The pastoral phenomenon of Opus Dei was a new charism in the Church. It created a need for a new canonical configuration, one which was not available until after the Second Vatican Council. The route to its final approval as a personal prelature in 1982 was not an easy one. In 1946 one Roman Curia official put it clearly and dramatically: 'You have come a century too early!' It would be a daunting task, then, even for a canon lawyer specialising in the area, to interpret the developments in Opus Dei's juridical history. The author of The Secret World of Opus Dei however, apparently armed with little more than a couple of handbooks and information gleaned from an officially disapproved Italian book, pays a great deal of attention (almost three chapters) to the juridical evolution of Opus Dei.

When Opus Dei came into being there was no vehicle in Church law for an organisation that included lay people, married and single, men and women, of all social backgrounds, of all nations, who wanted to commit themselves to God in answer to a vocation, but without, for example, changing their lay status, or leaving the world, or taking public or private vows, or donning a religious habit. Yet, for many reasons, Opus Dei had to be fitted in somewhere if it was to grow and develop in the Church and in the world. This conundrum was eventually solved by the juridical entity called the personal prelature, and when Opus Dei was established as such it could clearly be seen to be part of the jurisdictional hierarchy of the Church. This was once again confirmed in January 1991 by the episcopal ordination of its Prelate. Until this entity became available however, Opus Dei, to use a metaphor, had to wear a variety of poorly-fitting juridical garments.

Michael Walsh frequently mistakes these former ill-fitting outfits for the juridical person wearing them, and so draws the conclusions he wishes. Readers with little familiarity with matters canonical may be happy with the above resumé, and pass on to chapter six.

5.2 Early legal issues and the 'Pious Union'

Before dealing with the first canonical approval of the Work as a 'pious union', the author says that 'it is strange how soon opposition to Opus had arisen - and equally strange how the complaints that were then being made are still re-echoed. Opus is secretive' (p.47). But who, actually, was the 'opposition'? He mentions some people. Let's examine his claims.

Monsignor Gaetano Cicognani, the papal nuncio in Madrid, did seek information about Opus Dei, but there is no record of his being critical. In fact, just two years later, in 1943, he wrote to the Roman curia about Opus Dei in very laudatory terms (cf. A. Larraona, Voto sulla Societa Sacerdotale della Santa Croce, Madrid 1943. AGP. Sezione Giuridica, III/15015: in El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei – Historia y Defensa de un Carisma by Amadeo de Fuenmayor, Valentin Gomez-Iglesias & José Luis Illanes. Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 1989, p.124. See below, chapter 8.1, for further information on this book). That he directed his enquiries precisely to Cardinal Segura, and not some other bishop, is understandable, for Segura had been Primate in Toledo and then had spent considerable time in Rome as an exile of the Government of the Spanish Republic. In 1941, as Archbishop of Seville, Segura confessed that his 'first news of Opus was confused and alarming – and came from Fathers of the Society of Jesus' (p.46). He then made inquiries in Saragossa and found nothing. But, as reported by the author on the previous page, in addition to Madrid, the only other members were in Barcelona, Valencia and Valladolid. It was obviously going to be difficult, in post-war Spain, for the Cardinal of Seville to find out from Saragossa much about 'an organization that, at the time, had only some fifty members, male and female' (p.47). As for his difficulty in getting hold of Camino (The Way), it is understandable that a book which had just been published was not yet generally available in bookshops throughout post-war Spain; in any case, by the time he replied to Monsignor Cicognani he already had a copy.

In Barcelona, the assistant Abbot of Montserrat supported rather than opposed the small group, as the author points out (p.45). The Archbishop of Valencia, Marcelino Olaechea, was a life-long close friend of Monsignor Escrivá and always promoted his work in the archdiocese.

Why has the author chosen not to give any of the very relevant information the Bishop of Madrid sent to the Abbot of Montserrat? For example, he could have quoted the following impressive testimony:

'I know it all, because from its founding in 1928, Opus Dei is so much in the hands of the Church that the Ordinary of the Diocese, that is, either my Vicar General or myself, know and when necessary direct all its steps ... Believe me, most Reverend Father Abbot, from its first idea through all its steps and works this Opus is truly Dei ... And yet, it is today good people that are against it. It would be cause for amazement, had not Our Lord made us familiar with seeing this very thing in other works very much of His own' (quoted in El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei, p. 92).

That Opus Dei needed some initial form of juridical structure is quite evident. That this form should be a 'pious union' was concluded by Monsignor Escrivá and the Madrid diocesan curia by a process of elimination: no canonical configuration in the 1917 Code suited its essential features.

