List of points

The mission of the laity is carried out, according to the Council, in the Church and in the world. Often this is misunderstood because people concentrate on one aspect or the other. How would you explain the laity's task in the Church and in the world?

I think by no means they should be considered as being two different tasks. The layman's specific role in the mission of the Church is precisely that of sanctifying secular reality, the temporal order, the world, ab intra, in an immediate and direct way.

In addition to his secular task, a layman (like a cleric or a religious) has certain fundamental rights, duties and powers within ecclesiastical society related to his juridical status as a member of the faithful: active participation in the liturgy, the possibility of cooperating directly in the hierarchy's apostolate, and of offering advice to the hierarchy in its pastoral task. if invited to do so, etc.

The specific task which belongs to the layman as layman, and his generic or common one as a member of the faithful are not opposed but rather superimposed. They are not contradictory but complementary. To concentrate solely on the specific secular mission of the layman and to forget his membership of the Church would be as absurd as to imagine a green branch in full bloom which did not belong to any tree. But to forget what is specific and proper to the layman, or to misunderstand the characteristics of his apostolic tasks and their value to the Church, would be to reduce the flourishing tree of the Church to the monstrous condition of a barren trunk.

Some people, precisely because of the presence of laymen of Opus Dei in influential positions in Spanish society, speak of the influence of Opus Dei in Spain. Can you explain what this influence is?

I dislike intensely anything that might sound like 'blowing one's own trumpet'. But I think it would not be humility but blindness and ingratitude to the Lord, who so generously blesses our work, if we did not recognise that Opus Dei has a real influence on the life of Spain. It is logical that in those countries where we have been working for quite a few years — and the Work has been in Spain for thirty-nine years, because it was God's will that our Association should be born to the life of the Church in Spain — the influence of Opus Dei should already have had a noticeable social impact which reflects the progressive development of our apostolate.

How is this influence felt? Obviously, since Opus Dei is an Association with spiritual and apostolic aims, the nature of its influence — in Spain as in the other countries, spread over the five continents, in which we are working — can be none other than spiritual and apostolic. Opus Dei's influence in civil society is not of a temporal nature (social, political or economic); though it is reflected in the ethical aspects of human activities. Like the influence of the Church itself, the soul of the world, it belongs to a different and higher order and is expressed precisely by the word 'sanctification'.

This leads us to the subject of the members of Opus Dei whom you call influential. In an association whose aim is political, those members will be 'influential' who occupy positions in parliament or in government, in the Council of Ministers, in the Cabinet. In a cultural association, the 'influential' members will be philosophers of renown, or authors of national reputation, etc. But if, as in the case of Opus Dei, the Association seeks the sanctification of men's ordinary work, be it manual or intellectual, it is obvious that all of its members have to be considered influential because all of them work, and in Opus Dei the general duty of man to work carries with it special disciplinary and ascetical significance. All of them endeavour to do their work, whatever it may be, in a holy, Christian manner, with a desire for perfection. For me, therefore, the witness which a son of mine who is a miner gives among his companions is as influential as important and necessary, as that of a vice-chancellor of a university among the other members of the academic body.

Where, then, lies the influence of Opus Dei? The answer is easily found when we consider the sociological fact that people of all classes, professions, ages and states of life, belong to our Association; men and women, clergy and laity, old and young, celibate and married people, university men, industrial and agricultural workers, clerks, members of the professions, people who work in official institutions, and so on. Have you considered the great power of spreading Christianity represented by such a broad and varied spectrum of people; especially if they are counted in tens of thousands and are animated, with the same apostolic spirit, to sanctify their profession or job, regardless of differences of social environment, to sanctify themselves in that work and sanctify with that work?

To this personal apostolic work should be added the growth of our corporate works of apostolate: student residences, conference centres, the University of Navarra, training centres for skilled and unskilled workers, technical institutes, schools, secretarial colleges, home management schools, etc. These centres are undoubtedly sources which project the Christian view of life. Managed by laymen, directed as professional activities by lay citizens who are the same as their colleagues at work, and open to people of all classes and conditions, these centres have made many sectors of society appreciate the need of offering a Christian solution to the problems which arise in the exercise of their profession or job.

All of this gives Opus Dei prominence and significance in society not the fact that some of its members occupy positions of human influence. This does not interest us in the least, and is left therefore to the free decision and responsibly of each member. What interests us is that all the members (and the goodness of God is such that there are many) carry out tasks of which even the most humble are divinely influential.

