Michael Walsh's general theory on Opus Dei involves the notion of secrecy, and he finds support for this in the theme of complexity. The notion of a secret society, in which grades and gradual promotion through degrees of membership are essential characteristics, is to be impressed on the reader's mind. The author has been on the lookout for ranks, stages, steps, inequalities, and, indeed, anything that might add to a sense of complexity. He has found what he needs in the apparent internal 'class' structures, social preferences, distinctions between men and women, elements of 'hierarchy' and 'status', while the liberal use of suitably selected adjectives and adverbs adds to the desired effect.

One of his more wide-ranging statements on the subject is made on page 144:

'Opus spirituality and structures inculcate a view of life which is socially stratified, self-confessedly committed to the bourgeois ideal, highly disciplined and over-respectful of authority. In this world-view, the supreme value is human labour, more specifically human labour in the professions.'

To reply to such ideas, it will therefore be necessary to consider both the spirituality and the 'structures' of Opus Dei. But, first of all, some basic points must be made on the supposed 'over-respect of authority.'

4.1 Members and authority

In his book, the author is unhappy with Opus Dei's approach to authority in three areas: the teaching authority of the Church, the authority of civil powers, and the particular the guidelines of Opus Dei to its own members.

It may be helpful to clarify first of all that, unlike religious or clergy, members of Opus Dei, married or celibate, men or women, do not change their work or social circumstances when they join. Their working life and daily activity remain entirely in the world, where they act as free and responsible individuals, just like everyone else. In no sense do they represent Opus Dei, or act on behalf of Opus Dei, in all the myriad activities that go to make up their working, family and social lives.

Thus, for example, lay members remain part of whatever social or political structures, trade unions, professional associations they would belong to anyway. They stay there 'to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by directing them according to God's will' (cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 31).

The Statutes of the prelature specify the means used to help members strive to obtain this high, supernatural goal, and mention, in particular, a continuous ascetical and doctrinal formation, adapted to their own circumstances in the world, and solidly linked in ecclesiastico Magisterio (to the Church's teaching). After a comment on the 'overtones' of this Latin term 'Magisterium', the author attempts a distinction between 'the teaching of the Church at large' and that 'of the bishops, and more particularly of the Pope and his curia in Rome.' He proceeds to dismiss the authority of the latter as 'untraditional, a creation of nineteenth-century, ultra-papal sentiment' (p.92); and immediately passes on to another matter as if he had already proven his point. He does not take the trouble to clarify that in this respect Opus Dei demands from its members nothing more and nothing less than what the Church expects from all the faithful.

In the next paragraph, he looks into the section of the Statutes where the faithful of the prelature are asked to try to perform faithfully the duties of their state and social activity, and he makes a point of quoting from the Statutes that this performance should be 'with the greatest reverence for the legitimate laws of civil society' (p.92). So far, he has found little to make Opus Dei look 'over-respectful of authority' or 'highly-disciplined.' But he does seem to want to confuse the reader through his choice of nouns, adjectives and adverbs. He chooses 'Rule' where the meaning is 'article', 'section' or 'paragraph', and 'Maxim' where he could have said 'commentary' or 'point of meditation’ or 'thought.' Authority is always 'strict' in Opus Dei and, for reasons left unspecified, most ordinary things are qualified as 'odd.'

In any case, it is not clear how anybody can, in general, be 'over-respectful' of civil authority. It is certainly possible, for example, for a particular train driver to be 'over-respectful' of regulations, but the recommendation for drivers to be careful in important aspects of their job could hardly be qualified as 'over-strict.'

It is abundantly clear in the Statutes, and even in the commentary he has made on them, that the prelature's emphasis is not on strengthening authority or underlining obligations, but on equipping its faithful with sound criteria so that they can then judge for themselves on the moral or ascetical matters they need to decide on. While the points on authority which the author has mentioned occupy two paragraphs of the Statutes, the theme of the formation of members in faith and morals in fact takes a whole chapter. To suggest that some form of strict discipline or detailed regulations could possibly guide lay people in helping them resolve the multi-faceted and very secular problems of ordinary life, stretches the imagination.

