List of points

The Second Vatican Council has often used the expression 'People of God' to designate the Church. It has thus shown clearly the common responsibility of all Christians in the single mission of this People of God. What, in your opinion, should be the characteristics of the 'necessary public opinion in the Church,' of which Pius XII already spoke, in order to reflect effectively this common responsibility? How is the phenomenon of 'public opinion in the Church' affected by the particular relationships of authority and obedience which exist in the heart of the Christian community?

I do not think there can be such a thing as truly Christian obedience unless that obedience is voluntary and responsible. The children of God are not made of stone. Nor are they corpses. They are intelligent and free beings. And they all have been raised to the same supernatural order as those who hold authority. But no one can use his intelligence and freedom properly, whether it be to obey or to give an opinion, unless he has acquired an adequate Christian education. The problem of 'necessary public opinion in the Church' is fundamentally the same as the problem of the doctrinal training of the faithful. Certainly the Holy Spirit distributes his abundant gifts among the members of the People of God, all of whom are responsible for the mission of the Church. But far from exempting anyone from the obligation of acquiring adequate doctrinal training his action makes it more pressing.

By 'doctrine' I mean the knowledge which each person should have of the mission of the Church as a whole and of his particular role, his specific responsibilities, in that mission. This, as the Holy Father has frequently reminded us, is the colossal task of education which the Church must undertake in the post-conciliar period. The solution to the problem which you mention, as well as to other yearnings which are felt today in the heart of the Church, depends directly, I feel, on how well this task is done. Certainly, more or less 'prophetic' intuitions of some uninstructed 'charismatics' cannot guarantee the necessary public opinion among the People of God.

Regarding the forms of expression of this public opinion, I don't think it is a question of organs and institutions. A diocesan pastoral council, the columns of a newspaper, even though it isn't officially Catholic, or even a personal letter from one of the faithful to his bishop, can all be equally effective. There are many legitimate ways in which the faithful can express their opinion. They neither can nor should be strait-jacketed by creating a new body or institution. And much less if it meant having an institution which ran the risk of being monopolized or made use of, as could so easily happen, by a group or clique of official Catholics, regardless of their tendencies or orientation. That would endanger the prestige of the hierarchy itself and it would seem a mockery to the other members of the People of God.

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.

Turning to another topic, we would like to know your opinion regarding the present situation of the Church. How would you describe it? What role do you think can be played in these times by the tendencies which in general terms have been called 'progressive' and 'integrist'?

As I see it, the present doctrinal position of the Church could be expressed as 'positive' and at the same time 'delicate', as in all crises of growth. Positive, undoubtedly, because the doctrinal wealth of the Second Vatican Council has set the entire Church, the entire priestly People of God, on a new supremely hopeful track of renewed fidelity to the divine plan of salvation which has been entrusted to it. But delicate as well, because the theological conclusions which have been reached are not, let us say, of an abstract or theoretical nature. They are part of a supremely living theology, which has immediate and direct applications in the pastoral, ascetic and disciplinary fields and which touches very deeply the internal and external life of the Church: liturgy, organisational structures of the hierarchy, apostolic forms, Magisterium, dialogue with the world, ecumenism. And therefore at the same time this theology touches very deeply the Christian life and the very conscience of the faithful.

Both aspects affect us deeply: both Christian optimism, the joyful certainty that the Holy Spirit will draw fruit from the doctrine with which He has enriched the Spouse of Christ; and also prudence on the part of those who study and govern because, now especially, immense harm could result from a lack of serenity and consideration in the study of these problems.

As regards the tendencies which you call 'integrist' and 'progressive', I find it difficult to give an opinion on the role which they can play at the present moment, because I have always rejected the suitability and even the possibility of making classifications or simplifications of this sort. This division is, at times, taken to great extremes and perpetuated as if theologians (and the faithful in general) were destined always to be circling these opposite poles. As far as I can see, it seems to derive ultimately from the belief that progress in the doctrine and in the life of the People of God is the result of a perpetual dialectical tension. I, on the other hand, prefer to believe wholeheartedly in the action of the Holy Spirit, who breathes where He will and upon whom He will.