5.3 Priests and leadership

Next, the author attributes Monsignor Escrivá's decision that Opus Dei should have priests of its own, to

'… a fundamentally traditional, clerical attitude to roles in the Church' – which he shared 'with the vast majority of Catholics of his time.' 'He (Monsignor Escrivá) was himself a priest; the leadership and spiritual direction of his organization had to be in the hands of priests' (p.49).

This conception of the clergy is, according to the author, what moved Monsignor Escrivá to go on to seek for Opus Dei a juridical form beyond the approval as a 'pious union', granted by the Bishop of Madrid in 1941.

The plain fact, however, is that the vast majority of Opus Dei priests have no position of leadership; and they never have had. In the prelature only the prelate and a small number of priests have positions of authority either at central (Rome) or regional (national) levels. Priests were needed in Opus Dei from the very beginning to look after the pastoral needs of its members, and of their apostolic activities; that is, for the doctrinal, moral and ascetical formation of lay people and for the sacramental ministry only priests can give. They would need to be sufficiently flexible and free from other responsibilities to give their full attention to this task.

In addition, one has to bear in mind that, although Opus Dei at that time was confined to the diocese of Madrid, the founder had always seen Opus Dei as an enterprise which would be world-wide in scope and extension. It is therefore really not all that difficult to understand Monsignor Escrivá's conviction that Opus Dei would have to have priests of its own and, hence, his dogged search for a juridical solution which would allow this.

The solutions provided by the Code at that time were not satisfactory. Either they did not allow priests incardinated in dioceses the degree of dedication to Opus Dei activities which was needed, or they would put the priests into the religious juridical state (i.e. bound by the traditional vows of chastity, poverty and obedience). 'Societies of common life without vows', on the other hand, were able to have priests in a stable manner and, although not the ideal solution, they had one important characteristic for the foundational charism of Opus Dei: canon 673 of the 1917 Code formally and explicitly declared that their members were not religious. The Code allowed these associations to be canonically either 'clerical' or 'lay' but they were not 'religious', at least in the canonical sense. This was the next step Monsignor Escrivá took, as shall be seen in a moment.

5.4 Opus Dei and secularity

The word 'religious' has two uses in English, one common, the other juridical or canonical. Commonly it means anything to do with religion in a general sense, as in 'religious knowledge' or 'religious art' or even 'a very religious person'; whereas canonically it applies specifically to those who take vows within an institute of consecrated life, as in 'religious priests' or 'order priests' (vs. secular clergy) or 'religious order.' The context usually makes clear which use is intended. Michael Walsh however confuses the two, which is curious coming from an ex-religious himself (in the canonical sense), and from a self-styled 'eminent Catholic historian.'

The author tries to sound fair when very early in the book he writes:

'I understood it to be the special mark, or charism, of Opus that it provided a form of religious life in a broad sense for a much wider variety of person, whether married or single. In other words, I took it to be a natural extension of the development of religious life within the Church' (p.17).

Clearly he is using the word 'religious' in the canonical sense, for after the opening sentence of the previous paragraph – 'At least since the end of the third century there has always been a form of 'religious life' in the Catholic Church', (p.16) – he goes on to give a canonical sketch of the history of the religious state from the early solitary lives of the hermits in the desert to the 'clerks regular' (ignoring the marvellous variety of religious institutes and congregations established during the last four centuries, but this is beside the point). For the author, Opus Dei constitutes the most recent link in the evolutionary chain of the religious state. In another passage he equates Opus Dei, again from a canonical point of view, with 'a quasi-religious order' (p.81).

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about Opus Dei, hard to understand from someone purporting to have made a study of the topic. From the beginning Monsignor Escrivá's message was that God's call to holiness does not imply abandoning the world, or one's personal circumstances, or still less changing one's state (in the juridical sense), as the religious have done throughout the centuries. At the heart of his preaching was the idea that from the moment of baptism every Christian is called to holiness and apostolate whatever their state or condition. As we have seen, he was preaching a secular spirituality, specifically different from that of the religious. (This secular spirituality applied equally to secular priests, incardinated in a diocese, for whom sanctification of work could be the sanctification of their parish or other diocesan responsibilities).

Note that this does not represent, even in the remotest sense, any kind of disregard for the religious vocation, or for all the many and varied religious groups who spend their lives in service to God, the Church, and to all men. The Church's need for such vocations is greater than ever, and members of Opus Dei, like all noble faithful, hold religious in the highest esteem, for what they are, for their prayer and sacramental life, for the work they do, for the witness they give, and for their commitment to a rule or way of life. The point is simply that their vocation is not for everyone, and that, in practice, the majority must somehow seek holiness along other paths, lay, secular paths, in the untidy, disorganised, infinitely varying circumstances of work and leisure and family and home, which in ecclesiastical parlance is referred to as 'the world.'

