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.

Cover Design: the author.

Printed in USA by: CreateSpace (Amazon).

ASIN: B075FV47R5

To my parents and brothers,
for helping me.

Table of Contents

About the author

Warning

Prologue

The canonical approval

The journey to Rome, 1946

Escrivá’s denial, 1958

The personal prelature, 1982

Conclusion: the excess

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, do 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 Escrivá without putting himself 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 its most important chapters, in this case, related to the canonical approval of Opus Dei.

The text of this book was written originally in Spanish and translated by me into English. 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 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.

The canonical approval

«Have You been able Lord to allow me, in good faith, to deceive so many souls?»[4]
Escrivá, meditation, 1946

The journey to Rome, 1946

Every morning, in Opus Dei centers, the faithful who live there come early together to the chapel and read aloud the book “Meditaciones” (meditations) during the half hour of mental prayer prescribed by the daily norms or life plan. One of these meditations is about the commemoration of “Decretum Laudis”, the canonical document of 1947 by which Opus Dei was approved as Secular Institute.

«The year was 1946. Commissioned by our Father [Escrivá], Álvaro [del Portillo] was in the Eternal City, seeking the Work’s approval by the Holy See.»[5]

Although this meditation is about historical events, they are interpreted from the supernatural point of view, regarding Opus Dei as God’s will.

«“The Work looked like, to the world and the Church, a novelty”, wrote our Father, regarding those moments [of 1946]. “The legal solution that I was seeking for, [looked like] hopeless. However, my daughters and sons, I could not expect that things were possible. You have come —a senior curial official of Roman Curia said — a century too soon. And, however, we needed to attempt the impossible. I was under pressure because of thousands of souls who had surrendered to God, with full dedication, to do apostolate in the midst of the world.”»[6]

Before leaving for Genoa, heading for Rome, in Barcelona Msgr. Escrivá preached a meditation, of which only some parts are known. These are probably the most important ones, from a theological point of view, which provide support for Opus Dei's divinity. However, at that time, Escrivá’s words sounded strange and not everyone understood them:

«I do not know what others thought about it. I did not have any key to understand the meaning of that prayer, of that passionate, dramatic and, at the same time, confident supplication. Only much later I knew what it meant: the founder was leaving for Rome to introduce Opus Dei before the Pope and the Holy See, and he was personally doing that, despite his poor health, because Alvaro del Portillo had been told in Rome that Opus Dei had come “a century too soon”: that is to say, there was no chance for the Work to get a suitable legal approval by the Church. It had been approved in a generic way, but there was a need to find the proper canonical status.»[7]

Years later, the official history revealed the meaning of that meditation. In one moment, the founder seemed to ask a sign from God to endorse Opus Dei’s mission and its divine character. Not only that, but Escriva seemed also to be asking God to back him up, so that he did not look like as a liar before his followers.

«Have You been able Lord to allow me, in good faith, to deceive so many souls? I did everything for your glory, knowing that is your Will! Is it possible that the Holy See is saying that we have come a century too soon...? Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te (Matthew 19:27).»[8]

If Opus Dei was God’s will, as Msgr. Escrivá was saying, the Roman Curia could not go against it by choosing not to approve it, because that would have meant going against God. Another interpretation would also be possible, the one of which Escrivá was very aware of: the chance that he would have been deceiving his followers and that his organization would have never been endorsed by God. A third possibility is that Escrivá really believed that his organization was God’s will, but, in that case, it could only have been demonstrable by the proper canonical approval from the Holy See at the strict request of Escriva. This interpretation seems to be the most probable one, but implies on the part of Escrivá a bet too risky by demanding a signal from God. Why? Because, what would happen if things went wrong? In addition to forcing God’s will, Escrivá would have been forcing people’s will to embrace a hoax. Did things finally go right?

«The founder, being aware that God Himself had wished that foundation, proposed the following commitment: if You –he was addressing God- wanted all this, it cannot now suddenly be possible that we are unable to find the proper path within Your Church, for which the Works is at the service. The same meaning had the petition of Peter: we have left everything and followed you, now our problem is yours, you will see what to do with that.[9]

Indeed, we were moved but not worried, since we did not know —not me, at least— the heart of the situation that the founder and the whole Opus Dei were living at that moment. We did not even know, until he said it, that his staying in Barcelona was on their way to Rome. Neither we knew that the goal for his trip was a canonical or legal reason.»[10]

In reality, there should be no need for choosing between divinization and deceiving: Opus Dei's origin should be explained as the result of major efforts and prayers as well as divine inspiration. The problem here is that Escrivá brought the situation to the limit for considering his organization as founded by God. That divinization could give reasons to think about the possibility of deception. Escrivá asked members to believe in him, “to leave everything and follow him”, but the problem is when, in some point, Opus Dei says, “is not my problem if you left everything and followed me”. This is a deception point that has been experienced by so many former members. That would allow us to question the supernatural origin of this organization.

The risky gamble played by Escrivá would become problematic and would run Opus Dei into trouble. If Escrivá were unable to find the proper canonical approval, it would mean that God has never wanted Opus Dei. On the contrary, if Opus Dei got the expected results, Escrivá would claim that God had backed him up from the beginning.

«On that critical moment in the Work's history —we were in 1946—, the law was particularly important. Since one mistake, or giving away something substantial, could cause irreparable loss. I was putting my soul in danger, I could not adulterate God’s will. You would understand my strains and sufferings. But the Lord -adiutor meus et protector meus! (Ps. XXXIX, 18)- filled me with peace. A great peace, based on the certitude that Jesus Christ wanted Opus Dei to be done.»[11]

The phrase “I was putting my soul in danger” summarizes Escrivá’s gamble. The Work's supernatural origin was the key that made Opus Dei different from any other Catholic organization, or at least, made it especial. Any religious order could be defined as inspired by God. However, Opus Dei was it in a singular way. In what way? No one knew, but certainly, Opus Dei was inspired by God more than any other organization. Escrivá needed to prove it.

***

The journey to Rome is interpreted within a supernatural reference framework. God was going to test Escrivá’s faith and the devil were going to shake Escrivá’s body. The founder had diabetes and the travel could be dangerous for him. The doctor had told him to avoid the trip.

It is noteworthy that to checkup his diabetes, Escriva had gone to see a psychiatrist, Juan Rof Carballo[12] (specialist in psychosomatic illness). Why a psychiatrist? Was not there a trusted clinical doctor? What was Escriva looking for? Some kind of medical certificate? There is one possible and probable explanation (to prove it here, we would need some sources kept away by Opus Dei).

Before 1945, Escrivá had sought to become appointed bishop[13]. He tried again later several times (three, at least) but he was always rejected, among other reasons, because of some aspects of his personality.

«It is known that Escrivá’s candidature for bishop was in progress in 1945 (this means, when he was 43-year-old) but it was finally rejected —in spite of the voluminous background information provided— with a “dilata” [delay]. The same result was for a second nomination in 1950 for the dioceses of Vitoria, also rejected with a “dilata” for reasons —like the formation of the priest of Opus Dei, the controversies over Opus Dei, the same personality of the founder who had some psychological unclear appearance— that could hardly be overcame in a third nomination. Assuming that, in 1955, Escrivá were aware of the existence of a [third] nomination for bishop, we should conclude that he never knew the objections to decide a “dilata” in the two previous candidatures.»[14]

It is possible to think that Alvaro del Portillo asked Escrivá to travel urgently to Rome, despite his delicate health condition, not only to obtain the canonical approval for Opus Dei but also to dismiss the rumors about his personality and mental health, in order to be appointed bishop[15]. Maybe this was the reason for visiting a psychiatrist before leaving for Rome[16].

The boat trip could be dangerous for Escrivá, not only because of his diabetes but also because the violence of the sea:

«In addition to the present difficulties, there was a severe storm, unusual in the Mediterranean Sea at that time of the year, that for around twenty hours shaken the ship, in which our Father was accompanied by one of his spiritual sons. The ship weathered the storm and our Father arrived to the Genoa harbor, where don Alvaro was waiting for him, along with another of our brothers. From there, they continued the journey to Rome.»[17]

The difficulties of the trip were interpreted as Devil’s actions, as is illustrated by one person who accompanied Escriva:

«The Father says that the Devil was in the Gulf of Lion and caused the most formidable storm that I can recall I have suffered, despite being an islander and old friend of the Mediterranean».[18]

In contrast to the official version, which interprets the storm as a demoniac intervention against the Escrivá's divine foundation, there is another contemporary testimony that presents the same situation as a simple weather phenomenon, without any supernatural stain:

«The ship of the “Compañía Transmediterránea” for Genoa was scheduled at noon. But the weather of the day was not nice: rainy and very windy. There was a delay because the bad weather had caused to postpone the loading work at the dock. Until four o’clock, it was said, the ship would not depart.»[19]

Beyond the weather conditions, this witness specifies some details of the ship and the condition by which Escrivá and José Orlandis —who went along with him— traveled: the ship somewhat old and overcrowded, and a very small cabin, are three elements sufficient to intensify the effects of any storm, even more if there was a tempest:

«The ship, 86 meters of length, was not for large travel anymore. From the last years, the boat was used for short travels, between Malaga and North Africa or around the Islands zone. In fact, this ship made Barcelona-Genoa only four times. In the last trip, it brings from Italy a group of Polish orphans taken by the Spanish government and received at the Barcelona harbor. Now, thanks to this new travel, the ship acquired new importance, at least to Opus Dei. This time it was full to bursting. This little vessel was then the only usual means of transportation between Europe and the peninsula, because of French border closures. Escrivá and Orlandis had a very little cabin, without ventilation.»[20]

The summary of this witness is very specific:

«In the afternoon, at six, the ship sailed. José Orlandis, accustomed to the sea, had said to us that he feared for the weather; in spite of a sever north wind, in the Gulf of Lion it would be mistral [very cold and dry] and that was a very clear sign of a difficult travel. Even more with a ramshackle ship. And even more yet if the cabin had no ventilation, considering that the bad weather would not allow to go to the deck, especially for someone who had never traveled by sea and was very sick with diabetes, like Msgr. Escrivá.»[21]

On the other hand, the interpretation made by Escrivá —the storm as devil’s work— does not take into account the rest of the passengers, who had suffered the same weather condition. If the narrative of the facts were true, in other words, if Escrivá really attributed the storm to his presence in the ship, this episode could be considered an example of Escrivá’s egotism, pointed out in a diversity of writings published on Opuslibros[22] in a variety of approaches. To believe in a mobilization of the Nature (wind and sea) because of a unique passenger looks like a story created by a person with a disproportionate attention onto himself. It is easy to associate that with biblical stories like Jonah and the Whale (Jonah 1 or St. Paul Acts 27). As well as Escrivá was compared to Moses[23], some parts of his life seem to have been subtly interpreted —by the same Escrivá— in the light of the greatest figures of Holy Bible. The same egotism can be detected in the organization founded by Escrivá, where errors have no place, nor self-criticism, because of its divine inspired origin.

«If a member of the Work were unable to bear the burdens, if in those years of testing, himself or his Directors would see that he cannot be faithful to the vocation, he shall be helped to facilitate him a freely exit. In his heart must not remain feelings of enmity: what will keep in it will be a great fondness, because he will remember that he was always treated with care; and if he was not able, or did not wanted, to correspond [to the vocation], the other ones were able and wanted to thank the Lord for the divine grace of vocation.»[24]

It is probable that, over the years, it would be said that Escrivá did not want to tell the story in a literal sense, but he was metaphorically speaking when recounting his boat trip from Barcelona to Genoa. However, from the historical point of view, at least, while I was member of Opus Dei, the words of Escrivá were taken at face value, and especially in this particular case of that trip. Evidently, Escriva as well as his immediate entourage, needed to interpret their own narration in supernatural terms, since they were convinced —or needed to be convinced— that God wanted what Escrivá was carried out, therefore the devil would appear at any time to prevent that happening, either it came as a storm with high winds or in the form of religious persecution (owing to ideological motives or simple jealousy).

Regarding the “incomprehension and persecutions” that Escrivá and Opus Dei claim to have suffered (from 1940 to the end of his life), it should be carefully analyzed, to distinguish history from fabled. When Escrivá says that he had suffered persecution like Jesus, it seems to be disproportionate:

«You do not know that for many years we have suffered persecution, also from the good people. You do not know it because the Father [Escrivá is speaking in the third person] has forbidden to talk or write about it. It was a persecution like the one Jesus suffered from the priest and princes: calumny, lies, monkey business, insults; in the press, in the talks… Everyone made fun of us. Everyone felt entitled to spit on us. Moreover, we were happy in that loneliness. We knew how to find Christ and we felt so accompanied. We remained silent and smiled, and worked and prayed. I did not defended myselft until I received a communication from the Holy See»[25]

The content of that communication was never disclosed[26], at least during the twenty years I was member of Opus Dei. The problem here is that Opus Dei claims —until today— that it has suffered persecution but has never explained in a specific way who did that or how this happened. The emphasis seems to be placed on Opus Dei as victim but without explaining concretely what happened. As a result, Opus Dei can always claim any critic as “religious persecution” or as an attack against the Catholic Church, something that is nonsense.

Between the Jesuits and Opus Dei there has been apparently some jealousy and fighting because of “the proselytism market share”.[27] The disputes over vocations arise early in the history, between Opus Dei and Marian Congregations (Jesuits).[28] However, it seems there were also other reasons for the conflicts:

«It is not known yet if it was due to simple reasons of “apostolic competition” (both organization worked in the same areas) or due to different methodologies, as it would be supposed by the fact that the “Marian Congregations” had always been a public association, while Escrivá worked from the beginning instilling some “secrecy” among his followers. In any case, the difficult relations between both organizations soon were echoed in the letter written in 1941 by the Madrid-Alcalá bishop Mons. Eijo y Garay to Montserrat coadjutor abbot don Escarré and other publications, but in no case were specified the point of disagreement.»[29]

In the 1940s, the Jesuit Angel Carrillo de Albornoz was extremely critical, accusing Opus Dei of “heresy”, “secrecy” and being a sort of “Christian masonry”. First of all, it would be necessary to analyze if his accusations had some basis o were due to some jealousy (however, it is remarkable that some of these accusation are still in place). There are no signs of religious persecution but rather “fighting” between two persons, two organizations, etc. On another occasion, in a religious school (run by nuns), a copy of the book “The Way” was burned, since Escriva was considered heretic:

«In one school run by nuns it was made a formal and solemn conviction of a copy The Way. The schoolgirls were line up in the yard and after a brief apocalyptic speech, the book was burned and cursed, in front of frightened and screaming girls, who had never seen something like that. There also was cloistered nuns who prayed for the end of heresy and the conversion of the heretics.»[30]

However, all of that seems an atmosphere of collective hysteria more than a religious persecution, in strict sense. Certainly, that made Escrivá suffer for that, but the fact of being Escrivá compared with Jesus, that is excessive. It is noteworthy that so early Opus Dei had “bad press”, counterbalanced by its own diplomatic skills and the promotion of the orthodoxy as a flagship, gaining in this important support from the Catholic Hierarchy. Opus Dei, as well as Escriva, usually likes to talk of persecutions using adjectives without specifying the facts, therefore without clarifying their specific causes, that is, the most important part.

Regarding the persecution that Escriva claimed to have faced, in particular by the Jesuits, it should be noted that Escrivá himself started, in his own way, a sort of crusade against the religious orders. Opus Dei's mission —especially at that time— had to do with rectifying a doctrinal issue: if previously the “monopoly” of sanctity —according to Escrivá— were controlled by religious orders, Opus Dei's mission —a sort of lay crusade— was to declare that everybody could be saint without joining to a religious order: the conflict was on the horizon. Having said this, another thing should be said: paradoxically, Escrivá “borrowed” from the Jesuits and other religious orders several aspects of their lives. That could also cause conflicts, while implying certain lack of coherence, or even worst, blatant hypocrisy. Of course, all this matter could be discussed in greater depth, but it cannot be denied the implicit confrontation that Escrivá’s preaching could cause on some religious, no matter that he could later say, “we love religious very much”.

It is very likely that Escrivá had a good relationship with cloistered religious communities:

«I love religious and venerate and admire their cloister, their apostolates, and their separation from the word»[31]

It is known that some religious convents were “cooperators” of Opus Dei, at that time (and probably today). However, those religious —locked in their houses— were neither rivals nor competition. Instead, religious living in the world like Jesuits, who moved among intellectuals —themselves were intellectuals— and political or economic leaders, they were opponents for Opus Dei, since the new Escrivá’s organization wanted to gain influence in those same areas. The end of the Institute,

«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.»[32]

Opus Dei is negatively defined itself as opposed to religious life (including priests), usually, which not necessarily should be a conflictive definition, but in the end it is. According to Escrivá’s preaching, religious looked like a sort of aristocrats who had prevented lay Christian from accessing sanctity. Escrivá wanted to “democratize” that access. But, like so many revolutions, Escrivá’s could end in a tyranny. If in the past lay Christians were unable to access sanctity, after Escrivá’s revolution so many of them would also lose their own secularity.