4.2 Spirituality and class

The author says that the 1950 Constitutions (since abrogated, one must note) and The Way 'set up a style of spirituality reduced to external practices in which it is easy to find security' (p.109). Such a view of The Way could only be maintained by taking quotes out of context. The author adds:

'The practices are, for the most part, designed to be relatively simple to observe in the midst of a busy professional life. It is Mgr Esrivá's genius to have concocted a manner of life especially suited to the bourgeoisie, the growing middle-class of Spain from the mid-1940s onwards' (p.109).

The facts, however, contradict his theory: The Way has achieved a mass circulation all over the world, from the 1930s right through to the 1990s, and is read with enthusiasm by young and old alike, by manual workers and small farmers at least as often as by businessmen and academics. The author declares that 'Opus Dei undoubtedly attracts Catholic businessmen to its ranks with its message of sanctification through work' (p.145). But it is precisely this same 'sanctification through work' that also attracts craftsmen and taxi-drivers and shop assistants to Opus Dei.

4.3 Christian spirit of service

'By divine vocation, the faithful of the prelature try to elevate to the supernatural level their sense of service towards other men and society' (Statutes, 116). Service is the key to understanding the vocation to Opus Dei (cf. also Pope John Paul II, The Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Word, Christifideles laici, 41-45).

The author comments on the invocation to Our Lady which closes 'all formal gatherings' in Opus Dei (p.62). While for men this short aspiration is 'Holy Mary, Our Hope, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us', for women it is 'Holy Mary, Our Hope, Handmaid of the Lord, pray for us.' And he says:

'Though women numeraries as well as men were expected either to have, or to be able to earn, doctorates, they were, apparently, not expected to invoke Mary as "Seat of Wisdom." Wisdom was not for them. That invocation was replaced by one which reminded the female branch of Opus at the end of each meeting that their role-model was that of a servant, in a position of subordination.'

His misconception concerning Christian service must be dispelled. Our Lady manifested her total identification with God's plans with that precise expression: 'handmaid of the Lord', a point very beautifully developed for example by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Mary Mother of the Redeemer, Redemptoris Mater (no.39). Her example leads the Christian to an attitude of service to God through serving others. Such is Christ's own attitude: 'the Son of man came not to be served but to serve' (Matt 20:28). The Christian attitude to service is totally different from serfdom. It implies no alienation of human rights or dignity. On the contrary, it identifies the Christian with Christ and, so, servire est regnare (to serve is to reign).

In addition to this beautiful prayer to Mary, 'Handmaid of the Lord', Monsignor Esrivá used to recommend, both to men and women, a simple Serviam! (I will serve) at the beginning of each day's activity. As he put it in The Way, 413:

'The non serviam of Satan has been too fruitful. Don't you feel the generous urge to express your daily desire for prayer and work with a serviam – I will serve you, I will be faithful! – which will surpass in fruitfulness that cry of revolt?'

So, while the identical desire to be of service applies to both men and women members – and in this our Lady can be a model for both – men nevertheless can hardly aspire to being 'handmaids of the Lord', for obvious reasons which may have escaped our scribe.

No doubt, 'service' can convey different things to different people, and a Christian will see it differently from a non-Christian. But the Pope's prayer is

'With humility and magnanimity you were "the handmaid of the Lord"; give us your unreserved willingness for service to God and the salvation of the world.' (The Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Word, Christifideles laici, 64).

4.4 Structures and class in Opus Dei?

People of all social backgrounds can and do join Opus Dei. There are people in the professions and manual workers, men and women from industry and agriculture, young and old, the employed and those made redundant, people looking for a job and the retired.

