List of points

Mgr Escrivá, we would like to hear your opinion on the essential purpose of a university. In what sense do you feel that the teaching of religion is a part of university studies?

As university students you undoubtedly realise that a university must play a primary role in contributing to human progress. Since the problems facing mankind are multiple and complex (spiritual, cultural, social, financial etc.) university education must cover all these aspects.

A desire to work for the common good is not enough. The way to make this desire effective is to form competent men and women who can transmit to others the maturity which they themselves have achieved.

Religion is the greatest rebellion of men who do not want to live as beasts, who are not satisfied and will not rest until they reach and come to know their Creator. Thus, the study of religion is a fundamental need. A man who lacks religious formation is a man whose education is incomplete. That is why religion should be present in the universities, where it should be taught at the high, scholarly level of good theology. A university from which religion is absent is an incomplete university, it neglects a fundamental facet of human personality, which does not exclude but rather presupposes the other facets.

On the other hand, no one may violate the freedom of students' consciences. Religion has to be studied voluntarily, even though Christians know that, if they want to live their Faith well, they have a grave obligation to receive a sound religious training. A Christian needs doctrine so as to be able to live by it and to give witness of Christ with example and word.

Don't you think that after Vatican II the concepts of 'Church schools', 'catholic schools', 'Church universities' etc. have become outdated? Don't you think that such titles involve the Church unduly and sound like privileges?

No, I don't think so, if by Church schools, Catholic schools, etc. we understand the results of the rights which the Church and the religious orders and congregations have to create centres of education. To set up a school or a university is not a privilege but a burden, that is, if you try to make it a centre for everyone and not only for people with means.

The Council did not intend to declare that confessional centres of teaching were outdated. It simply wanted to make clear that there is another way (which is also more necessary and universal, and which has been lived for many years by the members of Opus Dei), for Christians to be present in the field of education: the free initiative of Catholic citizens who are teachers by profession and who work both in State schools and private centres. This is one more sign of the Church's awareness, at the present time, of the fruitfulness of the apostolate of the laity.

On the other hand, I must confess that I do not like the expressions 'Catholic schools', 'Church schools', etc. even though I respect those who think differently. I prefer to see things distinguished by their results and not by their names. A school is truly Christian when it strives for excellence, and gives a complete education — which includes Christian ideals — at the same time respecting personal freedom and earnestly furthering social justice. If this is accomplished, then the name is of little importance. Personally, I repeat, I prefer to avoid those adjectives.

As the Founder of Opus Dei and the force behind a wide range of university-level educational centres all over the world, could you tell us both why Opus Dei has started these centres and what are the principal features of its contribution to this level of teaching?

The aim of Opus Dei is that many people all over the world may come to know both in theory and in practice that it is possible to sanctify their ordinary tasks, their daily work; that it is possible to seek Christian perfection in the middle of the world without having to give up the work in which our Lord decided to call us. Thus, the most important apostolate of Opus Dei is that which each member carries out individually, through his professional work done with the greatest human perfection possible — despite my personal shortcomings and those which each individual may have — in all environments and in all countries: for among the members of Opus Dei there are people of some seventy countries of all races and social conditions.

Besides, Opus Dei as a corporation, with the help of very many people who do not belong to the Work and who often are not Christian, fosters corporate activities through which it seeks to contribute towards solving the many problems which face the world today: educational institutions, welfare centres, schools for professional development and advancement. etc.

The university-level institutions of which you speak are another aspect of this task. Their principal features can be enumerated as follows: to train people in personal freedom and in personal responsibility. With freedom and responsibility, people work enthusiastically and wholeheartedly, and there is no need for controls or supervision. Everyone feels at home and therefore all you need is a simple schedule. Another characteristic is the spirit of living together in harmony without discrimination of any kind. Here, in this living together, personality takes shape. Each individual learns that, in order to be able to demand respect for his own freedom, he must respect the freedom of others.

Finally, there is the spirit of human brotherhood. Each person's individual talents have to be placed at the service of others: if not, they are of little use. The corporate works which Opus Dei conducts throughout the world are always at the service of everyone, because they are a Christian service.

You have just spoken about family unity as a great value. In the light of this fact, how is it that Opus Dei does not organise activities of spiritual formation for husbands and wives together?

In this, as in so many other aspects of life, Christians can choose different solutions in accordance with their own preferences or opinions, and no one may impose an exclusive system upon them. We would flee like the plague from that approach to pastoral work and the apostolate in general which seems to be no more than a revised and enlarged edition, in religious life, of the one party system. I know that there are Catholic groups that organise retreats and other formative activities for married couples. I have no objection whatever to their doing what they think is best nor to people taking part in their activities if they find that they help them live their Christian vocation better. But I do not consider this to be the only way of doing things and it is by no means self evident that it is the best.