This is quite logical. Who would say that the influence of the Church in the United States began on the day that a Catholic, John Kennedy, was elected President?

In that case, how does Opus Dei fit into the pastoral activity of the whole Church and into ecumenism?

I feel that I should first makes something clear. Opus Dei is not, nor can it in any way be considered a reality tied to the evolutionary process of the ' state of perfection' in the Church. It is not a modern or 'up-to-date' form of that state. In fact neither the theological concept of the status perfectionis, which St Thomas, Suarez and other authors have decisively formulated in doctrine, nor the various juridical forms which have been given or may be given to this theological concept, have anything to do with the spirituality or the apostolic goal which God has wanted for our Association. I simply point out, because a complete doctrinal exposition would take a long time, that Opus Dei is not interested in vows, or promises, or any form of consecration for its members, apart from the consecration which all have already received through Baptism. Our Association in no way wants its members to change their state in life, or to stop being ordinary faithful exactly the same as anyone else, in order to acquire a status perfectionis. On the contrary, what it wants and seeks to achieve is that each should do apostolate and should sanctify himself within his own state, in the place and condition which he has in the Church and in society. We take no one out of his place, nor do we separate anyone from his work nor from his aims and noble commitments in the world.

Hence, the social reality, the spirituality and the action of Opus Dei fit into a quite different vein in the life of the Church. They are in the theological and vital process which is bringing the laity to assume its responsibilities in the Church fully, and to participate in its own way in the mission of Christ and his Church. This has always been, during the nearly forty years of the Work's existence, the constant, calm but forceful concern through which God has desired to channel, in my soul and in the souls of my sons, the desire of serving him.

What contribution has Opus Dei made to this process? This is perhaps not the most suitable historical moment to attempt a general evaluation of this type. These questions were treated extensively, and with what joy to my soul, in the Second Vatican Council, and quite a few of the concepts and situations which refer to the life and mission of the laity have been sufficiently confirmed and illuminated by the Magisterium. Nevertheless there remains a considerable number of questions which, for the vast majority, are still real 'frontier problems' of theology. Most of these debated problems seem to us to be already divinely resolved, in the spirit which God has given to Opus Dei and which we endeavour to live faithfully, despite our personal imperfections. But we do not pretend to present these solutions as the only possible ones.

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.

How do you explain the enormous success of Opus Dei, and by what criteria do you measure this success?

When an undertaking is supernatural, its 'success' or 'failure' in the ordinary sense of the word is relatively unimportant. As Saint Paul said to the Christians at Corinth, what matters in the spiritual life is not what others think of us, or even our own opinion of ourselves, but God's opinion.

Undoubtedly the Work has spread all over the world. Men and women of close to seventy nationalities now belong to it. To tell the truth, it is something that surprises me. I cannot provide any explanation for it. The only explanation is the will of God, for 'the Spirit breathes where He will' and He makes use of whomever He sees fit to sanctify men. For me it is an occasion for thanksgiving, for humility and for asking God for the grace to serve Him always.

You also asked by what criteria I measure and judge. The answer is very simple: sanctity, fruits of sanctity.

Opus Dei's most important apostolate is the testimony of the life and conversation of each individual member in his daily contacts with his friends and fellow workers. Who can measure the supernatural effectiveness of this quiet and humble apostolate? It is impossible to evaluate the help we receive from a loyal and sincere friend or the influence of a good mother over her family.

But perhaps your question refers to the corporate apostolates carried out by Opus Dei, supposing that their results can be measured from a human or technical viewpoint: whether a technical training centre for workers contributes to the social advancement of its pupils, whether a university offers its students an adequate cultural and professional formation. If that was your intention, I would say that their results can be explained in part by the fact that they are undertakings carried out by carefully trained professionals who are practising their own profession. This implies, among other things, that these activities are planned in every case in the light of the particular necessities of the society in which they are to be carried out, and adapted to real needs, not according to preconceived schemes.

But let me repeat that Opus Dei is not primarily interested in human effectiveness. The real success or failure of our activities depends on whether, in addition to being humanly well-run, they help those who carry them out and those who make use of their services to love God, to feel their brotherhood with their fellow men, and to manifest these sentiments in a disinterested service of humanity.

