List of points

You are, of course, aware of the somewhat controversial reputation enjoyed by Opus Dei in Spain in certain sections of public opinion. Could you give your opinion as to why this is so, and especially as to how one answers the charge of 'conspiratorial secrecy' and 'secret conspiracy' often levelled against Opus Dei?

I detest everything that could sound like self-praise, but since you have brought the subject up I cannot fail to say that in my opinion Opus Dei is one of the best-loved Catholic organisations in the world. Millions of people, and among them many non-Catholics and non-Christians, are good friends of the Work and help us in our apostolic activities.

Opus Dei is a spiritual and apostolic organisation. If one forgets this fundamental fact, or refuses to believe in the good faith of the members of the Work who affirm it, it is impossible to understand what we do. And this very lack of understanding can lead people to invent complicated stories and secrets which have never existed.

You speak of charges of secrecy. All that is now ancient history. I could explain, point by point, the origin of those calumnious charges. A powerful organisation, which I prefer not to name but which we esteem and have always esteemed, spent its energies over many years falsifying what it did not understand. They insisted on considering us monks or friars and asked, 'Why don't they all think the same way? Why don't they wear a religious habit or at least a badge?' And they reached the completely illogical conclusion that we were some sort of secret society.

Now all that belongs to the past. Any reasonably well informed person knows that there is nothing secret about Opus Dei. We do not wear a habit or badge because we are ordinary Christians, not religious. We do not all think the same way because we admit the greatest possible pluralism in all temporal matters and in debatable theological questions. A more accurate knowledge of the facts and the disappearance of unfounded fears have put an end to a situation in which false accusations were lamentably frequent.

It is not surprising, however, that every now and then someone tries to stir up old myths. The fact that we strive to work for God, defending the personal freedom of all men, means that we will always meet with the opposition of all the sectarian enemies of freedom. And they will be all the more aggressive if they are religious fanatics or people who cannot stand the idea of religion.

Fortunately, nonetheless, the majority of publications are not content with repeating old falsehoods and they realise that impartiality does not consist of publishing something halfway between reality and what detractors say, but rather in reflecting objective truth I personally feel the truth can also be 'news', especially when it is a question of giving information about the activities of the thousands of man and women who belong to Opus Dei or who cooperate with it, striving to carry out a task in benefit of mankind despite their personal errors — I commit them and I am not surprised that others do so. Exploding a false myth is always worthwhile. To my mind a journalist has a grave moral obligation to look for accurate information and to keep up to date, even though it may imply changing previous judgements. Is it really so difficult to admit that something is noble, honest and good, without mixing in absurd, old-fashioned and discredited falsehoods?

It is easy to get to know Opus Dei. It works in broad daylight in all countries, with the full juridical recognition of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The name of its directors and of its apostolic undertakings are well-known. Anyone who wants information can obtain it without difficulty, contacting its directors or going to one of its centres. You yourself can testify that Opus Dei's directors and the personnel in charge of taking care of journalists never fail to offer all the necessary facilities, answering questions and giving out printed information.

Neither I nor any of the members of Opus Dei expect everyone to understand us or to share our spiritual ideals. I respect everyone's freedom and I want each person to follow his own path in life. But obviously we too have an elementary right to be respected.

If, as claimed by its members, Opus Dei is simply a religious association in which each man is free to pursue his own line of thought, how do you explain the widespread belief that Opus Dei is a monolithic organisation with well-defined positions in temporal matters?

I do not think that that opinion is really very widely held. Some of the most authoritative organs of the international press have recognised the pluralism of the members of the Work.

Undeniably, however, there are people who maintain the mistaken opinion you mention. It is possible that some of them have propagated it for reasons of their own even though they know it to be false. In many other cases it may be attributed to inadequate knowledge. Being initially ill-informed, it is not surprising that people who lack sufficient interest in the question to enter into contact with Opus Dei and receive firsthand information, attribute to the Work as such the opinions of a few members.

