full supported by Church Magisterium but it did never happen: there never was a full lay vocation (it seems that it was not feasible in practice, with some exceptions) and the “real vocation” (what members end up living) did never receive the proper canonical approval (perhaps with the exception of the Secular Institute, between 1947 —Provida Mater Ecclesia— and 1958 —Non Ignoratis letter—, and even then the vocation had –and still has today- several religious elements, as G. Rocca pointed out: life in common, testament or will, etc.).

It seems that Opus Dei failed to meet the God’s will, at least according to what Escrivá had proclaimed with so much solemnity. There was, that is true, no change of states, but it looks that Escrivá mixed up three different concepts of states:

«The passage of the Non Ignoratis letter reads as follows: “For that, we did not desire for us the state of perfection. We love it for religious and for those that belong to now named Secular Institutes, since that is proper to those vocations. We, instead, because of a specific vocation by which God has called us to Opus Dei, are only asked to seek the holiness in our own state –be single, married, widowed, or priest- and in the exercise of our profession -munus publicum-, well known by all their fellow citizens.” As I see it, in this text three different realities are confused and mixed up: 1) the state of perfection –status perfectionis adquirendae-; 2) the civil state of the people; and 3) the canonical state of the people.» [94]

Even if that change of canonical state had never happened, in fact, Opus Dei members, especially celibates, would still have lived —and still live— as religious, in many ways.

«How could I now commit the iniquity of obliging you to follow a different vocation? No, there is no way I could require this of you, not even could I ask you —having recourse to arguments that violate the freedom of your consciences— to renew your commitment to the Work embracing a vocation different from the one we have received from God.»[95]

Escrivá correctly points out the injustice that would be done if someone were forced to follow a vocation for which he or she does not have the capacity or is not made for it. The founder also notices that it would be a sin to mislead people by forcing their conscience. However, he seems to be wrong when he denies that situation has ever happened, could ever happen or will happen in Opus Dei. In those lines, Escrivá is lucidly defending himself from particular accusations that he is denying at the same time.  This is characteristic of Escrivá’s language skill: he is ahead of accusations by denying that it could happen to him or to his organization. He is very clever at using language to deny or to stay one-step forward of the most known accusations (secrecy, coaction, lack of freedom, lack of secularity, etc.).

«Neither could I do this to you, nor can anyone do this to me (…). Besides being humanly a villainy, this would be a grave transgression of Christian morality, of positive divine law, and even of natural law itself. In the sweep of ecclesiastical legislation and praxis there is no norm or principle that could justify such a tyrannical deed.»[96]

Well, this seems to be precisely what Escrivá did to his followers: he forced them to follow a different vocation from which they were called. The lucidity of Escrivá consists in describing exactly what the members have suffered. The context of those words is the year 1962, when the vocation to Opus Dei had not yet received —according to Escrivá— the full sanction of the Magisterium[97] but it had been approved along with the legal framework of secular institutes in 1947, the legal status that Escrivá rejected in 1958 (or 1962).

«There is in my soul a great devotion to St. Francis, St. Domingo, St. Ignatius; but nobody can force me to be a Franciscan, a Dominican or a Jesuit. Neither can anybody oblige me to get married (…). Who has the right to change a God-given vocation? Natural law, divine positive law, Cristian morality and acquired rights are opposed, I repeat, to any violence of this kind and rightly defend the freedom of consciences.» [98]

What Escrivá would be saying is this: “I cannot oblige you to follow a vocation that the Church has approved but it is not what I asked for approval”. For that reason, it would be necessary to pray —for long years until 1982— that the Church approved what Escrivá had requested, and nothing else. Anyway, in 1982 the Church did not approve what Opus Dei expected (a personal prelature "cum proprio populo").

«I do not want to be condemned, neither your souls, because I did not pray and ask in a filial way.»[99]

It is striking that Escrivá,

«after being himself who has imposed on the lay members of Opus Dei the fulfilment of norms proper to priests and also norms proper to religious, he states that he has a problem of conscience, the duty of safeguard the secularity and laity of Opus Dei»[100]

It should be highlighted the dissociation between Escrivá’s words and Escrivá’s acts. When he is talking to his children in that letter of 1962, is he being cynical, is he joking or is he being serious about what he is saying? What he says in those letters of 1961 and 1962 is disconcerting. Of course, I think he is being serious, but for precisely this reason, those letters are a little shocking. He was the first to be opposed to the full lay vocation of Opus Dei members by introducing so many religious elements. Even though, he asked for prayers,

«so that I can present myself peacefully before the judgment seat of God, having fulfilled his holy will, despite the men, ignorant or not, who have opposed what is just and good for souls, for the Church and for the glory of God»[101].

Escrivá usually acted very convinced, to such an extent that he had no problem in describing as ignorant those who would oppose to his will and wishes, which would include the same Pope John XXIII, who rejected Escrivá’s request of 1962 (prelature nullius). While in 1946 Escrivá wondered if Opus Dei had been inspired by God or a delusion (the answer “from the heaven” would be the secular institute of 1947), in 1962 Escrivá tied his personal salvation to the approval of the new canonical status. He made a theological case saying that if the vocation and the canonical status were not approved by the Church, he could seriously fail, on the brink of losing his soul.

The Church can hardly approve the vocation to Opus Dei as it is experienced in real life because of its lack of coherence: this vocation cannot be well defined since it is an amalgam of contradictory elements. For that reason, it could only be approved in a generic way, in connection with the Christian vocation in general. It is almost impossible to know what the authentic vocation could have been since Escrivá never implemented it as he had promised but instead he turned a hybrid vocation (resulting from a mixing of religious traditions) into reality.

Therefore, we could say that Escrivá’s lucid words seem to have been fulfilled: by obliging Opus Dei members to follow a different vocation, it was carried out an iniquity, a villainy that violated the freedom of conscience.