***

Why was Escrivá under pressure, in 1946, to obtain the pontifical approval (for the diocesan priestly society of common life without vows, created in 1943)?

Owing to the apostolic expansion to others countries and dioceses, Opus Dei needed a pontifical approval. This way, Escrivá’s organization would have a better freedom of movement. But, when he knew that the Roman Curia would delay the approval, Escrivá became very worried and spoke out about this situation in that meditation in Barcelona, before leaving for Rome, mentioned at the beginning of this book. Alongside with providing better conditions for the expansion, the pontifical approval was necessary to validate the supernatural attribute of Escrivá’s foundation.

Apparently, according to G. Rocca, the founder was rather misinformed about what was happening in Rome, even before 1946:

«The petition of Escrivá [Decretum Laudis of 1946] asking for [pontifical] approval of his Work as [priestly] society of common life without vows, appears to prove that neither Escrivá and his collaborators, nor the Madrid-Alcalá bishop knew yet what was happening in Rome yet over the previous years to obtain a legal recognition for organizations (the future “secular institutes”) that because of their nature neither fit in with the classic canonical state of perfection, nor could be seen in the situation of society of common life without public vows (…). In June 1946, Escrivá went to Rome (…) to meet Alvaro del Portillo, general secretary, who was there since February 1946, to try personally the approval. And in Rome he was able to learn by himself what was being done for the new foundations, among which was their own as the most significant.»[33]

What Rocca says is confirmed by Salvador Canals, when he quotes the Decretum Laudis:

«While “Opus Dei” was praying Our Lord for the purpose of seeking the «Decretum Laudis» as Society of life in common without public vows, it was being prepared the Apostolic Constitution “Provida Mater Ecclesia”»[34]

By 1946, Escrivá was seeking the Decretum Laudis (as Society of life in common without public vows) in order to obtain the pontifical approval, since his organization had already got the diocesan one but was not enough for the expansion to other countries.

«Therefore, it should be assumed, on one side, that Escrivá was satisfied with the [diocesan] canonical form [a Society of life in common without public vows] obtained in 1943»[35]

But, actually, he received something different from what he was looking for: he got the Decretum Laudis (1947) for a Secular Institute (1950), pontifical canonical form that he would accept with great enthusiasm but later after few years (1958) he would reject categorically and searched again for a different canonical form.

Once more, it can be seriously questioned the official thesis that states that from the beginning Escrivá knew what he wanted and that each canonical step was confirmed by supernatural signals.

«Since 1928 or 1929, our Founder already pray for the canonical solution —which would be an especial prayer for many years- without knowing exactly what it could be.»[36]

«Already in 1928 —foundation year— [Escrivá] knew what [Opus Dei's canonical form] would be like [in the future] as it is at the present [1982]»[37]

For instance, would God give Escrivá a legal solution, which did not last more than few years (the priestly society of life in common without vows of 1943)?

«After considering carefully the issue by praying, by studying it and getting advice from the experts, our Founder was unable to arrive to a solution that would allow him to have his own priests, coming from lay members of Opus Dei (…). The Lord was who gave him the solution, during the Mass, on February 14, 1943: the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross.»[38]

It is difficult to accept that a so precarious solution, that would last few years until 1947, could be inspirited by God, as Escrivá alleged then and Opus Dei claims still today. In addition, such a solution was not even new, anyone would be able to find it, all it would have taken was to look for it:

«There were already many societies of common life without public vows of pontifical right at that time —like the one Escriva had applied for— and the Holy See did not make it difficult to approve them if they met the requisite conditions. It would have been enough to check any edition of the Pontifical Yearbook.»[39]

It seems that Escrivá was seeking for a canonical form that could bring him the greatest possible autonomy, no matter what it could be, and for that reason, he did not have a clear idea of what he was (canonically) looking for, though he knew what he wanted (autonomy).

«The canonical form that, from the first years our Father wished for the Work, was a secular structure of personal jurisdiction»[40]

That could explain why so many canonical forms Opus Dei have had since it was founded: pious union (diocesan, 1941), priestly society of common life without vows (diocesan, 1943), Secular Institute (pontifical, 1947) and finally personal prelature (pontifical, 1982). Not even this last solution would solve all problems, as we will see later.

Opus Dei, however, presents its canonical path as a very clear process, as well as it does in relation to its divine foundation as God’s will manifestation. This is the ultimate aim of the book “The canonical path of Opus Dei”, written at the request of Opus Dei to prove the coherence of that process and the presence of the hand of God behind it. The canonical issue is closely related to the divine revelation or divine inspiration that Escrivá would have received from God. Both aspects go hand in hand.

However, there is another official version where Escrivá is described as unconcerned about the canonical question:

«Our Father has no rush to get the formal approval from the ecclesiastical authority (…) because there was no place for their organization in the current [1928] canonical system in force.»[41]

As we saw before, that is not true. Escrivá seemed satisfied (cf. footnote 35) when he obtained the (diocesan) society of common life without vow in 1943, and later sought to get the pontifical approval of that canonical form, which already existed in the canonical system in force. The historical interpretation made by Opus Dei is that the personal prelature did not exist at that time. That is a very different question. What Opus Dei seems to do, sometimes, is to reinterpret history according to its own convenience. We do not know why Escrivá had no rush until 1946. It is not because he was searching for the personal prelature that did not exist then. In that case, he would have to wait until 1982. However, he accepted the approval of 1943 and sought to consolidate it by seeking a pontifical approval. Later, in 1947, he was also pleased with the juridical status of Secular Institute. His unconcern was not due to the absence of a place in the canonical system for his organization. What we do know is that, from 1940 onwards, Escrivá became worried and, in 1946, very worried.

«If it had been possible, the Father would not have wanted that the Work had any name».[42]

What was the cause of Escrivá’s worry and precipitation in 1946? At the beginning, the emphasis was on the mystical and idealistic aspect of their foundation, without any particular interest on the canonical issue, at least according the sources quoted above.  However,

«At the beginning of 1940s, Opus Dei’s work gained a new impulse. [On the one hand] abundant vocations came and had to be trained appropriately and the apostolic activities were expanding to several other Spanish cities. On the other hand, the Lord allowed a rough smear campaign against our Father and the Work. To shut up the calumniators, the Madrid-Alcala bishop, Mons. Eijo y Garay, who knew the supernatural origin of Opus Dei and had great veneration for our Father, urged him to request the convenient diocesan written approval, since the oral one [Escrivá] already got it from the beginnings of the Work. Therefore, on March 19, 1941, Opus Dei was approved as Pious Union.»[43]

Only two years later, in 1943, Escrivá requested a new change and the Priestly Society of Holy Cross was born:

«Dismissed the possibility of calling secular priests to assist in the spiritual work of the Work, and since the pious union did not allow to have its own priest (who necessarily would have been incardinated in some dioceses, received by benevolent bishops), it was inevitable to change towards a canonical structure that allowed incardination. Therefore, this is one of the reasons why Escrivá’s Work did not remain as pious union.»[44]

However, towards 1946, Escrivá thought that a diocesan approval was not enough to stop calumnies and then he started seeking for an endorsement from the Holy See.

«These events [evil speaking during the 1940s], one after another, spread by word of mouth, were encourage excessively and magnified. There was talk of an imminent condemnatory pronouncing, including excommunication from the Holy See. The diocesan approval served no purpose because —it was said whispering in order not to shock puritans— throughout history of the Church, there had also been bishops who had been deceived in good faith, and even heretic ones.»[45]

Did Escrivá believe possible that condemnatory pronouncing?[46] Did he think feasible what the rumors said (“diocesan approval would serve no purpose”)? Was that the reason why he rushed to get the laudatory pontifical approval as the Decretum Laudis of 1947? It is now understandable the negative impact on Escrivá when the Roman Curia said, «you have come a century too soon»[47]. Did Escrivá fear for the end of his foundation?

According to several testimonies (from sympathizers), the founder had doubts in four or five occasions over the divinity of their spiritual entrepreneurship (in turn, this would be interpreted later as sign of God’s special love).

In 1931, due to the magnitude of the foundation, Escrivá was not confident that he would be capable to meet such a challenge:

«One day, in the quietness of a church of Madrid, I felt myself, nothing! —not even small, that would have been something— I thought: Lord, do you want me to do all this wonder?»[48]

In 1934:

«[Escrivá] keeps alive the memory of what the Lord let him “see” a few months ago, the 22 June [1933?] (…) while he was thinking about the future of Opus Dei, a thought came to his mind: Could it be only human the reasons —desire for success, for influence over souls— that lead him to work? Could he be deceiving those who came to him? (…) If the Work is not to serve the Church, destroy it, Lord!».[49]

For his part, Peter Berglar tells:

«In two occasions, in 1933 and later in 1941, when the persecutions to the Work got worse, God let him to became temporally dark and being tested by the devil, thinking that maybe when he found the Work he was self-seeking. «Lord, if Opus Dei is not to serve the Church —was his immediate reply— destroy it right now!».[50]

Finally, Msgr. Javier Echevarría says:

«A similar situation happened in La Granja de San Idelfondo, the 25 September 1941. [Escrivá] spent two or three days there to recover from the hard work of that year. Because of the great attacks that he has been facing then, it came to his mind -during the Mass- the possibility that Rome would not concede the approval, if the Work were presented as the monstrosity the attackers denounced. (…) Hereafter, as it had happened before in 1933, [Escrivá] experienced the power of the hope and the complete security that Opus Dei would be done, for being an entirely initiative of God.»[51].

What did Echevarría mean by saying “monstrosity”? As always, the accusations are not clear, the hard facts are no mentioned.  The fifth incident was the meditation of 1946 in Barcelona, before leaving for Rome.

In 1933, after telling God “destroy it”, [Escrivá says] «I felt confirmed on the truth of God’s will about the Work».[52] The curious thing is that, at least, he had doubt two more times later (1941 and 1946) about what he was doing. This leads us to think that the doubts he had and the corresponding answers he received from God seem to be psychological experiences more than divine interventions. At least, when Moses was in doubt about what God was asking him, on only one occasion, things weren’t going well for him (Numbers, 20:11): it cost him not to enter into the Promised Land.

By reading the book “Meditations”, it is possible to think that Escrivá would not have been in a hurry to get the canonical approval if he had considered not realistic the chances of getting an imminent condemnatory pronouncing from the Holy See. However, this rush led him to change his plans and maybe to lose some control over the situation, resulting in a rough road for the canonical path. The criticism (or persecutions, according to Escrivá) implied a double inconvenient: to speed up time losing some control over the events (seeking the wrong canonical form), and to increase the chances of losing his risky bet by neither getting the proper canonical approval nor the backing of God, therefore losing everything.

***

Let´s back to the story. After the storm, having the danger been over, Escrivá arrived to Genoa with satisfaction of having been overcome the storm, the first supernatural obstacle, according to Escrivá’s interpretation. The next difficulty would be the Roman Curia. But, before continuing, it is worth to examine an important detail. What is striking in Escrivá’s preaching, during the meditation in Barcelona, before leaving for Rome, is the position he takes in front of the authority of the Church, something that seems to reveal his predisposition for rendering account directly to God. This explains why Escrivá would see the Curia as an obstacle to be overcome. As a priest, he was subordinate to the hierarchy of the Church, but as a founder, he perceived himself in a superior position because of the divine command to found Opus Dei. For instance, he said that God Himself had taught him to love. One may wonder: how, specifically, did God taught him to love? Escrivá states categorically that God was his teacher and that is something he cannot prove. We must believe in him if we want to accept what he teaches.

«I have no needed to learn to forgive since God taught me to love»[53]

Any apostolic organization has to be canonical approved by the Church and submit to its controls. However, Escriva seemed to demand the canonical endorsement as if it were an administrative formality, as if it must have been approved without carefully examination for being the foundation an expressed wish of God´s will. This moral and religious autonomy[54] looks to be the basis for functional autonomy and the resistance for rendering account, in other words, transparency. This even could explain the convoluted canonical path undertook by Escrivá: seeking for a pontifical approval (Priestly Society of common life -1946) and receiving a negative answer (a century too soon); try again (it is possible that…) and obtaining something different (Secular Institute -1947) but being accepted and later rejected (Letter “Non Ignoratis” - 1958) and seeking for another thing (Prelatura Nullius -1962)[55] and receiving a negative answer; trying again and seeking for a different canonical form (personal prelature -1982) but without “proprio populo”, as requested by Opus Dei. In spite of being a personal prelature, today Opus Dei internally works like a secular institute, even more rigorously. Also, there is a compressive series of governing documents (Vademecums [guidebook], Glosas [gloss], Catechism, etc.) which were not approved by the Holy See. Opus Dei's theology seems a mix of Catholic theology and Escrivá’s personal teachings founded upon his own supernatural authority.

***

«In reference to the aims of his first trip to Rome, our Father wrote: “what did I want?: a place for the Work in the law of the Church, in accordance with the nature of our vocation and the requirements of our apostolic expansion; the full sanction of our supernatural path by the Magisterium of the Church, in such a way to make clear and sharp the characteristics of our spiritual physiognomy. The growth of Work, the crowd of vocations from people of all classes and conditions, all that blessing from God pressed me to obtain —from the Holy See— the full canonical approval of the path the Lord had opened”.»[56]

Escrivá needed a “full sanction by the Magisterium” that would approve “the nature of our vocation”. The goal was crystal clear. Without that confirmation, Escrivá said, he would be seen as a swindler. According to the official version, that objective was achieved —in the first instance— by the Decretum Laudis (1947) that approved Opus Dei as Secular Institute, even though Escrivá had sought something very different (society of common life):

«It is true that Escrivá had applied for the pontifical approval of the society of common life. In spite of this, his organization was directed towards the new form of the “secular institutes”, mainly on the motion of officials of Sacred Congregation for Religious, especially by Fr. Arcadio Larraona, Undersecretary of the S.C. since 1943 and who leaded that congregation actually.» [57]

The official history implied that the canonical path, virtually lineal and ascendant, was an extraordinary feat accomplished almost exclusively by Escrivá “in spite of the obstacles”, the Roman Curia among them. However, in the light of the Rocca’s studies, the canonical path of Opus Dei seems the result of the advice and orientation provided by the Roman Curia while Escrivá was taking in the wrong direction. Far from being what it was supposed to be, Opus Dei seems to be canonically what could be done.

***

Escrivá’s denial, 1958

It should be asked: did the secular institute really mean the “full sanction by the Magisterium” for the Opus Dei vocation?

Apparently so. The canonical framework for the secular institutes was approved in 1947 by the Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater Ecclesia and shortly afterwards Opus Dei was transformed into the first secular institute, as requested. In December 1948, Escrivá addressed a conference in Madrid[58] about Opus Dei and the secular institute canonical status. Years later, other members of the new institute participated in the National Congress of Perfection (1956). There were several conferences, whose authors, among others, were the followings: A. del Portillo, Salvador Canals and A. de Fuenmayor. Neither Canals in 1947[59], nor Escrivá in 1948, nor A. del Portillo in 1956,

«(…) express any objection over the status of secular institute conferred to Opus Dei. Even more, both Escrivá and Canals were satisfied by presenting Opus Dei as the first secular institute and as a model of this new state of perfection.

(…) The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that not only the founder along with two qualified members gratefully accepted the status of secular institute concede to Opus Dei but also they went beyond and set the foundations to justify the demands for “more” requirements, exceeding what the Provida Mater Ecclesia required.»[60]

In many ways, Opus Dei members lived then as religious —and even today—, in spite of what Escrivá were claiming at that time and even later.

«There are so many elements in the internal life of Opus Dei that bring it closer to religious orders: first of all, the compulsory life in common for the members in the strict sense of the institution [numeraries]; then, the numerous spiritual and ascetic practices (common prayer, morning and afternoon, the so-called “círculo breve”[61] [short circle] or weekly Chapter of faults, including the public accusation of personal faults, etc.); the exclusion of the members (in broadest sense [non numeraries]) from the executive positions in the organization; the rigid poverty, by which every member [numeraries and associates] has to give all their income to the institute; the internal work for which quite a few numeraries are invited to give up their secular job to devote themselves to the organization, etc. Some of these norms exceed without a doubt what the Provida Mater Ecclesia establishes, which does not impose common life, does not demand common prayer practice, nor common penitence practice, etc. It is clear, so, that the “extra” is proposed and desired by Opus Dei».[62]

It was Escrivá himself who defined Opus Dei as a result of God’s will[63]. This argument implies two things, at least: Opus Dei should be approved by the Church according to the canonical form designed by Escrivá and Opus Dei cannot contain errors or incoherence, otherwise, that would imply that someone had made a mistake, whether Escrivá or God. It would not be difficult to deduct who would have made it.