This brings with it a deeper awareness of the Church as a community made up of all the faithful, where all share in one and the same mission, which each should fulfil according to his personal circumstances. Lay people, moved by the Holy Spirit, are becoming ever more conscious of the fact that they are the Church, that they have a specific and sublime mission to which they feel committed because they have been called to it by God himself. And they know that this mission comes from the very fact of their being Christians and not necessarily from a mandate from the hierarchy; although obviously they ought to fulfil it in a spirit of union with the hierarchy following the teaching authority of the Church. If they are not in union with the bishops and with their head, the Pope, they cannot, if they are Catholics, be united to Christ.

Lay people have their own way of contributing to the holiness and apostolate of the Church. They do so by their free and responsible action within the temporal sphere, to which they bring the leaven of Christianity. Giving Christian witness in their everyday lives, spreading the word which enlightens in the name of God, acting responsibly in the service of others and thus contributing to the solution of common problems: these are some ways in which ordinary Christians fulfil their divine mission.

For many years now, ever since the foundation of Opus Dei, I have meditated and asked others to meditate on those words of Christ which we find in St John: 'And when I am lifted up from the earth I shall draw all things unto Myself' (John 12:32). By His death on the Cross, Christ has drawn all creation to Himself. Now it is the task of Christians, in His name, to reconcile all things to God, placing Christ, by means of their work in the middle of the world, at the summit of all human activities.

I should like to add that alongside the laity's new awareness of their role there is a similar development among the clergy. They too are coming to realise that lay people have a role of their own which should be fostered and stimulated by pastoral action aimed at discovering the presence in the midst of the People of God of the charism of holiness and apostolate, in the infinitely varied forms in which God bestows it.

This new pastoral approach, though very demanding, is, to my mind, absolutely necessary. It calls for the supernatural gift of discernment of spirits, for sensitivity towards the things of God, and for the humility of not imposing personal preference upon others and of seconding the inspirations which God arouses in souls. In a word: it means loving the rightful freedom of the sons of God who find Christ, and become bearers of Christ, while following paths which are very diverse but which are all equally divine.

One of the greatest dangers threatening the Church today may well be precisely that of not recognising the divine requirements of Christian freedom and of being led by false arguments in favour of greater effectiveness to try to impose uniformity on Christians. At the root of this kind of attitude is something not only lawful but even commendable: a desire to see the Church exercising a vital influence on the modern world.

However, I very much fear that this is a mistaken way for, on the one hand, it can tend to involve and commit the hierarchy in temporal questions (thus falling into a clericalism which though different is no less scandalous than that of past centuries) and, on the other hand, to isolate lay people, ordinary Christians, from the everyday world, turning them into mere mouthpieces for decisions or ideas conceived outside the world in which they live.

I feel we priests are being asked to have the humility of learning not to be fashionable; of being, in fact, servants of the servants of God and making our own the cry of the Baptist: 'He must increase, I must decrease' (John 3:30), so as to enable ordinary Christians, the laity, to make Christ present in all sectors of society. One of the fundamental tasks of the priest is and always will be to give doctrine, to help individuals and society to become aware of the duties which the Gospel imposes on them, and to move men to discern the signs of the time. But all priestly work should be carried out with the maximum respect for the rightful freedom of consciences: every man ought to respond to God freely. And besides, every Catholic, as well as receiving help from the priest, also has lights of his own which he receives from God and a grace of state to carry out the specific mission which, as a man and as a Christian, he has received.

Anyone who thinks that Christ's voice will not be heard in the world today unless the clergy are present and speak out on every issue, has not yet understood the dignity of the divine vocation of each and every member of the Christian faithful.

You have spoken a lot about work. What place would you say work occupies in the spirituality of Opus Dei?

The vocation to Opus Dei in no way changes or modifies a person's condition or state in life. And since man's condition, his lot, is to work, the supernatural vocation to holiness and apostolate according to the spirit of Opus Dei confirms this human vocation to work. The vast majority of the members of the Work are lay people, ordinary Christians. Their condition consists in having a profession or trade which is often absorbing and by means of which they earn their living, support their family, contribute to the common good, and develop their own personality.

The vocation to Opus Dei confirms all this: to such an extent that one of the essential signs of this vocation is precisely a determination to remain in the world and to do a job as perfectly as possible (taking into account, of course, one's personal imperfections), both from the human and from the supernatural point of view. This means it must be a job which contributes effectively towards both the building up of the earthly city — and therefore it must be done competently and in a spirit of service; and to the consecration of the world — and in this regard it must both sanctify and be sanctified.