«That specific, lay and secular vocation is neither an imaginary construction or a false mysticism, nor a prophetic idea, born and cherished in the mind of some theology scholar with no more real life than the abstraction of an idea.» [102]

Once again, it calls out attention how Escrivá describes some aspect of Opus Dei vocation by denying them. One of the best definition of that vocation is the following: an imaginary construction as a result of the mysticism or prophetic idea that never took place, which consistency does not go beyond an abstraction. Without doubts, Opus Dei has had a great global development. However, this was made possible by paying high cost in human suffering. While Opus Dei could be a success as organization itself, it seems to be a moral and religious failure. There are no official statistics but any former member knows that many members leave Opus Dei, because they are unable to adapt to the peculiar vocation. Finally yet importantly, many of them believe they were misled by Opus Dei, in order to boost the development of the organization.

Epilogue

«The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. »
Matthew 13:45

«Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. »
Matthew 6:19-20

The void left by Opus Dei experience is usually distressing. I think that it is the most generalized damage suffered by those affected by this organization (in particular, former members). You wager everything, you “go and sell all that you have” in order to buy the “fine pearl” of vocation. However, at the end of the road, you discover that there is nothing there. Escrivá's words become empty of meaning, worthless, except for their voluntarism. Escrivá’s teachings could sound good, but when you try them out, when you add life to them, you discover their emptiness. That is why denial is central to Opus Dei. Many times this organization is described itself in terms of what it is not. Indeed, that is the result: Opus Dei is neither this nor that. It is a path to nowhere[103].

It is understandable that those who remain in Opus Dei will fight tooth and nail to defend their organization. Not only because of the radical faith proper to Opus Dei ideology, but also because “they have sold all that they had” —as the Gospel says— in order to buy “the fine pearl”. Losing your faith in Opus Dei means losing all your savings too (especially for celibate members).

The emptiness of Opus Dei experience goes towards the past and the future. In the first case, because of the absence of the promised vocation and in the second case, since you cannot build any future based on a complete fiction. It is like saving a fortune in counterfeit notes.

In many cases, the full dedication as celibate member to Opus Dei was like “to store up for yourselves treasures on earth”, thinking that they were storing up on heaven[104]. However, the moth arrived and destroyed everything. That is another sign of the anti-evangelical character of Opus Dei: a place where personal treasures can be easily destroyed by moth, decay and thieves. It is very sad to know that paradoxically Opus Dei lures unsuspecting Christians telling them «everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life» (Matthew 19:29).

This having been said, I think that traumatic experience does not prevent us from rebuild our lives, even finding good things in the past. However, for this to be possible, the desert caused by Opus Dei must be crossed.

***

If I had to define Opus Dei, after having lived for more than two decades in that organization and studying several books and documents to write this book, I would say that, in addition to being a great emptiness, Opus Dei is a merge of contradictions and inconsistencies so varied that leaves too much scope for opposing interpretations. Opus Dei is dialectic and paradoxical, as J. Estruch said it in his book (Saints and schemers). Opus Dei carries within itself the unity of opposites leading to a synthesis of emptiness.

«The staying in the Work of God will never be due to a lack of adaptation to the world in case of abandoning the vocation and starting new activities in the world, because —as it was told you— we do not take you out of the world. Hence the ease of leaving the Work without violence. I am sure that such ease will be another reason to persevere.»[105]

Even though Escrivá states that there is freedom to leave Opus Dei, in other text he states the opposite:

«Do not forget that you must always remain within the [Opus Dei's] boat. And this is because you wanted it. I repeat what I said yesterday or before: if you leave the boat you will topple into the sea waves, you will die, you will be lost, drowned in the ocean and you will no longer be with Christ, losing His friendship that you voluntarily accepted when He offered it to you.»[106]

There are many others examples. Finding Opus Dei’s coherence could be a labour proper to Sisyphus. However, the question is what the reason for that incoherence is. The answer is not simple. However, it is easy to see how convenient the incoherence for Opus Dei is: it can be an open organization and a very strict one, at the same time. There can be plenty of freedom and blind obedience, depending on the context. In the long run, the greatest concern is that the incoherence is functional to the manipulation of people, who do not know where the truth lies (until is too late). To sum up, the incoherence proper to Opus Dei does not seem an accident, caused by random human errors, but as a result of its design by Escrivá, who thought his organization as a fishing net (cf. Opus Dei as divina revelation, Chapter V). The freedom, for example, works as a bait, in order to catch fishes who can blindly obey the founder. Ultimately, when two text are contradictories, the one stricter is which will prevail. The other one works as bait.

The life in Opus Dei —in particular, for celibate members— is very strict. However, Opus Dei simulates pluralism, by preaching its practice, to take benefit of it (to catch more fishes). The same happens with secularity: Opus Dei simulates it —by denying any relationship with religious orders— but its celibate members live a life proper to religious.

Escrivá was convinced of the benefit of simulation. The question is in the benefit of who.

«He had expressed similar ideas in an entry in his Intimate Notes [Catalinas] between April and June 1930: we must struggle “against laicism with an apparent laicism; against indifferentism, with an apparent indifferentism”. A year later, in July 1931, he echoes the idea with somewhat different words: “a healthy lay outlook, a healthy anti-clericalism outlook.»[107]

The simulation seems to be at the very heart of Opus Dei ideology:

«You want to be a martyr. I’ll place a martyrdom within your reach: to be an apostle and not call yourself an apostle, to be a missionary—with a mission—and not call yourself a missionary, to be a man of God and to seem a man of the world: to pass unnoticed!»[108]

«Being Catholic but do not appear so, that was the idea that Escrivá had during his years in Madrid»[109]

One of the problems is the damage that this mechanism of simulation causes. Because of Opus Dei’s simulation, many people gave everything up to Opus Dei (e.g., a lay vocation that never existed).