In trying to establish that Opus Dei is religious rather than secular or lay, the writer offers the following argument.

'"Lay" in English tends to mean "non-professional". But of course nuns as well as priests, and the numerous unordained members of religious orders, earn their keep by being "professional" or full-time, active members of the Church' (p.60).

(Note in passing that this presents a very restricted picture of 'full-time, active membersof the Church', which few people, religious or lay, would agree with: certainly it puts all lay people out of contention for full-time, active membership).

Religious in the caring professions are generally there because of the charitable dimension of these activities, which have always been considered 'works of mercy.' Lay people on the other hand ordinarily (though not always) undertake those jobs as part of a career in the building up civil society. Both should do an equally 'professional' job, but how this advances the author's thesis is not clear. The only relevant distinction here is not that between 'lay' and 'professional' in common English, into which the author digresses, but between 'lay' and 'clerical/religious' in their technical senses. The whole argument is a red herring, and establishes little of interest: rather it confuses, and reveals confusion.

One thing is clear: lay people in Opus Dei, whether married or not, very seldom earn their keep by being 'active members' of the Church; they do so, on the contrary, by being active, for example, in industry or agriculture, in the civil service or in private enterprise: in short, by being active 'in the world.' It is precisely their professional involvement in temporal affairs rather than in ecclesiastical tasks that constitutes a quintessential characteristic of their lay vocation. (See for example Lumen Gentium, 31; Christifideles laici, 9 & 15).

His confusion of the two meanings of the word 'religious' is also clearly seen in his remarks that celibate people of Opus Dei say the Rosary, attend daily Mass, do mental prayer, reflect on the gospel every day, read spiritual books regularly, hang pictures of our Lady in their rooms, all of which means, one would suppose, 'religious common life' (cf. pp.60-2). According to this reasoning, any Christian who follows our Lord's advice to 'pray constantly' (Luke 21:36) would qualify for a new 'quasi-canonical' status. And the 'domestic Church' of recent papal documents, that is for example, the home where members of a family say the Rosary every day and say Grace at meals, should be considered a religious community (in the technical sense).

Nothing of the above, the author says, 'would be at all odd, in any religious order, male or female, with the possible exception of the practice of the cross without the figure of the Crucified' (p.62). This cross, hanging on a wall near the oratory in centres of Opus Dei, seems to cause him special unease. Well, 'if any man would come after me, let him ... take up his cross' (Mk 8:34). The cross should not disturb anyone, even if it is 'a stumbling block to Jews, a folly to Gentiles' (1Cor1:23), and a topic for sensationalist treatment by the media.

Returning to the point: the author is not prepared to admit that secularity was precisely the point which diocesan bishops and Roman Curia welcomed in the spirit of Opus Dei. This will be seen all along in the historical sketch that follows.

5.5 The Priestly Society, 1943

The 'societies of common life without vows' were de iure not 'religious' and were the only vehicle available at the time which would allow priests to be incardinated in Opus Dei without making it a religious institution. After detailed and prolonged consultation with the bishop of Madrid and members of the diocesan curia, Fr Escrivá decided to follow it. Rather than establish the whole of Opus Dei as one of those societies, he saw it more fitting to restrict to such a society a small nucleus consisting of the priests and some of the lay people in proximate preparation for the priesthood.

Official notes handed to the Sacred Congregation at that time (1943) say that 'the bishops in Spain are very favourable to this association, especially those of Barcelona, Zamora, Pamplona, archbishop of Valencia, etc., and principally his Excellency Gaetano Cicognani, Apostolic Nuncio in Spain.' (Submission of Fr. Goyeneche, from AGP, Sezione Giuridica, III/15017 (cf. El itinerario jurídico del Opus Dei, p.124).

The new juridical situation duly acknowledged a distinction between the Priestly Society and Opus Dei, but it also established vital and unbreakable relations between them. For the Society presupposed the existence of Opus Dei through which it mostly exercised its activity. And Opus Dei could fulfil its own tasks only with the priestly services, guidance and impulse it received from the Society.

5.6 Secular institutes

The founder always spoke of Opus Dei as a divine enterprise of universal character. He worked as if he knew that one day it would come to enjoy pontifical rather than purely diocesan status. The expansion of Opus Dei to the main Spanish cities during the years after the Spanish Civil War, the spread of the knowledge of its spirit and activities to several countries in Europe, as well as the new possibility of travelling on the Continent once the Second World War was over – all made Fr Escrivá think of the need for Opus Dei to have pontifical status, to facilitate the apostolic work in other countries.