After few years, in 1958, Escrivá rejected the secular institute canonical form, claiming that —against the evidences— Opus Dei members were not religious in any way and the secular institute was for other kind of people except Opus Dei members. Rocca is right when he states that the canonical crisis is the most serious for the organization:

«The juridical crisis is actually the most serious one and it is important to highlight the nerve center. The starting point is the claim that the evangelical counsels and the canonical status of perfection were beyond the original Escrivá's project. Therefore, he would have adapted to times, accepting the best possible canonical solution offered to him; he would have not been satisfied with the “secular institute” status because of its lack of lay character required by his Work. (…) But the documents found out do not allow us to blindly accept this interpretation of the past.»[64]

In addition, towards the end of the chapter, Rocca states:

«There are many elements that have influenced on Opus Dei’s history, but there is not a single answer for the question why Escrivá changed his mind about the [Opus Dei’s] canonical physiognomy.»[65]

«First of all, he changed his mind after 1962 (or after 1958, according to the letter “Non Ignoratis” (…)), that is, after Escrivá had officially expressed his desire to find a new juridical structure different from secular institutes, therefore in a period that raises doubts about the authenticity of this statement. Would be enough to look at Opus Dei’s evolution, its desire several times expressed (in the documents) to follow the evangelical counsels (which it could renounce it if the ideal was the same as the early Christians and went no further), the inflexible life in common for the numeraries (which had not been sought by the other secular institutes due, precisely, to secularity reasons), the privileges only granted at the express request, the necessarily public character of their corporate works (other secular institute do not grant public character to their works in order to respect their secularity, working in their professions as most ordinary Christians do), the pride —frequently expressed— for being the first secular institute of the Catholic Church, the search and obtain numerous letters of recommendation to accelerate the process of approving and to overcome doubts from the Sacred Congregation for Religious (usually, it was much slower for approving institutions than in the case of Opus Dei), the strong opinion over the marriage, expressed by Escrivá in his book The Way, where he had stated his preference for the celibacy, proper to “the officers of Christ’s army”, etc.. It is hard not to ask if in the interpretation of their past, Opus Dei does not ignore several elements proper to it.»[66]

***

«The plans of God, however, foreseen that the suitable solution, in total harmony with Opus Dei's spirit and nature, would be achieved many years later, through the erection of the Work as a personal prelature. Until such time came, our Founder had no other option than to give in, without giving up, eager to win it back, seeking –while taking any step forward of the canonical path- to protect the essentials characteristics of our vocation.»[67]

Was it due to God’s plan or Escrivá’s change of mind? The official history tells that there was no change at all. Neither God nor Escrivá. But that version is contradicted by historical documents showing how happy Escrivá was of having got the canonical approval, without mentioning that it was only a historical stage waiting for something better o more suitable. In theory, the secular institute was the sign from God long awaited since 1928 and that Escrivá had begged God in Barcelona in 1946. However, from 1958 onwards, the official story will say that the secular institute was something tolerated but not wanted. This leads us to ask if Opus Dei adapts the historical account according to its needs for theological consistency.

«With that canonical physiognomy and its own ascetic, with that supernatural aim at the soul’s service, and with that exquisite respect for the personal freedom of its members, Opus Dei was born on October 2, 1928, founded by Mons. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, its current General President; it received the Decree of Praise from the Holy See on February 24, 1947, twenty two days after the Apostolic Constitution “Provida Mater Ecclesia” was promulgated; and it was definitively approved as first Secular Institute of pontifical right on June 16, 1950.»[68]

It seems very clear what the Cardinal Herranz, numerary member, stated in 1962: “with that canonical physiognomy (…) Opus Dei was born”. Even more, he adds, “definitively approved”. At no point, he talks about “canonical evolution” in process or refers to the secular institute as “transitional stage”. However, Opus Dei will say later that the “definitive approval” came with the personal prelature. For its part, in 1948 Escrivá stated two important things: he talked about a new state of perfection and how the Pope Pious XII had proposed Opus Dei as the model for this new state of perfection. It is worth repeating that: Escriva himself was who recognized and accepted the new canonical situation for Opus Dei, without raising any objection or reserve.

«This official document [Provida Mater] not only regulates the activities of new faithful Associations but also recognize a new state of perfection, a different one from hitherto existing (…).»[69]

And he adds:

«In the light of this sanctioned doctrine by the pontifical documents, we can already understand the especial characteristics that —in the canonical and ascetical sense— Opus Dei offers, the first secular institute of pontifical right, sanctioned according to the Provida mater Constitution norms, and it has been set as a model, for this new type of life of perfection, by the Holy Father Pious XII in the Decretum Laudis, conceded Opus Dei on February 24, 1947»[70]

Similar words were written by Salvador Canals, numerary member:

«Until then [1946] the different Commissions of the S.C. for Religious (…) were preparing, as we said, some Instructions or a Decree from the S.C. for Religious that could made canonically possible the new social forms; for that reason, it was extended the concept of religious state and was interpreted in lato sensu (broad sense) the title XVII of the Code, in such a way to admit the new Institutes in the II part of the book 1 (De religiosis).

In this period —beginning of 1946— new Counsels interventions and a broad and deep study of the problem had made it aware that the new socials forms needed its own juridical framework. The study on the vigorous and healthy “Priestly Society of Holy Cross and Opus Dei” institute, born twenty years ago in Spain, was very helpful in finding the definitive solution (…). The Constitutions of this Institute, which had its moment of glory for being the first secular institute of pontifical right, were very useful for preparing the “Provida Mater Ecclesia” Apostolic Constitution.»[71]

Then, Canals quotes the Decretum Laudis:

«While “Opus Dei” was praying Our Lord for the purpose of seeking the «Decretum laudis» as Society of life in common without public vows, it was preparing the Apostolic Constitution “Provida Mater Ecclesia”». In the light of this document, the Opus Dei Institute and its Constitutions were carefully reviewed by the Sacred Congregation, especially everything related to the internal structure, the regime, the apostolates, the life in common considered in broad sense; all those things were considered novelties and Opus Dei seems to fit the perfect type of secular Institute» (from Decretum Laudis).[72]

The conference of 1948 is very interesting. Escrivá admits this new state of perfection, the evangelical counsels and the religious life, except for the bond.

«There arises now in the house of the Father, “in which there are many mansions” (John, 14:2), 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 counsel (“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” - Provida Mater Ecclesia, art. I.)»[73]

So far, Escrivá maintained a consistent line between what he had been preaching and what he had been doing. «Have You been able, Lord, to allow me, in good faith, to deceive so many souls?» The canonical approval (Decretum Laudis, 1947) would support Escrivá’s good faith. The conference of 1948 could be seen as a further confirmation of the purposes of Escrivá’s preaching. Even in 1950 he participated –with a short paper[74]- in the General Congress of State of Perfection, held in Rome. Later in 1956, several members of Opus Dei participated in the National Congress of Perfection and Apostolate, held in Madrid, with twelve papers, praising the secular institute status. The participants members were: Salvador Canals, Álvaro del Portillo, Antonio Pérez Hernández, Encarnación Ortega Pardo, Patrocinio Sind, Severino Monzó, Amadeo de Fuenmayor y Catherine Bardinet.

However, in 1958, Escrivá made a critical decision and change of direction. He wiped out every word he has written, ten years ago (maybe more, if that letter were from 1962), about the secular institute, with the “Non Ignoratis” letter where he presented the new course of events.

«Motivated –I repeat- only by that love, we also desire that the Church sanctions our particular vocation with the proper canonical declaration, fully secular, that is, characteristic of secular priests and lays or ordinary faithful. For that reason, to avoid misinformation and erroneous opinion about our specific vocation, neither we ever wanted –with the Holy See’s knowledge- to be part of religious federations nor to attend congresses or assemblies organized by who live in state of perfection.»[75]

Although Escrivá places the accent on the continuity of the canonical path, there is a radical change:

«Escrivá himself (cf. Escrivá’s conference, December 17, 1948 “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”) explains how the secular institutes are the last link of the evolution of the state of perfection in the Church (…). But, surprisingly, since 1958 Escrivá proposes an institutional change on the pretext that the secular institute status is not suitable to his foundation»[76]

The Catechism of Opus Dei, 2010 edition, says (n. 38):

«In that pontifical document [Provida Mater] two theological and legal positions converged. One of them, related to the state of perfection and evangelical counsels applied to the secular institutes, crystallized in what is now called consecrated life; the second one, associated with Opus Dei as juridical and theological phenomenon, endorsed —neither expected nor wanted any state of perfection— the theological, ascetic and apostolic content of secularity, without people changing their state. Our Founder could accomplish very little, getting a temporal solution, and the Work was set in a place not suitable for it.»[77]

Escrivá accepted, with pride, to be the first secular institute, and then, he defended the new state of perfection, in the conference of 1948. It is not easy to understand why, since 1958 (or 1962), Escrivá will deny vigorously all that past. The same applies when in 1958 he talks about never attending state of perfection congresses on the part of Opus Dei members, when they actually did in 1956. Neither he mentioned the Congress of 1956 nor even said that those members were required attending it —by order of Escrivá— even though they should not have attended it (in theory).

Having said this, it should be quoted the following letter from 1939:

«Opus Dei’s corporate works must never be considered as official works or informally ecclesiastical; neither must be grouped or cataloged –under any pretext- among these type of institutions. In the same way, the representatives or professors of these educational institutions neither will ever be part of the organizations, associations or federations that group ecclesiastical or religious centers, nor will take part in meetings, congresses, etc., organized by these institutions»[78]

This text of 1939 is consistent with the other one from 1958. But both texts come into conflict with the Congresses of Perfection. How could Escrivá —and several others members— have attended congresses or meetings organized by ecclesiastical or religious federations —in 1948, 1950 and 1956— if it had been forbidden early in 1939? Is it possible that Escrivá explicitly prohibited (1939) to attend that kind of meetings, then allowed it (1948) and finally forbade it again (1958)? That sounds strage, but this incoherence allows us to think that, either the 1939’s letter was not written in that year but later, or there was some inconsistency between Escrivá’s preaching and Escrivá’s doing.

***

There are grounds for suggesting that «Escrivá was satisfied with the canonical form obtained in 1943» (cf. footnote 35) and did not seek to change it but to strengthen by the pontifical approval. Then, is it possible that Escrivá made a mistake for accepting the secular institute? That is not clear and there are not documents which prove that.

It is important not to lose sight of one important characteristics of Escrivá’s preaching: to be effective[79]. The support given to the secular institute, the investment of time and effort required to obtain the pontifical approval and to promote the new canonical status through the attendant to congresses and by writing papers, all that work would have been a matter of practicality.

Some Escrivá's words, from 1970, come to our attention.  Escrivá seems to say here that Opus Dei will always adapt to the juridical form that best suits its needs, according to the times:

«The Lord has always helped us to go —in varying circumstances of the life of the Church and the Work— that concrete juridical path that met, in each historical moment —1941, 1943 and 1947—, three fundamental characteristics: to be a possible path, to meet the Work’s needs to grow, and to be —among the several juridical possibilities— the most suitable solution, the least unsuitable to the reality of our lives.»[80]

Escrivá’s words seems very revealing. He talks about the “concrete juridical path” but also “each historical moment”; then he mentions the “Work’s needs to grow” (of each historical moment) and finally “the most suitable solution (…) to the reality of our lives”. These words of Escrivá seems to reflect the seeking for efficacy, mentioned before. Opus Dei’s canonical path seems the result of “practical adaptation” more than achieving a clear canonical goal. This way, Opus Dei is determined in each historical moment according to their own needs to grow and their own reality at a particular point in time. For instance, the secular institute status was the most suitable framework according to Opus Dei’s reality at some point in time, until that reality changed.

«In fact, we are not a Secular Institute, nor even can we be called as it: the present meaning of the concept [Secular Institute] differs too much from the authentic sense, attributed to it when the Holy See used that words for the first time, by granting us the Decretum Laudis, in 1947»[81]

Those words imply that “at the beginning” Escrivá accepted that juridical status, and then, an inexplicable historical circumstance made Opus Dei to change its canonical path. There was not a theological or canonical reason for that transformation. According to this, Escrivá would have always been faithful to God’s Will and the foundational charism. What it would have changed is the concept because of unknown circumstances. What would have happened if “the present meaning of the concept” had not changed? Supposedly, according to Escrivá’s words, Opus Dei would still be a secular institute and the personal prelature would have never come. This means that there never was a “juridical evolution” into the prelature. However, that is what the official story states. But, rather evolution, there was a reaction.

«The history of our canonical path, concluded the November 28, 1982 with the erection of Prelature of Opus Dei by Pope John Paul II, is the history of the prayer, sacrifice, work and fidelity of our dear Founder to what God entrusted him on the October 2, 1928 (…). During his whole life, our Founder prayed with great intensity for what it would be their special prayer.»[82]

In this way, it is implied that there was an evolution that started on October 2, 1928 and concluded on November 28, 1982, when the personal prelature was born. Thanks to the “Non Ignoratis” letter, we know that is hardly true.

«The particular characteristics of the Work of God’s spirit and apostolic life –years of experience, since 1928, had proved it- along with the “Ius peculiare” that has been conceded to us (Decretum Laudis 24/11/1947 and definitive approval Decree, 16/06/1950; in addition to Breves Apostolicos Cum Societatis, 28/06/1946 and Mirifice de Ecclesia, 20/07/1947), confer a very special personality on our Work —without any arrogance, we must recognize it and demonstrate it— that is different from the present secular institutes: these —secrets or not— have characteristics very similar to the religious congregations or common faithful associations, which frequently are difficult to differentiate, as much for its spirit as for its way of life.» [83]

It had been only ten years since Opus Dei’s approval: could the secular institute status have evolved so much to become something else? How could Escrivá have denied that his foundation had —and still has— “characteristics very similar to the religious congregations” and even more than any other secular institute?

«Escrivá himself had given his institute characteristics that other secular institutes had never accepted, for instance, the Agostino Gemelli’s “Misionaire della Regalità”. Escrivá imposed the life in common on numeraries, men and women; he imposed not only the three vows (poverty, chastity, obedience) but another commitments to ensure a social cohesion; he imposed norms typical of the religious life on numeraries, men and women, forcing women to use the veil (mantilla) when attending mass at Opus Dei’s chapel; forcing all members to practice the frequent confession with Opus Dei’s priests; imposing readings and entertainment’s censorship inside their homes. In practice, Escrivá was noticeably different from numerous founders of secular institutes, in which —on behalf of laicity and secularity— even those who did not practice common life were considered members in the fullest sense. In other words, that was precisely the opposite of what Escrivá had wanted.»[84]

As with the secular institute’s rejection, in the future Opus Dei could argue the same way, but this time with the prelature: “the present meaning of the concept [personal prelature] differs too much from the authentic sense”, for instance, because of the absence of “populo proprio” (own people) from personal prelatures (only priest are members in fullest sense and the lay are only “organic cooperators”); in the case that the Society of Saint Pius X became a personal prelature, Opus Dei would also argue that “the meaning of the concept has changed”.

***

«Opus Dei members are not religious, but the life they live –with full dedication to Christ— is, essentially, not different from the religious life.»[85]

This is one of the few times that Escrivá seems to openly express what Opus Dei is about: not to be canonically religious (as it happens in the cases of secular institute and personal prelature) but essentially not to distinguish from the religious life (as being undocumented religious, that is, without canonical backing). This way, any Opus Dei’s canonical figure should comply with the following requisite: to be a secular façade dissociated from the internal religious functioning (a cloistered life type).

«To invoke Opus Dei’s “secular character” to demand that the religious regime should not be applied to its members is inadmissible. The secular priesthood mainly, due to an express prohibition, could not engage in commerce, business, certain occupations and public offices (…). Escrivá was who forced us to live like priests. As numeraries, we should have to be prepared to be ordained priest and to take a series of courses for several years to complete the philosophical biennium and the theological quadrennium. But, no content with that, Escrivá in addition imposed —as well on priests as on lays— obligations and requirements characteristic of religious.»[86]

«Frequently it fails to mention that Opus Dei was a clerical institution and often it also overlooks that the first approval [1943] was as priestly society of common life without public vows.»[87]

According to Escrivá, numeraries were –and still are- intended and prepared for priesthood, as the Catechism (1995 edition) prove it, even though only a few of them become priest:

«All numeraries and many associates are usually ready (…) to be priests, if they are invited by the Father.»[88]

The existence of duality allows us to understand why Escrivá in his writings denies that Opus Dei is an organization that has analogous characteristics with cloistered religious communities. In Escrivá’s mind, Opus Dei is not a religious order or something like that, but ambiguously dual: it seems that Opus Dei should look like one thing (externally lay) but to be another different one (internally religious, all of this, without lay members being aware of it, or even worse, with the obligation to reject the possibility of ever being considered themselves religious).