The other problem is the vacuum caused by that mechanism of simulation. When simulation becomes systematic, Opus Dei turns into Opus fake.[110] What could there be behind so much denial and simulation? How much truth could be there? How much emptiness?

***

Msgr. Escrivá presented himself as a messenger of God who had received a divine revelation. This suggested that he should have been a compassionate person, full of mercy and humanity proper to a man of God. However, over time, we find ourselves before a man who in several of his writings reflects qualities that are far from being exemplary. In those writings, he reflects contempt[111], speaks ill of former members[112], curses members who leave his organization[113], does not tell the truth openly and clear, is contradictory in central matters (freedom to enter and leave the organization, vows, obedience, poverty —he did not make a will—, sacred bond, etc.), denies the obvious (cf. footnote 8), etc. Those qualities, far from jeopardize Opus Dei, were of benefit in developing the organization (cf. Opus Dei as divina revelation, “Boat’s nets”). Finally, to the surprise of many, in 2002 Msgr. Escrivá was canonized and presented as model of sanctity, a person whom many people consider an archetype of evangelical counter-testimony.

***

After finalizing my book, I had a series of conversations about the future of Opus Dei. I observed in several opportunities how the experience of having been a member of Opus Dei cannot be easily overcome —even after years of having left the organization— and sometimes it becomes a chronic situation. There are people who want and need to talk about their traumatic experience, but others prefer to forget everything about Opus Dei.

In both cases, the conclusion seems the same: the question about Opus Dei —What is it? What is to be done in the future?, etc.— has no solution. I know that it sounds dramatic but let me explain it. Neither denial, nor obsession are the solution for that trauma. Forgetting is a form of denial. Avoid thinking about the causes of the trauma is like burying an alive body: since it is alive, at some point the body inevitable will emerge from the grave in a surprising manner. In the second case, an obsessing search for a satisfactory explanation would become a chimera. It is like waiting for a body to resurrect, that is, an explanation that would resolve the case of Opus Dei. However, resurrection does not happen in this life.

The Opus Dei experience can be overcome as any grief experience: by accepting what has happened and move on. The death has no solution (at least in this life). The Opus Dei experience does not seem to be different. I do not know why, but that is what it seems to be. A similar case is the “Legionarios de Cristo”, organization that apparently was recently reformed, and, however, many people were not satisfied with the solution. The organization founded by Marcial Maciel should have been rebuilt from scratch and changed its name. Neither of the two happened.

The problem with Opus Dei is in its nature: it has damaged too many lay Christians, among other things, by misleading them with a vocation more proper to religious. In addition, mechanisms of manipulation and deception lie in the nature of Opus Dei. For that reason, Opus Dei should be rebuilt rather than reformed. However, the need for its reformation has not even been discussed yet.

NOTES

[1] Moreno, María Angustias, “El Opus Dei. Anexo a una historia”, Planeta, Barcelona (1976). Also “La otra cara del Opus Dei”, Planeta, Barcelona (1978), book that she wrote in response to the smear campaign she suffered. Both books are available on the web Opuslibros.org.

[2] «(...) no es posible desde el momento en que nosotros no hacemos una obra humana, por ser nuestra empresa divina, y como consecuencia no está en nuestras manos ceder, cortar o variar nada de lo que al espíritu y organización de la Obra de Dios se refiera» (Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, nro. 20)

[3] [Si alguno intentara] «desviar la Obra de las características divinas con que nuestro Fundador nos la ha entregado, que el Señor lo confunda (...) si [alguno] pretendiese desvirtuar la Obra de Dios (...) se haría acreedor a la maldición divina» (Del Portillo, A., quoted on “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 223)

[4] This text is a revised version of several articles published on Opuslibros in 2010.

[5] «¿Cómo podría yo ahora cometer la iniquidad de obligaros a seguir una vocación diversa?»

[6] «Ni somos religiosos, ni nos parecemos a los religiosos, ni hay autoridad en el mundo que  pueda obligarnos a serlo»

[7] «Nos miran con el prejuicio de creer que somos religiosos que encubren su condición»

[8] «Desde el primer momento de la fundación del Opus Dei, hijas e hijos míos, desde aquel 2 de octubre de 1928, he visto siempre la Obra como una institución cuyos miembros no serían nunca religiosos, no vivirían a semejanza de los religiosos, ni podrían ser -en alguna manera- equiparados a los religiosos», “Letter”, 29-XII-1947/14-II-1966, n. 84, citada en Fuenmayor, A. y otros, o.c., Cap. 2, footnote 39.

[9] «Prima di procedere, tuttavia, va rilevato che l'approvazione come pia unione era il passaggio obbligato di qualsiasi istituzione che volesse incamminarsi verso la vita religiosa e diventare, quindi, congregazione religiosa; oppure adottare il modello più elastico delle società di vita comune senza voti pubblici. In altre parole, il grupo costituito in pia unione manifesta già la sua volontà di distinguersi dal resto dei fedeli anche sotto l'aspetto associativo-istituzionale» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, Claretianum XXV, 1985, Chap. I)

[10] « E mons. Eijo, per evitare difficoltà, decise che tutto (Regolamento, Regime, Ordinamento, Costumiere, Spirito e Cerimoniale) venisse conservato non nell'archivio ordinario della curia, bensì in quello segreto, precludendo così l'acèesso a questa fonte, riservata a sé e successori» cf. ibidem.

[11] «Los socios del Opus Dei no son religiosos, pero tienen un modo de vivir -entregados a Jesús Cristo- que, en lo esencial, no es distinto de la vida religiosa», “Reglamento como Pía Unión”, 1941, Ap. V, nro. 1.

[12] Fuenmayor et al., “The canonical path of Opus Dei: the history and defense of a charism”, Scepter Publishers, Incorporated, 1994, Chapter III.

[13] «Conviene, sin embargo, hacer notar que no somos una organización circunstancial: hemos de ser realmente como un instituto religioso —con todas sus consecuencias—, que ha de durar hasta el fin», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, nro. 14.

