THE GOVERNMENT IN THE OPUS DEI
Lucas, January 15, 2010
CONTENTS: I. A contradictory fact. II. Institution lay in fact, but clerical law. III. An institution run mostly by lay people. IV. A desacralized priesthood. V. Spiritual Direction Directors led by lay people, as part of the Government of the Work. VI. The lack of autonomy of intermediate levels of government. VII. The coherence that underlies these contradictions. VIII. Conclusion: absolute conception of the government of the Prelate.
I. A contradictory fact
Opus Dei is a kaleidoscopic reality with many faces. Hence, the clarification of this mess is so difficult and requires serious investigation be made.
The many facets that this institution presents can be reduced to three or four fundamentals: the external or social image, the image presented to the authorities of the Church, the reality for its members and the real and complex motivations of the ruling, based on practice of its founder. That is, the Opus Dei does not have a unique nature to all is a phenomenon structurally incoherent, allegedly inconsistent with an extraordinary mimetic ability under the circumstances and interests of the institution. It is not given the logic of truth, but of convenience.
The consequence of what I say is that Church authority and the members themselves are in a constant state of delusion. And the inconsistencies are so great that it is no exaggeration to use the principle of frustration as a method of approximation to the true reality of this organization, under which the reality of the work is often the opposite of what its founder postulated.
All these inconsistencies can be seen in any aspect of Opus Dei phenomenon it seeks to objectify, is its spirit, its history, its legal entity, or mode of government. In the following paragraphs I will focus on the government of Opus Dei, which shows the inconsistencies to which I just referred.
II. Institution lay in fact, but clerical law
Opus Dei comes out, before society and before all persons who come into contact with the institution, as a phenomenon completely different lay of the institutes of consecrated life, but the truth is that their fellows live communally and under of obedience, such as religious. But these same members are not aware of this reality, because they form a lay appearance. For this reason, lay mentality of the members, especially in the case of unmarried-collides continuously with their religious way of life, causing many problems very often subjective substance also in psychosomatic disorders.
In this context lay mentality means the teaching of the founder about the governance of the institution. In fact, says the founder: "The Work, in fact, is mainly lay, although clerical law is because the President-General and Regional Counselors must always be priests, because the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross completely revives ( Decretum laudis, 1947) and because members come numerary-although few to receive holy orders are being prepared for the priesthood, since they live all priestly virtues and make-to-college level all the priests' own studies "(Letter Ad serviendum, August 8, 1956, n.7). As you can see, is the same Escrivá which shows the contradiction between law and reality, a contradiction that has always been and is present in Opus Dei, and he resolves undermining the image of the priest. And this can not be otherwise, since the conception of the Work Escrivá is in itself incompatible with the sacramental structure and the right of the Church.
This conception is, he said, very new in the Church, a legal and theological real solution: "There are two kinds of partners in the work: all [priests and laity] are one class. It is the first time in the history of the Church that happens. It is another phenomenon peculiar wonderful that our law has been taken from our lives. Opus Dei in the Church of God has presented and has resolved many legal and theological problems and I say with humility, because humility is truth, "that seem simple when they are solved: among them, that there are no more than one class, but is made up of clergy and laity [...] In House, we're all the same "(Letter Ad serviendum, n.5. The clarification bracket is mine, and bold as well).
No doubt that the founder is thinking when he says this, the religious orders in which members did not have the sacrament of orders were considered of lower status to priests. But away from such discrimination in the treatment and way of life does not justify or equivalent to depart from the fact that the institutional Church is hierarchically structured under the sacrament of Orders, introduced in the same functional inequality for the mission to govern God's people is linked to head configuration to Christ that produces the priestly order. That is, by divine institution and not lay people in holy orders can not govern the Church. It is inappropriate to think, for example, that a parish or diocese can be governed by laymen (cf. Statement of 8 Vatican dicasteries on some issues regarding the collaboration of the lay faithful in the sacred ministry of priests, 13.VIII.1997 ).