It may also be helpful to remember here that, unlike religious or clergy, numerary members of Opus Dei, men and women alike, do not change their work or social circumstances when they join. The new member of a strictly contemplative religious order leaves behind parents and family, work, friends, pub and club, political and social activities. He or she is integrated fully and entirely into a separate community in which differing social backgrounds, if they existed, cease to matter. This is not the case with members of Opus Dei, whose activity is not 'ecclesiastical' or generally of a type which could be classed as 'charitable.' On giving themselves to God in Opus Dei, they naturally maintain all their rights and duties at work and in social life. Their working rank and status remain the same. They face the same threat of redundancy and the same tension and increasing competitiveness of present day work as everyone else. Thus, in a country where Opus Dei has had time to develop, the social cross-section of the membership will correspond very closely to that of society in general.

The author's 'argument' on structures peaks when commenting on a point of the statutes (p.92):

'Chapter 2 of "title I" concerns itself with the "faithful" of the prelature. All members are to be "disponible" – at the disposition of the prelature – whether men or women, whether numeraries, oblates or supernumeraries, though each according to his or her personal circumstances. The text goes on to discuss the different ranks'.

He has omitted an important passage from within the short paragraph he mentions, presumably because it would have contradicted his thesis. The statutes do say that the faithful of the prelature, whether men or women, have different designations – Numerarii, Aggregati, Supernumerarii – but quin tamen diversas classes efforment, that is 'without constituting different classes'. It is, therefore, expressly stated that those terms do not refer to 'classes.' Since, moreover, the Church herself has not only approved but given legal effect to these statutes, it is the Church that declares there are no classes among the members. Since the author questions 'whether the practice of Opus stands four-square with its theory' (p.105), it is important to get at least the 'theory' straight at this point.

The statutes (no. 7) use the term disponibilitas (from which the author seems to get his peculiar adjective 'disponible') to reach the root of the distinction between 'numeraries', 'associates', and 'supernumeraries.' The correct translation of disponibilitas is crucial to an understanding of the distinction. Disponibilitas refers to the fact that, depending on personal circumstances – married state, family, work situation, etc. – faithful of the prelature may be more or less 'able' or 'available' or 'free' to take on responsibilities in 'tasks of formation' or 'apostolic undertakings' of Opus Dei.

In the prelature all members commit themselves to seek their personal sanctification and to carry out an apostolate in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life. This is, in fact, the essence of the vocation and mission of every lay person. (The Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Word, Christifideles laici, 9 &15) And within the generic mission of all those called by God to Opus Dei, 'every member of the lay faithful is seen in relation to the whole body and offers a totally unique contribution on behalf of the whole body.'(Ibid, 20) Some members need to be completely available to look after the tasks of formation and the corporate undertakings of the prelature. They remain celibate in order to fulfil these specific tasks better, they generally live in Opus Dei centres, and are called 'numeraries.' Other celibate members, who because of their personal circumstances do not live in centres of Opus Dei, are called 'associates' (which the author terms 'oblates', using terminology from the 1950 Constitutions, a terminology which, to make things clearer, ceased to be used in the 1960s). However, the vast majority of members are men and women who commit themselves to God through marriage, which is a natural institution, a great sacrament, as well as a vocation. Called 'supernumeraries', they are ready to respond to the needs of formation and to help the corporate apostolates of Opus Dei as far as the circumstances of their married life allow, while they carry out a wide personal apostolate in their own environment. In short, all the faithful of the prelature have one and the same vocation. All are 'full members', but not all have identical functions of service in tasks of formation and in running the corporate apostolic undertakings.

4.5 Supernumeraries

The author states that 'paragraph 14 section 2 and paragraph 15' (of the Statutes) 'make it clear that one goes upwards rather than sideways into the ranks of oblate or numerary' (p.93). Twice in two lines the reader is assured that it is quite 'clear.' He might have been less opaque had he explained what is to be found in the two references given. In reading the Statutes, such changes can be understood as going 'upwards' or 'sideways' only if, like the author, the reader assumes that there are in fact 'ranks' in Opus Dei. As elsewhere, he's here assuming what he's trying to demonstrate ? a classical begging of the question.