«I can’t say enough my children that you must not differentiate from other people».»[89]

«We cannot segregate from the world: there we are to fight against its bad habits and to bring it to God. The other’s habits must be our habits. Eliminate, then, from our exterior —our language, our behavior— any weird gesture that make us strange to the environment where we live.»[90]

Escrivá insists that members have to be equal citizens and Christians, but at the same time, those words mean the opposite: members “have to be” because “they are not”. They “have to tend to be” because they will never be what they want to be: they are different, and they will be forever. Then, they need to “look like” their peers (habits, behaviors, etc.). Escrivá himself stresses the different between ordinary Christians and those who “want to be” like them. That is what seems to define Opus Dei’s members, especially the celibate ones (numeraries and associates).

The duality sometimes is expressed through paradoxes (“holy coercion”, “holy intransigence”, “imperative advice”, etc.) and dissociations (between words and actions). The English translation of The Way, n. 387 seems not to be accurate to express the paradox:

«The plane of the sanctity our Lord asks of us is determined by these three points: holy steadfastness, holy forcefulness, and holy shamelessness.»[91]

“Holy Intransigence” (inflexibility) is more accurate than “holy steadfastness” (firmness) and expresses better Opus Dei’s paradoxes. This is why is so important to read the Spanish sources and not the official translations made by Opus Dei (we recommend the reading of Chapter 6 of Estruch’s book, about the inaccurate translation of “The Way”). The same can be said about “holy forcefulness” (energy or character): that is a soften translation but more precise is “holy coercion”, which sounds not very good, but that is the essential of the paradox (dissonance). At the end, what Escrivá’s language creates is confusion and misleading ideas. For instance, it is interesting how Escrivá translates the Latin “compelle intrare”: «oblígalos a entrar»[92], that is, “compel them to come in”, while the New American Bible, published by the Vatican, translate this Latin text as “make people come in that my home may be filled” (in Spanish: “insiste a la gente”, that is, "to insist”, a behavior that could be annoying but is very different from “compel”). Because it is about a paradox, Escrivá also adds, «[holy coercion] it is an invitation, it is a help to decide, never —not even close— a coercion.»[93] If it is not a coercion, then, why does Escrivá use that word? The paradox effect creates ambiguity and confusion and that seems to be the purpose of that paradoxical language. Over the years, many members get confused precisely becasuse Opus Dei fails (or refuses?) to speak clearly.

***

«Being subordinated [to the Sacred Congregation for Religious] could imply not a little danger in the future»[94]

Towards 1947, Escrivá did not want to be under S.C. for Religious sphere. Then, why did so many members work for it towards 1956? What had changed? Maybe Escrivá wanted to avoid those dangers by putting his own people in strategic position inside the Sacred Congregation.

«For now we will focus on the first “drawback” —“dependence on the Congregation of Religious”— for it is precisely here that all the “intrusion, with positive and lordly spirit” was exercised by Opus Dei in the Vatican Curia.»[95]

Since 1948, Opus Dei started slowly to strive for a place at Vatican bureaucracy, into pontifical academies, pontifical commissions, etc. The initial Opus Dei’s strong support to the secular institute canonical status, and the specialization in the canonical matter among several members, could have been the ideal springboard for entering into the Roman Curia. The truth is that Escrivá’s organization internally functioned —even today— as a religious order, therefore, it was reasonable for Opus Dei to be accountable to the S.C. for Religious. Even though Escrivá did not like that type of accountability, he did want to gain access to that Congregation. Why would he want that? There is a reason, at least, that could be the most important one: to prevent others associations from using the same canonical status. That aim could be achieved by avoiding that those were canonically approved by the Sacred Congregation.

«The Instruction “Cum Sanctissimus Dominus” (…) underlines the Church’s concern for this new path opened for the souls, who living in the world, want to follow Jesus Christ by practicing the evangelical counsels. In fact, the Holy See prohibits that any Association can be called Secular Institute, even if it meets the requirements demanded by the Apostolic Constitution “Provida Mater”, unless it obtains a previous approval “opposition manuum” or “nihil obstat” of the Holy See (Instructio Cum Ssmus Dominus, I.). Any Association shall not be named Secular Institute until it obtain the canonical erection of the Bishop, in accordance with the procedure described in art. V of the Apostolic Constitution that imposes Bishop, as condition sine qua non in order to obtain de erection, to address to the competent Congregation for obtaining that “nihil obstat” which is required for Religions and for Society of common life»[96]

This could also explain why so many members attended several congresses on the state of perfection, in 1948, 1950 and 1956: to occupy important positions by becoming the most relevant specialists.  That seems to be what happened in the case of the personal prelature. Since 1982, even before, Opus Dei is very interested to be the best expert on personal prelatures, and to impose its own juridical interpretations on an academic level. It is not fortuitous that the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has been controlled by two Opus Dei’s members: Cardinal Julián Herranz (President), in the first place, and later by Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru (Secretary), probably the next President of the Council. From the juridical point of view, this Council is strategic: it would have the task of declaring whether Opus Dei faithful are members of the personal prelature in the strict sense, in the same way the priests are. The Code of Canon Law explicitly says, “[the personal prelatures] consist of presbyters and deacons of the secular clergy” (c. 294) without mention the lay Christians but later (c. 296) says, “[they] can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works” and calls this relationship “organic cooperation”. We do not know whether the Council have not expressed its opinion yet because nobody has brought up the subject before the Council or the Council has not said anything about it yet due to some other reason.

While Opus Dei is still the only one personal prelature (Society of Saint Pius X is in the process but has not yet obtain that status) something different happened with the secular institute status: a restrictive policy[97], apparently to preserve the purity of the secular institute status, failed and many associations obtained the canonical approval as secular institute. This seems to have disliked Escrivá and then he rejected the secular institute status by writing the letter "Non Ignoratis” supposedly in 1958.

«God our Lord did not want a new state for us but a simple juridical framework, ordinary, in the line with the reality of the Work and the lay and secular condition of its members»[98]

However, in 1948 Escrivá had said that the new state of perfection was the ultimate step of evolution:

«The consequences of this new life of perfection cannot be foreseen. It is the culmination of evolution of life of perfection forms in the Church.»[99]

Why did Escrivá show interest in some form of life —writing about it and struggling for its canonical approval— if he had never had any interest at all and had nothing to do with his vocation? Who does attend congresses if he or she is not interested on or is not up to it?

«Along with this change of attitude, in the letter of 1961 [Escrivá] gives a dissenting opinion against his previous conference of 1948: “the Work, my children, is not the last link in the [evolution of state of perfection] chain. It is not a new status of the religious life or state of perfection. It is a link of a different evolution: the one that life-giving Holy Spirit have been infused into Catholic laity” (Letter, January 25, 1961, n. 9). The conclusion is that the founder may not have had a very clear idea what the charism –presumably given by God in 1928- was about, since at first he said Opus Dei is a state of perfection, the last link of the evolution of that state, and later, as we pointed out, after a few years he stated the opposite: “what the Lord ask us it is not to change our status of ordinary faithful, of secular priests and lay for the status perfecctionis, but —with the God’s help we will repeat this idea— each one of us seeks the Christian perfection within their own state and life condition” (Letter, May 25, 1962, n. 91).»[100]

The authors of the book “The canonical path” quote a letter of 1947 to back up that the secular institute would have been accepted with reservations by Escrivá:

«The juridical status that has been obtained through Provida Mater Ecclesia, document that is the result of an emergency situation where there were many diverse situations, is the consequence of a compromise»[101]

«We have never thought to be part of the state of perfection. Quite the opposite: we have always preached, and attempted to practice, that everyone has to seek the Christian perfection in the midst of the world and in the one’s status.»[102]

It is difficult to understand how Escrivá said one thing in 1947 and later, in the conference of 1948, stated another different one. Those letters of 1947 seem to have been written at a later date.

«Was the approval of Opus Dei in 1950, officially categorized as “final approval,” really considered as final by the directors of Opus Dei during the fifties, or, rather, was it considered, even then, to be just another stage in the juridical itinerary of the Work?»[103]

The answer of Estruch is as follows:

«First of all, it seems clear that the materials from the congress are not consistent with the general thesis presented by Fuenmayor, Gómez-Iglesias and Illanes, according to which the format of the secular institute, from the moment of its creation, had been viewed by Opus Dei as unsatisfactory, partly, unsuitable, or insufficient, even though it offered some advantages.»[104]

However, Opus Dei has publicly denied its previous opinions (Escrivá’s conference of 1948, Congresses of 1950 and 1956, and Herranz’s article of 1962), at least since 1964, even though the contradictions and inconsistencies that attitude implies:

«In 1964, Julián Herranz published an article in the magazine Ius Canonicum (published by the University of Navarre; 1964, 303—333), entitled “La evolución de los institutos seculares.” This article has been considered by many authors as the first public exposition of the new attitude adopted by Opus Dei. To put it, albeit very simply, in a single sentence, Herranz’s thesis is that after the approval of the first secular institute (Opus Dei), the practice of the Sacred Congregation of Religious made it evolve progressively toward the typical forms of the religious; that the only one to remain faithful to the original form was Opus Dei; and that in view of the situation, “Opus Dei can no longer be considered, because in fact it is not, a secular institute”.»[105]

It is almost impossible that the letter “Non Ignoratis” were written in 1958. Let us remember what Herranz said in 1962: “with that canonical physiognomy [as secular institute] (…) Opus Dei was born” (“Nuestro Tiempo” review). Two years later, in 1964, he will say almost the same sentence of Escrivá (supposedly) in 1958: “Opus Dei is no longer a secular institute” (“Canonicum” review). The “Non Ignoratis” letter is —at least— dated 1962, when Escrivá sent to Pope John XXIII a letter asking for the approval of Opus Dei as Prelature Nullius (January 7, 1962). Let us see what a former member —who was a witness of those years— has to say about this period of time:

«In the Catechism of the Work used during the annual courses in 1959 —the prior edition had been withdrawn from circulation, so that there was no Catechism in 1958— there were still talking about Opus Dei as “Institute”. I remember the exact wording of the expression in that Catechism of 1959: the secular character of Institute, to refer to the “unity of life”, whereby the ascetic and the apostolic are intimately bound up with the secular character of the Institute. It did not say “secular character of Opus Dei” but “of Institute”. If I remember rightly, the name of “secular institute” applied to Opus Dei was commonplace until 1962. After that date, it was abandoned....» [106]

Why would Escrivá want to differentiate from other secular institute if Opus Dei had a more rigorous religious regime indeed? In this regard, Rocca makes the following comment about a conference of Alvaro del Portillo for the “General Congress of State of Perfection” (1950):

«The most interesting point [of the conference][107] is the paragraphs where A. del Portillo says that the pontifical legislation on the secular institutes represents the “minimum”[108] they must practice with regard to evangelical counsels and there could be other secular institutes which could go beyond that and impose conditions and regulations stricter than those established by Provida Mater Ecclesia. A. del Portillo himself gives an example: unlike ordinary secular institutes, there could be a secular institute that demands for “more” requirements to be a member, in the strict sense of the term, than the Provida Mater Ecclesia requires. Del Portillo does not say it, but he is talking about Opus Dei, which considers members, going beyond what Provida Mater Ecclesia dictates, only those who practice life in common and poverty, characteristics of the professed with solemn vows (…).

The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that not only the founder along with two qualified members gratefully accepted the status of secular institute concede to Opus Dei but also they went beyond and set the foundations to justify the demands for “more” requirements, exceeding what the Provida Mater Ecclesia required.»[109]

Escrivá’s secularity claim seems inconsistent with the religious practice he imposed on his organization:

«When Mons. Escrivá asserted years later that “Opus Dei is not and cannot be considered a reality linked to the evolutionary process of the state of perfection in the Church” and that “our Association does not pretend at all that its members change their state, that they cease to be the simple faithful just like everyone else, in order to acquire the peculiar state of perfection" (Conversations, no. 20), the “official” literature could say what it wanted, but it seems undeniable that Msgr. Escrivá was literally retracting what he had said in his 1949 lecture.»[110]

As we said before, Escrivá rejected the secular institute because something had changed and that was not so much “the meaning of the [secular institute] concept”, but, most importantly, the large number of association approved under the same canonical status.

«The [Escrivá’s] obsession was resulting in two strategies: on the one hand, to achieve an autonomous canonical regime, in the sense that the ordinary hierarchy of Church [bishops] had no influence over Opus Dei and, on the other hand, to become a unique organization, that is, to be the only one [secular institute] of that new type of institution. Both strategies were notably against the tradition of the Church.»[111]

The same story I heard in my time as member. The canonical form should be unique because of the same unique supernatural nature of Opus Dei. Opus Dei’s supernatural character is presented as closely tied to its canonical path. This is why it is so important to know Escrivá’s answer to the question that he formulated before: “Could I have deceived so many souls?” Because the canonical path is the answer to that question and it seems to be contradictory and shows inconsistencies as we have just seen.

«But around the end of 1950s, would arise frictions between Escrivá and the Vatican because of the approval of several organizations as secular institute, for instance, the Teresian founded by Father Poveda. Escrivá had tried to obtain an exclusive canonical form and he did not like how the Church spread it. When he realized that nothing would be achieve being opposed to it, he started to think a new strategy, another canonical status, the one that John Paul II approved, years after Escrivá’s death.»[112]

In this context, Escrivá wrote the letter “Non Ignoratis”.

***

The personal prelature, 1982

After rejecting the secular institute status, in spite of apparently being the “the full sanction of our supernatural path by the Magisterium of the Church”[113], Escrivá started looking for a new juridical status until getting into the Promised Land, as the founder liked to say[114]. Although the secular institute was initially that land, later it changed and the personal prelate was declared the new promise. Let us say it clearly: it is not a small “geographical” error to be wrong about where the Promised Land is. Moreover, we should ask if the personal prelature was the definitive canonical status.  That is what Alvaro del Portillo stated in an interview published by ABC of Madrid newspaper:

«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.»[115]

It would be interesting to learn what those “technical reasons” were, but Del Portillo did not say anything about it. The other question is why he used the word “accommodate” (to adapt) if —as he said— Opus Dei’s request and Holy See’s approval had the same content. Why should Opus Dei adapt to the suppressed “cum proprio populo” expression? There seems to be a contradiction in what Del Portillo says in that paragraph.

According to Rocca’s studies, it is easy to understand why Opus Dei had to accommodate to what Holy See sanctioned: the approved status was not the status sought by Opus Dei: a personal prelature “with its own people” (cum proprio populo)[116].

«Alvaro del Portillo requested [1979] the transformation [of Opus Dei] into personal prelature “cum proprio populo”, instead of prelature nullius as Mission of France [1962]. That was possible thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which created the personal prelatures for specific apostolic aims. Therefore, it was not necessary a territory (neither a privilege) like in Escrivá’s request [prelature nullius, 1962]; but the “cum proprio populo” requirements were still asked for. Opus Dei was presented as a jurisdictional structure with its own people, similar to a diocese, but instead of being a local Church, it was a personal Church. In this sense, Opus Dei would have had jurisdiction over its own faithful —and the diocesan authority would have been pushed back— with a continuous growth by increasing proselytism.»[117]

One more time, Opus Dei seems to have not reached the Promised Land. This would be the third unsuccessful attempt. However, what it is most important is Escrivá’s unsuccessful effort to answer the question “Could I have deceived so many souls?” because Opus Dei did not get the appropriate canonical sanction, which should be necessary to prove their supernatural character[118].

«In this sense I should like to clarify the following error: it was said, and repeated, that the plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Commission for the reform of the Code of Canon Law, gathered in Rome at the end of October 1981, had rejected Opus Dei’s request for transforming into Prelature. This is not truth. In fact, the Pontifical Commission for reviewing the Code of Canon Law, neither in its plenary meeting of October nor in any other moment, could have taken care of our request since that was beyond its competence: its mission was to prepare a comprehensive law –the new Code- and by no means to solve particular cases. Also, as I said before, Opus Dei’s request was not base upon likely norms of the future Code, but in the current regulations.»[119]

Reading those words of A. del Portillo, the reader could think that the “cum proprio populo” Opus Dei requested was never rejected. That is not truth. The Commission did not specifically reject that request, but prepared the general law that, thanks to Cardinal Ratzinger, prevented Opus Dei from being a personal prelature “with its own people”:

«The 341 canon [Cardinal Ratzinger says] has retained the personal prelature term (…) only was removed the attempt to equate it with the local Church. And for the following reason: what we have here is a voluntary criterion, and in a local church no one goes there on the basis of a voluntary decision; if there were a subjective criterion, there would be no local church but a especial one that everyone chooses oneself: the chosen church, and that cannot be accepted in any way.»[120]

Also, Opus Dei wanted to be a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church but Ratzinger prevented this from happening:

«It was Joseph Ratzinger who, in the discussions about the drafts of the Code of Canon Law 1917 reform, voted to get rid of personal prelature from the Book II, where the hierarchic structures of the Church are, because its inclusion would mean –Ratzinger adds- “a theological corruption of the particular Church notion”»[121].