In 1946 Fr del Portillo, the Secretary General of Opus Dei, approached the Vatican in search of a new juridical status and found that the Apostolic See had for some time been giving considerable thought to the petitions of a rather large number of groups in the Church. Some were already in existence at the time of the promulgation of the 1917 Code, and they were all seeking some kind of supra-diocesan status. But they were very varied in nature. A Vatican study at that time summarised the two opposing trends among the groups which had the laity as their apostolic aim: on the one hand, 'those who want to be religious and want to take the three holy vows, publicly if possible'; and, on the other, 'those who have a precise and clear intention: they do not want to be religious, because they want to remain lay.' (Father Agostino Gemelli OFM, in a memo to the Sacred Congregation for the Council in 1939, first published pro manuscrito in Assisi in 1939 with the title Le associazione de laici consacrati a Dio nel mondo. Later it was included in Secularita e vita consacrata, Milan, 1966, pp.363-442.)

The Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater Ecclesia of 2 February 1947 established 'secular institutes' as a new juridical figure and the decree Primum Institutum of the 24th of the same month approved Opus Dei as the first secular institute. It stated, among other things, that Opus Dei corresponded in an exemplary manner to the figure of secular institute established by the Constitution.

Besides further clarifying its secular nature, this new approval also recognised Opus Dei as a path of sanctity and apostolate in the world and in the circumstances of ordinary life. It gave the Work a set of interdiocesan juridical norms and a status comparable to that of clerical institutes of pontifical right. It also granted the President-General faculties that strengthened the unity of Opus Dei in a manner which included both priests and lay people, men and women.

But it also had disadvantages, two of which should be mentioned here. First, the Apostolic Constitution placed Opus Dei under the Sacred Congregation for Religious, thus giving rise to confusion. And, secondly, the application of the new laws would lead towards Opus Dei's being considered a 'state of perfection.' To someone like the author, this may appear a very desirable rise in status, but it does not correspond to the charism of Opus Dei, whose members do not undergo a change of state by joining the Work, but rather commit themselves to seeking sanctity precisely in their own state, be it that of a married person, a single person, or a priest.

Nonetheless it was altogether a gigantic step forward. Fr Escrivá and all in Opus Dei gave lasting and wholehearted thanks to God and soon began to prepare the petition for the definitive canonical establishment of Opus Dei as a secular institute. But Fr Escrivá was well aware of the juridical difficulties that could arise in view of the disadvantages mentioned above. Indeed, he made them known to members of Opus Dei in a letter of 8 December 1949, as well as to the Sacred Congregation for Religious by means of a detailed script dated 3 May 1950 and a further written report dated 2 June 1950. (cf. El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei, pp. 220-7).

5.7 The evolution of secular institutes

The new juridical configuration immediately attracted widespread interest from many groups anxious to formalise their canonical status. The imprecise understanding that many of these groups had of the Provida Mater Ecclesia lead Pius XII to the promulgation in 1948of a motu proprio, Primo feliciter and an instruction Cum Sanctissimus which insisted, among other things, on 'secularity' as the proper and distinctive characteristic of secular institutes, and which restricted the undue use of this title 'secular.'

Monsignor Escrivá also found that the juridical figure of secular institute did not adequately protect the essential unity of Opus Dei as an institute, and with time other problems arose. An example may be of interest. Canon 500,3 of the 1917 Code stated that, within institutions that profess the state of perfection, institutes of men and of women must be juridically separate. Cum Sanctissimus included this criterion for secular institutes though it declared that it should not have direct application. In respect of the governance of its two sections, therefore, Opus Dei had to appear as a special case within the legislation of secular institutes, which was less than satisfactory.

With the years it became increasingly clear that the law on secular institutes would not protect secularity. Gradually some secular institutes evolved towards full religious congregations.

5.8 The Prelature 'nullius'

The author is somewhat confused when he refers to the 'prelatura nullius' as a 'curious little anachronism left over from the Middle Ages when powerful abbots controlled the land around their abbeys' (p.76). He is obviously confusing it with a 'territorial abbacy.' Territorial prelatures and abbacies are dealt with in canon 370 of the 1983 Code, but they are different figures. A prelature is headed by a prelate, an abbacy by an abbot, and this is no small difference. The prelature nullius of the 1917 Code is the 'territorial prelature' of the 1983 Code, not the abbacy. The latter can indeed be called anachronistic (cf. motu proprio Catholica Ecclesia, 23 November 1976: no more abbacies should be established under this juridical figure and an attempt must be made to adapt existing ones into some modern jurisdictional form). But territorial prelatures are certainly not an anachronism: Loreto and Pompei illustrate this, and the 'Mission de France', a model for modern pastoral concern, was established as a 'prelature nullius' by an apostolic constitution as recently as 15 August 1954.