There are many facets of Christian life in which married couples, and in fact, the whole family can, and at times should, take part in together, such as the Eucharistic Sacrifice and other acts of worship. I think, nevertheless, that certain activities of spiritual formation are more effective if they are attended separately by husband and wife. For one thing, it highlights the fundamentally personal character of one's own sanctification, of the ascetic struggle, of union with God. These certainly affect others, but the role of the individual conscience in them is vital and cannot be substituted. Furthermore, it makes it easier to suit the formation given to the particular needs, circumstances and psychology of each person. This does not mean to say that in these activities the fact that the participants are married is disregarded, nothing could be further removed from the spirit of Opus Dei.

For forty years I have been preaching and writing that each person has to sanctify himself in ordinary life, in the concrete situations of every day. Married people, therefore, have to sanctify themselves by living their family obligations perfectly. One of the aims of the retreats and other means of formation organised by Opus Dei for married men or women is to make them more fully aware of the dignity of their vocation to marriage and help them prepare themselves, with the grace of God, to live it better.

In many aspects the demands which married love makes on men and on women are different and their love shows itself in different ways. With specific means of formation they can be helped effectively to discover these details of love in their daily lives. In this way, separation for a few hours or a few days will, in the long run, make them more united and help them to love each other more and better than they did before, with a love full of respect.

I repeat that we do not claim that our way of acting in this is the only good one, or that it should be adopted by everyone. It simply seems to me that it gives very good results and that there are strong reasons — as well as long experience — for doing things this way but I do not take issue with the contrary opinion. Furthermore, I would add that if in Opus Dei we adopt this procedure in certain types of spiritual formation, nevertheless in numerous other activities married couples, as such, participate and cooperate. I am thinking, for example, of the work which is done with the parents of pupils in schools conducted by members of Opus Dei, in the meetings, lectures etc., especially arranged for the parents of students who live in halls of residence run by the Work.

So you see, when the type of activity requires the presence of the married couple, husband and wife both take part. But these types of meetings and activities are different from those that are directed towards personal spiritual training.

Perhaps as a reaction to compulsory religious education, reduced at times to a few routine and external practices, some young people today pay almost no attention to Christian piety because they consider it sentimental nonsense. What solution would you suggest for this problem?

The question carries its own answer. The meaning of true piety should be taught first by example and then by word. False piety is a sad pseudo-spiritual caricature which generally results from a lack of doctrine and from a certain psychological defect. The logical result is that it is repellent to anyone who loves authenticity and sincerity.

I am very glad to see how Christian piety takes root among young people today, as it did forty years ago:

— when they see it lived sincerely in the lives of others;

— when they understand that prayer is speaking with God, not anonymously, but personally, as a father with a friend, in a heart to heart conversation;

— when we try to make them hear deep in their souls the words with which Jesus Christ himself invites them to a confidential encounter: vos autem dixi amicos — 'I have called you friends' (John 15:15);

— when a strong appeal is made to their Faith, so that they see that our Lord is 'the same yesterday and today and forever' (Heb 13:8).

It is essential for them to realise that simple and heartfelt piety also calls for the exercise of human virtues and that it cannot be reduced to a few daily or weekly pious acts. It must penetrate our entire life and give meaning to our work, rest, friendships and entertainment, to everything that we do. We are children of God all day long, even though we do set aside special moments for considering it, so that we can fill ourselves with the awareness of our divine filiation which is the essence of true piety.

I was saying that young people understand this very well. I might add that anyone who tries to live it will always feel young. A Christian who lives in union with Jesus Christ can relish, even if he is eighty, the words we pray at the foot of the altar: 'I will go unto the altar of God, of God who gives joy to my youth' (Ps 42:4).

Do you consider it important, then, to teach children to practise their Faith from their earliest years? Do you think some acts of piety should be lived in the family?

I think it is precisely the best way to give children a truly Christian upbringing. Scripture tells us about those early Christian families which drew new strength and new life from the light of the Gospel. St Paul calls them 'the Church in the household' (1 Cor 16:19).

Experience shows in all Christian environments what good effects come from this natural and supernatural introduction to the life of piety given in the warmth of the home. Children learn to place God first and foremost in their affections. They learn to see God as their Father and Mary as their Mother and they learn to pray following their parents' example. In this way one can easily see what a wonderful apostolate parents have and how it is their duty to live a fully Christian life of prayer, so they can communicate their love of God to their children, which is something more than just teaching them.

How can they go about this? They have excellent means in the few, short, daily religious practices that have always been lived in Christian families and which I think are marvellous: grace at meals, morning and night prayers, the Holy Rosary (even though nowadays this devotion to our Lady has been criticised by some people). Customs vary from place to place, but I think that one should always encourage some acts of piety which the family can do together in a simple and natural fashion.

This is the way to ensure that God is not regarded as a stranger whom we go to see in the church once a week on Sunday. He will be seen and treated as He really is, not only in church but also at home, because our Lord has told us, 'Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them' (Matt 18:20).

I still pray aloud the bedside prayers I learnt as a child from my mother's lips, and I say so with the pride and gratitude of a son. They bring me closer to God and make me feel the love with which I learned to take my first steps as a Christian. And as I offer to God the day that is beginning, or thank Him for the day that is drawing to a close, I ask him to increase, in heaven, the happiness of those whom I especially love and to unite us there forever.