Today the personal prelatures (Book II, Part I, Title IV) are placed in the Code of Canon Law before the Faithful Associations (Book II, Part I, Title V) and not along with Hierarchy Structure of the Church (Book II, Part II). However, Opus Dei constantly repeats that personal prelatures are hierarchy structures of the Church, against what Cardinal Ratzinger said:

«The personal prelature, in the sense of Motu Proprio [Ecclesiae Sanctae] is not a local Church but some sort of association.»[122]

Even though A. del Portillo did not lie in that interview, he did not tell the truth either. He said, instead, Opus Dei’s request was not explicitly rejected by the Commission (true), signifying [by an unfairly omission] that Opus Dei was never rejected at all (false). That is twisting the meaning of the facts by manipulating the words. For this kind of behavior, Opus Dei generates mistrust.

***

In 2016, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith finally defined that personal prelatures are not hierarchy structures but they belong to private associations of the Christian faithful.

«The most simple juridical form for the recognition of ecclesial entities of a charismatic nature at the present time appears to be that of a private association of the Christian faithful (cf. CIC, canons 321-326; CCEO, canons 573, §2-583). Nonetheless, it is worthwhile considering the other juridical forms with their proper specific characteristics, for example public associations of the Christian faithful (cf. CIC, canons 573-730; CCEO, canons 573, §1-583), clerical associations of the Christian faithful (cf. CIC, canon 302), Institutes of Consecrated Life (cf. CIC, canons 573-730; CCEO, canons 410-571), Societies of Apostolic Life (cf. CIC, canons 731-746; CCEO, canon 572) and Personal Prelatures (cf. CIC, canons 294-297).» (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Regarding the Relationship Between Hierarchical and Charismatic Gifts in the Life and the Mission of the Church, footnote n. 116)

***

The approval of the personal prelature would have meant the fulfillment of the God’s will, according to “the revealed Opus Dei”. However, based on the facts (the historical Opus Dei), neither Escrivá nor A. del Portillo could achieve “the full sanction of our supernatural path by the Magisterium of the Church”. Both leaders failed, and even the current authorities show little or no interest in changing this situation or accepting the truth: Opus Dei was not approved as requested and Opus Dei did not want to accept publicly that, but started saying the opposite.

Conclusion: the excess

At the beginning of this book, we focused on a concrete historical moment: Escrivá’s meditation of 1946 in Barcelona along with its consequences in the short and long run. We compared different sources and analyzed the theological content of the meditation. We were able to observe a historical development along with a supernatural and theological process. Both went in parallel until a breakpoint was reached in 1958 when Escrivá rejected the secular institute as canonical form. As a result, the historical Opus Dei was dissociated from the revealed Opus Dei. This was not only a historical breaking point (Escrivá will deny the historical fact that from 1947 to 1958 -or 1962- he welcomed and embraced the secular institute status) but also, above all, a theological rupture, which is even more serious. This theological crisis is denied by refusing to accept that the letter Non Ignoratis (1958) brought with it a historical breakpoint more than a reaffirmation and “defense of the charism”.

God’s will cannot be changed but by Himself. A God’s revelation cannot be modified but by another divine revelation. Escrivá said that Opus Dei’s foundation in 1928 was a result of God’s will. He said there would be no women in Opus Dei, but in 1930, he said that God’s told him otherwise and the “Feminine Section” was founded. In 1943, according to the official history, God showed Escrivá the solution for the incardination of priest by creating the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. In 1946, Escrivá asked God for a signal or answer, demanding a proper canonical approval of Opus Dei, “the full sanction of the Magisterium”. The answer came in 1947 with the Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater Ecclesia and the Decretum Laudis that approved Opus Dei as the first secular institute.

It seems that God never talked again. As it happened with the creation of the World in the seventh day, after 1947 God took a rest: Opus Dei had been finally founded. However, the peace did not last long. In 1958, Escrivá rejected the canonical status of 1947 and that was problematic.

Because of the supernatural nature of Opus Dei, Escrivá had to have recourse to divine interventions, divine signal, etc., in order to explain foundational changes. He had said that there would be no women in Opus Dei (because that was God’s will); then, the only way to modify that principle was by another divine intervention, that is, because of God’s will and not Escrivá’s will. The same happened with the foundation of Priest Society. Even more, Escrivá tied the approval of 1947 to God’s will:

«Have You been able to allow me, Lord, in good faith, to deceive so many souls!? I did everything for your glory and knowing that is your Will! Is it possible that the Holy See is saying we have come a century too soon...? Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te (Matthew. 19:27).»[123]

The approval of 1947 would be a supernatural confirmation from God. Understandably then, Opus Dei received the secular institute sanction from the Holy See with great happiness, which is reflected in several conference given by Escrivá and other several members (those who attended the Congress of Perfection of 1948, 1950 and 1956).

To reject the secular institute, Escrivá would have needed a new revelation from God or some sort of signal from Him, in order to keep the theological coherence of his organization. He “saw” Opus Dei in 1928, that is, God “showed” him Opus Dei. He also “showed” him the Feminine Section and the Priestly Society. God even conceded to him the canonical approval that he had asked in 1946. However, in 1958 –probably 1962- he wrote a letter rejecting the secular institute without having recourse God’s will. In that letter (Non Ignoratis) Escriva does not refer to God to explain his radical reaction against the secular institute (let’s recall that a few years had passed since they had celebrated the canonical approval and attended a Congress explaining proudly how Opus Dei was the first organization to be secular institute). It was not God who “showed” him that he had to reject the secular institute. As it happened with the vows, the historical contexts led him to change and, at the end, to betray the charism.

«The present meaning of the concept [Secular Institute] differs too much from the authentic sense, attributed to it when the Holy See used that words for the first time, by granting us the Decretum Laudis, in 1947»[124]

The historical context cannot be the reason for changing the identity of an organization. If that were the case, that organization would have no identity at all. Even more important is the fact that, apparently, Opus Dei was founded according to God’s will and then Opus Dei would have, in theory, a very strong identity. However, we saw that it has suffered important changes since 1941, at least, when members had the apostolic mission of occupying a position in the public administration.

«Members exercise apostolate ordinarily holding offices in public Administration, offices that they have to serve with exemplar loyalty.»[125]

To reject the secular institute, Escrivá should have received a new “divine signal” (since the secular institute was the answer he had obtained from God after his prayers in Barcelona in 1946). We could say, the secular institute was God’s will and Escrivá could not have changed that without going against God. The rejection of the secular institute was beyond Escrivá’s will: it was something only God could have decided.

If Opus Dei had been born as a human initiative, even under divine inspiration, there would be no need to fret about errors and human imperfections in Opus Dei. However, from the beginning Escrivá stated that Opus Dei was not the product of a human initiative but God’s work, in the strict sense of the term. Opus Dei was not an Escrivá’s idea but God’s will: the founder would have been only an “instrument”. According to Escrivá, the author of Opus Dei is God Himself, something that gives occasion to wonder whether God is the author of Opus Dei as He is of the Church. This is not a joke: that is the basis of Opus Dei’s superiority complex. The divinity character gave Opus Dei advantages but also disadvantages: Opus Dei should be free from theological defects. Each controversy (its canonical approval, the high number of loss of vocations, the exceptional rapid process of beatification, etc.) puts into question its supernatural nature.

***

Opus Dei betting firmly on establishing its teachings as matter of conscience. This way it can obtain an obedience only owe to God. The use of God’s will to impose effective order and obedience might turn out to be a double-edged sword. If something is declared ‘divine’, it cannot cease to be so without consequences. The conscience rebels against the damages caused by a holy organization. It cannot be understood that what was source of holiness could be source of damages. If someone stays at the prelature, that is because, in all conscience, he or she believes that is God’s will. If someone leaves Opus Dei because its directors tell him/her to leave, he or she will probably believe that leaving Opus Dei is God’s will. If someone abandon Opus Dei slamming the door, it is probably because he or she in all conscience believe Opus Dei has ceased to be a holy organization.

Of course, there are numerous other reasons to leave Opus Dei or to stay. We would draw attention to the role that the conscience plays in the matter of Opus Dei. This issue is not a matter of opinion for the conscience: Opus Dei comes from God or is evil in itself. There are also intermediate positions that attempt to reconcile both conflicting opinions but sometimes that ends up being contradictory like “Opus Dei comes from God even if the damage it causes cannot be understood”.

«From the day of its founding—officially in 1928—Opus Dei seems to have had only defenders-to-the-death or diehard detractors. On one side are its extraordinarily touchy partisans, practically incapable of tolerating any kind of criticism; on the other stand ferocious critics, ready to detect signs of weakness and tacit complicity in the smallest manifestation of sympathy. One might say that the former tend to identify with the evangelist’s assertion, “whoever is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23): whoever does not sing the praises of Opus Dei is its enemy. The latter, meanwhile, tend more toward another assertion, by the same evangelist, “whoever is not against you is with you” (Luke 9:50): whoever does not denounce Opus Dei becomes its accomplice.»[126]

Drawing attention to the lack of nuances, which frequently characterizes the debate over Opus Dei, it should be said that, from the beginning Escrivá defined a basic premise: Opus Dei comes directly from God —through their founder Escrivá— and for that reason it is God’s will.

«In talking with you, I have often pointed out that the enterprise we are called to accomplish is no human undertaking but rather a great supernatural enterprise. From the very start it came endowed with the qualities that justify its being called, literally and without boasting, the Work of God.»[127]

Alvaro del Portillo, commenting this text, says:

«If there had been possible, the Father did not wanted that the Work would have any name».[128]

It is really strange, then, how Escrivá went from one extreme to another: from no name it to give it the greatest name. The justification is precisely the humility: if God has founded Opus Dei, then humility is truth. The point is this: who says that Opus Dei is Work of God?

In a divine organization, there is no place for damages cause by itself since, in that case, the divine creature would become an evil creature, that is, the complete opposite. Is understandable that many people criticize Opus Dei as if it were “absolutely evil”. That attitude is a mistake and an oversimplification. The truth is more complex. Rather than replacing a dogma (absolute good) with another one (absolute evil), it is necessary to keep in mind the historical development of this organization. It was my intention in this book to avoid a dogmatic approach by considering Opus Dei as evil organization but an organization with serious problems. The readers will be the ones who can decide if this objective has been achieved.

It is not unusual that divinization ends up as idolatry and finally as aversion (when the deceiving is exposed). A way to treat that aversion —because it is not harmless— is by reversing the process of divinization. This task can be carried out through studies and analysis to help know better the historical Opus Dei for a more balanced approach to the revealed Opus Dei. Without a doubt, the canonization of Escrivá has been an obstacle more than a contribution to all this process of clarification. The same can be said of Alvaro del Portillo’s beatification. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church has played a central role in promoting Opus Dei and it could not be dissociated from that. The canonization of founders can hardly be considered a quite separate matter from the damages its organization could have caused for which they were responsible. In its divinization lies the origin of the excess and damages attributed to Opus Dei.

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] «¿¡Señor, Tú has podido permitir que yo de buena fe engañe a tantas almas!?»

[5] «Corría el año 1946. Por encargo de nuestro Padre [Escrivá], don Álvaro [del Portillo] se encontraba en la Ciudad Eterna, gestionando la aprobación de la Obra por la Santa Sede.» (cf. “Meditaciones” V, meditation n. 439, p. 155 y ss.)

[6] «“La Obra aparecía, al mundo y a la Iglesia, como una novedad”, dejó escrito nuestro Fundador, refiriéndose a esos momentos. “La solución jurídica que buscaba, como imposible. Pero, hijas e hijos míos, no podía esperar a que las cosas fueran posibles. Ustedes han llegado —dijo un alto personaje de la Curia Romana— con un siglo de anticipación. Y, no obstante, había que tentar lo imposible. Me urgían millares de almas que se entregaban a Dios en su Obra, con esa plenitud de nuestra dedicación, para hacer apostolado en medio del mundo”» (cf. ibidem).

[7] «No sé què van pensar els altres. Jo no tenia cap clau per interpretar el sentit d’aquella pregària, d’aquella súplica apassionada i dramática, i alhora confiada. Només temps després vaig saber el que significava: el fundador viajava a Roma per presentar l’Opus Dei davant el Papa i la Santa Seu, i ho feia personalment, malgrat la seva salut precària d’aleshores, perquè a Roma havien dit a Alvaro del Portillo que l’Opus Dei havia arribat “amb un segle d’anticipació”: és a dir, que no hi havia cap possibilitat que l’Església donés en aquells moments conformitat jurídica a la realitat espiritual i apostòlica de l’“Obra”. Sí que havia estat aprovada de manera genèrica, però no es veia la manera de trobar-li una figura canònica que s’hi adaptés», Balcells, Alfons, “Memòria Ingènua”, Barcelona, La Formiga d'Or, 2005, p. 158-159. Alfons Balcells was born in Barcelona in 1915. In 1938 he met Escrivá and actively began collaborating with Opus Dei, just launched in Cataluña. In 1943, he joined Opus Dei as numerary. He was Rector at Salamanca University (1960-1968), professor of Medicine and member of Royal Medical Academy of Catalonia. He died in 2002.

[8] «¿¡Señor, Tú has podido permitir que yo de buena fe engañe a tantas almas!? ¡Si todo lo he hecho por tu gloria y sabiendo que es tu Voluntad! ¿Es posible que la Santa Sede diga que llegamos con un siglo de anticipación...? Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te (Matth. XIX, 27)» (cf. “Meditaciones” V, meditación n. 439, p. 155).

[9] This is an interesting statement. Many former members must have thought the same as Escrivá, but instead of addressing God they wish they had the chance of addressing Opus Dei saying: “we have left everything and followed this path, now our problem is yours”. But Opus Dei seems to be unconcerned by those situations and feels that those have nothing to do with its responsibility.

[10] «Per això, el fundador, conscient que havia estat Déu mateix qui havia volgut aquella fundació, plantejava aquest compromís: si tu -s’adreçava a Déu- has volgut tot això, no pot ser que ara no trobem el camí adequat dins la teva Església, al servei de la qual ha nascut l’“Obra”. Aquest era també el sentit de la pregunta-petició de Pere: ho hem deixat tot per seguir-te; ara doncs, el nostre problema és teu, tu veuràs què faràs.

Certament, tots vam quedar molt commoguts, però no preocupats, perquè no coneixíem l’entrellat -jo no que no el coneixia, almenys- de la situació que el fundador, i tot l’Opus Dei amb ell, estava vivint en aquell moment. Ni sabíem, fins que ho va dir en aquell moment, que l’estada a Barcelona era de camí cap a Roma. Encara menys sabíem, doncs, que el motiu del seu viatge a Roma fos una raó jurídica o canònica» (cf. Balcells, A., o.c. p. 159.)

[11] «En aquella hora tan crítica de la historia de la Obra -estábamos en 1946-, el derecho tenía una particular importancia. Porque un equívoco, una concesión en algo sustancial, podría originar efectos irreparables. Me jugaba el alma, porque no podía adulterar la voluntad de Dios. Comprenderéis mi tensión y mis sufrimientos. Pero el Señor -adiutor meus et protector meus! (Ps. XXXIX, 18)- me llenaba de paz. Una gran paz, fundamentada en la seguridad de que Jesucristo quería que su Obra se hiciera» (Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-1-1961, n. 6.)

[12] Cf. Fuenmayor A., y otros “El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei: historia y defensa de un carisma”, Eunsa, 1989, Chap. V, p 146. (published in English as “The canonical path of Opus Dei: the history and defense of a charism”, Scepter Publishers, Incorporated, 1994).

[13] See E.B.E., Opus Dei as divine revelation, 2016 “Documents” section at the end of the book.

[14] «…si sa che la candidatura di Escrivá a vescovo era già stata avanzata nel 1945 (quando cioè Escrivá aveva 43 anni) ed era stata respinta - nonostante la voluminosissima informazione - con un dilata. E lo stesso esito aveva avuto una seconda candidatura, avanzata nel 1950 per la diocesi spagnola di Vitoria, anche questa respinta con un dilata con motivazioni - riguardanti la formazione dei membri sacerdoti dell'Opus Dei, le polemiche sull'Opus Dei, la personalitá stessa del fondatore con risvolti psicologici poco chiari, ecc. - che difficilmente avrebbero potuto essere superate in una eventuale terza candidatura. Ammesso che Escrivá sapesse, nel 1955, di una sua possibile candidatura come vescovo, se ne dovrebbe concludere che egli non era al corrente delle varie obiezioni che, nelle due precedenti candidature, avevano spinto i responsabili vaticani a decidere per un dilata», cf. Rocca, G.,“Gli studi accademici di S. Josemaría Escrivá y Albás”, published in Claretianum vol. XLIX, 2009, available on Opuslibros.

