Romana

Andrés Irarrázaval

PhD in History 

Universidad de los Andes (Chile)

1. Introduction

The recent publication of the critical edition of Josemaría Escrivá’s letters has made it possible for readers to delve more deeply into the teachings of this saint on various topics related to the sanctification of daily life.^[1] These documents enable us to complement the information provided by his biographies and the histories of Opus Dei.^[2]

The contribution of these letters is very valuable, since their reflective tone helps us to better understand the cultural and doctrinal principles that inspired St. Josemaría to resolve the various situations he faced during his lifetime. Moreover, the approaching commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of his death in Rome on June 26, 1975 is a clear manifestation that his era is no longer the present one. The social and intellectual environment in which he grew up and lived is quite different from the situation of the 21^st century. Although it may seem obvious, we need to keep this reality in mind in order to place his teaching in a broader context.^[3]

A central concern of St. Josemaría’s teachings was his deep respect for people’s freedom, which led him to defend a wide-ranging pluralism in all areas of human activity. In the case of Catholics, this freedom is exercised within the doctrinal and moral guidelines provided by the Magisterium of the Church. But his teachings in this regard can be blurred by the passage of time and the continuous change of social circumstances, which underlines the need to return to the principles on which he based his positions rather than to evaluate with current criteria the specific decisions he may have taken in the past.

Therefore the present study seeks, without claiming to be exhaustive, to present St. Josemaría Escrivá defense of pluralism and freedom in the political and social spheres. This will involve analyzing its foundations and the circumstances in which it was developed, and assessing the relevance of these teachings in today’s society. The author is grateful for the comments and contributions made to the draft by Cecilia McIntyre, Daniel Mansuy and Juan Eduardo Carreño, professors in the Faculty of Philosophy and Humanities at the Universidad de los Andes.

2. Magisterium, truth and opinion

Before analyzing St. Josemaría’s teachings on freedom in political and social matters, some brief considerations are needed about the meaning of pluralism and other concepts that will be used in this study.

Human beings need to manifest themselves to others through communication, especially verbal and written language: “The human person needs to encounter a ‘you.’ Language has no meaning if it is not for this openness to others.”^[4] This dialogue between persons demands as a counterpart the capacity to listen to others, to be willing to be welcomed by others. Only in this environment will it be possible to form the human personality properly, to know one’s own identity and to value the identity of others. But this reality entails an interaction that is not uniform, since each person is unique and unrepeatable.^[5]

The concept of pluralism is defined by the dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy as the “system by which the plurality of doctrines and positions is accepted or recognized”; and the terms variety, diversity and heterogeneity are given as synonyms for plurality.^[6] Pluralism demands respect for the positions of others, but diversity is not synonymous with goodness, nor should every difference be welcomed only because of its different character.^[7] For the same reason, pluralism cannot be identified with permissiveness. Diversity is not an absolute value and respect for pluralism transcends simple tolerance.^[8] Nor can freedom of opinion define what is good and what is evil. Although each person’s conscience “bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn,”^[9] it is not the highest authority, nor can it ignore the universal truth about the good.^[10]

Therefore, although intrinsic respect is due to the person who expresses other opinions, given the inalienable dignity of every human being, the content of their affirmations can be accepted to a greater or lesser extent. And on the contrary, if at the social or family level authority is paternalistic in trying to guide the proper use of others’ freedom, this can result in an unhealthy authoritarianism, since excessive control leads to an arbitrary undervaluing of people’s capabilities, failing to view them as mature or competent enough to exercise their own responsibility.^[11]

In the doctrinal sphere, Catholics are asked to accept supernatural revelation and the truths about faith and morals derived from it, set out in the Church’s teachings through specific definitions or by the ordinary universal magisterium. Adherence to these doctrinal truths is not an arbitrary imposition, since they stem directly from God’s word and the teachings of Christ, which enlighten reason wounded by original sin.^[12] Catholics, therefore, are asked to accept specific truths of faith that are binding, while a wide range of other matters also exists, whether of a spiritual nature or not, in which a healthy and necessary pluralism holds sway.

Therefore the Catholic faithful accept the teachings of the Church’s magisterium in matters of faith and morals, to which they should adhere in forming their own judgments and expressing their opinions. Although faith always requires inner maturity, the decision to depart from the magisterium would not be a manifestation of pluralism, but of disunity with respect to legitimate ecclesiastical authority and probably a lack of supernatural outlook. This responsibility to care for Catholic doctrine is shared by all the baptized, but it falls especially on those who exercise the power to teach in the Church, who have a special mission to preserve the purity of faith and morals for the rest of the faithful.^[13]

On their part, the laity play a leading role in the development of diverse social and cultural solutions that go beyond the magisterial teachings, given their call to shape the world from within.^[14] Naturally, this challenge requires a solid doctrinal formation, since the Church’s magisterium influences to a greater or lesser degree many aspects of people’s daily lives.