What is actually quite clear is that the variety of membership in Opus Dei is neither a 'division' nor the cause of one. The designations in the statutes arise, as we have seen, from different types of availability within the one divine vocation. They all fit in an 'organic' manner within the one prelature. Cf Code of Canon Law, c.296, and Apostolic Constitution Ut Sit.

In this context, there is no sense in classifying only numeraries as 'full members' as the author does on pages 15 and 145. To get a complete picture, a short historical and juridical digression is needed. The Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater Ecclesia on 'secular institutes', 2 February 1947, had introduced a distinction between members in a 'strict' and a 'less strict' sense. This permitted the 1950 Constitutions of Opus Dei to allow for the juridical incorporation of married people. Rather than a difference of depth in dedication before God or Opus Dei, this distinction was seen as a greater or lesser possibility of sharing in tasks of formation as explained above. Indeed this was expressly stated when section 44,2 of the 1950 Constitutions referred to supernumeraries. The 1947 distinction was, in any case, precisely one of the imperfections which the establishment of Opus Dei as a personal prelature radically resolved: neither the Canons of the Code on personal prelatures, nor the Apostolic Constitution Ut sit, nor the Statutes, make any such distinction between members, whether men or women, married or celibate, since being married or single does not make a person more or less a member, no more than it makes a person more or less a Christian.

4.6 Women in Opus Dei

For some reason, the author decides to be particularly unpleasant on this subject. He suggests that Monsignor Esrivá was 'unable to take women seriously as equal to the male members' (p.62) and says that this attitude 'was expressed in remarkably petty ways.'

The point he uses to back his argument on the position of women members of Opus Dei is that given on page 110: 'the tasks which Esrivá listed in paragraph 444' (of the abrogated 1950 Constitutions) 'were firmly traditional.' He wants to prove that Monsignor Esrivá had a view of woman's role no different from the one traditional in ecclesiastical circles of the past.

The reality is quite different. In a press interview in 1967, Monsignor Esrivá spoke of the role of women in the Church (Conversations, 14):

'To begin with, I see no reason why one should make any distinction or discrimination with respect to women, when speaking of the laity and its apostolic task, its rights and its duties. All the baptised, men and women alike, share equally in the dignity, freedom and responsibility of the children of God. There exists in the Church that fundamental unity which Saint Paul taught the first Christians: 'now there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, nor between slave and freeman, nor between man and woman' (Gal 3:28).

'For many reasons, including some derived from divine positive law, I consider that the distinction between men and women with respect to the juridical capacity for receiving holy orders should be retained. But in all other spheres I think the Church should fully recognise in her legislation, internal life, and apostolic action, exactly the same rights and duties for women as for men. For example, the right to do apostolate, to found and direct associations, to give their opinion responsibly on matters which affect the common good of the Church. I fully realise that all this, which is not difficult to admit in theory when we consider the theological arguments in favour, will in fact meet with resistance from some quarters. I still remember the surprise and even the criticism with which some people reacted to the idea of Opus Dei's encouraging women who belong to our association to seek degrees in theological studies. Now, instead, they are tending to imitate us in this, as in other things ...

'I would like to add that, as I see it, the essential equality between men and women demands an understanding of the complementary roles which they play in the Church's growth and in the progress of society. Not in vain did God make them man and woman. This diversity should be considered not in a 'patriarchal' sense, but in its full depth of tones and consequences. In this way men are freed from the temptation of 'masculinising' the Church and society, and women from seeing their mission in the People of God and in the world as no more than showing that they can do equally well the tasks which were formerly reserved to men. I think that both men and women should rightly consider themselves as the protagonists in the history of salvation, but each complementing the work of the other.'