[15] Cf. Guillaume, “Desde 1942 Escrivá intentó ser obispo”, published on Opuslibros, 28 September 2012.

[16] It is also an interesting coincidence to know that, during the Spanish Civil War, Escrivá went into hiding inside a mental institution (cf. V. de Prada, A., “El Fundador del Opus Dei”, Rialp, 2002, tomo II, Chap. XI).

[17] «A las gravísimas dificultades del momento, se añadieron las grandes molestias causadas por el furioso temporal, impropio del Mediterráneo en esa época, que zarandeó durante cerca de veinte horas el barco en el que nuestro Padre viajaba en compañía de un hijo suyo. La nave aguantó la fuerza de las olas y nuestro Fundador llegó al puerto de Génova, donde le esperaban don Álvaro y otro hermano nuestro. Desde allí continuaron el viaje a Roma» cf. “Meditaciones” V, meditation nro. 439, p. 155.

[18]  «El Padre dice que el diablo metió el rabo en el golfo de León y armó la tempestad más formidable que recuerdo haber sufrido a pesar de ser yo isleño y viejo amigo del Mediterráneo» cf. Letter of José Orlandis, quoted by Andrés Vázquez de Prada on “El Fundador del Opus Dei”, Rialp, 2002, Vol. III, Chap. XVI.

[19] «A les 12 del migdia estava previst que salpés el vaixell de la Companyia Transmediterrània que l’havia de dur a Genova. Però el dia no acompanyava: plovia força i feia molt de vent. Hi va haver un ajornament, perquè el mal temps havia privat les feines de càrrega, que s’havien endarrerit molt. Fins a les quatre de la tarda, van dir, no sortiria», Balcells, A., o.c. p. 160.

[20] «El vaixell, de 86 metres d’eslora, ja no estava avesat als viatges llargs. Feia anys que sols prestava servei en trajectes breus, per la zona de les Illes o entre Màlaga i el nord d’Àfrica. De fet, només va cobrir quatre vegades el trajecte Barcelona-Gènova. En el darrer viatge havia portat d’Itàlia un grup d’orfes polonesos acollits pel govern espanyol, que van ser rebuts amb força expectació al port de Barcelona. Ara, amb aquell nou viatge, el vaixell adquiriria un nou segell de notable importància, si més no sentimental, per a l’Opus Dei. Aquest cop sí, semblava a punt de marxa. Anava ple a vessar: aquell petit buc era aleshores l’únic mitjà de transport regular entre la península i Europa, pel tancament de les fronteres amb França. A mossèn Escrivà i a Orlandis els havia tocat un camarot interior, sense ventilació», Balcells, A., o.c. p. 160.

[21] «A mitja tarda, a les sis, la nau sortia del moli. Pep Orlandis, avesat a la mar, ens havia dit que patia pel temps: encara feia un vent molt fort de tramuntana, que al golf de Lleó seria mestral, i allò era un clar presagi de viatge difícil. I més amb aquell vaixell tan tronat. I encara més si et tocava cámarot interior -tenint en compte que amb el mal temps no es podria romandre a coberta-, sobretot per a algú que no havia viatjat mai per mar i que estava greument afectat per una forta diabetis, com era mossèn Escrivà.», Balcells, A., o.c. p. 161.

[22] First of all, it should be mentioned the well-known article of Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Refering to the book “The way”, as a book for praying, he says: «[the pray that this book promotes] moves around almost an exclusive narrow circle of self, one self that should be big and strong, provided by pagan, apostolic and Napoleonic virtues» (cf. “Integrismo católico”, Neue Zürcher Nachrichten-Christliche Kultur, November 23, 1963, available on Opuslibros). In the next place, among several articles of Opuslibros, it can be mentioned these: Vadovia “¡Qué personalidad! ¡Qué pena! Pero, ¡detengan la locura!”, December 6, 2006; Doserra “La compleja personalidad del Fundador del Opus Dei”, October 23, 2006, Marcus Tank, “El trastorno narcisista de la personalidad del fundador del Opus Dei”, September 14, 2007, Oráculo, “La patología narcisista del Opus Dei”, October 26, 2007, AgustínB, “¡No tiren el bebé junto con el agua del baño!”, May 7, 2010; Josef Knecht, “Semejanzas y diferencias entre san Josemaría y el padre Marcial”, May 5, 2010; Nelli, “Trastorno Narcisista y el Opus Dei”, February 3, 2010; Nelli, “Sobre vergüenzas, culpabilidades y psicópatas”, November 16, 2011, etc.

[23] Cf. Gervasio, “Cosillas del Fundador” [Trifles about the Founder], published on Opuslibros, April 9, 2007.

[24] «Si un socio de la Obra no pudiera con las cargas, si durante esos largos años de prueba él mismo o sus Directores vieran que no puede ser fiel a la vocación, se le facilitará libérrimamente la salida. Y en su corazón no podrá quedar enemistad: quedará un afecto grande, porque recordará que se le ha tratado siempre con cariño; y que si él no ha sabido o no ha querido corresponder, los demás han sabido y han querido agradecer al Señor la gracia divina de la vocación» cf. Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción”, 8-12-1941, n. 21.

[25] «Vosotros no sabéis que por muchos años hemos sufrido la persecución, también de los buenos. No lo sabéis, porque el Padre [Escrivá habla aquí en tercera persona] ha prohibido que se hable o se escriba de esas cosas. Fue una persecución como la que sufrió Jesús de parte de los sacerdotes y de los príncipes del pueblo: calumnias, mentiras, trapisondas, insultos; en la prensa, en las conversaciones... Éramos la burla de todo el mundo. Todos se sentían con derecho a escupir encima. Y éramos felices en aquella soledad. Sabíamos encontrar a Cristo, y nos sentíamos tan acompañados. Callábamos, y sonreíamos, y trabajábamos, y rezábamos. Yo no hice ninguna defensa hasta que recibí una indicación de la Santa Sede», Escrivá, J.M., “Meditation”, 29-III-1959.

[26] Cf. E.B.E., o.c., “Documents about the notification Opus Dei received from the Holy See in 1965” at the end of the book. In that occasion, Opus Dei did not communicate entirely the notification but only the positive aspects.

[27] Cf. Estruch, J., o.c., Chaps. III, VII y IX.

[28] Cf. Balcells, A., o.c., cap. V (Expulsat)

[29] «Non si sa ancora bene se per semplici ragioni di «concorrenza apostolica» (le due istituzioni lavoravano nello stesso ambito) o per divergenze di metodi, come si potrebbe supporre dal fatto che le «Congregazioni mariane» sono sempre state una associazione pubblica, mentre Escrivá operava già allora inculcando un certo «riserbo» ai suoi seguaci. Comunque sia, i difficili rapporti tra le due istituzioni trovano presto un'eco nella lettera che l'Ordinario di Madrid-Alcala, mons. Eijo y Garay, scrive nel 1941 all'abate coadiutore di Montserrat, don Escarré (cf. doc. n° 4 in appendice), e successivamente in numerose altre pubblicazioni, senza però che vengano mai precisati i termini del dissapore» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Chapter. I.

[30] Cf. Balcells, A., o.c. p. 121

[31] Escrivá, J.M., homily “Passionately Loving the World”, 1967.

[32] «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» (“Const. 1950”, 3. § 2).

[33] «Dall'altra, la richiesta di Escrivá di far approvare la sua Opera come società di vita comune sembra provare che egli e i suoi collaboratori, oltre all'Ordinario di Madrid-Alcala, non conoscevano ancora quanto a Roma si stava facendo da parecchi anni per dare un riconoscimento giuridico a istituzioni (i futuri «istituti secolari») che, per la loro natura, esulavano dal quadro tradizionale degli stati canonici di perfezione, non ritrovandosi neppure nello stato della società di vita comune senza voti pubblici. Di qui la decisione di Escrivá di procedere come società di vita comune senza voti pubblici. (…) Nel giugno 1946 Escrivá si recò a Roma (…), raggiungendo Alvaro del Portillo, segretario generale, che già vi si trovava dal febbraio 1946, appunto per curare di persona la pratica. E a Roma poté conoscere di persona quanto si stava facendo per le nuove fondazioni, tra le quali la sua risultava essere una delle più significative» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Cap. III.

[34] «Mientras el “Opus Dei” elevaba instantes preces a Nuestro Señor con el fin de solicitar el «Decretum laudis» como Sociedad de vida común sin votos públicos, se estaba preparando la Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia”» cf. Canals, S.: “Institutos Seculares y Estado de Perfección”, Rialp, 1961, chap. VI). The Latin text reads as follow: «Dum Opus Dei has supplices Domino Nostro instanter preces exhibebat ut qua Societas vitae communis sine votis publicis Laudis Decretum impetraret, Constitutio Apostolica "Provida Mater Ecclesia" parabatur».

[35] «C'è, quindi, da supporre, da una parte, che Escrivá fosse soddisfatto della forma giuridica ricevuta nel 1943» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Cap. III.

[36] «Desde 1928 ó 1929, nuestro Fundador pedía ya por la solución jurídica —que sería su intención especial durante muchos años—, aun sin saber exactamente en qué iba a consistir» “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 296.

[37] «Ya en 1928 —año de la fundación— intuyó que debería discurrir por cauces semejantes a los ahora [1982] aprobados» Interview to Álvaro del Portillo, published on ABC de Madrid, 29-XI-1982.

[38] «Después de considerar mucho el asunto en la oración, de estudiar y de pedir consejo a personas expertas, nuestro Fundador no llegaba a una solución que permitiese contar con sacerdotes que, procedentes de los miembros laicos del Opus Dei», cf. “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 299

[39] «Di società di vita comune senza voti pubblici - così come aveva chiesto Escrivá - e di diritto pontificio ce n'erano già tante in quel momento, e la S. Sede non mostrava difficoltà ad approvarle se avevano i requisiti richiesti. Basta controllare qualsiasi edizione dell'Annuario Pontificio.» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Cap. III.

[40] «La forma jurídica que, desde los primerísimos años, nuestro Fundador deseaba para la Obra, era la de una estructura secular de jurisdicción personal», cf. “Catecismo”, 2010, n. 39.

[41] «Nuestro Padre no tenía prisa en obtener la aprobación formal de la autoridad eclesiástica (…) porque en el ordenamiento canónico entonces vigente no existía ninguna figura jurídica adecuada a la naturaleza del Opus Dei» cf. “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 297.

[42] «Si hubiera sido posible, no quería el Padre que la Obra se llamara de ninguna manera», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción acerca del espíritu sobrenatural de la Obra de Dios 19-III-1934”, note 2, annotations by Álvaro del Portillo.

[43]  «Con el comienzo de los años 40, la labor de la Obra cobró nuevo auge. Llegaron abundantes vocaciones, que había que formar adecuadamente, y las actividades apostólicas se extendieron por muchas ciudades de España. Por otra parte, el Señor permitió entonces una dura campaña de calumnias contra nuestro Padre y contra la Obra. Para hacer callar a los calumniadores, el Obispo de Madrid-Alcalá, Mons. Eijo y Garay, que conocía bien el origen sobrenatural del Opus Dei y tenía gran veneración a nuestro Fundador, le instó a pedir la conveniente aprobación diocesana escrita, pues la aprobación oral la tenía desde los comienzos mismos de la Obra. Fue así cómo, el 19 de March de 1941, el Opus Dei fue aprobado como Pía Unión», cf. “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 298.

[44]  «Scartata la possibilità di servirsi di sacerdoti secolari come assistenti dell'Opera (v. infra), e poiché la struttura della pia unione non permetteva giuridicamente di avere sacerdoti propri (che necessariamente sarebbero rimasti incardinati in qualche diocesi, accolti da vescovi benevoli), era inevitabile' avviarsi verso una struttura giuridica che ne permettesse l'incardinazione. Ecco, quindi, uno dei motivi per cui l'Opera di Escrivá non resta al semplice livello di pia unione.» cf. Rocca, G., o.c., Chap. II.

[45] «I aquests successos, un rere l’altre, corrien de boca en boca, i s’esbombaven, i es magnificaven. Es parlava d’un imminent pronunciament condenmatori, amb excomunió inclosa, de la Santa Seu. De res no servien les aprovacions dels bisbes, atès que –es comentava baix baixet, per a no escandalitzar els puritans- al llarg de la història de l’Església, també hi ha hagut bisbes que han estat enganyats de bona fe, i fins i tot n’hi ha hagut d’herètics”», cf. Balcells, A., o.c., p. 121.

[46] Escrivá was accused of heresy for stating that lay Christian could and should be saints. Was that the only origin of misunderstandings and hostilities? Today that message does not produce any opposition or resistance, therefore Opus Dei should be accepted without generate controversy. In 1940, it was also accused of masonry, secrecy and lack of transparency. The last two ones are still valid, in spite of Opus Dei’s openness after The Da Vinci Code film.

[47] Or maybe «a century too late»? (cf. E.B.E., o.c., Chapter III).

[48] «cuando un día, en la quietud de una iglesia madrileña, yo me sentía ¡nada! —no poca cosa, poca cosa hubiera sido aún algo—, pensaba: ¿Tú quieres, Señor, que haga toda esta maravilla?» Cf. “Meditaciones”, IV, p. 676 and also Gervasio, “Fundación del Opus Dei: 1941”, published on Opuslibros, February 3, 2012.

[49] «[Escrivá] tiene muy vivo el recuerdo de lo que el Señor le hizo ver unos meses antes, el 22 de June [1933?] (…) mientras estaba dando vueltas al futuro desarrollo de la Obra, un pensamiento le vino a la cabeza: ¿No serían puramente humanas -deseo de brillar, de ejercer una influencia personal sobre las almas- las razones que le impulsaban a obrar? ¿No estaría engañando a quienes con tanta confianza se acercaban a él? (…) ¡Si la Obra no es para servir a la Iglesia, Señor, destrúyela!» cf. Gondrand, F. “Al Paso de Dios”, Rialp, 1985, Cap. XI, “Madrid, septiembre de 1934”.

[50] «En dos ocasiones, en 1933 y luego en 1941, cuando arreciaba la persecución a la Obra, Dios permitió que se quedase a oscuras y que el demonio le tentara con el pensamiento de que al fundar la Obra quizá se hubiera buscado a sí mismo. «¡Señor, si el Opus Dei no es para servir a la Iglesia -fue su respuesta inmediata-, destrúyelo ahora mismo!» Cf. Berglar, P. “El fundador del Opus Dei”, Rialp, 1990, Chap. “Retrato”.

[51] «Una situación semejante se produjo en La Granja de San Ildefonso, el 25 de septiembre de 1941. Pasaba allí dos o tres días, para recuperarse del intenso trabajo que había llevado a cabo durante ese año. Ante las grandes contradicciones que padecía entonces, vino a su mente durante la Misa la posibilidad de que desde Roma no se concediese la aprobación, si se presentaba la Obra como esa monstruosidad que los perseguidores denunciaban. (…) A continuación, como ya le había ocurrido en 1933, experimentó la fuerza de la esperanza y la plena seguridad de que se haría el Opus Dei, al ser una empresa enteramente de Dios» cf. Echevarría, J., “Memoria del beato Josemaría”, Rialp, 2002, p. 340.

[52] «Me sentí confirmado en la verdad de su Voluntad sobre su Obra», cf. A.V. Prada, “El Fundador del Opus Dei” (I), Rialp, 1997, p. 500.

[53] «Yo no he necesitado aprender a perdonar, porque Dios me ha enseñado a querer» (Escrivá, “Meditaciones” II, p. 154).

[54] That would be one of the reasons for seeking to be appointed bishop, since 1942.

[55] Escrivá did not want Opus Dei to be subordinated to anyone. «At that time, when [Escrivá] was very keen on the idea of a “prelatura nullius diocesis”, he explained: [prelature] of any dioceses means “of every dioceses of the world”» Cf. Gervasio, “El irresistible episcopado”, published on Opuslibros, August 15, 2012.

