The Tatterdemalion Tunic of Opus Dei

The Disrobing of Christ (1577-79) by El Greco

THE TATTERDEMALION TUNIC OF OPUS DEI

Opus Dei asserts that because its “spirit” communicated through the words and directives of Saint Josemaria Escriva cascade directly from God, the Opus Dei “spirit” was born in perfection, “seamless” like Jesus’ tunic (John 19:23).

begin Opus Dei’s priests claim that the movement’s doctrine is perfect and “undebatable” because it came from Escriva, who had “concrete knowledge of God’s will.” But some of the doctrine is highly questionable...[in] Cronica, the movement’s internal confidential journal,…the Father’s “Work” was described in the words of the Song of Songs: “All is beautiful, my love, and there is no fault in thee.” end

—Penny Lernoux, People of God: The Struggle for World Catholicism (1989), page 306

On the contrary, it is probably more accurate to describe Opus Dei’s garment as “tatterdemalion” because of the many inconsistencies and contradictions, including outright incoherence in official accounts of Opus Dei—that is, in the historical mythology and institutional spiritual theology propounded by the organization.

Some of Opus Dei’s insupportable claims are given below.

Excerpts are from Opus Dei as Divine Revelation (2016) by E. B. E.—it is an English translation from the Spanish, not fully corrected, so I have made appropriate corrections of my own.

1. No critique of Opus Dei is legitimate because it is always persecutory.

Opus Dei claims that every critique of the organization and its Founder is “persecution”—a vague, unspecified, and generic dismissive response. “Persecution” is an umbrella term Opus Dei uses as an “appeal to spite.” Nebulous to the point that it cannot be refuted, it is unresponsive. It is a thought-stopping cliché.

“Opus Dei claims until today that it suffered persecution but has never explained in a specific way who did what and how it happened. The emphasis seems to be placed on Opus Dei as victim but without explaining concretely what happened. As a result, Opus Dei can claim any critic as ‘religious persecution’ or as an attack against the Roman Catholic Church—something that is nonsense.” (page 70)

2. Opus Dei’s consistently coherent, progressive legal journey inside the Roman Catholic Church culminating in its definitive form today is demonstrable revelation of its divine origin.

Opus Dei alleges that the canonical path of the institution up to its establishment as the only personal prelature of the Roman Catholic Church demonstrates Opus Dei’s divine origin and the correspondingly divine inspiration, infallible, of Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Historical facts belie Opus Dei’s narrative. The more accurate picture of Opus Dei’s canonical path is one of fitful stops and starts, of confusion, dissimulation, and even of outright contradiction on the part of Escriva and of his closest associates.

“Opus Dei…presents its canonical path as a very clear process…as it does in relation to its divine foundation as the manifestation of God’s will. 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. …Both aspects go hand in hand.” (page 77)

“In theory, the secular institute was the sign from God long awaited since 1928 and that Escriva had begged from God 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 and for [the sake of] religious consistency.” (page 90)

“…Escriva started looking for a new juridical figure [to get] into the Promised Land, as the founder liked to say. Although the secular institute was initially that land, later it changed and the personal prelature was declared the new promise.

“…begin block quote Alvaro del Portillo requested [in 1979] the transformation [of Opus Dei] into a personal prelature ‘cum proprio populo,’ [with its own people] instead of prelatura nullius… end block quote (G. Rocca, “El Fundador del Opus Dei: Une Evaluation Critique,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique, Chapter 7, April 2007)

“…begin block quote [Alvaro del Portillo speaking] 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 a prelature. This is not the truth. end block quote (Interview with Alvaro del Portillo, ABC de Madrid, November 29, 1982)

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

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

“…Even though Alvaro del Portillo did not lie in that interview, he did not tell the truth either. He said Opus Dei’s request was not explicitly rejected by the Commission (true) but signified by an unfair omission that the request was never rejected at all (false).” (pages 114-118)

“The canonical approval obtained was not what Opus Dei had been expecting, neither the secular institute of 1950 nor the personal prelature of 1982. Both juridical frameworks were unsuitable for Escriva’s foundation. In the first case, the lay Christians of Opus Dei were…very similar to the religious congregations. In the second case, the [lay] faithful…are not members of the personal prelature in the strict sense of the term (of course, a few faithful are aware of that but the majority ignore it).” (pages 121-22)

The full exposition of Opus Dei’s falsification of its legal journey inside the Roman Catholic Church is extensive and bears detailed reading.

