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.

In fact a cleric, and particularly a priest, incorporated by the sacrament of Holy Orders into the Ordo presbyterorum, is constituted by divine law as a cooperator of the Episcopal Order. The specific ministerial function of diocesan priests is determined, according to the practice of ecclesiastical law, by incardination, which attaches a priest to the service of a local church, under the authority of the respective bishop, and by a canonical mission, which confers upon a priest a definite ministry within the unity of the presbyterium whose head is the bishop. It is obvious, therefore, that the priest depends on his bishop, by virtue of a sacrament and juridical bond, in everything which refers to the assignment of his particular pastoral work; the doctrinal and disciplinary instructions which he receives for the exercise of his ministry; a just financial remuneration; and in all the pastoral indications which the bishop may give for the care of souls, for divine worship and for applying the prescriptions of common law relating to the rights and obligations derived from the clerical state.

All these necessary relations of dependence give juridical expression to the pastoral obedience, unity and communion with his own Ordinary which a priest ought to live with tact and refinement. But there also exists in the life of a secular priest a legitimate sphere of personal autonomy, freedom and responsibility, in which he enjoys the same rights and obligations as any other person in the Church. His juridical condition is thus clearly different from that of minors (cf. Canon 89 of the Code of Canon Law), and from that of the religious, who renounce the exercise of all or some of their personal rights by virtue of their religious profession.

Within the general limits of morality and of the duties proper to his state, a secular priest can freely administer and decide, individually or together with others in an association, all the spiritual, cultural and financial aspects of his personal life. He is free to look after his own development in accordance with his personal preferences and capabilities. He is free to lead the social life he wishes, and to order his life as he thinks best, provided that he fulfils the obligations of his ministry. He is free to dispose of his personal private goods according to the dictates of his conscience. And above all, he is free in his spiritual and ascetic life and in his acts of piety to follow the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and to choose, from among the many means which the Church counsels or permits, those which are most suited to his own particular circumstances.

Both the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI in his Sacerdotalis Coelibatus have earnestly commended diocesan and interdiocesan, national and world-wide associations which foster the holiness of priests in the exercise of their ministry and have been approved by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. The existence of such associations in no way weakens, as I have already said, the bond of communion and dependence which links each priest with his bishop, the brotherly unity which unites the members of the priesthood, nor the effectiveness of each priest's service in his own local Church.

For many years you have been particularly concerned about the spiritual and human welfare of priests, and especially of diocesan priests. For as long as you could, you spent a lot of your time preaching retreats to priests and giving them spiritual guidance. At a certain point you started looking for ways in which priests who felt they had this vocation could belong to Opus Dei, while remaining fully diocesan and dependent on their Ordinaries. What circumstances in the life of the Church, apart from other reasons, motivated this concern of yours? Could you tell us in what way that activity has helped and can help to resolve some problems of the diocesan clergy or of the life of the Church?

What gave rise to my concern and to this apostolate of the Work were not circumstances of a more or less accidental or transitory character, but permanent spiritual and human needs of a spiritual and human nature, intimately related to the life and work of diocesan priests. I refer fundamentally to their need of being helped to find personal holiness in the exercise of their own ministry, with a spirit and means which in no way modify their status as diocesan priests. In this way they are in a position to respond to the grace of the divine vocation which they have received with a youthful spirit and ever increasing generosity. They are able to forestall, prudently and promptly, the spiritual and human crises which can easily arise from many different factors. These possible crises may be due to isolation, environmental difficulties, indifference, the apparent futility of their work, routine, fatigue, carelessness in maintaining and perfecting their intellectual formation, and also — and this is the root cause of crises of obedience and unity — lack of supernatural outlook in their relations with their own Ordinary and even with their brothers in the priesthood. The diocesan priests who make legitimate use of the right of association to become members of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei) do so solely because they desire to receive personal spiritual help. They act in a manner entirely compatible with the duties of their state. Otherwise this help would be no help, but rather a complication, hindrance and disorder.

An essential characteristic of the spirit of Opus Dei is that it does not take anyone out of his place: unusquisque, in qua vocatione vocatus est, in ea permaneat (1 Cor 7:20). Rather it leads each person to fulfil the tasks and duties of his own state, of his mission in the Church and in society, with the greatest possible perfection. Therefore when a priest joins the Work, he neither modifies nor abandons any part of his diocesan vocation. His dedication to the service of the local Church in which he is incardinated, his full dependence on his own Ordinary, his secular spirituality, his solidarity with other priests etc., are not changed. On the contrary, he undertakes to live his vocation to the full, because he knows that he must seek perfection precisely in fulfilling his obligations as a diocesan priest. In our Association this principle has a series of practical applications of a juridical and ascetic nature, which would take a long time to describe. Let me say only, by way of example, that in Opus Dei, unlike other associations where a vow or promise of obedience to the internal Superior is required, the dependence of the diocesan priests is not a dependence of government but rather a voluntary relationship of spiritual assistance. There is no internal hierarchy for them, and therefore no danger of a double bond of obedience.

What these priests find in Opus Dei is, above all, the permanent, continuous ascetical help which they want to receive, with a secular and diocesan spirituality, and independent of the personal and circumstantial changes which may take place in the government of the respective local Church. Thus, in addition to the general spiritual direction which the bishop gives with his preaching, pastoral letters, conversations, disciplinary instructions, etc., they have a personal spiritual guidance which continues no matter where they are, and which complements the common guidance imparted by the bishop, while always, as a grave duty, giving it full respect. This personal spiritual direction, so strongly recommended by the Second Vatican Council, and by the ordinary Magisterium, helps to foster the priest's life of piety, his pastoral charity, his steady continued doctrinal training, his zeal for the diocesan apostolates, his love and obedience for his own bishop, his concern for vocations to the priesthood and to the seminary, etc.

The fruits of this work are for the local Churches where the priests serve. My soul of a diocesan priest rejoices at this. Moreover, on repeated occasions, I have had the consolation of seeing with what affection the Pope and the bishops bless, desire and encourage this work.