[56]  «A propósito de los objetivos de su primer viaje a Roma, nuestro Padre escribió: “¿qué es lo que yo quería?: un lugar para la Obra en el derecho de la Iglesia, de acuerdo con la naturaleza de nuestra vocación y con las exigencias de la expansión de nuestros apostolados; una sanción plena del Magisterio a nuestro camino sobrenatural, donde quedaran, claros y nítidos, los rasgos de nuestra fisonomía espiritual. El crecimiento de la Obra, la multitud de vocaciones de personas de toda clase y condición, todo esto que era bendición de Dios, me urgía a tratar de obtener —de la Santa Sede— la plena aprobación jurídica del camino que el Señor había abierto”», “Meditaciones” V. p. 158.

[57] «Certo è che Escrivá aveva chiesto l'approvazione pontificia come società di vita comune. Ciononostante, il suo istituto fu avviato verso la nuova figura degli «istituti secolari», quindi su proposta di ufficiali della S. C. dei Religiosi, in particolar modo del p. Arcadio Larraona, dal 1943 sottosegretario della S. C. e ogni anno sempre più autorevole e vero dirigente del dicastero» cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Chap. III.

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

[59] Cf. “Los institutos seculares de perfección y apostolado”, published in “Revista Española de Derecho Canónico”, Vol II, n. 6, Madrid, 1947.

[60] «Tutti e tre questi Autori non mostrano alcuna difficoltà per lo statuto di istituto secolare, conferito all’Opus Dei. Anzi, tanto Escrivá quanto Canals si mostrano chiaramente compiaciuti di poter presentare l’Opus Dei come il primo istituto secolare e il modello di questo nuovo stato di perfezione. (…) 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 (...). » Cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Cap. IV.

[61] I do not know any member who knows the reason and origin of that name. Is has never been explained, as many other aspect of the life in Opus Dei. It could come from military culture.

[62] «Vi sono anzitutto molti elementi nella vita interna dell'Opus Dei che lo avvicinano agli istituti religiosi: in primo luogo, la vita comune obbligatoria per i membri in senso stretto dell'istituto; poi, le numerosissime pratiche spirituali e ascetiche (preghiere in comune, mattino e sera; il cosiddetto «circolo breve» o capitolo delle colpe settimanale, con l'accusa pubblica delle mancanze commesse; ecc.); l'esclusione dei membri in senso lato da tutte le cariche nell'istituto; la rigida povertà, per cui i membri sono obbligati a dare all'istituto tutto ciò che proviene dal loro lavoro; le opere «proprie», per cui non pochi numerari sono invitati a lasciare le loro attività secolari per dedicarsi interamente a quelle dell'istituto, ecc. Alcune di tali norme sono certamente già oltre quanto stabilisce la Provida Mater Ecclesia, che non impone la vita comune; che non esige particolari pratiche comuni né di pietà né di penitenza, ecc. È chiaro, quindi, che questo «di più» viene dall'istituto che lo propone e desidera averlo, nel caso in questione dallo stesso Opus Dei», cf. Rocca G. o. c., Chapter III.

[63] This subject was developed in E.B.E., o.c., Chapter IV.

[64] «La crisi giuridica è certamente una delle più gravi che lo abbiano toccato, e porta a cercare di individuarne il punto neurálgico. L'obbligatorio punto di partenza sono le affermazioni secondo cui la prospettiva di seguire i consigli evangelici per i membri dell’Opus Dei e di entrare nello stato canonico di perfezione esulava dal primitivo progetto di Escrivá. Egli si sarebbe, quindi, adattato ai tempi, avrebbe accettato le soluzioni giuridiche che il momento offriva, le meno in disaccordo con il suo progetto iniziale; non sarebbe stato contento dello statuto come «istituto secolare», perché non teneva conto del carattere laicale della sua Opera (…). I documenti che si sono potuto raccogliere e quanto precedentemente esposto, però, non inducono ad accettare a occhi chiusi questa interpretazione del passato», cf. Rocca G. o. c., Chapter IX.

[65] «Sono, quindi, tanti gli elementi che influiscono sulla storia dell'Opus Dei, e non vi è, perciò, una risposta unica alla domanda perché esso abbia deciso di cambiare fisionomia giuridica», cf. Rocca G. o. c., Chap. IX.

[66] «C'è, anzitutto, il fatto che il ripensamento avviene solo dopo il 1962 (o dopo il 1958, in base alla «lettera» riportata in appendice, doc. n° 41), cioè dopo che Escrivá ha manifestato ufficialmente il suo desiderio di trovare una struttura giuridica per l’Opus Dei diversa da quella degli istituti secolari, quindi in un periodo sospetto per accreditare la veridicità delle affermazioni. Sol che si ripensi anche un momento alla evoluzione dell’Opus Dei, al suo desiderio più volte espresso (nei documenti) di seguire i consigli evangelici (cui poteva benissimo rinunciare se l'ideale restava quello dei primi cristiani), alla rigida vita comune imposta ai numerari (e che non fu voluta da altri istituti secolari proprio per esigenze di secolarità), agli indulti che non vengono concessi se non sono chiesti, al carattere forzatamente pubblico di tante sue opere collettive (non assunte da altri istituti secolari proprio per rispettare la secolarità e agire nelle normali professioni e impieghi come semplici cittadini), all'orgoglio - più volte manifestato - di essere stato il primo istituto secolare nella Chiesa, alle tante lettere commendatizie raccolte per accelerare la pratica dell'approvazione e superare le incertezze della S.C. dei Religiosi (di solito molto più lenta nell'approvare gli istituti di quanto abbia fatto con l’Opus Dei), al giudizio verso il ma trimonio, espresso da Escrivá in Cammino, ove egli mostra la chiara preferenza per il celibato, caratteristica «dello stato maggiore di Cristo», ecc.: è difficile non chiedersi se, in questa reinterpretazione del proprio passato, l’Opus Dei non trascuri alcuni elementi che gli erano propri» cf. Rocca G. o. c., Chapter IX.

[67] «Los planes de Dios, sin embargo, preveían que la solución adecuada, en total sintonía con el espíritu y la naturaleza del Opus Dei, se lograra muchos años más tarde, mediante la erección de la Obra en Prelatura personal. Hasta que llegara ese momento, nuestro Fundador no tuvo más remedio que conceder, sin ceder, con ánimo de recuperar, procurando que —al dar los diferentes pasos del camino jurídico— quedaran siempre salvaguardadas las características esenciales de nuestra vocación», “Meditaciones” V. p. 158.

[68] «Con esa fisonomía jurídica y ascética propia, con ese fin sobrenatural en servicio de las almas, y con ese exquisito respeto a la libertad personal de sus socios, nació el Opus Dei el 2 de octubre de 1928, fundado por Mons. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, su actual Presidente General; recibió el Decreto de Alabanza de la Santa Sede el 24 de febrero de 1947, veintidós días después de promulgada la Constitución Apostólica «Provida Mater Ecclesia»; y fue definitivamente aprobado como primer Instituto Secular de Derecho Pontificio el 16 de June de 1950», cf. Herranz, Julián: “El Opus Dei”, artículo published onla revista “Nuestro Tiempo”, n.° 97-98 Pamplona, julio-August 1962.

[69] «En este documento oficial [Provida Mater] no sólo se regula la actividad de unas posibles nuevas Asociaciones de fieles, sino que se reconoce un nuevo estado de perfección distinto de los que hasta aquí jurídicamente existían.» cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given in Madrid, December 17, 1948

[70] «A la luz de esta doctrina sancionada por los documentos pontificios, podemos ya comprender las peculiaridades que -en el orden ascético y jurídico- ofrece el Opus Dei, primer Instituto secular de Derecho pontificio aprobado según las normas de la Constitución Próvida Mater, y que ha sido puesto como modelo de este nuevo tipo de vida de perfección por el Santo Padre Pío XII en el Decretum Laudis, concedido al Opus Dei el 24 de febrero de 1947» Cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given in Madrid, December 17,1948.

[71] «Así se llegó a principio del año 1946. Hasta entonces, las diferentes Comisiones de la S. C. de Religiosos (…) preparaban, como hemos dicho, unas Instrucciones o un Decreto de la S. C. de Religiosos que hiciera posible la recepción jurídica de las nuevas formas sociales; para ello se ampliaba el concepto de estado religioso y se interpretaba lato sensu el titulo XVII del Código, de tal manera que los nuevos Institutos pudieran ser encuadrados en el marco de la parte II del libro 1 (De religiosis). En esta época -principios de 1946- nuevas intervenciones de los Consultores y un estudio más amplio y profundo del problema hicieron ver con plena claridad que las nuevas formas sociales requerían un marco jurídico propio. No poco contribuyó a esta definitiva solución el estudio del vigoroso y lozano Instituto «Sociedad Sacerdotal de la Santa Cruz y Opus Dei», que naciera veinte años antes en España, y precisamente entonces -comienzos del 46- llegaba a Roma, solicitando de la Santa Sede el Decretum Laudis, con cartas comendaticias de sesenta Ordinarios, entre los cuales contaba ocho Eminentísimos Cardenales y todos los Metropolitanos de España. En este período de trabajo sólido e intenso que preparaba el camino a la Constitución Provida Mater Ecclesia sirvieron de gran ayuda y dieron luz sobre no pocos problemas jurídicos, ofreciendo soluciones canónicas contrastadas por una experiencia larga y fecunda, las Constituciones de este Instituto español, al que ha cabido la gloria de ser el primer Instituto secular de derecho pontificio aprobado según las normas de la citada Constitución Apostólica.» cf. Salvador Canals “Institutos Seculares y Estado de Perfección”, Rialp, 1961, chap. VI.

[72] «Dum Opus Dei has supplices Domino Nostro instanter preces exhibebat ut qua Societas vitae communis sine votis publicis Laudis Decretum impetraret, Constitutio Apostolica "Provida Mater Ecclesia" parabatur. In tam clarissima huius Documenti luce Institutum Opus Dei eiusque Constitutiones attente in S. Congregatione perpensa sunt, speciatim illa quae de sua interna ordinatione, de regimine, de ministeriis, de vita communi latiore sensu sumpta, ardua videbantur ac novitatis speciem referebant, et clare patuit Opus Dei praeseferre exemplar germani Instituti Saecularis ab ipsa Constitutione Apostolica propositi.» (from Decretum Laudis, quoted by Fuenmayor, A. o.c.,),

[73] «Surge ahora en la Casa del Padre, “en donde hay muchas mansiones” (Ioan. 14, 2), una nueva forma de vida de perfección, en la que sus miembros no son religiosos, y que no se apartan, por tanto, del mundo, llegando a cumplir en el siglo los consejos evangélicos (“Las sociedades clericales o laicales cuyos miembros, para adquirir la perfección cristiana y ejercer plenamente el apostolado, profesan en el siglo los consejos evangélicos, para que se distingan convenientemente de las otras asociaciones comunes de fieles (Para Tertia, lib. II, C. I. C.), recibirán como nombre propio el de Institutos o Institutos seculares, y se sujetarán a las normas de esta Constitución Apostólica.” (Provida Mater Ecclesia, art. I.)», cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given in Madrid, December 17, 1948.

[74] The Latin text is available on Opuslibros.org.

[75] «Movidos -repito- solamente por ese amor, deseamos también que la Iglesia sancione con la correspondiente declaración jurídica nuestra peculiar vocación, plenamente secular, es decir, propia de sacerdotes seculares y de laicos o fieles corrientes. Por la misma razón y con el mismo deseo, para que no pudiera originarse ni difundirse ninguna falsa opinión sobre nuestra vocación específica, nunca quisimos -con conocimiento de la Santa Sede- formar parte de las federaciones de religiosos, o asistir a los congresos o asambleas de los que se dice que están en estado de perfección.» Escrivá, J.M., carta “Non Ignoratis”, 2-X-1958, n. 12.

[76] «El mismo Escrivá (cf. Conferencia de Escrivá de 17.dic.1948: La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei) expone cómo los institutos seculares son el último eslabón de la evolución del estado de perfección en la Iglesia (…). Pero Escrivá, sorprendentemente, propone a partir del año 1958 (cf. Carta Non ignoratis) un cambio institucional con la excusa de que la figura de Instituto Secular no se adecua a su fundación. (…)» cf. Lucas, “Introducción a las cartas de Escrivá de Balaguer de 25 de January de 1961 y de 25 de May de 1962”, published on Opuslibros, March 5, 2010.

[77] «En ese documento pontificio [Provida Mater] confluyeron dos corrientes teológicas y jurídicas. Una, que tendía a dar a los nuevos institutos el estado de perfección, y a configurarlo con la profesión de los consejos evangélicos, que ahora ha cristalizado en lo que se llama vida consagrada; y otra, que obedecía al fenómeno jurídico y teológico del Opus Dei, que afirmaba –sin pretender ni desear ningún estado de perfección– el contenido teológico, ascético y apostólico de la secularidad, sin ningún cambio de estado de las personas. Muy poco pudo conseguir nuestro Fundador, y se llegó a un resultado de compromiso, con el que la Obra quedaba metida en unos moldes que no le correspondían».

[78] «Las labores corporativas de la Obra no podrán ser nunca consideradas como labores oficial u oficiosamente eclesiásticas; ni podrán agruparse o clasificarse de alguna forma —y con ningún pretexto— como instituciones de este tipo. De la misma manera, los representantes o los profesores de esos centros de enseñanza nunca formarán parte de organismos, asociaciones o federaciones que agrupen a centros eclesiásticos o religiosos, ni participarán en reuniones, congresos, etc., organizados por estas entidades», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 2-X-1939, n. 24 (quoted on “Meditaciones”,  III, p. 415).

[79] cf. E.B.E., o.c., Chapter VII.

[80] «El Señor nos ha ayudado siempre a ir, en las diversas circunstancias de la vida de la Iglesia y de la Obra, por aquel concreto camino jurídico que reunía en cada momento histórico —en 1941, en 1943, en 1947— tres características fundamentales: ser un camino posible, responder a las necesidades de crecimiento de la Obra, y ser —entre las varias posibilidades jurídicas— la solución más adecuada, la menos inadecuada a la realidad de nuestra vida», Escrivá, J.M., discurso en la sesión plenaria del Congreso General Especial, 12-IX-1970, quoted on “Meditaciones” V, p. 159.

[81] «De hecho no somos un Instituto Secular, ni en lo sucesivo se nos puede aplicar ese nombre: el significado actual del término [Instituto Secular] difiere mucho del sentido genuino, que se le atribuía cuando la Santa Sede usó esas palabras por primera vez, al concedernos el Decretum laudis en el año 1947», cf. Escrivá, J.M., carta “Non Ignoratis”, 2-X-1958, nro. 9.

[82] «La historia de nuestro itinerario jurídico, culminada el 28 de noviembre de 1982 con la erección de la Prelatura del Opus Dei por parte del Papa Juan Pablo II, es la historia de la oración, del sacrificio, del trabajo y de la fidelidad de nuestro queridísimo Fundador a lo que Dios le había encomendado el 2 de octubre de 1928. (…) Durante su vida entera, nuestro Fundador rezó con gran intensidad por lo que constituía su intención especial», cf. “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 396-97.

[83] «Las características peculiares del espíritu y de la vida apostólica de la Obra de Dios -que han sido confirmadas ampliamente por una larga experiencia, desde el año 1928-, junto con el Ius peculiare que nos ha sido concedido (Decretum laudis, 24-11-1947, y Decreto de aprobación definitiva, 16-VI-1950; además de los Breves Apostólicos Cum Societatis, 28-VI-1946, y Mirifice de Ecclesia, 20-VII-1947), confieren a nuestra Obra una personalidad ciertamente especialísima -sin soberbia alguna, debemos reconocerlo y manifestarlo-, que la diferencia claramente de los actuales Institutos Seculares: porque éstos -sean o no secretos- tienen características que los hacen muy semejantes a las Congregaciones religiosas o a las comunes Asociaciones de fieles, de las que frecuentemente es difícil distinguirlos, tanto por su espíritu como por su modo de vida», cf. “Non Ignoratis”, n. 8

[84] «Comme on a déjà eu l’occasion de l’observer (*), le point clef de la question est qu’Escrivâ lui-même avait donné à son institut les caractéristiques que d’autres instituts séculiers n’avaient jamais acceptés— que l’on pense simplement au père Agostino Gemelli et à ses «Missionarie della Regalità». Escrivâ a imposé la vie commune à ses numéraires, hommes et femmes; il a imposé non seulement les trois vœux de pauvreté, chasteté et obéissance, mais encore d’autres serments pour mieux garantir la cohésion entre eux; il a imposé des normes proches de la vie religieuse à ses numéraires, hommes et femmes, en obligeant ces dernières à porter le voile sur la tète en écoutant la messe à l’intérieur de leur maison; en obligeant tous à se confesser habituellement à un prêtre de l’Opus Dei; en imposant une censure sur les lectures et les spectacles à l'intérieur de la maison. En pratique, Escrivà s’est differencie notablement de nombreux autres fondateurs d’institut séculier dans lesquels au nom de la laïcité et de la sécularité, on considérait comme membre de l’institut au plein sens du terme ceux qui ne vivaient pas la vie commune. En d’autres termes, exactement le contraire de ce qu’avait voulu Escrivâ» cf. Rocca, G., “El fundador del Opus Dei. Une évaluation critique”, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, Abril 2007.