Take a practical example. Wherever it is appropriate, for instance, in universities which are corporate undertakings of the prelature, women members of Opus Dei are involved at all levels – academic, administrative, manual – and specifically are not excluded from any academic position. In the University of Navarre in Pamplona, Spain, to which the author refers in his text, women hold posts of lecturer, professor, dean of faculty, vice-rector, and so on.

As he seems stuck in a time-warp around 1950, judging by his almost obsessive interest in the antequated Constitutions of that year, let us look more closely at an official document of the time which demonstrates the speciousness of his argument. In the Decree Primum inter, which gave full approval to Opus Dei on 16 June 1950, there is an article in Chapter III dedicated to 'Works of Apostolate of the Women's Section.' There we read: 'All the women and each of them not only exercise their specific apostolate, but they also cooperate in the common apostolate of the Institute in the manner which corresponds to their gifts of nature and grace' (italics added).

The same section then lists specific tasks under seven headings. The common apostolates listed are far more generally significant, both for male and female members. It must be borne in mind that in 1950, when membership totalled no more than five hundred, it could not have been easy to list sophisticated jobs held by women members of Opus Dei. The fact is, however, that Monsignor Esrivá's vision of a role for women members equal to that of men was there, documented, and formally approved by the Holy See, long before the Vatican Council was even mooted, and long before the modern feminist movement, at a time when in many countries a young woman's options in life were still very limited. Indeed the vision goes back at least as far as 14 February 1930 when he saw that Opus Dei should include women members, who were to follow an identical vocation to the male members.

Curiously, despite the author's apparently 'scholarly' examination of the statutes of Opus Dei, he has failed to note, or at least to mention in his text, the complete absence of any apostolic tasks to be carried out specifically by women members (or, for that matter, by men). Although Opus Dei has different apostolic undertakings for men and for women, the new juridical situation as a personal prelature treats all members as faithful. There are no grounds here to see even the shadow of a difference between men and women members as regards apostolic freedom or responsibility.

It is also interesting to notice that having heaped criticism on the 'structures' of Opus Dei and especially on the treatment of women in general, the author himself has nothing but petty remarks to make about women members in general, and especially about assistant numeraries.

4.7 Assistant numeraries

Assistant numeraries are women members who, in the majority of cases, had decided even before coming to know of Opus Dei that, in different ways and to different degrees, they were going to learn about domestic work and sciences. They would get diplomas and qualifications; they would follow careers in the catering professions, hotel and restaurant management, in caring institutions, and so on, as well as making use of their studies and skills in their homes. Contrary to what the author seems to fear, they had no strange feelings of 'subordination.' They loved their work. Some were already earning their living through it. They had above all a conviction that their work was a 'service' if ever there has been one, and they were proud of it.

These women then come to know the spirit of Opus Dei. Just as with other members who, for example, get the opportunity to attend university, they also understand that the divine call to sanctity and apostolate through ordinary work is to be found precisely in the profession they have already chosen. Women, such as these, have joined Opus Dei in Kenya and in Mexico, in the United States, in Spain, Britain and Ireland – in fact wherever Opus Dei is. This 'social phenomenon' may not fit in very well with 'the ability to earn a doctorate' which the author naively judges to be one of the 'strict rules governing who may be admitted' in Opus Dei (p.93). It fits in even less well when one considers that, on joining Opus Dei and directing their skills and qualifications to the needs of centres of the prelature, assistant numeraries do not say goodbye to the advancement of their knowledge and expertise. Rather, they see advancement in their chosen profession as an integral part of their divine vocation.

On this topic one could point to a widespread misconception which considers work in the home as 'inferior', even 'degrading.' Such a view is a lingering relic of the past. Women's former subordinate role in society was accompanied by the assertion that her place was exclusively in the home. The confusion of these quite separate issues is still with us today, and many people, consciously or unconsciously, inextricably link equality before the law and before society with a 'liberation' from the 'bond' of work in the home.

