List of points

The mission of the laity is carried out, according to the Council, in the Church and in the world. Often this is misunderstood because people concentrate on one aspect or the other. How would you explain the laity's task in the Church and in the world?

I think by no means they should be considered as being two different tasks. The layman's specific role in the mission of the Church is precisely that of sanctifying secular reality, the temporal order, the world, ab intra, in an immediate and direct way.

In addition to his secular task, a layman (like a cleric or a religious) has certain fundamental rights, duties and powers within ecclesiastical society related to his juridical status as a member of the faithful: active participation in the liturgy, the possibility of cooperating directly in the hierarchy's apostolate, and of offering advice to the hierarchy in its pastoral task. if invited to do so, etc.

The specific task which belongs to the layman as layman, and his generic or common one as a member of the faithful are not opposed but rather superimposed. They are not contradictory but complementary. To concentrate solely on the specific secular mission of the layman and to forget his membership of the Church would be as absurd as to imagine a green branch in full bloom which did not belong to any tree. But to forget what is specific and proper to the layman, or to misunderstand the characteristics of his apostolic tasks and their value to the Church, would be to reduce the flourishing tree of the Church to the monstrous condition of a barren trunk.

In that case, how does Opus Dei fit into the pastoral activity of the whole Church and into ecumenism?

I feel that I should first makes something clear. Opus Dei is not, nor can it in any way be considered a reality tied to the evolutionary process of the ' state of perfection' in the Church. It is not a modern or 'up-to-date' form of that state. In fact neither the theological concept of the status perfectionis, which St Thomas, Suarez and other authors have decisively formulated in doctrine, nor the various juridical forms which have been given or may be given to this theological concept, have anything to do with the spirituality or the apostolic goal which God has wanted for our Association. I simply point out, because a complete doctrinal exposition would take a long time, that Opus Dei is not interested in vows, or promises, or any form of consecration for its members, apart from the consecration which all have already received through Baptism. Our Association in no way wants its members to change their state in life, or to stop being ordinary faithful exactly the same as anyone else, in order to acquire a status perfectionis. On the contrary, what it wants and seeks to achieve is that each should do apostolate and should sanctify himself within his own state, in the place and condition which he has in the Church and in society. We take no one out of his place, nor do we separate anyone from his work nor from his aims and noble commitments in the world.

Hence, the social reality, the spirituality and the action of Opus Dei fit into a quite different vein in the life of the Church. They are in the theological and vital process which is bringing the laity to assume its responsibilities in the Church fully, and to participate in its own way in the mission of Christ and his Church. This has always been, during the nearly forty years of the Work's existence, the constant, calm but forceful concern through which God has desired to channel, in my soul and in the souls of my sons, the desire of serving him.

What contribution has Opus Dei made to this process? This is perhaps not the most suitable historical moment to attempt a general evaluation of this type. These questions were treated extensively, and with what joy to my soul, in the Second Vatican Council, and quite a few of the concepts and situations which refer to the life and mission of the laity have been sufficiently confirmed and illuminated by the Magisterium. Nevertheless there remains a considerable number of questions which, for the vast majority, are still real 'frontier problems' of theology. Most of these debated problems seem to us to be already divinely resolved, in the spirit which God has given to Opus Dei and which we endeavour to live faithfully, despite our personal imperfections. But we do not pretend to present these solutions as the only possible ones.

At the same time there are other aspects of this process of ecclesiological development which represent quite significant doctrinal enrichment. God undoubtedly has desired that Opus Dei, along with other no less worthy apostolic ventures and associations, should contribute in no small part to them, with its spirit and its life. However these are doctrinal enrichments which may be long in becoming incorporated into the life of the whole People of God. You yourself have touched upon some of these aspects in your earlier questions: the development of an authentic lay spirituality; the understanding of the layman's proper and specific role in the Church, a role which is neither ecclesiastical nor official; the clarification of the rights and duties which the layman has by virtue of being a layman; the relations between hierarchy and laity; the equality and dignity of the complementary, not contrary, tasks which men and women have in the Church; the need to achieve an orderly public opinion in the People of God, and so forth.

All this obviously constitutes a very mobile reality, which is often paradoxical. Something which when said forty years ago scandalised most if not all who heard it, now sounds strange to hardly anyone. But on the other hand there are still very few who understand it fully and who live it properly.

I can explain this better with an example. In 1932, commenting for my sons and daughters in Opus Dei on some of the aspects and consequences of the special dignity and responsibility which Baptism confers upon people, I wrote for them in a document, 'The prejudice that ordinary members of the faithful must limit themselves to helping the clergy in ecclesiastical apostolates has to be rejected. There is no reason why the secular apostolate should always be a mere participation in the apostolate of the hierarchy. Secular people too have a duty to do apostolate. Not because they receive a canonical mission, but because they are part of the Church. Their mission… is fulfilled in their profession, their job, their family, and among their colleagues and friends'.

Today, after the solemn teachings of Vatican II, it is unlikely that anyone in the Church would question the orthodoxy of this teaching. But how many people have really abandoned the narrow conception of the apostolate of the laity as a pastoral work organised 'from the top down'? How many people have got beyond the previous 'monolithic' conception of the lay apostolate, and understand that it can and indeed should exist without the necessity of rigid centralised structures, canonical missions and hierarchical mandates ? How many people who consider the laity as the longa manus Ecclesiae, do not at the same time confuse in their minds the concept of Church-People of God with the more limited concept of hierarchy? How many laymen understand that unless they act in tactful communion with the hierarchy they have no right to claim their legitimate sphere of apostolic autonomy?

Similar lines of thought could be formulated with regard to other problems because there is in fact a great deal which remains to be done, as much in the way of doctrinal exposition, as by education of consciences and reform of ecclesiastical legislation. I often ask our Lord — prayer has always been my great weapon — that the Holy Spirit will help His People, and especially the hierarchy, in accomplishing these tasks. And I also ask him to continue using Opus Dei so that we may be able to contribute and help, in whatever way we can, in this difficult but wonderful process of development and growth in the Church.