And when he “saw” the women’s section
October 2, 1928, and February 14, 1930, are two key dates in the chronology of Opus Dei: the first, when Saint Josemaría Escrivá “saw” the Work; the second, when he would have understood that it should also open to women. Both, according to his own testimony, were “intellectual visions” received during prayer. But there is a question that, curiously, has no clear answer in the official biographies: who was his spiritual director at that time?
An eloquent silence
According to the oldest data, Escrivá met—and began his direction—with the Jesuit Father Valentín Sánchez Ruiz only in the summer of 1930. In Catalina 73, written on July 26 of that year, Escrivá himself notes: “On Sunday, July 6, I gave these pages to Fr. Sánchez… On Monday, the 21st of the same month, he returned the notes and committed to being our director. Laus Deo”. That is, the relationship began after the foundation of the women’s section, not before.
This leaves a striking gap: who did Escrivá turn to—if he turned to anyone—after the experiences of 1928 and 1930? In hagiographic literature, founders are usually presented under firm spiritual direction. In this case, the narrative completely omits that accompaniment in the period from October 1928 to July 1930, precisely the interval of the two supposed “visions”.
The “priest X”
The author Jaume García Moles, who has studied the matter in depth, proposes a documented hypothesis: during that period, Escrivá would have been directed by another priest, Don Manuel González García, then bishop of Málaga. In his study, he relies on several clues: the letter to Isidoro Zorzano of March 3, 1931—where Escrivá tells him to go to the bishop of Málaga and talk to him “about everything,” because “he is crazier than we are”—as well as the testimony that Escrivá frequently visited the house of Blanca de Navarra, where Don Manuel attended to priests.
The link would not be circumstantial. In 1938, they reunited in Palencia—Don Manuel already a bishop—and the scene appears in Vázquez de Prada’s biography with meticulous detail: place, time, conversation… but without naming the prelate, even though in the onomastic index “González García, Manuel” does appear, a reference that leads to a page where the name has been suppressed.
A reasonable hypothesis
If Escrivá “ran to his confessor” after the Mass on February 14, 1930—as he himself recounted on several occasions—but did not meet Father Sánchez until five months later, who was that confessor then? The chronology does not fit unless it was another priest. And if that other one was Don Manuel, the meaning of the phrase “this is as much from God as the rest” changes: it could be the prudent reserve of a spiritual director who did not want to disauthorize him, but neither confirm supernatural visions that seemed premature to him.
A deliberate erasure
The fact that the reference to Don Manuel was removed from the main text of Vázquez de Prada’s biography, but not from the index, is especially revealing. It does not seem like a simple oversight, but a deliberate suppression, perhaps to avoid the impression that the bishop of Málaga, later canonized, had been Escrivá’s true spiritual companion at the decisive moment. In that case, his eventual reserve or disapproval would have been uncomfortable for the narrative of a “direct divine inspiration”.
Conclusion: the mystery continues
There are no certainties, but there are temporal coincidences and significant silences. Could Don Manuel have been the one who spiritually accompanied Escrivá in the crucial months of 1928-1930? Could his prudence—or his skepticism—be the reason why his name faded from the official history? These are legitimate questions that do not seek to sow suspicions but to clear up an X that the texts themselves have left posed.