Monsignor Esrivá strenuously defended the dignity of work in the home. He always saw housework as a profession of pivotal importance (Conversations, 87).

'I think that if we systematically contrast work in the home with outside work, retaining the old dichotomy which was formally used to maintain that a woman's place was in the home, but now asserting the exact opposite, it could easily lead to a greater social mistake than that which we are trying to correct, because it would be a more serious mistake for women in general to give up the work of looking after their loved ones.

'Even on the personal level one cannot flatly affirm that a woman has to achieve her perfection only outside the home, as if time spent on her family were time stolen from the development of her personality. The home – whatever its characteristics, because a single woman should also have a home – is a particularly suitable place for the growth of her personality. The attention she gives to her family will always be a woman's greatest dignity. In the care she takes of her husband and children or, to put it in more general terms, in her work of creating a warm and formative atmosphere around her, a woman fulfils the most indispensable part of her mission. And so it follows that she can achieve her personal perfection there.'

She is also able to make a great contribution to society (Conversations, 89).

'What is social work, if not giving oneself to others, with a sense of dedication and service and contributing effectively to the good of all? The work of a woman in her house is a social contribution in itself, and can easily be the most effective of all.'

More recently we have heard Pope John Paul II saying (The Christian Family in the Modern World, Familiaris consortio, 21):

'Therefore the Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognised and respected by all in its irreplaceable value ... Furthermore, the mentality which honours women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favouring work in the home.'

It is within this framework that the work of the assistant numerary and of many numeraries in Opus Dei finds its proper context. They are following the professional career of their choice, often making an essential and very tangible contribution to all of Opus Dei's apostolates, while helping to create a family atmosphere, in a spirit of service to God and to society.

For a male author to tell them, patronisingly, that they really should want to be elsewhere, doing other things which, though unspecified, would undoubtedly be better for them, smacks of old-fashioned male chauvinism. Does he lack confidence in their ability to make their own choices concerning their own lives?

4.8 Marriage and class

What other points does the author try to get across regarding his general theory of class? Well, it would be worthwhile looking into his criticism of marriage as a source of class in Opus Dei and, later, into his criticism regarding academic requirements.

He says: 'Vázquez de Prada can quote long passages from the founder in praise of matrimony, but a distinctly different attitude is to be found in El Camino' (p.57). In fact the passages quoted by Vázquez de Prada are not long. Besides, they are very much to the point and reflect Monsignor Esrivá's thought on marriage. The author fails to cite any of them.

Someone who has openly declared himself 'hostile' from the start can always distort the contents of a book like The Way by partial and selective quotation. He gives us point 28 in full:

'Marriage is for the soldiers and not for the General Staff (i.e. officers) of Christ's army. For, whereas food is a necessity for each individual, procreation is a necessity for the species only, not for the individual. Longing for children? Children,many children, and a lasting trail of light we shall leave behind us if we sacrifice the selfishness (egoismo) of the flesh' [his italics].

From this he draws the desired conclusions. We are told:

'One has to remember that, for Catholics brought up in the traditional mould as was Esrivá, the procreation of children was the primary purpose of marriage. It was the begetting of children which a call to serve in the officer corps made impossible (though of course it also preserved one from "the burdens of the home"- Maxim 26)' (p.57).

What Michael Walsh apparently means here is that the begetting of children makes it impossible to have a numerary vocation. This is surely blindingly obvious since celibacy and procreation do not go together.

The author also implies here that Monsignor Esrivá had a rather incomplete view of marriage. Had he given his readers even just the first of the passages quoted by Vázquez de Prada to which he refers, his claim about Monsignor Esrivá's preaching would have been considerably undermined. It came originally from an interview given by Monsignor Esrivá to Telva women's magazine, on 1 February 1968 (Conversations, 91).

'For the married members of Opus Dei human love and marriage duties are part of their divine vocation. Opus Dei has made of marriage a divine way, a vocation.'