Another thing different is the governance of an association of the faithful or of any entity outside the institutional structure of the Church. But Opus Dei does not consider itself an institution of associative character, but claims to be a part of God's people belonging to their hierarchical organizational structure. Hence the contradiction between what is "predominantly lay organization and led mostly by lay people and what it says: a hierarchical institution.
III. An institution run mostly by lay
Specifically, if you look at your government organization, we see this contradiction between the statements on the nature of the founder of Opus Dei and lay on their approach to the priesthood in the institution of a party, and, secondly, the canonical Prelature of Opus Dei as a personal and previously known as a secular institute Priestly Society of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei [i], both of clerical-type canonical configurations. For, as the founder himself says, "are not ordinary priests to send. In the General Council usually there are only four priests, all the others-in numbers are unparalleled senior-lay. In the Regional Commissions, the only priests Directors are the Counselor and the Priest Secretary, all other are also laymen. Local governments are always formed by laymen. It can be ensured, therefore, that the laity have a very large majority in government positions of the Work "(Letter Ad serviendum, n. 7). With these approaches, how do you want to be part of the institutional structure of the Church?
These government bodies to respect the founder, made up mostly of lay people, have a deliberative: in these decisions are made by number of votes, that is, both the bishop and his vicars have a voice in the decisions of the respective Councils, albeit qualified. And so does the government of the women's section, where most of the deliberative votes are borne by them. Obviously this is not compatible with the power of governance in the Church must always be attached to the sacrament of order, since the councils of government of Opus Dei is not a consultation but collegial, with a deliberative vote, as stated above and affirm the Statutes of the Prelature: "At the head of government of each region is preceded by the Vicar, called Regional chaplain, and appointed by the bishop with the deliberative vote of his Council, the counselor assists the Council (Consilium) called Regional Commission, which consists of up to twelve members appointed from among the faithful of the Prelature, we talked about in n. 13, and likewise, appointed by the bishop, after hearing his council, whose consensus is required in cases of those who spoke at nn. 157 § 1 and 159 "(n. 151. § 1).
IV. A priesthood desacralized
In all this "conception" of the laity in the Church, and especially in the work, lies a deviation about the theological nature of the priesthood, as can be seen in these phrases Escrivá: "For us, the priesthood is a circumstance, a accident, because the vocation of priests and laity is the same "(see Meditations, Volume V p.479, and also the monthly Chronicle, 1969, p.498). That is, core values Escrivá vocation to the Work, which is equal for all, while the priestly vocation is incidental to both the subject and the Opus Dei. And with that being said also that to be a priest in the Work not requiring a specific divine vocation: enough to be called by the bishop to receive the sacrament. They separate, then, "vocation" and "sacrament."
In other words, the "priestly vocation" becomes an administrative appointment to fill a need for the institution. It is therefore a passive vocation, according to founder. So they say that in the Opus Dei, the ordination is simply "a change of professional commitment" or, as expressed also the founder, the priesthood of cash or aggregates which are arranged is another way of serve their brothers.
This peculiar conception of the priesthood, church misses practice, is foundational in Opus Dei, as seen by the very words of Escriva at a meeting of 14 February 1955: "In no way is the Opus Dei priest the layman. It's like the other, forming a single class of members. It was another break the mold in the Church, because it was normal that the clerics were the aristocracy. In House, no. It was not easy. I had to give a reason for his admission, that all members of the Work have a priestly soul, that a provision numerary are more or less remote to the priesthood. " Argument seems pilgrim trying to level the baptismal priesthood and the ministerial forgetting the essential distinction of degree and not only that, to the Catholic faith, there are between them (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1547).