St. Josemaría, whose spiritual message was directed especially to the lay faithful, women and men living in the middle of the world, developed in a number of his writings themes related to social coexistence, pluralism and respect for others. In his vision on these matters, he kept in mind the Church’s magisterium, the light provided by the message he was called to spread, and also his extensive pastoral and personal experience.^[15]

3. Pluralism and responsibility in St. Josemaría’s teachings

In the middle of the last century, St. Josemaría addressed a public that shared the same anthropological vision of the human person and society. This explains why his teachings on pluralism centered on how to approach in a Christian way the discussion of the different positions on temporal or spiritual matters that are open to opinion, and why he advised unity with regard to those points in which a magisterial definition was at stake.

Today this scenario has evolved towards the existence of different anthropological approaches within society. These views touch on the core of what is understood by a human being, person, man and woman, family, etc., and therefore require a broader understanding of pluralism. This reality, and the insights that St. Josemaría’s teachings can provide in this new context, will be dealt with in section 4.

3.1 Responsibility and lay mentality

On May 16, 1966, the French journalist Jacques Guillemé-Brulon asked St. Josemaría: “Hasn’t the fact that some members of the Work are present in the public life of the country in some way politicized Opus Dei in Spain? Doesn’t this compromise the Work and the Church itself?” The Founder’s answer was emphatic: “Neither in Spain nor anywhere else.”^[16] The reason for this question was that at that time four members of Opus Dei were ministers in Francisco Franco’s government; moreover, only a month before a new press and printing law had come into force, and the draft of the new organic law of the Spanish state was being prepared for a plebiscite to be held in November.^[17] St. Josemaría continued in his forceful reply: “I insist that each member of Opus Dei acts with full freedom and personal responsibility, without compromising the Church or the Work, because neither the Church nor the Work is the basis for carrying out their personal activities.”^[18]

To fully understand this statement, we need to keep in mind the lay character of the message that St. Josemaría had been teaching for years, spreading the call to holiness to all men and women, without distinction of age, marital status, race or financial resources. As he wrote in one of his letters, “holiness is not something for the privileged few. Our Lord is calling all of us, and from everyone he expects Love: from everyone, wherever they may be; from everyone, whatever their state, profession or role.”^[19] Within this universal outlook he also strongly stressed each one’s personal responsibility, as we see in points 755 and 519 of The Way: “Many great things depend – don’t forget it – on whether you and I live our lives as God wants.” “In that cry serviam! you express your determination to serve the Church of God most faithfully, even at the cost of fortune, of reputation and of life.”^[20]

St. Josemaría developed these ideas at greater length in the letter Legitima hominum, dated May 31, 1943, and published for the faithful of the Work in February 1967. There he said: “The first thing I wish to point out to you (even though you’ve heard me say this many times) is that our task, my beloved daughters and sons, is a lay, secular work of ordinary citizens (just the same as everybody else, and not just like everybody else), who seek their holiness and do apostolate in and from the professional undertakings they carry out in the middle of the world.”^[21] And a few paragraphs later, he referred more specifically to the repercussions of this teaching in the public sphere. There he expressed his concern regarding the laity “who ostentatiously call themselves Catholics” and who are unable to take on their personal responsibility as citizens. These people “cling to the Church like ivy to a wall, first making it disappear under the foliage, and then destroying it with the roots that seek the sap in the crevices of the noble ashlars.”^[22]

What he expected of Catholics is that in their political activity they act with rectitude of intention and personal responsibility, fully taking on the consequences of their own decisions. And he concludes: “You should serve souls, in a word, in a truly adult way, being ready to give an account of your actions, without attributing your activity to either the Spouse of Jesus Christ or to the Work.”^[23]

These ideas, although they may seem obvious to some, are not such to many people, both ecclesiastics and laity. For the former, it may seem logical, as has happened on so many occasions throughout the history of the Church, that the hierarchy should intervene with suggestions or requests, taking advantage of the Catholic status of a man or woman who holds a public office to which he or she should naturally respond as an expression of unity. An example that affected Monsignor Escrivá was when Rome encouraged the Spanish ecclesiastical authorities to distance themselves from the Franco regime at the end of the 1960s. Giovanni Benelli asked the Founder to give instructions to Opus Dei members holding political office in Spain on the need to promote the formation of a political party similar to Italy’s Christian Democrats. But St. Josemaría refused to do so out of respect for the freedom of his sons in temporal matters open to opinion.^[24]

Lay faithful may find it easier to understand this personal freedom in temporal matters, but it may be more difficult for them to respect the different opinions held by others, Catholic or not. For example, someone could be struck by the fact that another person reaches different conclusions in the way of dealing with specific situations, in matters that are legitimately open to opinion. They are free to criticize the content of the other person’s decision, safeguarding respect for the person. But he or she cannot hide behind the Catholic faith to question the other person’s position.

