1 Critical Introduction to "Instruction on the supernatural spirit of the Work of God", 1934
Michael Chambers
[Full text of the document here: https://opendei.co.uk/document-1-instruction-1-supernatural-spirit ]
This was the very first document of Opus Dei, written in 1934. At the time, Monsignor Escriva had written a lot of the maxims and exhortations that later became “The Way”, (“Camino” in Spanish) his first published book, in 1939. In 1934, he was 32 at the time, 6 years after his apparent vision of Opus Dei, when it is said that Opus Dei was founded.
This document was for the members of Opus Dei at the time. I don’t know at what point its distribution became limited but certainly I did not know of the document in my time as a numerary - between 1995 and 2004. However, most of the content and the tone are extremely familiar to me, even a little triggering, from the talks I received and the general atmosphere in Opus Dei centres. In fact, if you never go near an Opus Dei centre but want to capture the spirit of one, this document is a good first port of call. It really took me back.
I would suggest reading it twice, first for tone and then for content. First of all, focus on the mood and tone as it is quite unlike anything that a modern Catholic would write. Reading this document as an ex-member, who left Opus Dei 22 years ago, I am reminded of the heady atmosphere in Opus Dei at the time and can imagine how even more triumphant it would have been at the time of writing in 1934.
Monsignor Escriva has an essayist, sweeping, narrative style. He keeps the reader engaged and the content moving. I imagine him writing this document quite fast, with his words coming out of his head naturally, not so different from his speech.
Absolutist mentality
1934 was two years before the start of the Spanish civil war. Catholic Spain was as traditionally Catholic as possible at the time. The focus was on defending Catholicism from socialist and anarchist revolutionaries but there was still this hegemonic mentality in which Catholicism was the default belief system in society, the only way to God, and threats to it had to be neutralised efficiently. This is the mentality of the foundation of Opus Dei.
There is none of the tentative, respectful, cautious proposal of ideas that one might find in an English theological thinker like Newman, Hume or Rowan Williams. Every idea written by Escrivá is presented as absolutely clear with no time or space for challenge. The ideas are proposed in dizzyingly quick succession.
What this produces, though, is fundamentalism. Why is Opus Dei from God? Because the founder said so. Why is every aspect of Opus Dei divine and impossible to debate? Because the founder said so. Why is Opus Dei made to last till the end of time? Because the founder said so. Why do members of Opus Dei live perfect filiation or devotion to local bishops, the pope, the Virgin Mary, etc? Because the founder said so. And because it is all from God, there is no pressure to explain in detail to sceptics. In fact, the need to defend the church and evangelise is so urgent that again there is no time to pause.
There is a kind of circular positivism in Escriva’s writing. What the founder asserts as true is true because he asserts it absolutely. And it is very much the mentality of Opus Dei people when challenged to respond with thought-stopping cliché:
“Don’t you think your organisation is a little arrogant?” “No, the founder taught us to live a deep humility….”
“It seems that Opus Dei members seem to look down on other organisations in the church” “No we don’t. Our founder told us to hold them in high regard, as much as our own vocations.”
So, arguments on the nature of Opus Dei on the ground are often impossible to progress because the nature of Opus Dei within the organisation is defined in fixed terms, in absolute language; the language itself is the lens by which the members learn to interpret their actions and insist on to others. Over time, sophistry prevails and members go to great lengths to provide “context” to explain why something obviously problematic is totally OK. The genesis of this mindset within Opus Dei can arguably be traced back to this document.
Early opposition
It is remarkable how this document paints a picture of various Catholic groups in Spain already deeply doubting the point of the organisation that Escrivá was setting up and opposing him. But Escrivá has no time for them. He knows his mind and it’s a question of ploughing ahead without stopping to deal with barking dogs.
Conflating Opus Dei with the church
One of the powerful rhetorical devices he uses is to quote Scripture in Latin, which adds gravitas and forces the reader to invest more intellectually in the reading of the document.
More importantly, Escrivá uses Scripture to refer to Opus Dei, which for me is subtle and deceptive. As we know, Jesus referred only to the kingdom of God or his disciples, and other New Testament writers to the church, or specific churches. Of course, no one in the Bible predicted a future church organisation with a specific name. And so it is something of a heist for Escrivá to apply to Opus Dei the inspired words of Jesus and Paul, etc. words meant for disciples or the community of all believers.
Vocation to Opus Dei
This conflation of Opus Dei with the whole church or the whole people of God is not just flowery rhetoric but also provides the foundation for the problematic notion of “vocation to Opus Dei” that lies at the heart of the commitment of members to the organisation.
Escrivá defines Opus Dei as a divinely-inspired, “immortal” organisation, like the religious orders, but unlike the “circumstantial”, human-inspired organisations of the time like Catholic Action set up in a particular time to meet a temporal need. And so vocations to Opus Dei are equivalent in seriousness and irrevocability to vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
One can also see in this document the seeds of the notion that a vocation to Opus Dei is something that is on a par with one’s calling to be a Christian itself, or a child of God. For me, Escrivá ramps up the already-dramatic notion of a Christian “vocation” for lay people. He makes Opus Dei into a unique path in the Catholic church, as the only organisation whose commitments for lay people are as serious as those for priests and religious.
In this practice, Opus Dei is an absolute outlier in canon law. The rights of the laity in canon law far exceed the mediaeval monk- or nun-like obedience expected of members of Opus Dei and in particular the “full availability” that is imposed on celibate members of Opus Dei. This irregular situation has been allowed to prevail for 45 years and counting.
An already-perfect way
Further, Opus Dei’s self-referential divine origin extends to all aspects of its spirituality, none of which can be renegotiated. This again makes Opus Dei unique among Catholic groups. If the Benedictines find that some aspect of the rule of St Benedict needs to be reconsidered, it can be. But no such luck in Opus Dei. Why? Because the founder said so in this document. How is that Catholic? Not even Jesus was so prescriptive. In fact, he reserved special opprobrium for pharisees who tied up heavy burdens to put on their disciples.
Conclusion
The “Introduction to the supernatural spirit of the work of God” is essential reading for someone who wants to understand the triumphalist, absolutist mentality of Opus Dei members towards their own organisation and the condescension towards the rest of the Catholic church. It is a manifesto for a schismatic re-foundation of the Catholic church, led by Opus Dei. It has imbued its members with a spiritual arrogance that is very hard to shake off, even after many years outside the organisation.