At another meeting, dated 15 January 1959, the founder adds: "In our particular path for the priesthood is, so to speak, as an accident. The Father calls to it or beyond, and all are free to accept or not the management [...] But for us, I repeat, the priesthood is a circumstance that does not alter our vocation. However, it is very necessary, because when it comes to sacramental wall, if there were no priests of Opus Dei, we should look for others who either have no spirit, or what are different. And it would be a disaster "(The emphasis is mine). Thus, the vocation to priesthood requires no recognizable divine call by the individual, and becomes a single call from superiors to exercise that ministry, that has as its primary meaning Escrivá prevent non-Opus Dei priests involved in the internal organization of the Work and may hinder the control that it claims on its members.
Hence Escrivá hold the priesthood in the Work is a mere "passive vocation. This can be seen, for example, in his letter iam Priests of 2 February 1945, urging the faithful of the Work in order to pray for "no one in house feel coercion of any kind, to come to the priesthood [ ...] Let the priests go to Holy Orders with complete freedom, even if the vocation is passive "(n.22. The emphasis is mine). And to the extent that he sought ordination did not rely on a provision of interest but of the institutional interests that determined that is not supported as a tenured or as Attaché who came to Opus Dei expressing inclination toward the priesthood.
The founders intended no doubt to design a "lay institution" in the service of "lay spirituality" of his charisma, with a government also predominantly lay. The affirmation of the laity of his spirituality was accompanied in fact a very radical internal regime, which tends to "subdue" the clergy to the laity, under the pretext of equality, vocational, to consider a priestly vocation as a circumstance does not change the call to Work: "Although the call is the same for everyone, I repeat, the priest agrees to be a servant of his brothers [...] knowing both be in our house because it is one of many well - "(Letter Ad serviendum, n.6). Then "they are all" priests "or all are" secular, "or both at once? The subjection of the clergy to the laity is a consequence of greater value the vocation to Opus Dei that the priestly vocation, which is the same as claiming that Opus Dei is more important than the same sacramental structure of the Church.
V. Spiritual Direction Directors led by laity as part of the Government of the Work
On the occasion of the complaints to the Holy See about illegal practice that occurs in Opus Dei in terms of spiritual direction, which is considered one of the functions of government and, therefore, rests with the directors of the institution [ii], the bishop has sought to address these objections by stating that the directors who are members of Local Councils, the governing body below, which are maintained spiritual direction, not to be considered in Opus hierarchy Dei. Nothing is further from the truth. For that answer, which aims to circumvent that legal obstacle, is nothing but a subterfuge to mask the fact that foundational information as well as government decisions on individuals are carried out through personal spiritual guidance: practice reprobate and illegal in the Church.
This was corroborated by an internal document of government: "In Opus Dei, spiritual direction is, in the first place, local directors, laity, priests who also have their fraternal chat, then the priests of the Work through sacramental confession. The priests know that to work effectively in spiritual direction of the faithful of the Prelature, must confirm in all, ordinarily, the guidelines given in other fraternal chat: only a complete harmony between the two Councils ensuring good management spiritual people of the Work "(Vademecum of priests p.41). In other words, spiritual direction has been turned into an instrument of government, to the extent that they exercise the priests of Opus Dei has to be fully subject to the decisions of managers or directors laity. This is another "news" that the founder has been introduced in the history of the Church and that he says has come to resolve many legal issues and theology.
This distortion is also evident in the fact that the heads of delegations and Consultancies Commissions and more directly responsible for the people, have always been considered the right of conscience demand accountability of the members: a question which canon law prohibits exhaustively superior to any church. But in the works, considering spiritual direction as one of the tasks of government, it seems normal to be asked to open his soul to the "Opus Dei", represented in senior managers, which in turn, represent the prelate. This is lived well from the beginning: "Whoever receives your confidence which is the same Father (founder or his successor) who receives it." At the beginning of the work was the founder who received the confidences of conscience, but had to be delegated to the Directors as the number of members.
Moreover, it should be stressed that the role of Local Councils is also because government implement the decisions of superiors and inform them in detail of the inner life and external members belonging to the Center. In addition, make decisions that strongly limit the autonomy of these members in day to day.