St. Josemaría also referred to this specific question with great clarity: “Those of you with a vocation for politics should act freely in this area, without giving up the rights you have as citizens. Seek your sanctification there, while serving the Church and your country. Seek the common good of everyone in whatever way you think best, because in temporal matters there are no dogmas.”^[25] And for those who were not working in politics, he stressed the need to faithfully fulfill their duties and demand their rights, a topic he had already touched on in The Way: “This false humility is laziness. Such humbleness is a handy way of giving up rights that are really duties.”^[26] The supernatural tone of his advice is striking; far from any partisan or human bias, he refers explicitly to the search for holiness, to serving God and neighbor out of love, and indirectly to virtues such as humility and fortitude.

3.2 Freedom and civic friendship

St. Josemaría wrote in another of his letters (no. 6, entitled Sincerus est): “We are in favor of working peacefully with everyone, precisely because we esteem, respect and defend the enormous value of the dignity and freedom that God has given to rational creatures, from the very moment of Creation.”^[27] In the same document, a little further on, he continued: “I have always reasoned in this way, and you should do the same and teach others to do so as well: if God has left so many things open to people’s free discussion, why should I see someone who thinks differently from me as an enemy?”^[28]

In the same letter he mentioned several practical manifestations of this attitude, such as avoiding arguments, calmly studying the reasons of others, understanding their positions, fostering friendship with those who think differently, generating a climate of trust, etc. He insisted that “no light comes from violent arguments: passions prevent it.” Therefore “we need to learn to listen to the other person and speak serenely, although this may sometimes require an interior effort to overcome ourselves, with a meritorious mortification.”^[29]

St. Josemaría went on to make a more spiritual point: “living in friendship with God, which is the first friendship we must cultivate and develop, you will learn to make many true friends.” And he offered as a model of friendship “the work which God has done and continues to do for us, to keep us in that friendship,” a work that he wants to replicate in many souls through believers. Hence he said that he saw himself as “a friend of everyone” and that “a true friend cannot have two faces for his friend. Friendship, if it is to be loyal and sincere, demands self-renunciation and truthfulness, unselfishly helping and serving each other in lawful things.”^[30]

St. Josemaría also applied these criteria of a healthy pluralism in the apostolic sphere. Already in the 1930s he expressly pointed out: “You were amazed to hear me approve of the lack of 'uniformity' in that apostolate in which you work. And I told you: Unity and variety. You have to be different from one another, as the saints in heaven are different, each having his own personal and special characteristics. But also as alike one another as the saints, who would not be saints if each of them had not identified himself with Christ.”^[31] He encouraged the members of the Work and cooperators to participate in public and private institutions in which they could serve society with their work, without the need to do so as a group. “Individually, without forming a group (it is impossible for you to form one, since each and every one of you enjoys unlimited freedom in all temporal matters), take an active and effective part in public and private associations, because these are never indifferent to mankind’s temporal and eternal good.”^[32]

St. Josemaría’s teaching was in accord with the Church’s magisterium on these matters, both then and now. His words about responsibility in one’s own actions, respect for different opinions and living together in peace coincide with the content of various documents issued by the Holy See in recent years. For example, the Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes stressed that those who hold different positions in social, political and religious matters should be respected and loved.^[33] And the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches that every human being should value their own freedom passionately and take responsibility for their personal and social decisions.^[34]

Moreover, Pope Francis has linked openness to one’s neighbor with a virtuous life: to seek holiness it is not enough to develop moral virtues as an individual; one’s actions must be oriented towards others.^[35] St. Josemaría also saw the call to live the faith fully in this way, and he encouraged the members of Opus Dei “to serve without any reservations, as responsible Catholic citizens, the Holy Church, the Roman Pontiff and all souls.”^[36] Hence he doesn’t limit the vocational call to a personal search for holiness, but sees it as intimately linked to the good of others.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says in this regard: “Human nature, in fact, reveals itself as a nature of a being who responds to his own needs. This is based on arelational subjectivity, that is, in the manner of a free and responsible being who recognizes the necessity of integrating himself in cooperation with his fellow human beings, and who iscapable of communion with them on the level of knowledge and love.”^[37] St. Josemaría understood the baptismal vocation and the call to holiness of the laity in the same way, also of the members and those close to Opus Dei. He never saw the activities of the Work as a “group defense,” a sort of safe corner in which its members would take care of each other, far removed from the difficulties of the world.^[38] Nothing could be further from his understanding of secularity.^[39]

3.3 Mutual respect and Christian identity

Naturally, these teachings also involve certain ascetical aspects. For Christians, called from baptism to sanctify all their activities and to live charity to the full, respect for the diversity of opinions often requires the exercise of various virtues – in some cases to a heroic degree. One aspect that St. Josemaría developed with special emphasis was what he called “holy intransigence” and “holy tolerance.” In Letter No. 4, entitled Vos autem, dated July 16, 1933 and published on January 21, 1966, after referring to the fact that the attitude of a child of God should be to drown evil in an abundance of good, he said that “you also know my rule for putting this into practice: holy intransigence for error, and holy tolerance for the individuals who are in error.”^[40] By “error” he is referring to opinions contrary to the Church’s magisterium: “the truth is one, my children, and although in human matters it is difficult to know which side is right, in matters of faith it is not so.” The magisterium of the Church should be defended “with your example, with your words, with your writings: with all the noble means at your disposal.”^[41]