Monsignor Escrivá had written to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, on 7 January 1962 asking him to present to Pope John XXIII a formal petition for the revision of the juridical status of Opus Dei. The application was for the erection of the institute into a prelature nullius. There were already quite a few precedents for this (i.e. of prelates with territorial and personal jurisdiction), like those of the military vicariates, of others for the pastoral care of emigrants of Eastern rites and, more particularly, the 'Mission de France' which had been established for lapsed Catholics in all French dioceses.

On 22 May 1962, Monsignor Escrivá received a reply in the negative from the Secretary of State. The reasons given were that the proposal would not constitute a real solution and would present 'almost insurmountable juridical and practical difficulties.' (See letters and other details relating to this event in El Itinerario Jurídico del Opus Dei, pp.332-8.)

Why did Monsignor Escrivá want a prelature 'nullius'? What was its advantage? Very simply: it was and is a Church structure whose members are ordinary faithful; their bonds to the prelature are not sacred; the secular character of the members is not changed. It would also establish in Opus Dei a unity of jurisdiction linking lay people, priests and prelate in a manner comparable with the unity which exists within a diocese. The territory would have been merely symbolic.

5.9 Vatican II and Personal Prelatures

It would be difficult to overstate the joy of Monsignor Escrivá when the Second Vatical Council proclaimed the doctrine of the universal call to sanctity. What he had been preaching since 1928, and for which he'd often been denounced as a heretic, was now proclaimed in black and white with all the strength of the Church's authority. Providentially, there was something else in the Council of great interest for Monsignor Escrivá and Opus Dei. At the end of 1965, the 'Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests' recommended, among other things, that 'some international seminaries, special dioceses, or personal prelatures' be established (Presbyterorum ordinis, 10), and less than a year later Pope Paul VI issued norms for its implementation (motu proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, 6 August 1966). Both documents state that the purpose of these prelatures is to provide a better distribution of priests and for special pastoral objectives (i.e. the carrying out of 'special pastoral projects' and for the benefit of 'different social groups in any region or among any race in any part of the world' or 'for various regions or social groups.' The Council saw the pastoral need to move away from the restricting principle of 'territoriality' and to create new structures to cater for different social groups - gypsies, emigrants, people in the armed forces, etc.).

Shortly afterwards, in Pope Paul VI's reorganisation of the Roman Curia in 1967 (Apostolic Constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae), personal prelatures were placed under the competence of the Congregation of Bishops. This added further to the advisability of seeking a personal prelature as the definitive juridical structure for Opus Dei.

After obtaining the Holy See's permission, Monsignor Escrivá convoked a general congress of Opus Dei for September 1969. The congress was not conceived as a gathering of experts to devise a detailed canonical structure; it was to be a reflection of the entire membership of Opus Dei on its nature and features in the light of over forty years of life. A total of 192 people gathered in Rome, representing a cross-section of countries and of ages, with 87 men and 105 women taking part.

The closing session took place on 16 September, and two days later – not four years as the book says (p.76) – the Sacred Congregation was given a progress report on the congress, as well as details about preparations for its second part. In the following month, Monsignor Escrivá sent a long letter to the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Antoniutti, in which he said that the aspiration of Opus Dei was not a simple revision or improvement of its present norms but a change of juridical structure.

As preparation for the second part of the congress, special working assemblies were organised in all countries and, over a period of five months, some fifty thousand people from 77 countries contributed written communications. Representatives met again in Rome late in the summer of 1970 and on 14 September the conclusions were voted upon. A technical commission was appointed and it began work on these conclusions to prepare the new Code of Law proper to Opus Dei.

In his capacity of Secretary-General of Opus Dei, Fr Alvaro del Portillo reported to Cardinal Antoniutti, in a letter dated 23 March 1971, and two years later it was Monsignor Escrivá himself who had the joy, in a personal audience, of informing Pope Paul VI of the progress of the congress. The Holy Father encouraged him to proceed with the work, and in October 1974 Monsignor Escrivá put the final touches to the text and approved the Code of Law particular to Opus Dei. However, he was unable to take the final step and deliver the document to the Holy See for, on 26 June 1975, God called him into his presence.

Fr del Portillo was then elected President General of Opus Dei. With the approval of Pope Paul VI he decided to delay for a while the petition for a new juridical structure for Opus Dei, out of respect for the memory of Monsignor Escrivá (to avoid appearing to achieve immediately something the founder had not achieved in his lifetime) and to avoid misinterpretations (for example, that he was now following a new course) by those unaware of the true wishes of the founder. In an audience on 19 June 1978 however, Pope Paul VI encouraged Fr del Portillo to present the petition without further delay, but the Pope died in early August. First John Paul I and later (on 15 November 1978) John Paul II also requested that proceedings towards a juridical solution should not be delayed.