[14] «En este pasaje no dice nuestro Fundador que hemos de ser un instituto religioso: intercala el adverbio “como”, y añade “con todas sus consecuencias”, precisamente para que quede bien claro que no hemos de ser un instituto religioso —“como” no significa “igual a”—, sino una institución que requiere una entrega, una “dedicación total”: éste es el significado de las palabras: “con todas sus consecuencias”», Álvaro del Portillo (1967) commenting: Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, n. 14, footnote 15.

[15] Cf. “Letter”, 29‐XII‐1947/14‐II‐1966, n. 84

[16] «No era posible entonces —era el año 1934— que el Padre explicara de otro modo las cosas: faltaban los términos canónicos precisos que luego tan activa y eficazmente contribuirá a encontrar; y que ha seguido buscando sin descanso, porque no han faltado ni faltan quienes, por ignorancia o por imprudencia, vaciaran y vacían de contenido los términos empleados por el Padre, para aplicarlos impropiamente. Es una lucha titánica, en éste y en otros muchos aspectos, la mantenida por el Padre para defender la naturaleza del fenómeno jurídico, teológico y ascético de la Obra. Por aquellos primeros años, no faltaron personas que decían, admiradas, al Padre: pero ¿quiere Vd. crear un estado canónico nuevo? La respuesta del Padre era siempre que no (…)», Álvaro del Portillo (1967) commenting: Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, n. 14, footnote 15.

[17] cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, conference in Madrid, 17 December 1948.

[18]  cf. Escrivá, J.M., carta “Non Ignoratis”, 2-X-1958, nro. 9.

[19] The sixth Spanish edition of the Catechism (1995) defines the bond in this way: «54.- How is the bond of the Fidelity or Oblation, between the Prelature and the person concerned, acquired? The bond of the Fidelity or Oblation, between the Prelature and the person concerned is acquired by a formal declaration, of a contractual nature, that commits the Work and the person concerned with rights and obligations for both parties.»

But later, in the seventh Spanish edition (2003) of the Catechism, the text is something different: «11.- The bond between the faithful and the Prelature is not of a contractual nature, but the proper to any ecclesiastical circumscription. The formal declaration that creates the bond is of a contractual nature.»

[20] «Nada distingue a mis hijos de sus conciudadanos. En cambio, fuera de la Fe, nada tienen en común con los miembros de las congregaciones religiosas.», Escrivá, J.M., “Conversaciones”, nro. 118.

[21] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. et al, o.c., Chapter V, footnote 95.

[22] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 16. § 1: «In Instituto membra stricto sensu sumpta, scilicet sodales omnes Numerarii, clerici et laici, perfectioni evangelicae acquirendae sese devovent, et Instituti peculiaribus apostolatus operibus totis viribus incumbunt: ac vitam familiae in Instituto agunt, a qua non nisi iuxta praescripta his in Constitutionibus dispensari valent».

[23] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 3. § 1: «Aspectus genericus finis Instituti est santificatio sodalium per consiliorum Evangelii exercitium harumque Constitutionum observantiam».

[24] Constitución Apostólica, “Provida Mater Ecclesia”, art. 1.

[25] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 3. § 2: « Specificus autem est totis viribus adlaborare ut classis quae dicitur intellectualis, quaeque, vel ob doctrinam, qua pollet, vel ob munera, quae exercet, vel ob dignitatem, qua insignitur, est moderatrix societatis civilis.  Christi Domini praeceptis adhaereat, ipsaque in praxim deducat: et inter omnes classes civilis societatis vitam perfectionis in saeculo fovere et diffundere, atque viros ac mulieres informare ad apostolatum in saeculo exercendum».

[26] “Converstations”, n. 18

[27] «Los socios ejercitan ordinariamente el apostolado desde los cargos oficiales de la administración pública, cargos que han de servir siempre con lealtad ejemplar», cf. “Regulations”, 1941, Regime, Art.1, §2

[28] Cf. “Franco: a personal and political biography”, by Stanley G. Payne and Jesús Palacios, University of Wisconsin Press, 2014, p. 579.

[29] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 5: «Sodales Instituti evangelicam perfectionem profitentur, quin tamen religiosa vota emittant, aut aliquid externum signum in personis vel domibus prae se ferant quod religiosam familiam demonstret. Clerici vestem clericalem communem loci, ubi commorantur, laici autem, vestes apud classes eiusdem vel similis professionis vel socialis condicionis usitatas, deferunt».

[30] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 27. § 3: «Hi socales non solum vitam familiae in Instituto non agunt, verum tum publice cum privatim sic illorum evolvitur vita ac illa cuiuslibet laici».

[31] C.C.L.

[32] The Way n. 848.

[33] «The founder and two qualified members of Opus Dei (…) lay the foundations for a justification of what will be done “extra”, exceeding the minimum requirements demanded by the Provida Mater Ecclesia», cf. Rocca G., o. c., Cap. IV (La conclusione che si può trarre da tutto ciò è che non solo il fondatore e due membri qualificati dell'Opus Dei accettarono con gratitudine lo statuto di istituto secolare, concesso all'Opus Dei, ma che essi posero altresì le basi per giustificare quanto si faceva «in più», superando quel minimo imposto dalla Provida Mater Ecclesia).

[34] «En los Centros del Opus Dei se sigue un horario como en cualquier hogar; nunca se habla -porque no lo hay- de reglamento; y tampoco se tienen actos comunes, sino reuniones de familia. La vida en familia en los Centros de la Obra no está ni puede estar jamás regulada por las leyes canónicas de la vida religiosa; y, de hecho, no se asemeja, ni siquiera mínimamente, a la de las comunidades religiosas», “Catechism”, 2010, nro. 187.