St. Josemaría described the virtues that need to accompany holy intransigence in order to prevent it from being deformed or misunderstood: “We don’t seek to destroy anyone. Holy intransigence is not rude or surly intolerance. Nor is it holy if it is not accompanied by holy tolerance. And I would like to add that neither of the two is holy if it does not involve, along with the theological virtues, the exercise of the four cardinal virtues.”^[42] And after dwelling on the importance of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance in this regard, he concludes: “As you can see, my beloved daughters and sons, harmonizing the exercise of holy tolerance and holy intransigence is both easy and difficult. It is easy, because the charity of Christ animates us and his grace assists us. It is difficult, because the bad inclinations of our personal weakness work against us, and we need to take many factors into account to avoid resolving problems erroneously and hastily.”^[43]

St. Josemaría didn’t reduce holy intransigence to the practice of the virtues, but linked it to the deepest reality of Christian life, our divine filiation in Christ. Following the teachings of St. Paul,^[44] he also emphasized the intimate connection between being God’s children and freedom, speaking about “the glorious freedom of the children of God.”^[45] This expression not only makes clear the spiritual element in freedom, but shows that it as an essential part of the human person and a priority for every Christian.^[46]

This correct understanding of personal freedom, which goes beyond freedom of movement or a merely reductive vision of autonomy in decision-making, is particularly important because it associates freedom and identity. The gift of divine filiation configures the Christian and defines the person in his or her most intimate reality. This is not something added on that strengthens one’s personality, but the constitutive basis of each person’s identity and their bond with their neighbor.^[47] This personal identity – our freedom as children of God – is what enables us to relate to other people, respecting their positions and decisions, even if we do not share them. In this sense, clarity about one’s own position should not lead to confrontation; rather it should help us to see why it is important that others respect our opinions and we respect the opinions of others. As Pope Francis said in his encyclical Fratelli tutti: “I cannot truly encounter another unless I stand on firm foundations, for it is on the basis of these that I can accept the gift the other brings and in turn offer an authentic gift of my own.”^[48]

Therefore, a firm awareness of a Christian’s divine filiation leads us to respect our neighbors and their opinions, also in doctrinal matters. As St. Josemaría said, based on his own experience, “I do not feel, nor have I ever felt, opposed to anyone. I reject ideas that go against the faith or the morals of Jesus Christ. But at the same time I have the duty to welcome, with the charity of Christ, all those who hold them.”^[49] Thus Christian identity is not seen as something that could threaten pluralism or reduce it to merely abstaining from judgment, but on the contrary it reinforces pluralism by integrating charity and respect for the freedom of others.

Christian charity is a manifestation of divine filiation. Possible situations of confrontation or criticisms that may be received should not be seen as an excuse to belittle our neighbor or to justify negative or rancorous thoughts. Behind these misunderstandings there often lies a lack of communication, formation and understanding, rather than a real animosity. Therefore the Christian attitude is one of forgiveness and attentive listening. Charity should always lead us to widen our hearts: “Love, then, is more than just a series of benevolent actions. Those actions have their source in a union increasingly directed towards others, considering them of value, worthy, pleasing and beautiful apart from their physical or moral appearances. Our love for others, for who they are, moves us to seek the best for their lives. Only by cultivating this way of relating to one another will we make possible a social friendship that excludes no one and a fraternity that is open to all.”^[50]

4. Pluralism and relativism today

After this brief review of some of St. Josemaría’s teachings, we can better understand his thinking on the topic of pluralism. The lay vocation to holiness implies involvement in the world’s questions, respecting the diversity of opinions in temporal matters and defending one’s own freedom and the freedom of others. This posture requires being more than merely an “observer of life,” as Pope Francis said.^[51] Rather the lay faithful are called to assume, with the light of faith, the richness of diverse positions agreed upon with others in so many topics open to opinion. Naturally, this understanding is not something external to a Christian, a way of acting on certain occasions and even less a strategy to attract adherents: it is an essential part of the universal call to holiness common to every baptized person, part of his or her Catholic identity as a child of God. The foundation of this teaching, therefore, is the secularity that is proper to the lay faithful and the divine filiation to which all Christians are called.