5.10 Opposition?

A technical committee was appointed by the Congregation of Bishops. Then the Pope appointed a special committee of cardinals to examine the conclusions of the technical committee. Next the views were requested from 'all bishops in whose dioceses Opus Dei operated' as the author puts it (p.79). However, the article by the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Baggio, from which the author has taken this information, puts it differently: 'the bishops of all the countries where Opus Dei had established centres' ('A Benefit for the whole Church', L'Osservatore Romano, 28 November 1982). The difference between the two quotations is important. The author says there were 'apparently about 500' bishops (p. 79). The article by Cardinal Baggio does not give a figure, though he does say that 'this well-deserving institution has now been providing (pastoral service) for over half a century in hundreds of dioceses all over the world.' The real figure for bishops consulted is given by Monsignor Costalunga of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, in the same issue of L'Osservatore:

'an explanatory note sent to more than 2000 diocesan bishops in the countries in which Opus Dei has canonically established centres, leaving the bishops a considerable margin of time to present observations and suggestions.'

In other words, the bishops actually consulted were not just those in whose dioceses but in whose countries Opus Dei had established centres, a rather thorough consultation by any standards. The author is fully aware of this commentary by Monsignor Costalunga since he refers to it on page 80.

What was the opinion of the bishops consulted? According to Mr Walsh:

'The detail about the consultation of the bishops is very curious indeed: not the fact that they were consulted, of course, but the silence about their response. Had the response been eager, or even favourable, Baggio would certainly have said so. The fact that he did not comment on episcopal reaction can only be taken to mean that it was negative. Indeed, the Spanish reaction was particularly hostile.' (p.79).

Passing over the interesting assumption that no news can only mean bad news, the important fact is that the bishops’ reaction was indeed published, in an article by Monsignor Costalunga, the Undersecretary of the Congregation of Bishops, in the very same edition of L'Osservatore Romano, in fact right alongside Cardinal Baggio's article. This was an article which the author certainly read, because he refers to it. Yet, by some quirk he apparently missed Costalunga's 'comment on episcopal reaction.' Costalunga wrote:
'Numerous replies from Bishops manifested their satisfaction with the manner in which, in perfect harmony with the norms applying the Second Vatican Council, the desired solution to the institutional problem of Opus Dei had been reached. There were also letters, though much fewer in number, which contained observations or requests for clarification: following an attentive examination they were all taken into due account, and all requests for further explanations were satisfied.'

When the Holy See announced in 1982 that Opus Dei was to become the Church's first personal prelature, the news was welcomed around the world. 'I have been waiting for this piece of news for a long time' was the reaction of Austrian Cardinal Koenig. From Cardinal Medeiros of Boston: 'I believe that this decision of the Holy Father will further facilitate the loyal cooperation that we Bishops are already receiving from Opus Dei.' 'This news about the establishment of Opus Dei as a personal prelature has filled me with joy because this marks the finding of the juridical solution of Opus Dei in the Church, for which I have been praying for many years', said Cardinal Sin of Manila. And Cardinal Otunga of Kenya: 'May Opus Dei, set up as a personal prelature of the Holy Father John Paul II, double their valuable sharing in our apostolate for the Archdiocese of Nairobi.'

5.11 Lay people in the Prelature

Michael Walsh doubts that the new juridical structure will prove satisfactory. 'There will be no problem as far as priests are concerned ... Difficulties arise with the lay members' (p.81). He says that the 'real difficulty with the prelature solution is that it does not cope adequately with full members of the institute who are lay' (p.85). And he gives his reason: 'they cannot, be they numeraries or not, claim to be incardinated into the prelature, and consequently full members of Opus.' As elsewhere in the book, the author displays here the limits of his knowledge. Only a priest can be incardinated, never a lay person. His error is doubly surprising since he gives a correct explanation of incardination on page 85. His real mistake, however, lies in the fact that he has not accepted Canon 296 of the 1983 Code which would have saved him and his readers a lot of confusion. It states:

'Lay people can dedicate themselves to the apostolic work of a personal prelature by way of agreements made with the prelature. The manner of this organic cooperation and the principal obligations and rights associated with it, are to be duly defined in the statutes.'

He then goes on to say that

'though the laity may attend all religious services within Opus Dei centres ... they are technically members of the local diocese. Though in fact they may be treated as if members of a diocese which is the prelature, they are in law still subject to the local bishop' (pp.85-6).

The error here is the assumption that lay people can be guided by only one Church authority. This is not so. Some examples will help. Persons who have two canonical places of residence may resort to either of the two respective diocesan authorities. Or, even of greater interest in this case: although in some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Ordinary to the Armed Forces is the bishop of all in the armed services, personnel in the forces can also have recourse to the bishop of their diocese of origin or to the bishop of the diocese where they are domiciled or even of the diocese where they are temporarily resident.