Those who want to live their Faith perfectly and to do apostolate according to the spirit of Opus Dei, must sanctify themselves with their work, must sanctify their work and sanctify others through their work. It is while they work alongside their equals, their fellow working men from whom they are in no way different, they strive to identify themselves with Christ, imitating His thirty years in the workshop in Nazareth.

Ordinary work is not only the context in which they should become holy. It is the 'raw material' of their holiness. It is there in the ordinary happenings of their day's work that they discover the hand of God and find the stimulus for their life of prayer. This same professional job brings them into contact with other people — relatives, friends, colleagues — and with the great problems which affect their society and the world at large; and it affords them the opportunity to live that self-giving in the service of others which is essential for Christians. This is where they should strive to give a true and genuine witness to Christ so that all may get to know and love our Lord and discover that their normal life in the world, their everyday work, can be an encounter with God.

In other words, holiness and apostolate and the ordinary life of the members of the Work come to form one and the same thing, and that is why work is the hinge of their spiritual life. Their self-giving to God is grafted on to the work which they were doing before they came to Opus Dei and which they continue to do after they join.

In the early years of my pastoral work, when I began to preach these ideas, some people did not understand me, and others were scandalised: they were so accustomed to hearing the world spoken of in a pejorative way. Our Lord had made me understand, and I tried to make other people understand, that the world is good, for the works of God are always perfect, and that it is we men who make the world bad, through our sins.

I said then, as I do now, that we must love the world, because it is in the world that we meet God: God shows Himself, He reveals Himself to us in the happenings and events of the world.

Good and evil are mixed in human history, and therefore the Christian should be a man of judgement. But this judgement should never bring him to deny the goodness of God's works. On the contrary, it should bring him to recognise the hand of God working through all human actions, even those which betray our fallen nature. You could make a good motto for Christian life out of these words of St Paul: 'All things are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's' (1 Cor 3:22-23), and so carry out the plans of that God whose will it is to save the world.

A school conducted by the Women's Section of Opus Dei was opened recently in Madrid, with the aim of creating a family environment and offering a complete training program for domestic staff which will enable them to become qualified in their profession. What influence do you think these kinds of activities of Opus Dei can have in society?

The main aim of this apostolic work (and there are many similar ones directed by members of Opus Dei who work together with other people who are not members of our Association) is to dignify the work of domestic staff in such a way that they can do their work with a scientific approach. I say 'with a scientific approach' because housework should be carried out as a true profession.

We must not forget that there are people who have wanted to present this work as something humiliating, but it is not. No doubt, the conditions under which this work used to be done were humiliating and sometimes they still are, even today, when domestic staff are subjected in their work to the whim of an arbitrary employer who does not guarantee their rights, and who gives them low wages and no affection. Employers must be lead to respect an adequate work-contract with clear and precise guarantees in which the rights and duties of both parties are clearly established.

Apart from these legal guarantees, the person who offers this service must be trained for the job, which means she must be professionally prepared. I said 'service' — although the word is not popular these days — because any job that is well done is a wonderful service to society, and this is as true of domestic work as it is of the work of a professor or judge. The only work that is not a service is that of a person who works for his own self-interest.

Housework is something of primary importance. Besides, all work can have the same supernatural quality. There are no great or mean tasks. All are great if they are done with love. Those which are considered great become small when the Christian meaning of life is lost sight of. On the other hand, there are apparently small things that can in fact be very great because of their real effects.

As far as I am concerned, the work of one of my daughters in Opus Dei, who works in domestic employment is just as important as that of one who has a title. In either case all I am concerned about is that the work they do should be a means and an occasion for personal sanctification and the sanctification of their neighbour. The importance depends on whether a woman in her own job and position in life is becoming more holy, and fulfilling with greater love the mission she has received from God.

Before God all men have the same standing, whether they are university professors, shop-assistants, secretaries, labourers, or farmers. All souls are equal. Only, at times, the souls of simple and unaffected people are more beautiful; and certainly those who are more intimate with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are always more pleasing to our Lord.

With this school that has been opened in Madrid, a lot can be done. It can be a real and effective help to society in an important task; and a Christian work in the heart of the home, bringing happiness, peace and understanding to many households. I could go on talking for hours on this subject, but what I have already said is enough to make clear that I understand that work in the home is especially important because through it so much good or harm can be done to families. Let us hope that it will do much good and that there will be many able and upright people whose apostolic zeal will draw them to turn this profession into a happy and fruitful task in so many homes throughout the world.