[35] «El Consejo local está pendiente de que en esos momentos se mantenga siempre el tono sobrenatural y humano propio de la Obra (…). Uno de los temas más frecuentes será el apostolado y el proselitismo (…). Algunas veces, principalmente con ocasión de fiestas de familia, la tertulia se orientará hacia temas más íntimos de la vida de la Obra, de su historia, canciones de Casa, etc. (…). En ocasiones, las tertulias versan sobre acontecimientos o cuestiones con implicaciones sociales, políticas, económicas, etc. En estos casos, el Director —y todos— evitan que, por inadvertencia o poca precisión al hablar, se expongan enfoques doctrinalmente erróneos.» Cf. “Experiencias de labores apostólicas”, 2003, p. 13-14

[36] «El Director de un Centro de Numerarios no se ausenta más de un día de la ciudad donde reside, fuera de un caso urgentísimo, sin comunicarlo antes a la Comisión Regional» Cf. “Experiencias de labores apostólicas”, 2003, p. 73.

[37] Cf. “Const. 1950”, 16. § 1.

[38] «Como regla general, los Numerarios se incorporan de modo estable a la vida en familia, en la sede de un Centro de la Prelatura, cuando son mayores de edad», Cf. “Experiencias de labores apostólicas”, 2003, p. 17.

[39] «Si, en alguna ocasión, un Numerario o un Agregado se separa del Centro al que está adscrito, y no se da con su paradero, se informa inmediatamente a la Comisión Regional, pero no se comunica a nadie más», cf. “Vademecum del Gobierno Local”, p.64, 2002.

[40] «El Círculo Breve es un medio de formación colectiva de los Numerarios y de los Agregados, en el que se busca conservar y mejorar el espíritu de la Obra en cada uno», Catechism, 2010, n. 219.

[41] Cf. Haenobarbo, “Religiosos Disfrazados”, published on Opuslibros, May 1, 2006.

[42] «Se llama emendatio al acto por el cual algunos fieles, dentro del Círculo, manifiestan voluntaria y humildemente algún defecto personal en el cumplimiento de las Normas, o alguna falta exterior, que no tenga razón de pecado», Catechism, 2010, n. 222.

[43] Cf. Haenobarbo, “Religiosos Disfrazados”, published on Opuslibros,  May 1, 2006.

[44] «El cuerpo es como un borriquillo (…) Con el fin de trabajar mucho y bien, debemos descansar lo justo, lo que tenemos indicado: el paseo semanal y la excursión mensual. (…) Nuestro Padre nos enseñó que, para nosotros, el descanso es un deber», cf. “Programa de formación inicial (B-10)”, Roma, 1985/Apartado II, 16, Salud.

[45] Cf. Haenobarbo, “Sobre unas notas”, published on Opuslibros, June 24, 2009.

[46] 1982 Statutes of Opus Dei, 29.

[47] «Antes de que un Numerario o Agregado haga la Fidelidad, el Director le recuerda que debe otorgar testamento y que es libre para disponer de sus bienes no procedentes del trabajo profesional», cf. “Experiencia de labores apostólicas”, Parte I, ap. IV.

[48] Cf. Josef Knecht, “¿Qué es una prelatura personal?”, published on Opuslibros, April 28, 2008.

[49] Cf. Gervasio, “La intencionísima”, published on Opuslibros, July 30, 2010.

[50] «Para formar parte de la Prelatura del Opus Dei, se precisa una vocación divina, que es una específica determinación de la vocación cristiana», “Catecismo”, ed. 2010 n. 14.

[51] «Nuestro deseo, nuestro deber de preservar intacta la naturaleza específica de la vocación que Dios nos ha dado, nos llevaba, nos lleva y nos seguirá llevando con incansable perseverancia, a ofrecer innumerables Santas Misas, que se cuentan por muchos millares; y también innumerables sacrificios personales y el mérito de nuestro trabajo profesional diario, por esta común intención que tan ardientemente deseamos ver realizada», cf. “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 3.

[52] Oxford English Dictionary.

[53] Cf. Lucas, “Razones para los cambios de carisma y para la doblez de espiritualidad en el Opus Dei”, published on Opuslibros, April 25, 2011.

[54] I read this definition on dossier Julito Membrillo, which was sent me at the time I was writing this book.

[55] “Conversations”, n. 24

[56] «Toda la sede del Centro es el hogar de quienes ahí viven, aunque cada uno disponga de una habitación personal; por eso, el que la ocupa no deja a la vista fotografías o retratos de los padres, hermanos, etc.; el que lo desee, conserva esas fotos en la intimidad», cf. «Experiencias de los consejos locales», March 19, 2005.

[57] «Esa vocación específica, secular y laical, no es una construcción imaginaria, o un falso misticismo, ni tampoco una idea profética, nacida y anidada en la inteligencia de un estudioso de teología, sin más consistencia real que la abstracta de una idea», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 95.

[58] The followings articles are only a sampling of what has been written or publishing: Rocca, Giancarlo, “L'Opus Dei - Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum Review XXV, 1985 and available on Opuslibros; Compaq, “¿Cómo salir de la prelatura si antes no has entrado?”, April 11, 2005; Merlos, “Más sobre el estatus jurídico del laico"”, April 20, 2005; Compaq, “Mintió el fundador, mintieron los autores de 'El itinerario jurídico'”, January 2, 2006; Claire Fischer, “Catecismo de la Obra y juegos malabares”, March 10, 2006; Haenobarbo, “¿Pertenecen o no pertenecen los laicos?”, March 31, 2006; Haenobarbo, “Votos o compromisos en el pensamiento del fundador”, July 17, 2006; Claire Fischer, “Página web del Opus Dei: discurso de Juan Pablo II”, September 20, 2006; Daniel M., “Sobre la pertenencia de los laicos a las Prelaturas Personales”, September 25, 2006; Daniel M., “El cardenal Ratzinger y las Prelaturas Personales”, January 22, 2007; Josef Knecht, “Teología del laicado y naturaleza jurídica de las prelaturas personales”, April 25, 2007; Josef Knecht, “¿Qué es una prelatura personal?”, April 28, 2008; Haenobarbo, “Sobre contratos y vínculos”, May 12, 2008; Josef Knecht, “El limbo de los así llamados fieles de la prelatura del Opus Dei”, May 14, 2008; Gervasio, “La Intencionísima”, July 30, 2010; Lucas, “La Jurisdicción Del Prelado del Opus Dei”, September, 2010, etc.