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

[86] «Apelar al “carácter secular” del Opus Dei para exigir que no se aplique a sus miembros la normativa de los religiosos resulta improcedente. Es al clero secular al que primariamente se prohíbe el ejercicio del comercio, los negocios, determinadas profesiones y cargos públicos (…). Escrivá era el que nos obligaba a vivir como curas. Los numerarios debíamos estar en preparación para el sacerdocio y cursar el correspondiente bienio filosófico y cuatrienio teológico. Pero no contento con eso, Escrivá por añadidura aplicaba e imponía —tanto a los clérigos del Opus Dei como a los laicos del Opus Dei— obligaciones y exigencias propias de los religiosos» cf. Gervasio, “El irresistible episcopado”, published on Opuslibros, 15 de August de 2012.

[87] The Pious Union was an “approval” but not an “erection”. That came after the “Nihil Obstat” of 1943 by the Holy See and with the diocesan decree of erection of the “Priestly Society of Holy Cross”. Cf. Rocca G. “L' Opus Dei. Appunti e documenti per una storia”, published in Claretianum XXV, 1985, Introduction and Chapter I.

[88] «Todos los Numerarios y muchos Agregados están ordinariamente dispuestos (...) a ser sacerdotes, si son invitados por el Padre.» cf. Catecismo del Opus Dei, 5 ed. n. 44.

[89] «No me cansaré de repetiros, hijos míos, que no debéis distinguiros en nada de los demás», Escrivá, J.M., carta “Singuli Dies”, 24-III-1930, n. 5.

[90] «No podemos segregarnos del mundo: ahí estamos para luchar contra sus costumbres malas y llevarlo a Dios. Los hábitos de los demás han de ser los nuestros. Eliminemos, pues, de nuestro exterior -de nuestro lenguaje, de nuestra conducta- cualquier gesto raro, que nos haga extraños al medio en el que hemos de desenvolvernos», Escrivá, J.M., meditación “Las bodas de Caná”, 11-VII-1937.

[91] Escrivá, J.M., “The Way”, Scepter Pubs, April 1, 2003.

[92] Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción para los Directores”, 1936, nro. 103

[93] «Es una invitación, una ayuda a decidirse, nunca -ni de lejos- una coacción», cf. Letter, 24-X-1942, n. 9.

[94] «Con tal dependencia [de la Sagrada Congregación de Religiosos], se pueden prever no pocos peligros en el futuro», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 29-XII-1947, quoted by Amadeo de Fuenmayor y otros, o.c., Chapter 5, footnote 126.

[95] Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. IX.

[96] «En la Instrucción Cum Sanctissimus Dominus (…) se pone de relieve la preocupación de la Iglesia por esta nueva vía que se ha abierto para las almas que, permaneciendo en el mundo, quieren seguir a Jesucristo por el camino de los consejos evangélicos. En efecto, la Santa Sede prohíbe que pueda llamarse Instituto secular ninguna Asociación, aunque de hecho tenga los requisitos que la Constitución Apostólica Provida Mater exige a estos Institutos, si no tiene además una aprobación, una previa oppositio manuum o nihil obstat de la Santa Sede (Instructio Cum Ssmus Dominus, I.). Ninguna Asociación podrá, por tanto, llevar el nombre de Instituto secular hasta que obtenga del Obispo la erección canónica, según el procedimiento descrito en el artículo V de la Constitución Apostólica. que impone a los Ordinarios, como conditio sine qua non para proceder a la erección, el dirigirse al Dicasterio competente para obtener el mismo nihil obstat que, según el Código, rige para las Religiones y para las Sociedades de vida común» cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given in Madrid, December 17, 1948.

[97] Cf. Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. X.

[98] «Dios Nuestro Señor no quería un nuevo estado, para nosotros, sino simplemente un marco jurídico, común, consonante con la realidad de la Obra y con la condición laical y secular de sus miembros.», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 25-1-1961, n. 20, citada en “Meditaciones”, V, p. 160.

[99] «Las consecuencias de esta nueva vida de perfección todavía no pueden preverse. Es el término en la evolución de las formas de vida de perfección en la Iglesia», cf. Escrivá, J.M., “La Constitución Apostólica “Provida Mater Ecclesia” y el Opus Dei”, lecture given in Madrid, December 17, 1948.

[100] «En consonancia con este cambio de actitud, en la carta de 1961 [Escrivá] exhibe la opinión contraria a la que mantenía en su intervención de 1948, afirmando: “La Obra, hijos míos, no es un eslabón al final de esta cadena. No ha venido a ser un nuevo estadio de la vida religiosa o de perfección. Es un eslabón de otra evolución: la que el Espíritu Santo vivificador ha ido infundiendo en el laicado católico” (Carta de 25 de enero de 1961, n.9). La conclusión es que el fundador no debió de tener muy claro su carisma, presuntamente recibido de Dios en 1928, pues primero dice que el Opus Dei es un estado de perfección, el último eslabón de evolución de dicho estado, y, como acabamos de señalar, al cabo de unos años afirma lo contrario: “Lo que a nosotros el Señor nos pide, no es que cambiemos nuestro estado de simples fieles, de clérigos o laicos seculares, por el status perfeccionis, sino que —con la ayuda de Dios repetiremos estas mismas ideas cuantas veces sea necesario— cada uno de nosotros busque la perfección cristiana dentro precisamente de su propio estado y condición de vida” (Carta de 25 de mayo de 1962, n. 91).», cf. Lucas, “Introducción a las cartas de Escrivá de Balaguer de 25 de January de 1961 y de 25 de May de 1962”, published on Opuslibros, March 5, 2010.

[101] «El estatuto jurídico que se ha obtenido con la Provida Mater Ecclesia, documento que es el resultado de una situación de emergencia, en la que se daban factores muy diversos y situaciones opuestas, ha hecho que se llegara a una fórmula de compromiso», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 29-XII-1947, quoted by A. de Fuenmayor y otros, o.c., chapter V, footnote 127.

[102] «Nunca hemos pensado en pertenecer al estado de perfección. Todo lo contrario: siempre hemos predicado y tratado de practicar que cada uno ha de buscar la perfección cristiana, en medio del mundo y en el estado que le es propio.», Escrivá, J.M., “Letter”, 29-XII-1947, quoted by A. de Fuenmayor y otros, o.c., chapter V, footnote 128.

[103] Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. IX.

[104] Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. X.

[105] Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. X.

[106] «En el Catecismo de la Obra utilizado en los cursos anuales de 1959 —el anterior se había retirado, de modo que en 1958 no se disponía de catecismo— todavía se hablaba, para referirse al OD [Opus Dei], de Instituto. Recuerdo el tenor literal de la expresión: el carácter secular del Instituto, de ese catecismo de 1959, para referirse a esa “unidad de vida”, en virtud de la cual lo ascético y lo apostólico se encuentran íntimamente entrelazados con el carácter secular del Instituto. No se decía el carácter secular del Opus Dei, sino del Instituto. Lo de instituto secular circulaba como moneda corriente para caracterizar el OD, si no recuerdo mal, hasta 1962. Luego se abandonó...» cf. Gervasio, “Estados y santidad”, published on Opuslibros, January 9, 2012”.

[107] Cf. A. del Portillo, “Constitutio, formae diversae, institutio, regimen, apostolatus, lnstitutorum saecularium”, in Acta et documenta Congressus generalis de statibus perfectionis, Romae 1950, II, Roma 1952, pp. 289-303.

[108] G.Rocca quotes here A. del Portillo: «Nihil tamen prohibet quaminus illo in corpore, vel illo in recipiente recipiantur normae vitae, leges peculiares, spiritus multaque alia... ita ut in instituto saeculari sic effecto minimum vitae consecrationis, de quo loquebamur, necnon ratio vitae a lege peculiari descripta, adsint quidem...; sed in eo, minimo mo a longe superato, vita acquirendae perfectionis solidior ac profundior forsitan habeatur, quam illa quae in aliis religiosis institutionibus continetur», cf. A. del Portillo, “Constitutio…”, pp. 296-7.

[109] « Il punto, però, più interessante per noi è contenuto nei paragrafi in cui A. del Portillo manifesta l'idea che la legislazione pontificia relativa agli istituti secolari rappresenti solo il minimum che essi devono praticare per quanto riguarda l'osservanza dei consigli evangelici, e che possano, perciò, esservi istituti secolari che vadano oltre, imponendo ai propri membri condizioni e regolamenti più severi di quelli previsti dalla Provida Mater Ecclesia. Ed è lo stesso A. del Portillo a esemplificare: possono esservi sodali considerati membri stretti in un istituto (a norma della Provida Mater Ecclesia), ma non in un altro, proprio perché quest'ultimo richiede particolari condizioni «in più». Del Portillo non lo dice, ma uno degli istituti cui fare riferimento è ormai chiaro: andando oltre quanto prescrive la Provida Mater Ecclesia, l’Opus Dei considera come membri stretti solo coloro che conducono vita comune e osservano una povertà somigliante a quella dei religiosi di voti solenni. (…) 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 (…).» cf. Rocca G., o. c., Chapter IV.

[110] Estruch, J., o.c., Cap. IX.

[111] «La obsesión se iba poco a poco traduciendo en dos estrategias: por una parte, lograr un régimen jurídico autónomo, en el sentido de que la jerarquía ordinaria de la Iglesia no tuviera la posibilidad de intervenir en la gestión del Opus y, por otra, constituirse en entidad individual, que no hubiera más que un solo ejemplar, el suyo, de la nueva modalidad canónica a establecer. Ambas estrategias eran notoriamente contrarias a la tradición de la Iglesia.» cf. Moncada, A., “Historia oral del Opus Dei”, Plaza & Janes, 1987, Ch. V.

[112] «Pero a finales de los años cincuenta, surgiría una circunstancia, que volvió a afectar la relación de Escrivá con el Vaticano y fue la aprobación como Instituto secular, de otras organizaciones, como las teresianas del español padre Poveda. Escrivá había tratado de conseguir un ropaje jurídico exclusivo y no vio con buenos ojos que fuera utilizado en estos casos. Cuando se dio cuenta de que no conseguía nada oponiéndose a esas otras aprobaciones, empezó a diseñar una estrategia conducente hacia otro ropaje, el que finalmente aprobó Juan Pablo II, ya después de muerto Escrivá.» Ibídem.

[113] Cf. note 56.

[114] Cf. “Meditaciones”, VI, p. 384.

[115] «Afortunadamente, en December de 1980, la Comisión Pontificia para la revisión del Código de Derecho Canónico, al informar en su revista «Communicationes» sobre los trabajos que la Comisión realizaba en relación a la figura jurídica de las Prelaturas personales, 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.

[116] Cf. Rocca, G., o.c., annex 44: Il Presidente generale dell'Opus Dei, Alvaro del Portillo, presenta al card. Sebastiano Baggio uno studio per la trasformazione dell'Opus Dei da istituto secolare in prelatura personale «cum proprio populo », Abril 1979.

[117] «Alvaro del Portillo chiede ora la trasformazione non più in prelatura nullius sul modello della Mission de France, ma in prelatura personale «cum proprio populo». Ciò era possibile, perché si era ormai concluso il concilio Vaticano II, che aveva previsto la possibilità di costituire prelature personali per speciali compiti apostolici. Non era, quindi, più necessario un territorio (e un privilegio), come nella richiesta di Escrivá; venne però mantenuto il nocciolo della sua richiesta, cioè «cum proprio populo». Presentato in questo modo, come una struttura giurisdizionale con proprio popolo, l’Opus Dei assumeva la veste di una diocesi, con la differenza che, invece di essere una Chiesa locale (come le diocesi), era una Chiesa personale. In questo senso, come chiesa propria, l’Opus Dei avrebbe potuto avere giurisdizione sui propri fedeli -sottraendoli, quindi, alla autorità diocesana - in estensione sempre più ampia man mano che aumentava il suo proselitismo e cresceva il numero di coloro che entravano tra le sue file» cf. Rocca, G., o.c., Chapter VII.

[118] Cf. footnote 8.

[119] «A este respecto, deseo aclarar el siguiente error: se dijo, y se ha repetido, que la Asamblea plenaria de la Comisión Pontificia para la reforma del Código de Derecho Canónico, reunida en Roma a finales de octubre de 1981, había rechazado la solicitud del Opus Dei de ser transformado en Prelatura. Esto no es verdad. En efecto, la Comisión Pontificia para la revisión del Código de Derecho Canónico, ni en su reunión plenaria de octubre ni en ninguna otra ocasión, se podía ocupar de nuestra solicitud, por evidentes razones de competencia: ya que su misión es la de preparar una ley general —el nuevo Código— y de ninguna manera intenta resolver casos particulares cuyo estudio no se le había encomendado. Además, como acabo de decirle, la solicitud de transformación jurídica del Opus Dei no se basaba en posibles normas del futuro Código, sino en la normativa ya vigente», interview to Álvaro del Portillo, published on ABC de Madrid, 29-XI-1982.

[120] «Hoc canone 341 servatur terminus Praelatura personalis; servatur, quia hic est sensus: solummodo aequiparatio Ecclesiae particulari deletur. Et ratio mea est: hic habemus criterium voluntarium, et ad Ecclesiam particularem aliquis non secundum suam voluntatem intrat; si haberetur criterium subiectivum, non fuisset Ecclesia particularis sed specialis, in qua omnes seipsos eligunt: Ecclesia quaedam electorum, et hoc non!», cf. “Acta et Documenta Pontificiae Commissionis Codicis Iuris Canonici Recognoscendo”, Congregatio Plenaria Diebus 20-29 Octobris Habita, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1981, Pp 377-379, available on Opuslibros.

[121] Cf. “La potestad de jurisdicción y su ejercicio en el Opus Dei”, Libero, published on Opuslibros, June 18, 2008. The following are the Cardinal Ratzinger’s words: «3° Ex dictis sequitur schema Codicis sub nomine Praelaturae personalis duas res toto caelo diversas miscere, indolem nempe Ecclesiae particularis et sat diversam indolem consociationum liberarum ad fines apostolicos institutarum. Et ex hac confusione novum tertium quid oritur, quod eradicandum est, quia notionem Ecclesiae particularis et sic etiam notionem Ecclesiae corrumpit. Praelatura personalis potest esse solummodo aut ad instar Ecclesiae particularis aut aliqua consociatio, e.g. coetus incardinationis. Qua de causa canones ad rem pertinentes mutandi sunt. Propositionem aliquam fecimus, quam nunc legere utile esset; in scriptis adest», cf. “Acta et Documenta Pontificiae Commissionis Codicis Iuris Canonici Recognoscendo”, Congregatio Plenaria Diebus 20-29 Octobris Habita, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1981, Pp 377-379, available on Opuslibros.

[122] «Sed e contra Praelatura personalis, in sensu M.P., non est Ecclesia particularis sed consociatio quaedam», Ibidem.

[123] «¿¡Señor, Tú has podido permitir que yo de buena fe engañe a tantas almas!? ¡Si todo lo he hecho por tu gloria y sabiendo que es tu Voluntad! ¿Es posible que la Santa Sede diga que llegamos con un siglo de anticipación...? Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te (Matth. XIX, 27)» cf. “Meditaciones” V, meditación nro. 439, p. 155 y ss.

[124] «El significado actual del término [Instituto Secular] difiere mucho del sentido genuino, que se le atribuía cuando la Santa Sede usó esas palabras por primera vez, al concedernos el Decretum laudis en el año 1947», cf. Escrivá, J.M., carta “Non Ignoratis”, 2-X-1958, nro. 9.

[125] «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

[126] Estruch, J., o.c., “Introduction”.

[127] «En mis conversaciones con vosotros repetidas veces he puesto de manifiesto que la empresa, que estamos llevando a cabo, no es una empresa humana, sino una gran empresa sobrenatural, que comenzó cumpliéndose en ella a la letra cuanto se necesita para que se la pueda llamar sin jactancia la Obra de Dios» cf. “Instrucción acerca del espíritu sobrenatural de la Obra de Dios”, 1934, n.1

[128] «Si hubiera sido posible, no quería el Padre que la Obra se llamara de ninguna manera», Escrivá, J.M., “Instrucción acerca del espíritu sobrenatural de la Obra de Dios”, 19-III-1934, note 2, annotations by Álvaro del Portillo.

[129] The Way, n. 25

[130] The Way, n. 941. The original Spanish text uses the word “obedecer ciegamente”, that is, “to blindly obey”. The official English translation uses the word “unreserved” instead of blindly.