The political and cultural circumstances of the world have evolved in the almost half-century since St. Josemaría’s death. The end of the second millennium was marked by various political and technological events (the end of the so-called Cold War, the strengthening of the European Union and the creation of the euro, the irruption of the internet and the digital world, etc.) that gave us a glimpse of a more globalized and, in a certain sense, united and fraternal future.^[52] But this greater globalization and international communication could also have negative repercussions on society, as St. John Paul II warned at the beginning of the new millennium: “What is happening is that changes in technology and in labor relations are taking place too rapidly for cultures to be able to respond.”^[53]

In general terms, this panorama was shattered in the West after the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 and the new confrontations that resulted. In the following years, various nationalist and populist movements re-emerged in different European and American countries, which in several cases have led to social crises, large-scale migratory movements and growing political tensions. In several countries, society has evolved from a relative cultural homogeneity to a coexistence (not without tensions) of different anthropological visions and defenses of personal identity. To this already complex scenario was added the pandemic of the year 2020, which had repercussions for a large part of the planet, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and recently the conflict in the Holy Land. The Church has not ceased to be present in these difficulties, especially through Pope Francis, who in numerous interventions has asked us to direct our efforts towards caring for the most needy, the first to be affected by these international or internal tensions in each country. ^[54]

Social disintegration has deepened along with certain ideologies that have challenged the foundations of contemporary culture. This is not just a reactionary movement, but a questioning of the very foundations that allowed the construction of national states during the 19th century and of representative democracy within the framework of the liberal model.^[55] As Patrick Deneen has suggested, liberalism, “that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty” has failed in its intention. In fact, its implementation “in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”^[56] Indeed, despite the scientific and technological development achieved, the progress of representative democracy in many countries has not resulted in greater cohesion among citizens.

Freedom of opinion and pluralism alone do not ensure mutual respect in society. Manfred Svensson warns of a hasty harmonization when we identify a democratic community with a pluralist community. And he concludes that “the task of politics is not, therefore, a simple affirmation of diversity, but its coordination and articulation with other goods.”^[57] Among these goods is the proper valuing of those aspects that mark the community’s own identity, which cannot be separated from its origins and history.^[58] A person or society that does not know how to recover all the positive aspects of its own past and present remains vulnerable to ideological movements and passing fashions, losing or at least weakening its own capacity for freedom.^[59]

This relativism, which at first sight might seem anodyne, has ended up dominating a good part of Western thought and has implanted the demand not to defend one’s own positions, ultimately not even to have an identity or at least to hide it in the private realm out of a misunderstood respect for the freedom of others.^[60] Cardinal Ratzinger, in his last homily before being elected Supreme Pontiff, strongly denounced the consequences of this new doctrine: “A dictatorship of relativism is being established which does not recognize anything as definitive and which leaves as its ultimate measure only the self and its whims.”^[61] And this lack of convictions has had a negative influence on society: “The modern loss of beliefs, which affects not only God or the hereafter, but also reality itself, leads to human life becoming something totally ephemeral.”^[62]

Therefore, although one might argue that the prevailing relativism should facilitate human dialogue by defending different cultural identities and avoiding sharp positions, and therefore occasions for confrontation, the reality has been the opposite. In a world that some intellectuals have described as “liquid,”^[63] the sense of belonging to a community is diluted for the sake of individualism, affecting the defense of one’s own perceptions and intellectual positions. Therefore “pluralism requires not only distinguishing types of diversity, but also coordinating plurality with other goods of common life. A pluralistic society must not only be pluralistic, but also, and above all, a society.”^[64]

In today’s fragile and fractured world, teachings that reinforce mutual understanding in society are of great value. Although the ideas expressed by St. Josemaría need to be pondered without ignoring the passage of time and the change of circumstances, they can shed important light on the present, since he also lived through a time of change and questioning. The common vocation of the lay faithful and divine filiation as the foundation of their identity entail respect for others and their diversity, without renouncing one’s own ideas and beliefs. The promotion of dialogue, friendship, mutual knowledge and service are the basis of a healthy pluralism, so necessary today. This mutual and free communication contains a force that has a positive impact on society.

5. Final considerations

St. Josemaría’s teachings on social pluralism remain valid in the light of present-day reality. We can go deeper into them in order to find specific applications in our world today, renew ways of understanding and dialogue, and foster the hope that a greater mutual understanding is possible. All Christians (with the light that faith and charity bring) can play an important and creative role in the communities where they live and participate.

The fact that the cultural environment in which St. Josemaría spread his teaching on pluralism and freedom was shaped by a more united anthropological framework does not detract from its interest. On the contrary, these same ideas illuminate our present time and highlight the importance of strengthening our own Christian identity (in its foundations, especially divine filiation, and in its practical aspects, such as the exercise of the virtues that facilitate healthy social coexistence) in order to foster dialogue and civic friendship.