[59] «Se sono incorporati, la prelatura ne assume la cura e l'assistenza alla pari dei chierici, e la giurisdizione del prelato non può essere limitativa, ma dispone di loro alla pari dei chierici per i fini dell'Opera. Se non lo sono e continuano a essere sottoposti ai loro Ordinari, perché usare il termine «incorporazione» che evoca un'altra realtà, cioè l'effettiva e totale appartenenza di una persona a un istituto (sia esso religioso o secolare)? A meno che - ma ciò non è precisato né dalla Declaratio né dai suoi commentatori - i termini: incardinazione (sempre applicato ai clerici) e incorporazione (sempre applicato ai laici) coprano realtà diverse, come potrebbe far supporre il loro diverso uso.» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Cap. VIII).

[60] CIC, “De las Prelaturas Personales”, Cann. 294 – 297.

[61] «Esta vocación no saca a quien la recibe de su estado y condición en la Iglesia y en la sociedad civil», “Catechism”, 2010, n.14

[62] «Era lógico, por tanto, que estando compuesto el Opus Dei por una grandísima mayoría de laicos, empleásemos la expresión cum proprio populo: de lo contrario hubiese parecido que se solicitaba la erección en Prelatura de una parte de la Obra —el clero—, mientras se deseaba que los laicos (más de 60.000, entonces) continuasen en su condición de Instituto secular», Interview to Álvaro del Portillo, ABC de Madrid, 29-XI-1982.

[63] «Afortunadamente, en December de 1980, la Comisión Pontificia para la revisión del Código de Derecho Canónico (…) hizo saber que había sido suprimida en los proyectos de cánones la expresión cum proprio populo, ya que por varias razones técnicas esa expresión resultaba inadecuada. Lógicamente —y añadiría que con satisfacción— nosotros nos acomodamos entonces a esa norma de precisión jurídica y terminológica, sin necesidad alguna de que variara el contenido de nuestra solicitud: la misma que la Santa Sede ha, definitivamente, sancionado ahora», cf. Interview to Álvaro del Portillo, published on ABC de Madrid, 29-XI-1982.

[64] «Praelaturae iurisdictio personalis aflicit clericos incardinatos necnon, tantum quoad peculiarium obligationum adimpletionem quas ipsi sumpserunt vinculo iuridico, ope conventionis cum Praelatura initae, laicos qui operibus apostolicis Praelaturae sese dedicant, qui omnes ad operam pastoralem Praelaturae perficiendam sub auctoritate Praelati exstant iuxta praescripta articuli praecedentis.»

[65] «Que nuestra Santa Madre la Iglesia dé a la Obra una nueva situación jurídica, de modo que lo que no somos de facto —un Instituto Secular— no lo seamos tampoco de iure», “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 2.

[66] «Si los miembros del Opus Dei personalmente hacen promesas o votos, esos votos y esas promesas son una devoción particular de ellos, cosa de la conciencia de cada uno: la Obra los ignora», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 8-XII-1941, n. 86.

[67] «En un papel antiguo del Padre he leído que si estado es stabilis vivendi modus, buscar la perfección cristiana siguiendo unas normas determinadas, y de modo estable, es estado de perfección: pero quería que esa situación permaneciera en el fuero interno», Álvaro del Portillo, comentando a: Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, nro. 14, footnote 15

[68] «En los años 1946 y 1947, se ultimó el estudio, ya anteriormente iniciado, que llevó a la redacción y promulgación de la Constitución Apostólica Provida Mater Ecclesia, con un nuevo estado secular o jurídico de perfección, diferente del de los religiosos, y se nos concedió la aprobación que el Padre aceptó, porque urgía tener un reconocimiento de la Santa Sede. Pero al Padre no le interesaba el reconocimiento jurídico del peculiar estado de perfección, sino la busca de la perfección cristiana: así como no le interesaban los votos, sino las virtudes», Ibidem.

[69] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. et alt, o.c., Chapter VII.

[70] «Tienes vocación y la tendrás siempre. Nunca dudes de esta verdad, porque se recibe una vez y después no se pierde; si acaso, se tira por la ventana», Escrivá quoted by A. del Portillo on “Letter”, 19-III-1992, n. 14

[71] «Esos votos privadísimos, jamás recibidos por los Directores de la Obra, nada quitaban a nuestra secularidad, y dieron a mis hijos en aquellos momentos, en los que yo no quería ni emplear la palabra vocación, un arma psicológica, como os decía antes, interna, para desechar los malos consejos que recibían», “Letter”, 29-XII-1947/14-II-1966, nn. 84 y 180.

[72] Cf. Fuenmayor, et al., o.c., Chapter II.

[73] Cf. Haenobarbo, “Votos o compromisos en el pensamiento del fundador”, pusblished on Opuslibros.org, July 17, 2006.

[74] «Nos interesan todas las virtudes (…) no nos interesan en cambio las promesas, ni los votos, aunque sean teológicamente dignos de todo respeto, y con mucho respeto los veamos en los demás», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 8-XII-1941, n. 86.

[75] Cf. Fuenmayor, et al., o.c., Chapter II.

