List of points

In the context of the present socio-political situation in our country and in others, or of war, injustice, or oppression, what responsibility do you attribute to the university as a corporate body, and to professors and students? Should a university permit students and professors to carry on political activities within its precincts?

First of all, I would like to say that in this conversation I am expressing opinions of my own. Since I was sixteen — and I am now sixty-five — I have never lost contact with the university, but I am expressing my own personal way of seeing this matter, and not the point of view of Opus Dei. In temporal and debatable matters Opus Dei does not wish to have and cannot have any opinion, since its goals are exclusively spiritual. In all matters of free discussion, each member of the Work has and freely expresses his own personal opinion, for which he is also personally responsible.

In reply to your question, I think we would in the first place have to come to an agreement about what we mean by 'politics'. If by 'politics' we mean being interested in and working for peace, social justice, the freedom of all men, then in that case everyone in the university as a corporate body is obliged to respect those ideals and to foster a concern for resolving the great problems of human life.

But if, on the contrary, we understand by 'politics' a particular solution to a specific problem, in competition with those who stand for other possible and legitimate solutions, then I think that the university is not the place where politics should be decided.

College years are a period of preparation for finding solutions to these problems. Everyone should be welcome in the university. It should be a place of study and friendship, a place where people who hold different opinions which, in each period, are expressions of the legitimate pluralism which exists in society — may live together in peace.

Who do you think should have the right to found centres of higher education and under what circumstances? What powers should the State reserve for itself in higher education? Do you consider autonomy a basic principle for the organisation of university education? Could you indicate the broad lines along which an autonomous system should be based?

The right to found educational centres is only one aspect of freedom in general. I consider personal freedom necessary for everyone and in everything that is morally lawful. Hence, every person or association in a position to do so should have the possibility of founding centres of education under equal conditions and without unnecessary obstacles.

The function of the State depends upon the social situation and this will differ from Germany to England, from Japan to the United States, to mention countries with very different educational systems. The State has clear duties in terms of encouragement, control and supervision of education. And this demands equality of opportunity for both private and State undertakings. To supervise is neither to obstruct, nor to impede or restrict freedom.

That is why I consider autonomy in teaching necessary: autonomy is another way of saying academic freedom. The university, as a corporate whole, must have the independence of an organ in a living body. That is, it must have freedom within its specific task of service to the common good. Some of the signs of an effective autonomy could be these: the freedom to select its professors and administrative staff; the freedom to establish its curricula; scope for building up and administering its own endowment: in a word, all the necessary conditions for a university to be able to lead its own life, as a service to society as a whole.

An ever-increasing weight of criticism is being levelled by student opinion against lifelong appointments to university posts Do you think this current of opinion is correct?

Yes. Although I recognise the high academic and personal standards of the teaching body in this country, I prefer the free contract system. I think that this system does no financial harm to the member of staff and that it is an incentive for him never to give up research or progress in his speciality. Also, it prevents people from understanding university appointments as fiefs, rather than as positions of service.

I realise that the system of permanent university appointments may give good results in some countries, and that within this system you can find very competent men who turn their appointments into a very real service to the university. But I consider that the free contract system makes those cases more frequent and helps to stimulate all professors to dedicate all their energies to the service of the university.

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.

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.