Here it is in very simple words. Monsignor Esrivá envisages marriage as a vocation. It is not only the celibate members of Opus Dei but also the married who respond to a divine call. Furthermore, 'human love' as well as 'duties', that is 'the burdens of the home', are part of that divine vocation. In a passage given above Michael Walsh produced only a part of The Way, 26: 'the burdens of the home', and implies that Monsignor Esrivá's idea was that celibacy 'preserved' some members from these burdens. What the point actually says, when read in full, is that marriage is a holy Sacrament and if, when the time comes, the person avails of spiritual guidance and reads a suitable book, he 'will be better prepared to bear worthily the burdens of the home.' It simply will not support the use Michael Walsh makes of it.

It is hardly possible that he failed to notice in Vázquez de Prada's book that Monsignor Esrivá saw marriage as a vocation, for it is conveyed in all four passages. But, still more surprising is his omission of The Way, 27: 'You laugh because I tell you that you have a "vocation for marriage"? Well, you have just that: a vocation.'

Can he, having so carefully studied and reproduced points 26 and 28 of The Way, have missed point 27 in between? Anyone would find it hard to accept that the author never saw the relevance of the emphatic statement on marriage as vocation made by Monsignor Esrivá as long ago as 1939, when Camino was first published.

After his specious argument regarding the vocation, or rather what he sees as the non-vocation of the married members of Opus Dei, he goes on to give a second conclusion: 'Quite apart from the disparagement of marriage, the objectionable feature of Esrivá's remark is the clear "class" distinction which he introduces' (p.57).

Here he is referring to the analogy Monsignor Esrivá makes regarding 'soldiers' and 'General Staff.' However striking this analogy may sound – and it is not a bad idea to make a striking point at times – there is no contradiction between the high value of marriage as a vocation and the higher excellence of the vocation to celibacy 'for the love of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 19:12). It is a reiteration of Saint Paul's teaching and was stressed by the Second Vatican Council, which spoke of the need to have 'a proper knowledge of the duties and dignity of Christian marriage' and to 'recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ. (Cf. Vatican II, Decree on the Training of Priests, Optatam Totius, 10). As far back as 1966 a French journalist asked the founder of Opus Dei about this point of The Way. Monsignor Esrivá's reply to Jacques Guillemé-Brulon was as follows (Le Figaro, 16 May 1966: cf Conversations, 45):

'With that metaphor I wanted to recall what the Church has always taught about the excellence and supernatural value of apostolic celibacy. At the same time I wanted to remind all Christians that they must consider themselves milites Christi (soldiers of Christ), in St Paul's words, members of the People of God who are engaged on earth in a divine warfare of understanding, holiness and peace.'

Here we have Monsignor Esrivá's own interpretation of his text: he never intended that metaphor to carry any sense of a 'class' distinction between married and celibate members. And he added the comment that 'a soldier may be decorated for bravery in the same battle from which the general fled in disgrace.'

But the author continues (p.57):

'It may not, of course, have been at all uncommon for the clergy to think such thoughts or to put on paper the pre-eminence of the celibate life. It is odd only in a priest whose charism, one is urged to believe, was his appreciation of the lay, or secular, status within the Church'.

Monsignor Esrivá did indeed receive such a charism from God, and his lifetime's work was his response. The many thousands of married people who belong to Opus Dei is one result. In addition, for those with a basic knowledge of Church history, canon law, and spiritualities in the Church up to the Second Vatican Council, there is a more impressive proof: the conviction and determination of Monsignor Esrivá to defend, over so many years, the divine vocation of married people and his long and difficult search for a juridical way which would allow them to be members of Opus Dei in as full a sense as celibate members.

4.9 Academic achievement and Opus Dei

The author says (p.121):

'It is, of course, one of Opus's requirements that its numerary members, male and female, should either have doctorates, or be capable of getting them. It is geared to education, and especially to university education'.