[76] «Siempre nos dijeron que [los votos] eran una imposición de la Santa Sede, que el fundador había tenido que ceder, sin conceder, con ánimo de recuperar. Pues bien, esta explicación es falsa. Los votos comienzan a emitirse en torno al año 1935, cuando no había ningún motivo canónico que los requiriesen; además, los miembros practican desde el principio una espiritualidad de estado de perfección, de vida comunitaria en régimen de obediencia. Es oportuno recordar aquí el proyecto de una vestidura especial a modo de capa, tipo orden de caballería, para asistir a misa en la casa, que Escrivá mandó dibujar a uno de los primeros, y que nunca se llevaría a la práctica», cf. Lucas, “Acerca de la fundación del Opus Dei”, published on Opuslibros, October 19, 2009.

[77] «La Obra de Dios viene a cumplir la Voluntad de Dios. Por tanto, tened una profunda convicción de que el cielo está empeñado en que se realice», Instruction, 19-III-1934, n. 47.

[78] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. y otros, o.c., Cap. II.

[79] «Me jugaba el alma, no podía adulterar la voluntad de Dios», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-1-1961, n. 6.

[80] «Una vez formulados estos compromisos, que constituyen la preparación necesaria para la Fidelidad, y hecha la declaración para la incorporación definitiva, en el oratorio se rezan las preces prescritas en el Caeremoniale Operis Dei, de modo análogo a como se hace para la Oblación», cf. “Vademécum del Gobierno Local”, Roma, 2002, page 51.

[81] «La declaración para la incorporación a la Prelatura (cf. Statuta, n. 27) es el elemento esencial», ibidem.

[82] Cf. Fuenmayor, A.et alt., o.c., Chapter VII.

[83] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. et alt., o.c., Chapter II.

[84] «En un papel antiguo del Padre he leído que si estado es stabilis vivendi modus, buscar la perfección cristiana siguiendo unas normas determinadas, y de modo estable, es estado de perfección: pero quería que esa situación permaneciera en el fuero interno», cf. Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 1934, n. 14, footnote 15, by Alvaro del Portillo.

[85] Cf. “Const. 1950”, n. 189: «Quo efficacius suum finem assequatur Institutum, uti tale occultum vivere vult: quare sese abstinet ab actibus collectivis, neque habet nomen vel denominationem communem quibus sodales appellentur.  Data indole Instituti, quod externe, uti societas, apparere non expedit, socii ipsius aliquibus publicis manifestationibus cultus, uti processionibus, non intererunt collective».

[86] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. y otros, o.c., Chapter II.

[87] «El estado de perfección, en cuanto regulado por el Derecho, no significa otra cosa que el reconocimiento hecho por la autoridad eclesiástica de la presencia del estado teológico de perfección. Reconocimiento que atribuye a este estado la posibilidad de producir efectos jurídicos», cf. Pérez Hernández, Antonio, “El estado de perfección completo “Quoad substantiam”, base de la perfección organizada”, conferencia, Congreso Nacional de Perfección y Apostolado, Madrid, septiembre de 1956, Sección A).- Sesiones Comunes, Tomo I, p. 399-401.

[88] Cf. Fuenmayor, A. y otros, o.c., Chapter II.

[89] «El estado de perfección es aquel «estado de la vida cristiana por el cual los fieles se ligan mediante una obligación permanente y estable, y por medios determinados, ex se libres, a adquirir o ejercitar la perfección cristiana» (Canals, S.: Institutos Seculares y estado de perfección, Madrid, 1954, p. 42). Por consiguiente, los elementos que integran el estado de perfección son la estabilidad y la obligatoriedad, ya implícitos en el mismo concepto de estado, y la total consagración a Dios que proviene del concepto mismo de perfección evangélica.» cf. Pérez Hernández, Antonio, o.c.

[90] «Es precisamente por medio de la observancia de los consejos evangélicos generales como debe tenderse a tal fin» cf. Pérez Hernández, Antonio, o.c.

[91] «Fuentes de esta obligación pueden ser el voto, el juramento o la consagración, mediante los cuales nace el vínculo que liga directamente con Dios a quien los emite, o la promesa por la que se vincula también con Dios indirectamente, quien la hace -«propter Deum»- a los Superiores», Ibidem.

[92] «Hay, pues, una obligación jurídica exigible incluso coactivamente, de tender a la perfección, mediante unos medios determinados: la práctica de los consejos evangélicos. Esta obligación ha de contraerse “sub gravi”», Ibidem.

[93] «Antes de admitiros en la Obra, también por razón de justicia, a cada uno de vosotros se os explicó bien —para que vuestra decisión fuera consciente y libre— que no ibais a ser religiosos ni personas equiparadas a los religiosos. Se os dijo que conservaríais en todo vuestra íntegra personalidad y vuestra condición de laicos corrientes, que en nada ibais a ser segregados o separados de los demás hombres, que están en el mundo y son iguales a vosotros; que, al venir al Opus Dei, no cambiaríais de estado, sino que continuaríais con el que tuvierais; y que vuestra vocación profesional y vuestros deberes sociales seguirían siendo parte integrante de la vocación divina que habíais recibido», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 33.

[94] «El pasaje de la carta Non ignoratis dice así: “Por eso, no deseamos para nosotros el estado de perfección. Lo amamos, para los religiosos y para los que pertenecen a los que ahora se denominan Institutos Seculares, porque es propio de su vocación. A nosotros, en cambio, por la vocación específica con la que hemos sido llamados al Opus Dei, Dios nos pide solamente que cada uno busque la santidad en el propio estado —soltero, casado, viudo, sacerdote— y en el ejercicio de su munus publicum, o sea, de su trabajo profesional, bien conocido por todos sus conciudadanos”. A mi modo de ver, en este pasaje se confunden y mezclan indebidamente realidades distintas: 1º el estado de perfección —status perfectionis adquirendae—2º el estado civil de las personas y 3º el estado canónico de las personas», cf. Gervasio, “Estados y santidad”, published on Opuslibros, January 9, 2012.