In line with St. Josemaría, in recent years Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz has reminded us of the importance of respecting the different positions of others. Already in his first extensive letter as Prelate of Opus Dei he referred to this point: “We should not enclose ourselves in a merely defensive attitude, but should take on board the positive aspects of different views, dialogue with other people, learn from everyone, and respect their freedom assiduously, especially in matters open to various opinions.”^[65] And in a later letter dedicated to friendship, he pointed out that “certain ways of expressing oneself can disturb or hinder the creation of an environment of friendship. For example, being overly emphatic in expressing one’s own opinion, or giving the impression that we think our own viewpoints are the definitive ones, or not taking an active interest in what the others say, are ways of acting that enclose a person in himself. At times, these types of behavior show an inability to distinguish what is a matter of opinion from what is not, or the failure to give a relative value to topics that don’t necessarily have only one solution.”^[66]

Hence the teachings of St. Josemaría on the topic of pluralism are still very relevant today and are a spur to look towards the future with optimism. And therefore we need to continue studying in more depth what he has said on this topic, and the specific consequences that can be drawn out. Aspects such as the relationship between Christian identity and freedom, secularity and the leading role of the laity in the building up of society, respect for others in a cultural environment without a unified anthropological vision, understanding of the different problems that each generation faces, the human and supernatural virtues that underlie social coexistence, and so many other topics can and should be developed in greater depth.

^[1] At the time of writing this article, critical editions of nine of St. Josemaría’s letters have been published, those numbered 1 to 8 in two volumes and number 29 in a scholarly article. Cf. Josemaría Escrivá, Cartas, volumes I and II (Madrid: Rialp, critical edition by Luis Cano, 2020 and 2022), and Luis Cano, “La Carta n° 29 de san Josemaría Escrivá sobre la obra de San Gabriel,” in Studia et Documenta 17 (2023): 279-351. The first two volumes of letters have also been published in English: The Collected Letters, volumes I and II, Scepter UK, 2021.

^[2] Cf. for example Andrés Vázquez de Prada, El fundador del Opus Dei, volumes I-III (Madrid: Rialp, 1997, 2002 and 2003 respectively), and José Luis González Gullón- John F. Coverdale, Historia del Opus Dei (Madrid, Rialp, 2021).

^[3] Among the various historiographical trends of recent decades, the relations between the present and the past have been discussed, and the very ability to know the past with a certain objectivity has been questioned with respect to the assessment that the historian can make given the conditioning factors of his own time. For more information on this, see Jaume Aurell, La escritura de la memoria. De los positivismos a los postmodernismos (Valencia, Universitat de València, 2005), pp. 113-147.

^[4] Ricardo Yepes. - Javier Aranguren, Fundamentos de Antropología (Pamplona, EUNSA, 4th edition, 1999), 68.

^[5] Pope John Paul II dealt in detail with the value of each human person in the encyclical Evangelium vitae, March 25, 1995, nos. 1-28. Pope Francis, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the publication of this encyclical, noted: “Dear brothers and sisters, every human life, unique and unrepeatable, has value in and of itself; it is of inestimable value. This must always be proclaimed anew with the courage of the Word and the courage of actions. It calls us to solidarity and fraternal love for the great human family and for each of its members.” Pope Francis, General Audience, March 25, 2020.

^[6] Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la lengua española (Madrid, 23rd ed. [version 23.7 online], 2014). Accessible at https://dle.rae.es (Accessed 23-03-2024).

^[7] This topic has recently been addressed in Manfred Svensson, Pluralismo. Una alternativa a las políticas de identidad (Santiago de Chile, IES, 2022). The author warns about the complexity of identity pluralism, especially on pp. 15-36 and 75-130.

^[8] “There is indeed a very close link between tolerance and pluralism, but here again we should not start by assuming a complete identification. They are not identified by the simple fact that tolerance is a specific type of response to a specific type of difference. It is not because of plurality, because of a vague existence of what is different, that we need tolerance, but because there are differences that awaken in us objections.” Svensson, Pluralismo. Una alternativa..., pp. 157-158.

^[9]Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1777.

^[10] “Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as toexalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist . . . Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, no. 32.

^[11] For an overview of this topic, see Yepes - Aranguren,Fundamentos de Antropología..., 132-136.

^[12] “This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also ‘about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.’” Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 38. See also nos. 2032 to 2051 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

^[13] “Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 890.

^[14] “The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 899.

^[15] For example, as is well known, Monsignor Escrivá experienced firsthand the consequences of ideologies opposed to religious freedom during the Spanish Civil War. Cf. González Gullón,Escondidos. El Opus Dei en la zona republicana durante la guerra civil española (1936-1939) (Madrid: Rialp, 2018), pp. 23-77; 113-133; 157-193; 289-367.

^[16] José Luis Illanes (dir.), Conversaciones con monseñor Escrivá de Balaguer, edición crítico-histórica (Madrid: Rialp, 2012), p. 248. The historical relationship between the State and the Church in Spain has its own characteristics that differentiate it from other European nations such as France, England and Germany, and even more so from countries on other continents. St. Josemaría’s addition “nor anywhere else” is not based on ignoring these differences, but on the universal character of the spirit of Opus Dei, applicable to different social and cultural circumstances.

^[17] For more information on this situation and its relationship with Opus Dei, see Gullón - Coverdale, Historia del Opus Dei..., pp. 375-387. The four ministers were Gregorio López Bravo (1962-1973), Laureano López-Rodo (1965-1974), Juan José Espinosa (1965-1969) and Faustino García Moncó (1965-1969).