In the case of lay members of Opus Dei, the problem of a possible dual allegiance does not even arise, as the prelature's field of jurisdiction is different from that of the diocese: one takes over where the other leaves off. Members are under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the place where they live, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, in exactly the same way as other faithful of the diocese. Their relationship to the prelature extends only to areas that refer to the specific objectives of Opus Dei; these are areas which were not previously subject to any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, precisely because they are areas where the faithful are free. Lay people of Opus Dei, therefore, are both ordinary lay faithful of their diocese and simultaneously true members of the Prelature.

This is another topic on which the author edits quotes. For example on page 86 he omits the critical parts of Canon 294 and 296 of the 1983 Code which would have undermined his thesis on the nature of the involvement of lay people in a prelature. On the same page he adopts a similar approach with the Annuario Pontificio (the official Yearbook of the Holy See):

'As they stand, the Church's regulations insist that only priests or deacons can be members of personal prelatures. Therefore, despite Opus's claims to have some 80,000 members ... its numbers, as given in the latest edition of the Vatican's almanac, the Annuario Pontificio, are only 1,273 priests ... plus 352 "major" seminarians, or students for the priesthood' (pp. 86-7).

However, the 1988 yearbook for example actually says that 74,370 lay people belong to the Opus Dei Prelature!

5.12 'Ut sit'

The Apostolic Constitution Ut sit of John Paul II, establishing Opus Dei as a personal prelature on 28 November 1982, was promulgated on 19 March 1983. It specified that the prelature was to be governed by the norms of general Church law, by those of the Apostolic Constitution itself, and by Opus Dei's Statutes.

The author acknowledges that the apostolic constitution begins with praise for Opus Dei and mentions the reference of the Pope to the beginnings of Opus Dei when Monsignor Escrivá was 'led by a divine inspiration.' For some reason or other he places this phrase in brackets. It is worth noting that this phrase is not just a pious expression: it is of great theological and juridical importance, indicating the Church's opinion that apart from being a pastoral innovation, there was in the founding of Opus Dei a divine charism to support it.

The apostolic constitution contains a wealth of material but we will go straight to the point under consideration, namely the involvement of lay people in the prelature. Section III of Ut sit says:

'The jurisdiction of the Personal Prelature extends to the clergy incardinated in it, and also – only in what refers to the fulfilment of the specific obligations undertaken through the juridical bond, by means of a contract with the Prelature – to the laity who dedicate themselves to the apostolic activities of the Prelature: both clergy and laity are under the authority of the Prelate in carrying out the pastoral task of the Prelature, as established in the preceding article.'

Two things are said here very plainly. Firstly, jurisdiction in the prelature extends to the laity as well as the clergy. Secondly, the juridical bond between lay members and the prelature is through a contract, not through vows or sacred promises.

The author's statement that 'since the content of the contracts is very similar indeed to the content of vows taken by monks and nuns, it is unclear what the significance of this legal distinction might be' (p.81) is further proof of his inability to grasp the essential difference between the secular and religious states. The content of religious vows is, of course, the virtues. No one can follow Christ without an ascetical effort to acquire virtues. A vow is called 'public' if it is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful superior. Otherwise it is called 'private.' At their religious profession, by 'public' vows, members of religious institutes: i) commit themselves to observe the three evangelical counsels, ii) are consecrated to God through the ministry of the Church, and iii) are incorporated into the institute (canon 654). Hence public vows play a central role in the juridical conditions of the religious state; they have a sacred character and give a sacred status to the persons who make them.

On the other hand the bond established through the contract with the Prelature is not a sacred bond and does not modify in the least the juridical state of the person. Furthermore, contrary to the author's assertion on p.81, the content of the contract is quite different from that described above for religious, consisting as it does – and as explained already – in an exchange of commitments, on one's honour, to seek holiness in accordance with the spirituality of Opus Dei (on the part of the member) and to provide the support for this (on the part of the prelature).

On becoming a member of the Prelature, a person does not become a 'consecrated person.' He does not change state nor acquire a sacred status. He remains one of the ordinary lay faithful in the Church. The contractual bond with the prelature is such that, as stated above, it places the person under the authority or jurisdiction of the prelate in certain matters. This means that the lay member of the Opus Dei prelature is under the jurisdiction of both the prelate and the diocesan bishop, although, of course, with a different set of rights and duties in each area of authority, as described earlier.

The author does not make any reference to Section III of the Ut Sit document quoted above (this section 5.12, par.3), where the status of the lay members is made clear. Given his lengthy attempt to disprove that lay people can be full members of the prelature, his omission is curious.