[95] «¿Cómo podría yo ahora cometer la iniquidad de obligaros a seguir una vocación diversa? No, no podría exigiros eso de ninguna forma, y ni siquiera podría pediros —recurriendo a argumentos poco leales, que violenten la libertad de vuestras conciencias— que renovéis vuestro compromiso con la Obra, abrazando una vocación que no es la que hemos recibido de Dios», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 34

[96] «Ni yo puedo hacer eso con vosotros, ni nadie puede hacer eso conmigo. (...) Eso —además de ser humanamente una villanía— sería una falta grave contra la moral cristiana, contra la ley divina positiva y aun contra la misma ley natural. En toda la legislación y la praxis eclesiástica no hay ninguna norma o principio que pudiera justificar una tal tiranía», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 34

[97] Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-I-1961, n. 18.

[98] «Hay en mi alma una gran devoción a San Francisco, a Santo Domingo, a San Ignacio; pero nadie en el mundo me puede forzar a hacerme franciscano, dominico o jesuita. Como nadie me puede obligar a tener mujer, a que me case (...). ¿Quién podrá cambiar esa vocación divina? El derecho natural, el derecho divino positivo, la moral cristiana y los derechos adquiridos se opondrían —repito— a una violencia de ese tipo, defendiendo la libertad de las conciencias», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 35.

[99] «No quiero que se condene mi alma, ni las vuestras, por no suplicar y pedir filialmente», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 96 y n. 100.

[100] «Después de ser él [Escrivá] el que exige a los miembros laicos del Opus Dei que cumplan normas propias de los clérigos y también normas propias de los religiosos, afirma tener un deber de conciencia de defender la secularidad y la laicidad del Opus Dei», cf. Gervasio, “El irresistible episcopado”, published on Opuslibros, 15 de August de 2012.

[101] «para que yo me pueda presentar tranquilo ante el juicio del Señor, porque habré podido cumplir su Santa Voluntad, a pesar de los hombres que, ignorantes o no, se oponen a lo que es justo y bueno para las almas, para la Iglesia y para la gloria de Dios», cf. RHF, EF-620420-2, quoted on Fuenmayor, A. y otros, o.c., Cap. VII.

[102] «Esa vocación específica, secular y laical, no es una construcción imaginaria, o un falso misticismo, ni tampoco una idea profética, nacida y anidada en la inteligencia de un estudioso de teología, sin más consistencia real que la abstracta de una idea», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-V-1962, n. 95.

[103] «¿Un camino a ninguna parte?»: that is the inscription or legend on the homepage of Opuslibros.org.

[104] However, I do not denied the theological and moral value of each life full dedicated to God in Opus Dei.

[105] «La perseverancia en la Obra de Dios nunca podrá ser ocasionada por las preocupaciones de sentirse inadaptados, al abandonar la vocación, para emprender las actividades del mundo, puesto que —ya se dijo— no os sacamos de él. De ahí la facilidad para salir de la Obra sin violencias. Estoy seguro de que esta misma facilidad será un motivo más para perseverar», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción para el proselitismo” nros. 27 y 28.

[106] «No puedes olvidar que has de permanecer siempre dentro de los límites de la barca. Y esto porque te dio la gana. Repito lo que os decía ayer o anteayer: si te sales de la barca, caerás entre las olas del mar, irás a la muerte, perecerás anegado en el océano, y dejarás de estar con Cristo, perdiendo esta compañía que voluntariamente aceptaste, cuando Él te la ofreció», Escrivá, J.M., meditación “Vivir para la gloria de Dios”, 21-XI-1954.

[107] Fuenmayor and alt., p. 47.

[108] «Quieres ser mártir. -Yo te pondré un martirio al alcance de la mano: ser apóstol y no llamarte apóstol, ser misionero -con misión- y no llamarte misionero, ser hombre de Dios y parecer hombre de mundo: ¡pasar oculto!», cf. Escrivá, J.M., “Camino”, nro. 848.

[109] «Ser católico y no parecerlo era la idea de Escrivá en aquellos años madrileños» cf. Gervasio, “Venga a nosotros tu reino”, Opuslibros.org, January 28, 2009.

[110] Cf. E.B.E., “Opus Fake”, Opuslibros.org, April 30, 2012.

[111] Let us see the case of the Parable of Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), where the boy «squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation» (Luke 15:13) and ended up tending the swine. Finally, he returned to his father’s home. The big difference, between Escrivá’s theology and the theology of Gospel is how the story ends. On the one hand, Escrivá categorically states that is too late, that «those little poor men have no remedy» (Escrivá, J.M., quoted on “Meditaciones”, IV, p. 600), without showing any compassion. On the other hand, the Gospel’s message is in favor of the man redemption and forgiveness.

[112] «After these forty-three long years, when a child of mine has been lost [forever], it has always been due to a lack of sincerity or because of the Decalogue seemed outdated to him or her. And do not tell me there were other reasons because it is not truth» («A la vuelta de estos cuarenta y tres años largos, cuando algún hijo mío se ha perdido, ha sido siempre por falta de sinceridad o porque le ha parecido anticuado el decálogo. Y que no me venga con otras razones, porque no son verdad», Escrivá, J.M., “El talento de hablar”, meditación, April, 1972, quoted on “Meditaciones” III, p. 232).

[113] «If someone abandons the path, [he or she] would feel a terrible remorse: that person would be disgraced. Even those things that make people happy, for a person who abandons the vocation, those things become bitter as the bile, acidic as the vinegar, repugnant as realgar» («Si alguien se descaminara, le quedaría un remordimiento tremendo: sería un desgraciado. Hasta esas cosas que dan a la gente una relativa felicidad, en una persona que abandona su vocación se hacen amargas como la hiel, agrias como el vinagre, repugnantes como el rejalgar», Escrivá, J.M., quoted on “Meditaciones”, III, p. 389).