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.

Supposing that the political circumstances of a country reached such a point that a lecturer or a student thought in conscience that there was no other licit means of preserving the country from general harm, would he be justified in bringing politics into the university in legitimate use of his freedom?

In a country in which there was absolutely no political freedom, universities might lose their proper nature, thus ceasing to be the home of all and becoming a battle field of opposing factions.

Nevertheless, I still think it would be preferable to spend one's college years acquiring a sound training and a social conscience, so that those who govern later on (those who today are studying) will not fall into the same aversion to personal freedom, which is something really pathological. If the universities are turned into a debating hall for the solution of specific political problems, academic serenity will easily be lost and students will develop a partisan outlook. Thus the universities and the country would always suffer from the chronic illness of totalitarianism, of one kind or another.

Let it be clear that, when I say universities are not the place for politics, I do not exclude, but rather desire, a normal channel of opinion for all citizens. Although my opinion in this matter is very definite, I do not wish to add any more because my mission is not political but priestly. What I say to you is something which I have a right to speak about because I consider myself a university man: I have a passionate interest in everything which refers to university life. I do not act in politics. I do not wish to, and I cannot. But my outlook as a jurist and theologian, and my Christian Faith, lead me always to stand up for the legitimate freedom of all men.

No one has a right to impose non-existent dogmas in temporal matters. Given a concrete problem, whatever it may be, the solution is to study it well and then to act conscientiously, with personal freedom and with personal responsibility as well.

What, in your opinion, is the role of student associations and unions? What should be the nature of their relations with the academic authorities?

You are asking my opinion on a very broad question. Therefore I am not going to go into details, and will only deal with a few general points. I think student associations should intervene in matters which refer specifically to the university. There should be some representatives, freely elected by their fellow students, who are in contact with the academic authorities and who realise that they must work together in a common task. Here they have another opportunity to perform a real service.

You need a statute in order to carry out this common task in a reasonable way, with justice and with efficiency. Matters for discussion must be carefully studied and thought out. If the suggested solutions are properly studied and have been formed in a constructive spirit, and not with a desire to create divisions, they acquire authority and come to be accepted on their own merits.

To achieve this, the representatives of student associations need a sound education. First of all they should respect and cherish the freedom of others, and then their own freedom, with its corresponding responsibilities. Moreover, they should not desire personal publicity nor seek powers to which they have no right. Rather, they should seek the good of the university, which is the good of their fellow students. And, finally, the electors should choose their representatives for these qualities and not for reasons which are foreign to the efficacy of their university. Only thus will the university be a home of serene and noble scholarship, which will further the study and formation of all.

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.

In May, when you were with the students of the University of Navarra, you promised a book about student and university matters. Could you tell us whether it will be long in coming?

Allow an old man over sixty this little vanity. I trust that the book will be published and that it will help teachers and students. At least I will put into it all the love which I have never lost since I first set foot in the university, so many years ago!

It may take a little while yet, but it will come. On another occasion I promised the students of Navarra a statue of the Virgin Mary to put on the campus where She could bless the pure, healthy love of your youth. The statue was some time in coming, but it arrived at last: 'Holy Mary, Mother of Fair Love', blessed for you specially by the Pope.

As for the book, by the way, you should not expect it to please everyone. I will state my own opinions, which I trust will be respected by those who think the opposite, as I respect all opinions which differ from mine, and as I respect those who have a large and generous heart even though they do not share with me the Christian Faith. Let me tell you something that has happened to me often. The last occasion was here in Pamplona. A student came up to me. He wanted to greet me, 'Monsignor, I'm not a Christian' he said, 'I'm a Mohammedan.'

'You are a son of God, as I am,' I answered him. And I embraced him with all my heart.

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.