3. Opus Dei numerary and associate members—those who practice “apostolic celibacy”—are not religious but lay.

Opus Dei numerary and associate members—those who practice “apostolic celibacy”—in important respects behave according to characteristic norms of religious life yet deny they are religious. They say that they are lay and that their vocation is lay—de jure a correct claim but de facto a deception, both internal, that is, delusional, and external, that is, dissimulating, because evidence shows that in both belief and practice, Opus Dei numerary and associate members recapitulate in important aspects traditional religious life. (We exclude Opus Dei clergy from the purview of the foregoing statement.) 

“‘We are not like religious,’ [Escriva] used to say all the time.

“…begin block quote From the very beginning of Opus Dei’s foundation,…I saw the Work as an organization in which its members would never be religious, would never live like religious, and could never be—in any way—compared with religious. end block quote (“Letter,” December 29, 1947)

“At the same time, [Escriva] started, from the beginning, to add different elements from religious orders to his organization. That was problematic.” (page 123)

“It was never clearly defined by Escriva what the difference between Opus Dei members and religious are. The only thing he usually did was to deny any relation between both.

“…begin block quote …we really want to be like a religious institute—with all its consequences—which has to last until the end. end block quote (J. M. Escriva, “Instruccion,” number 14, 1934)

“As we can see, according to Escriva’s own words, Opus Dei members’ identity is defined by two contradictory approaches: by denying any relation with religious and by associating them with religious.

“…Even at present, Opus Dei has trouble finding the appropriate terms to explain, for instance, the bond between members and the prelature. …members are not canonically religious but they live as religious and pretend to be as any ordinary Christian.

“…The religious elements of Opus Dei vocation appear early. There was no transition from religious life to a fully secular one.” (pages 125-28)

The book devotes an entire chapter to expounding the incoherence—theological incoherence in particular—arising from Escriva’s hybrid combination of contradictory and inconsistent religious and lay elements. This chapter well merits close reading.

4. “Theological proof” that Opus Dei is “founded by God” is based on the testimony of a single witness, Saint Josemaria Escriva, about his own psychological experience.

“Escriva explicitly states, the Lord founded Opus Dei. …Opus Dei is literally God’s work, according to Escriva.” (page 190)

“The method used by Escriva for demonstrating the supernatural origin of Opus Dei is very weak or even nonexistent: it is a psychological experience. …the only witness is Escriva: we have to believe his words and there is nothing more than that.” (page 188)

We acknowledge that private revelation is not subject to empirical investigation because by its very nature it is not manifest to third parties. 

We also acknowledge that private revelation figures in the lives of many saints of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, what distinguishes Escriva’s claim to supernatural revelation on October 2, 1928 from those of many other saints is that it is the basis for instituting an entire system of belief and practice, the effects of which on many thousands of people, former Opus Dei members mainly, are decidedly negative, sometimes profoundly so.

Therefore, when we apply the established criteria for the discernment of spirits, we conclude, soundly we believe, that “evil spirits” are at work in originating this dysfunction, whether arising from human weakness and concupiscence or from the demons themselves, and in propagating it.

It is in the context of the “bad fruits” of the Opus Dei tree that it becomes painfully apparent that Escriva’s claim to his own private revelation as the sole basis for alleging the divine origin of Opus Dei, is deficient.

5. Saint Josemaria Escriva “saw” Opus Dei on October 2, 1928, during his retreat in the Central House of the Vincentian fathers in Madrid, Spain.