In any case, no one who is reasonably well-informed about what happens in Spain can ignore the reality of the pluralism to be found among the members of the Work there. I am sure that you could easily cite many examples.

Another factor may be a subconscious prejudice engendered by a one-party mentality, in politics or in spiritual matters. People with this mentality want everyone to think the same way as they do, and they find it difficult to believe that there are people capable of respecting the freedom of other men. Thus they attribute to Opus Dei the monolithic character of their own groups.

Opus Dei has sometimes be described as an intellectual elite which wants to permeate key political, financial and cultural sectors to control them from within, although with good intentions. Is this true?

Almost all the institutions which have brought a new message or have seriously tried to serve mankind by living Christianity fully have met with misunderstanding, especially at the beginning. That is why at the start some people did not understand the doctrine on lay apostolate which Opus Dei lived and proclaimed.

I must also add — although I do not like to talk about these things — that in our case there was also an organised and persistent campaign of misrepresentation. There were people who said we acted secretly (perhaps this was their own way of behaving), that we wanted to occupy important positions, etc. To be more specific, I can say that this campaign was begun, about thirty years ago, by a Spanish religious who later left his order and the Church. He married in a registry office and is now a Protestant minister. Once misrepresentation starts it is carried along for a time by its own momentum: because there are people who write without checking their information, and then not everyone acts as do competent journalists who, realising they are not infallible, are honest enough to make amends when they find out the truth. And this is what has happened in this case even though these slanders are contradicted by evidence that is clear to everyone, not to mention the fact that they appear incredible right from the word go. Anyway all this gossip to which you have referred concerns only Spain, and anyone who thinks that an international organisation like Opus Dei gravitates around the problems of one country has a short sighted and provincial outlook.

The majority of the members of Opus Dei — in Spain and elsewhere — are housewives, workers, shopkeepers, clerks, etc., people whose jobs carry no special political or social weight. The fact that a large number of workers are members of Opus Dei attracts no attention; but one politician, plenty. As far as I'm concerned the vocation to Opus Dei of a railway porter is as important as that of a company director. It's God who does the calling and in the works of God there is no room for discrimination and still less if it is based on demagoguism.

Anyone who, on seeing members of Opus Dei working in all the different fields of human activity, thinks only in terms of 'influence' and 'control', is simply showing what a poor conception of Christian life he has. Opus Dei has no power, and wants no power, over any temporal activity. All it wants is to spread a Gospel message, to all men who live in the world that God wants them to love Him and serve Him by, with and through their secular activities. It follows that the members of Opus Dei, who are ordinary Christians, work wherever and however they like. The only thing the Work does is to help them spiritually, so that they can always act with a Christian conscience.

Finally, could you say something to those of us who work in university journalism?

Journalism is a great thing, and so is university journalism. You can contribute a good deal to promote among your fellow students love for noble ideals, and a desire to overcome personal egoisms. You can foster an awareness of social problems, you can encourage fraternity. And, let me especially invite you to love the truth.

I cannot hide from you that I am disgusted by the sensationalism of some journalists who write half truths. To inform the public is not to steer a middle course between truth and falsehood. That is not objective information, nor is it moral. People who mix in, together with a few half truths, a considerable number of errors and even premeditated slanders are unworthy of the name of journalists. They cannot be called journalists because they are only the more or less well greased tools of any organisation for propagating falsehood which knows that lies once put into circulation will be repeated ad nauseam, without bad faith, through the ignorance and credulity of many people. I must confess that, as tar as I am concerned, false journalists come out winners, because not a day passes in which I do not pray earnestly for them, asking our Lord to enlighten their consciences.

I ask you, then, to spread the love of good journalism, journalism which is not satisfied with unfounded rumour, with the invention of some overheated imagination which is passed on to the public as 'People say that…' Report with facts, with results, without judging intentions, upholding the legitimate diversity of opinions in a calm way, without resorting to personal attacks. It is difficult for people really to live together harmoniously when there is no real information. And real information does not fear the truth and does not allow itself to be led away by motives of intrigue, false prestige or economic advantage.