Welcome to the site!
1) is your vehicle still under warranty? If so, then I'd tend to stick to OEM approved applications. You'd not be covered by using an unapproved "alternate" filter. I'm not saying it won't work; it might even work well. But Chrysler would not be obligated to warrant any issue, and for that matter, neither would the filter company because they all have the typical legal mumbo-jumbo about "use only as directed" and "meeting OEM specs", etc. If you venture off the reservation while under warranty, you're on your own.
2) if you're NOT under warranty, then you're probably fine, as long as there are no physical barriers that would be of concern (hitting the filter against something when under engine torque, hitting the filter when it hangs too low, etc.
3) why do you care?
I suspect you're more concered about the size of the filter than it would ever matter in the slightest. This topic gets played over-and-over-and-over so much on BITOG that it's nausiating. There is a difference between wants and needs. You might "want" a bigger filter, and if that is simply an emotional attachment for you, then you might just have to scratch that itch, so to speak. But I really doubt you "need" a bigger filter.
Yes, at first, bigger makes sense. There are, by now, literally hundreds upon hundreds of threads here about how a larger filter slows the fluid flow, and that results in a "better" capture rate, etc. Frankly - I don't care about that.
I care about results. For all the banter we see about how "better" filtration comes from a "bigger" fitler, it never manifests into tangible results in wear data in real world applications. I always challenge folks to show me real proof, with good hard data, where a bigger filter clearly shows a statsitically significant shift in wear reduction, and it never happens. It's all hype and no substance. What can be shown in the lab, and what truly manifests into reality in your driveway are two separate things.
While filtration is very important, it's ONLY important up to the point that it provides a level of filtration that is "good enough" for the other contributors to have large effects; OCI duration and add-pack chemistry resulting in tribochemical boundary layers are what really matter to wear. Once that minimum threshold of particulate reduction is reached, then anything past that has a very large drop in ROI; the concept of the law of diminishing returns, as it were.
One also has to consider the OCI and FCI (oil change interval and filter change interval) into this as well. My 2000 Galant 2.4L I-4 takes the tiny little 51356 Wix filter, and yet Mitisubishi actually recommends FCIs every other OCI, and the OCI is 7.5k miles for normal use. That makes the FCI every 15k miles! So, what's your FCI interval on your van? I seriously doubt that you're overloading your filter media to a point where you're always running in bypass. And if that's not the case, then you're fine. Typically, OEM OCI/FCI intervals are predicated on a "fail safe" mentality; they are typically done more frequently than necessary as a matter of precaution. Your oil and filter can often last way longer than the OEM limit. So your tiny filter really is not nearly as stressed as you might think.
Buy don't take my word for it. Rather, take this challenge; why not run a series of mico-analysis UOAs? Run 30 UOA samples with the normal filter, and then 30 UOAs with the larger filter. That is what it would take to get real, conclusive proof (and not the typical BITOG manure banter). At 5k miles per UOA, it would take you 300k miles to find your "proof" if it really matters or not. In addition, it would be a good idea to do a complete teardown analysis for mearurements at the 150k and 300k mile points; that way you can correlate the wear data to the physical attributes of the bearings, journals, etc.
And now you understand why folks shy away from this topic when real data is the issue, and not theory ... People will chime in when it comes to "thinking" about it, but no one (to my knowledge) has ever done a real micro-analysis test regime with good DOE criteria.
As for macro-data, all you have to do is compare/contrast your data to the known UAs (universal averages). And that is where I hang my hat; I'm a statistical process quality control engineer in my day-job. And I can tell you with certainty, after seeing literally many thousands of UOAs, that filter selection really does not matter, as long as you follow a reasonable OEM recommendation, and that minimum level of particulate reduction is maintained.
So to directly answer your question, is it "safe" to use the filter? Probably so, depending upon your threshold of warranty risk.
Is it going to achieve what you hope? Possibly - if your goal is to sleep better at night.
But it's not going to make one iota of difference to your engine.
.