This is not accurate. It is not 'doctorates' but 'academic degrees' or 'equivalent professional qualifications' that are needed by numerary members (cf Statutes, 9). The requirement of a doctorate refers only to the priests of the prelature (cf Statutes, 105), and specifically to their ecclesiastical, not civil or secular studies. In any case, the academic qualifications required of numerary members and priests in Opus Dei do not arise from any class distinction. While it is a sad fact that in some societies higher education tends to be restricted to certain classes, this is a separate issue, and hardly Opus Dei's fault.

The Vatican Council's Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People has clearly addressed the vital importance of the formation of lay people (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam actuositatem, 29), '… for the layman ought to be, through an intimate knowledge of the contemporary world, a member well integrated into his own society and its culture.' For this vital integration lay people need training in the various professional and intellectual fields. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that in Opus Dei some members – a minority, anyway – are required to have degrees. But, of course, the thrust of the author's accusation is that such members form a different rank in the prelature. The Vatican Council (Gaudium et Spes, 43) and, more recently, Pope John Paul II (Christifideles laici, 59) have insisted on the need for an integration of 'the spiritual life' and 'the secular life', or, on another level, of the knowledge of faith and of the sciences. It is quite clear that 'besides spiritual formation, solid grounding in doctrine is required: in theology, ethics and philosophy, at least, proportioned to the age, condition and abilities of each one.' (Apostolicam actuositatem, 29).

If, therefore, they are going to serve God and their fellow men as the Second Vatican Council envisages, all members of Opus Dei, men and women, married and celibate, need to add to their professional qualifications and working skills, studies of philosophy and theology 'proportioned to the age, condition and abilities of each one.' Other circumstances will of course have to be taken into account: a mother of five, while her children are young, may not be able to devote to this training as much time as a wife with no children at home. It is also evident that, for the adequate fulfilment of their Christian duties in the apostolate, a professional person and a manual worker may need a different kind of grasp of Christian doctrine. It is difficult to see why the author is surprised on page 99 that the assistant numeraries 'are to have courses accommodated to their, presumably more modest, requirements, and other members of Opus Dei are also to have appropriate courses arranged for them.' The key point is that suitable courses are arranged for all, in keeping with the express desire of the Church. (Would he have been happier, one wonders, if the courses had not been 'accommodated to their requirements'?)

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law recognises the right of lay people 'to acquire that fuller knowledge of the sacred sciences which is taught in ecclesiastical universities or faculties or in institutes of religious sciences, attending lectures there and acquiring academic degrees' (Canon 229,2). It should be noted that such a right is not a class or personal privilege. It is intimately connected with the divine call of the laity both to personal sanctification and to personal apostolate. The author also fails to draw full attention to the fact that Monsignor Esrivá was one of the first to insist that lay women as well as men should have access to higher ecclesiastical studies, and one of the first to encourage many lay women to follow such studies.

There is clearly a need for some members of Opus Dei, both men and women, to have the training necessary to be able to offer lay people in general, and other members, that teaching which is their Christian right. These members do not need to be priests. Indeed there are many lay people in Opus Dei, men and women, with doctorates in ecclesiastical or sacred sciences, and with other special training in this area, who are in a position to hand on this knowledge to others.

Note again that, elsewhere, in the context of counselling, our constant companion Mr Walsh was expressing concern about the lack of training of directors of Opus Dei, telling us that 'It has to be remembered that the directors are not clergy. They are unlikely to have even the minimum training ...'(p.114). So at that point he was concerned because they were not qualified, and now he's concerned because they are, or are expected to be, well qualified.

Neither numeraries in general nor priests in particular, whatever their qualifications, form a separate group. Their degrees enable them to serve in particular ways, without special rights. As in all spheres of life, different interests and abilities complement one another, and are simply different ways of serving, within one and the same vocation. No amount of quotes, out of context, and generally from abrogated legal documents, can change this simple fact.