5.13 Unity of Opus Dei

The unity of the prelature flows from the jurisdiction of the Prelate and is clearly defined in the Ut sit document. It describes Opus Dei as 'an apostolic organism made up of priests and laity, both men and women, which is at the same time organic and undivided – that is to say, as an institution endowed with a unity of spirit, of aims, of government and of formation.' This is an excellent way of expressing the unity of Opus Dei as a pastoral endeavour. Mr Walsh however, makes it quite impossible to understand this unity, firstly by mistranslating the Latin organica et indivisa as 'organic and indivisible' instead of 'organic and undivided' (p.87) (Latin: indivisibilis = indivisible), and then by ignoring all the rest of the above sentence from Ut sit. As a consequence it is perhaps not surprising to find him coming to the rather startling conclusing that the Pope's stress on the unity of Opus Dei in this document is 'effectively in contradiction with the Constitutions which follow' (p.87). (The author uses here the word 'Constitutions' for 'Statutes').

The term 'organic' above is important. It has a canonical meaning and appears in canon 296 of the 1983 Code mentioned above. There is in the prelature, as in the entire Church, a distinction of functions between clergy and laity. This derives from the essential distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful. But distinction does not mean disjunction. On the contrary, organs or components with diverse functions each contribute in their own way to structure the entire whole into an organic unity. It implies, of course, a mutual complementarity of tasks and activities. This is a theme well developed by Pope John Paul II in Christifideles laici (cf. no.20).

The author's assertion that there is contradiction between the Ut sit document and the Statutes is neither proven nor evident. Points of the Statutes mentioned by him on page 91 succinctly and clearly state the power of governance of the Prelate over clergy and laity and indeed do so in terms similar to those seen above in the Ut sit document.

5.14 The Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, 1982

On the subject of diocesan priests joining Opus Dei, the author does well to record the juridical provisions: that they cannot be incardinated in the prelature and so there can be no division or conflict of authority between Opus Dei and the respective bishops (pp.90 & 96). He also says however: 'The only obedience a member of the Sacerdotal Society owes, Alvaro insists, is to his bishop. Except, presumably, the obedience owed to the new statutes, which came into effect on 8 December 1982' (p.90). Later on, after mentioning a point of the Statutes which states that there is not to be even the shadow of any hierarchy within the Society, he adds 'though the regional vicar will appoint a spiritual director for such priests' (p.96).

He omits to inform his readers that the chapter of the Statutes concerning the Priestly Society begins with the following point: 'the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross is established as an association' (no.57), or that no.36,2 of the Statutes defines the Society as 'an association of clergy intrinsically united to the Prelature.' Ut sit puts it in very similar terms. In short: Opus Dei has been established as a personal prelature (canon 294) and the Priestly Society established as an association of clergy (canon 312). The spirituality and ascetical practices of Opus Dei benefit both the members of the Opus Dei prelature and those of the Priestly Society.

A vocation is also required to join the Priestly Society. But the type of bond is not the same: it is one of 'jurisdiction' for priests incardinated in the Opus Dei prelature and for lay people incorporated in it, while it is of an 'associative' nature for priests incardinated in dioceses who join the Priestly Society. There are no hierarchical superiors in the Priestly Society. The ordinary of the Prelature, its Prelate, is at the same time the President General of the Priestly Society. Having a spiritual director for the Priestly Society is most appropriate, as can be understood in the context of, for instance, spiritual directors in any association of the faithful.

According to canon 278 secular priests enjoy personal freedom to associate with others for purposes in accord with their clerical state. It is in the exercise of this freedom and right that they can join the Priestly Society. Priests incardinated in the prelature automatically become members of the Society on their ordination.

5.15 Final remarks

Early in the book the author says: 'Opus is not simply a new religious body, it is a new form of institution within the Roman Catholic Church, as the long search for an appropriate juridical status amply demonstrates' (p.19). He is quite right here. Having made its purpose the holiness and the apostolate of its members, Opus Dei has to ensure the protection of their secularity. It is a pity that the author did not bear this earlier statement of his in mind throughout his book, as it might at least have helped him to be more accurate in his study of the canon law aspects.

By contrast, Pope John Paul II in Ut sit was able to say of the study of the transformation of Opus Dei into a personal prelature:

'We ourselves expressly ordered that this study should continue, and in 1979, we requested the Sacred Congregation for Bishops ... to examine the formal petition presented by Opus Dei, following a careful study of all the relevant facts and legal data. In carrying out the task entrusted to it, the Sacred Congregation carefully examined the matter, taking into account the historical, and also the juridical and pastoral aspects. Thus, having completely eliminated all doubts about the basis, and the possibility, and the specific manner of granting the petition, it became abundantly clear that the desired transformation of Opus Dei into a personal prelature was opportune and useful.'