That is, those functions entrusted to local directors and in no way intended to allow social-and now the bishop, to justify their resistance to the Vatican's request, that they do not govern. On the contrary, they overlap and confuse the work of spiritual direction and local government as the same function. This is confirmed by what the statutes say, in his n. 161: "§ 1 In each district can be erected centers, according to standard n. 177. - § 2 The local government consists of the Director in his own Council. The charges are for three years, and are conferred by the Counselor, having heard his Council. "
Moreover, due obedience to the Director of the Center covers both the inner and the outer consciousness, and comes to identify with obedience to God's will, even on smaller issues. If this is not considered rule ...!
But it must be stressed that the government of Opus Dei on people of their members is performed based on the forum of conscience, that is, from information from spiritual direction. And also performed on the same laws of consciousness, as the decisions of government imposing higher within the spiritual direction and as an expression of the will of God. It can not be otherwise when government and personal spiritual direction coincide in the same individuals and as institutional tasks, not individuals. The consequences of this institutional rule of conscience are easy to imagine: shipments of city or country in the direction of sincere spiritual employment implications, dependent on work of the institution, by manifestations of consciousness canonical penalties from the you said in your personal spiritual direction, control and power over people.
VI. The lack of autonomy of intermediate levels of government
With that seen here may be noted that Escrivá designed a governance structure, being composed primarily of lay ecclesial poorly trained and no contact with the ecclesiastical circles, would be easily subject to the guidelines of the prelate and therefore in practice be limited to carrying out the mandates of the head. Therefore, the priests would not have functions of government, except a few: the essential ones to maintain the appearance of clerical institute of law, and therefore also, they would keep a status quo that allowed the autonomy would assume a Vicar.
It is sufficient to repair the system of election and appointment of directors and regional directors of Opus Dei, to understand that the Vicars lack autonomy. Members of delegations and regional advisory committees and are elected by the higher government level. That is, the Vicar never chooses not to their respective Council, but it is given, and he is one more vote on it. This causes the Vicars enjoy a very relative power within its jurisdiction, namely that power is reduced to be enforceable to the information coming from above. All Vicario not only helped, but controlled and monitored by their respective Councils. What makes the organization of government is very pyramidal type. The reality is that the government of the Prelature at various levels is reduced to obtain information for the bishop and his orders. It is therefore very little autonomy in personnel administration at every level.
The whole modus procedendi, that a personal Prelature is governed mainly by lay and where the priests, or govern, or are very constrained in their government by the laity, no longer a "government acanónico" of laity, who corrupts the form of the personal Prelature deliberately ignores erected and universal norms governing church government that acts according Prelature papal approval. For the personal Prelatures are clerical structures according to Vatican II and the Code, forms of organization comprised of clergy and deacons of the secular clergy whose government is entrusted to a bishop as proper Ordinary.
VII. The coherence that underlies these contradictions
All these features of the government of Opus Dei, at first glance so contradictory and, of course, completely incompatible with your setup as a personal prelature Church-reveal an internal coherence in the absolutist mentality of Jose Maria Escriva. That is, if you wonder why this organization of government lay in a church institution of clerical nature, no explanation is without going back to the founder and their subjective motivations. It is not in this case a peculiar theological conception "by Escrivá, though he intends to give an explanation of that type, nor a" charisma inspired ", but its practical convenience.
Escriva was not usually move through ideas or principles but for practical subjects, because of its communicative personality, he would publicly confess, although present in sublimated form. For example, Escriva always considered anticlerical probably because his priesthood was not vocational, but convenience, accidental due to scarce financial resources from parents, entered the seminary, he studied civil law and, as you probably already had decided leave the priesthood, was forced to hurriedly ordered to support his family because of the death of his father. So this explains why the priesthood in Opus Dei is not vocation, but for the convenience of the institution and, therefore, in obedience, consequent to a government decision. It is free, but it is an initiative of the man called by God, but of the organization.