^[18] Illanes, Conversaciones con..., pp. 248-249.

^[19] St. Josemaría, Letter 2, quoted in Vázquez de Prada, El fundador del..., vol. 1, p. 300. The full text of this letter can be found in Escrivá, Cartas, vol. 1..., pp. 55-74.

^[20] Josemaría Escrivá, Camino (Santiago: Ediciones Proa, identical to the first edition of 1939, 1989), pp. 227 and 155.

^[21] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., p. 201. The text corresponds to point 18b of Letter no. 8. The italics are from the original.

^[22] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., p. 205. The text corresponds to point 26b of Letter no. 8.

^[23] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., p. 212. The text corresponds to point 38c of Letter no. 8.

^[24] Cf. González Gullón - Coverdale, Historia del Opus Dei..., pp. 356.

^[25] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. I..., p. 193. The text corresponds to point 43c of Letter No. 3, dated January 9, 1932, and first published on January 21, 1966. Naturally, this statement does not imply ignoring the implications of faith in various aspects of the ordinary life of the faithful.

^[26] Escrivá, Camino, p. 180, point 603.

^[27] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., p. 103. The text corresponds to point 66a of Letter no. 6. The letter was dated 1940 and published in 1963, and dealt with the characteristic features of the call to Opus Dei.

^[28] And he concludes: “If we don’t have the same ideas, and he convinces me, I will accept his opinion; if I convince him, he will think like me; if neither of us convinces the other, we can still respect each other, love each other, and live together in peace.” Both texts in Escrivá,Cartas, vol. II..., p. 105. They correspond to points 68b and 68c of Letter no. 6.

^[29] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., p. 105. The two quotations correspond to point 69a of Letter No. 6. In point 69b he stressed: “You can be sure that sometimes we think we are completely right, and we are only partly or relatively right. An object that is concave to some is convex to others: it just depends on their standpoint. It is right, therefore, to study other people’s reasoning calmly and cooly, and to think about the mindset of the person who is contradicting us.”

^[30] Escrivá, Cartas, vol. II..., pp. 105-106. The quotations correspond to points 70a, 70c and 71a of Letter No. 6. For a broader view of friendship in St. Josemaría, cf. Lourdes Flamarique, “Amistad,” in José Luis Illanes (coord.), Diccionario de san Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer (Burgos: Editorial Monte Carmelo, 2013), pp. 99-105.

^[31] Escrivá, Camino, pp. 285-286, point 947.

^[32] Cano, “La Carta n° 29...: 308.

^[33] “It is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions. God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts. For that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.” Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 28.

^[34] “Man rightly appreciates freedom and strives for it passionately: rightly does he desire and must form and guide, by his own free initiative, his personal and social life, accepting personal responsibility for it.” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 135.

^[35] “People can develop certain habits that might appear as moral values: fortitude, sobriety, hard work and similar virtues. Yet if the acts of the various moral virtues are to be rightly directed, one needs to take into account the extent to which they foster openness and union with others.” Pope Francis, Encyclical Fratelli tutti, October 3, 2020, no. 91.

^[36] Cano, “La Carta n° 29...: 297.

^[37]Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 149.

^[38] In the same letter no. 29 he wrote: “Just as among the first followers of Christ, in our supernumeraries the whole of today’s society is present, and will always be present: intellectuals and businessmen; professionals and artisans; entrepreneurs and workers; people from diplomacy, commerce, the countryside, finance and literature; journalists, people from the theater, cinema and circus, from the world of sports. Young and old. Healthy and sick. A disorganized organization, like life itself, marvelous; it is a true and authentic specialization of the apostolate, because all human vocations – upright and worthy – become apostolic and divine.” Cano, “Letter No. 29...”: 298. The text corresponds to point 11b.

^[39] In point 10e of Letter No. 4, he said out in this regard: “Taking the proper precautions, we should not reject anyone, because we have enough spiritual, ascetical and intellectual resources not to let ourselves be harmed. We, children of God in the Work, should not allow ourselves to be influenced by our surroundings. It is we who should influence those around us by creating our own environment, the environment of Jesus our Lord, who lived among sinners and was friends with them.” Escrivá,Cartas, vol. I..., p. 267.

^[40] Escrivá,Cartas, vol. I..., p. 263. The quotation corresponds to point 6d. Between points 6a and 12g.

^[41] And he continues: “At the same time, inspired by love for everyone’s freedom, you will respect the view of others in matters of opinion or schools of thought. In such matters, as in all other temporal affairs, the Work will never have any collective opinion unless the Church, as part of her teaching role, has defined one for all the faithful.” Escrivá, Cartas, vol. I..., p. 264. The quotation corresponds to point 8d.

^[42] Escrivá,Cartas, vol. I..., p. 264. The quotation corresponds to point 8g.

^[43] Escrivá,Cartas, vol. I..., p. 266. The quotation corresponds to point 10a.

^[44] “For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom 8:20-21.