“Escriva [used the following expressions:] …‘God has let me see,’ ‘God showed me,’ ‘this is God’s will,’ ‘an illumination from God,’ etc.” (page 183)

If Escriva experienced a vision of a religious and spiritual enterprise of divine origin that he claimed would last until the end of time—a revelation that is therefore presumably complete and perfect in its essentials—how then do we explain the fact that under Escriva’s behest Opus Dei underwent many significant changes, showing glaring inconsistency?

“If God showed [Escriva] the whole Work [Opus Dei] as it should be over the centuries, why were there so many changes over the years? Women appeared in 1930, priests in 1943. In regard to the charism, there were also many changes: according to the 1941 Regulations, the apostolate was supposed to be carried out from the position that Opus Dei members had in public administration, but according to the 1950 Constitutions, members are supposed to develop their apostolate from their professional work or activity; this view was changed in the 1982 Statutes [wherein] the new mission of celibate members is to devote themselves to the particular apostolic undertakings of the Prelature. If in 1928 God showed Escriva the whole Work, why did Escriva change so many times the juridical form—Pious Union, Secular Institute (later rejected by Escriva), Prelature Nullius (unsuccessful), and Personal Prelature? It seems that Escriva did not really know what he wanted….” (pages 192-193)

6. The vocation to Opus Dei, a call from God from eternity, is identical to Christ’s call of the first apostles.

“Escriva compared the vocation to Opus Dei with the vocation of the Twelve Apostles, who were called by Jesus….

“begin block quote The Lord has chosen us from eternity. [He] has called us by our name. It was not us who chose Him but He who chose us to do something quite specific: Opus Dei, his Work on earth. end block quote (J. M. Escriva, quote in “Meditaciones,” V, page 251)

“…The vocation to Opus Dei is an ‘objective calling,’ categorical, beyond doubt, [the same as what] happened to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus. It is a calling for…total surrender to God.” (pages 184-85)

“…Escriva presents this vocation as a gift given by God ‘from eternity’…. That is the theory, but in fact the vocation to Opus Dei is contingent…. It seems that Opus Dei directors put on and take off the vocation as if it were a hat. I knew several cases like that, members who after fifteen years were told to leave Opus Dei since ‘you have no vocation anymore.’ In other words, if at the beginning those members had experienced the ‘compelle intrare’ (Luke 14:12-24), at the end they suffered the ‘compelle exire.’ Those who were obliged to enter, years later were obliged to leave. If the vocation comes from God and is eternal, how might it disappear from one day to the next?” (page 194)

The ready response to Escriva’s claims about the vocation to Opus Dei is that Escriva is not Jesus and the members of Opus Dei are not the Twelve Apostles. Remember that according to Opus Dei theology God calls members of Opus Dei by Escriva’s own affirmation or through that of the Opus Dei directors and that Escriva specifies every single detail in which this alleged vocation essentially consists.

Unfortunately, problems of Christian understanding and practice always arise when we assign the attributes of Jesus to his followers because Christians are not Christ—the two are not the same. Christians are sinful. Christ is sinless.

7. In Opus Dei, spiritual direction, and government are functions that are separately exercised, thereby ensuring respect for the right of privacy of the members.

“It is paradoxical that he [Escriva] who designed a government based on the control of consciences [it is described by the author as a “government of conscience”] is the same person who points out the danger of a government like this:

“begin block quote When love shrinks, there arises the danger of thoughtlessly, mercilessly invading the conscience of others end block quote [J. M. Escriva, “Es Cristo Que Pasa,” 67]

“begin block quote It is undeniable…that there are many people deliberately dedicated to obscuring the intelligence, tarnishing the conscience. They present themselves as the DEVIL has always done: through PRETENSE [all capitals mine]. They come out, sometimes with fictitious manifestations of respect and comprehension and even of piety…. end block quote [J. M. Escriva, “Meditaciones,” III, page 715] (page 283)