Escriva, for the reasons given, was never integrated into the priesthood as ordinarily understood in the Church. And to have other personal projects of life, failed to take them to send him to serve as the first destination in a remote village, so a month and a half of being in Perdiguera, left the parish, and walked more than three years outside the normal church, without office or profit, until the retreat from 30 September to 5 October 1928 in Madrid, he understood that I could find a place for founding an institution peculiar priesthood.
And so, Escriva who had always lived outside the hierarchy of the Church an institution designed to let him live a priesthood without actually depend on that. Therefore, knowing the "quasi-episcopal jurisdiction" which for centuries was the abbess of the Convent of the strikes, he was dazzled and tried to extrapolate this historical surprise to his ideas on the laity and the Church, finding there a theoretical basis for its claims organizational.
That is, it seems more than probable that the true motivation of their peculiar organization of power in the institution is its frequent confrontation with the hierarchy of the Church and priests. Except for the month and a half after his ordination, he never exercised his priesthood as a service to the diocese, bound by obedience to a bishop, but going for free, organizing on their own in the Church. Why diocesan priests referred to those who helped him early in his foundation were "a crown of thorns"? Probably because those due to its ecclesial formation, could not understand or take the approaches of Escriva. Then he had no choice but to design an organization of lay where he could push around at will to lay ignorant of what is the Church. Then, as needed priests to carry out its peculiar pastoral regardless of ecclesial communion, sought ways to direct their own laity, who were already emotionally trained in their ideology. To maintain this entailed a single institution that Opus Dei clergy to adopt a canonical figure, incompatible with what the work was done. But that did not matter, were mere legal requirements necessary to achieve their aims. What mattered was the end.
VIII. Conclusion: absolute conception of the government of the Prelate
In essence, an organization led Escriva, "an army in battle, was fully under their control. And nothing better to control all your personal power, that that power when delegated by a party was in the hands of people poorly formed theologically, about lay incapable of critical sanity, and secondly, that the exercise that power was not personal, but collegial. Thus, no subject sends in fact, and watch them all because all are appointed by the upper level.
Thus, the legal unit of the institution, as proposed by the founder, and the continuing disconnect between reality and canonical, are due to wanting to have everything under one authority. For the founder, the canonical form was merely a cover to act at home and make their claims without confrontation with the church hierarchy, and with greater autonomy, but that does not obey canonical form to the reality of its founding.
It is known that Escrivá asked three times to the Holy See named bishop. Requests that were rejected for various reasons, among others because of his pathological personality. But with the canonical form of prelature could come to emulate that lust for power that has always had.
Escriva always understood its power in a sovereign way. The exercise of power in Opus Dei Prelate by the absolute, and in fact takes place in a non-collegial. Thus, all organizational theories of the founder are resolved in practice that did what he wanted. For matters of ordinary administration follows the procedure: decision of the Council for deliberation. But for special issues or highly committed, they skip all the rules and decides the bishop for advice to whoever wants to, and implementing decisions in the most secret as possible. Obviously these decisions do not go by the boards or are known to them. Moreover, the decision can be taken by the bishop after consultation with people you trust that need not be members of his Council.
In the case, for example, management that takes place on the occasion of the correction that the Holy See has done in the Prelature for his illegal operation regarding the serious lack of respect to the internal forum of conscience, delegations Commissions and ignored those cries for attention from the Vatican. And probably also the General Council. Everything is carried by a small circle of trusted people and bypassing the regular channel. The decisions to provide an image of the entire institution, they are transmitted via established, but without disclosing the true cause and as if mode of living the spirit of the Work, but inconsistent with previous modes of operation.
That is, the government in Opus Dei does not conform to theories of collegiality, secularism, etc., But absolutely by the prelate, who do not feel linked to the right of the Church but to the will of the deceased and "saint" founder. And this is the ultimate truth of Opus Dei: fanaticism promoted by the founder, permitted and encouraged by Bishop del Portillo and seconded by current prelate.
Lucas
www.opuslibros.org
|