^[45] “Don’t you see? Freedom finds its true meaning when it is put to the service of the truth which redeems, when it is spent in seeking God’s infinite Love which liberates us from all forms of slavery. Each passing day increases my yearning to proclaim to the four winds this inexhaustible treasure that belongs to Christians:the glorious freedom of the children of God!” St. Josemaría Escrivá, “Freedom, a Gift of God,” in Friends of God, no. 27.

^[46] For a more detailed analysis of freedom in St. Josemaría, see Cornelio Fabro, “El primado existencial de la libertad,” in Scripta Theologica 13 (1981/2-3), pp. 323-337: Scripta Theologica 13 (1981/2-3), pp. 323-337, and Ernst Burkhart - Javier López, Vida cotidiana y santidad en San Josemaría. Estudio de teología espiritual, vol II (Madrid, Rialp, 2011), 161-283.

^[47] This does not mean that this identification is fully achieved at baptism, but rather that it is a path to be traveled by welcoming God’s grace and striving to develop it in one’s own life. “The one who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1709.

^[48] Pope Francis, encyclical Fratelli tutti, October 3, 2020, no. 143.

^[49] St. Josemaría Escrivá, Letter no. 4. Sobre la caridad en la transmisión de la fe, no. 24.

^[50] Pope Francis, encyclical Fratelli tutti, October 3, 2020, no. 93.

^[51] Pope Francis used this expression at the beginning of his pontificate, on the occasion of World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in 2013: “I ask you to be builders of the world, to work for a better world. Dear young people, please, don’t be observers of life, but get involved. Jesus did not remain an observer, but he immersed himself. Don’t be observers, but immerse yourself in the reality of life, as Jesus did.” Cf. Pope Francis, Prayer vigil with young people, Rio de Janeiro, July 27, 2013.

^[52] This is a generalized statement, since there were certainly several major conflicts at the time that could have called into question this hope, such as the wars in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Congo, Afghanistan, etc.

^[53] John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 27 April 2001, no. 3. The quote goes on to develop this point: “Social, legal and cultural guarantees, which are the result of efforts to defend the common good, are very necessary for individuals and intermediate groups to maintain their centrality. However, globalization often runs the risk of destroying carefully constructed structures, requiring the adoption of new styles of work, life and community organization.”

^[54] Of particular note in this area are the encyclicals Laudato Si’ of May 24, 2015, and Fratelli tutti of October 3, 2020.

^[55] The relationship between the construction of the nation-state and the generation of a civilized cultural uniformity has been addressed by different authors, for example, Bernard Marquardt, Historia Universal del Estado, volume 3, El Estado de la doble revolución ilustrada e industrial (1776-2008) (Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia - La Carreta, 2009), 23-112.

^[56] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2018), p. 3. Deneen has a particular view on liberalism, since he argues that the broad development achieved by this current of thought has meant its own attrition and end. Although his thesis has debatable aspects, it seems clear that during these years some liberal assumptions and their consequences in society have been questioned.

^[57] Svensson, Pluralismo. Una Alternativa..., p. 132.

^[58] This premise has been developed by Pope Francis: “Getting used to rereading one’s own life educates our outlook; it sharpens it, and enables us to note the small miracles that God works for us every day. When we realize this, we notice other possible directions that strengthen our inner taste, peace and creativity. Above all, it makes us freer from toxic stereotypes. Wisely, it has been said that the man who does not know his own past is condemned to repeat it.” Pope Francis, General Audience The elements of discernment. The book of one’s life, October 19, 2022.

^[59] Therefore, it is important to reflect on the foundations of our identity, reinforce them internally and strengthen our personal freedom; this prevents us from having a superficial reaction to unexpected situations or seeing a contrast between our identity and our freedom where there is none.

^[60] For more general information on the subject, cf. R.L. Arrington, Rationalism, Realism, and Relativism, Cornell (London, University Press, 1989); and Rémi Brague, El reino del hombre: génesis y fracaso del proyecto moderno, (Madrid, Ediciones Encuentro, 2016). Relativism has come to impact theology itself, and its fruit has been a “pluralistic theology”; for a critical examination of this position, see José Morales, El valor distinto de las religiones, (Madrid, Rialp, 2003).

^[61] Joseph Ratzinger, Homily at the Mass Pro eligendo Pontifice, April 18, 2005.

^[62] The quote continues: “It has never been as ephemeral as it is now. But not only is it ephemeral, so is the world as such. Nothing is constant and lasting. In the face of this lack of Being, nervousness and restlessness arise.” See Byung-Chul Han, La sociedad del cansancio (Madrid, Herder, 2016), 46.

^[63] Cf. for example, Zygmunt Bauman, Modernidad líquida (Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2003).

^[64] Svensson, Pluralismo. Una alternativa..., p. 131.

^[65] Fernando Ocáriz, Letter, February 14, 2017, no. 17.

^[66] Fernando Ocáriz, Letter, November 1, 2019, no. 9.