“begin block quote I did not want to hear confessions of your brother because if I had done it I would have my hands and legs tied. I could not have told them anything until the next confession. end block quote [J. M. Escriva, “Meditaciones,” I, page 616]

“…begin block quote [He] who hears the chat [spiritual direction] should inform the directors of all that is needed in order to carry out their mission of government for the benefit of that person [who receives spiritual direction] and for the benefit of the Work. end block quote [Cf. “Experiencias en el modo de llevar charlas fraternas,” 9, March 19, 2001]

“…that document is clear evidence of how spiritual direction is intimately united to government in Opus Dei. In the same document, it reads:

“begin block quote Whoever hears the chat—after praying and, if necessary, seeking the advice of the directors who must intervene in the spiritual direction of the person [who receives spiritual direction]…. end block quote [Cf. Ibid., page 62]

“…In reality, Escriva was interested in controlling the content of the chat…. The aim seems to be the conversion of the chat into confession without having hands and legs tied. The ultimate aim is to reach the conscience of those making the chat in order to put in place…a government of conscience. …from the beginning the chat and government were never separated from each other….

“…even more astonishing are the words of the current prelate of Opus Dei…when he insists—contrary to all historical evidence—that there is no such relationship between spiritual direction and government:

“begin block quote In the Work, the separation between the exercise of jurisdiction and spiritual direction is assured in practice…by the fact that precisely those who receive chats…do not have any power of government over the people they are looking after. …The same individual does not therefore exercise functions of both jurisdiction and of spiritual assistance. end block quote [J. Echevarria, “Pastoral Letter,” October 2, 2011]

“…what the prelate says is NOT TRUE [all capitals mine] but the opposite of historical truth: what he states is not only against the theory that is taught in Opus Dei but also against the practice and the history of the prelature.” (pages 284-86)

“The truth is usually simple. What is complex is not telling the truth. If in Opus Dei there was freedom to choose spiritual directors and there was separation between spiritual direction and government, it would be very easy to explain the truth. However, when that separation does not exist, it is very complicated to explain how that separation [actually exists].” (page 290)

Opus Dei’s longtime policy of using spiritual direction to control the consciences of Opus Dei members violates not only their right of conscience but also their right to privacy.

“begin block quote Everything I am telling you, my daughters and sons, will seem obvious to you…[and] shows a special sensitivity in regard to people’s privacy end block quote [J. Echevarria, Pastoral Letter, October 2, 2011, 15]

“What the prelate states in that pastoral letter is…shocking. …[the letter does not] recognize how Opus Dei does not respect people’s privacy…. The [fact of the matter] is not the “special sensitivity” of [Opus Dei]…but the special insensitivity of Opus Dei in regard to people’s privacy.” (page 287)

The author cites an example from canon law, relating that in the particular case of Canon 1048, the identity of the person concerned is supposed to be omitted in transmitting information to the relevant authority. In contrast, in Opus Dei his name along with his information would be transmitted, without his knowledge, to numerous individuals in the government of Opus Dei.

“In Opus Dei…those who learn about the delicate situation are the member who receives the weekly chat, the local council, directors of Delegation, directors of Regional Commission, and finally the central government in Rome (Villa Tevere). How many people are they? It depends, but in general, we could say they are too many.” (page 279)

The foregoing examples comprise a selection only. 

The book is notable not only for its cogent arguments but also for its access to secret documents that are inaccessible even to members of Opus Dei.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that the Holy See allows Opus Dei to withhold from its own members the documented terms of their engagement with the prelature, apparently according to Opus Dei’s claim of some foundational charism originating from God that requires it be kept secret or highly inaccessible.

Going on for many decades now has been an entrenched institutional practice of manipulation joined to deception and entailing the violation of fundamental rights, Opus Dei’s “government of conscience.” 

The author brands Opus Dei as “religious fraud” (page 186)—strong words. At best what we can say of Opus Dei is that “God works”—that is, God works in and through Opus Dei—not “God’s Work.” Definitely not. “Escriva’s Brainchild,” perhaps.