FABC Papers No.117
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE CHURCH IN ASIA
Readings and Reflections


James H. Kroeger, M.M.
(General Editor)

     Pope Benedict XVI, on April 20, 2005, the day after his election as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, addressed a message to the cardinals, the faithful, and all men and women of good will, outlining his vision for his pontificate. He spoke of his determination “to make Christ’s light shine out before men and women of today.” He also spoke at length about the example of Pope John Paul II and the importance of the Second Vatican Council.

    The new Holy Father forcefully noted: “Pope John Paul II rightly pointed out the Council as a ‘compass’ by which to take our bearings in the vast ocean of the third millennium (NMI 57-58)…. Also, in his spiritual Testament he noted, ‘I am convinced that it will long be granted to the new generations to draw from the treasures that this twentieth-century Council has lavished upon us….’ Thus, as I prepare myself for the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, I also wish to confirm my determination to continue to put the Second Vatican Council into practice, following in the footsteps of my Predecessors and in faithful continuity with the 2000-year tradition of the Church. This very year marks the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Council (8 December 1965). As the years have passed, the Conciliar documents have lost none of their timeliness; indeed, their teachings are proving particularly relevant to the new situation of the Church and the current globalized society” (OR-EE, 27-04-05, p. 3).

    This FABC publication gathers together seven pivotal pieces that present an overview of the Council and its impact on the Churches of Asia. In brief, after a popular synopsis of the Council (Kroeger), three general introductions are presented (Trisco-Komonchak, Dulles, and Hurley); these are followed by three additional pieces that contextualize the Council in Asia (Claver, Neo, and Phan). Presented in schematic form, the contents are as follows:

        I.   Introduction to Vatican II
                   [A]   Popular Overview (Kroeger)

        II.   General Presentation of Vatican II
                   [B]   Comprehensive Overview (Trisco-Komonchak)
                   [C]   Basic Principles (Dulles)
                   [D]   Personal Experiences (Hurley)

        III.  Vatican II and Asia
                   [E]   Reflections from Asia (Claver)
                   [F]   Consecrated Life in Asia (Neo)
                   [G]   Council Reception in Asia (Phan)

     As the Church celebrates the fortieth anniversary of the close of the Council (8 December 1965-2005), it is hoped that these seven selected pieces will renew the interest of Asian Catholics (young and old) to appreciate and appropriate the riches of Vatican II—for the continued Spirit-inspired renewal of the local Churches throughout Asia.

[A]  THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
A Marvelous and Generous Gift

James H. Kroeger, M.M.

    On December 8, 2005 Catholics celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council, that great gathering of the world’s bishops which has been correctly described by ecclesiologist Komonchak as the most important event in the history of the Roman Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation. Pope John Paul II has called the Council the most important religious event of the twentieth century. Some of us are old enough to remember the Council well [I was a college seminarian at the time (1962-1965)]! And yet, anyone writing about the Council today, even the most competent theologian or scholar, knows that he is only offering, at best, a small insight into a momentous phenomenon.

    This writer will simply offer three brief, popular glimpses into Vatican II. All, whether serious or humorous, are intended to spark the reader’s curiosity, interest, and dedication to embark on a personal journey to discover the profound depths of the Council both in itself as well as in the transforming impact that this “new Pentecost” has had on local Churches around the world.

    A Council Panorama. On the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul (January 25, 1959), less than one hundred days after his election, Pope John XXIII announced his plan to summon all the bishops of the world to a universal Council. Many people were surprised that this “caretaker” pope (he was already 77 years old) would undertake such an enormous project. Some thought that the pope was simply convening a Council to complete the unfinished tasks of Vatican I (1869-1870); John XXIII had something else in mind, or rather “in Spirit.”

    During the preparatory phases, several commissions and secretariats were established by papal motu proprio, meaning under the pope’s personal authority. These working committees requested suggestions for topics of discussion; over 9,300 proposals were received. The material was indexed and distributed to eleven commissions appointed by John XXIII in June 1960 to draft discussion documents. These groups included bishops, priests, theologians, one layman and no women. The commissions met between November 1960 and June 1962 and produced 70 documents; these, in turn, were reduced to 20 separate texts and submitted to the pope. In July 1962 seven of these documents were circulated among the bishops of the world in preparation for the opening of the Council in October.

    On Christmas day 1961 John XXIII had formally summoned the Council with his apostolic constitution Humanae Salutis. Vatican II opened on October 11, 1962. One can recall several significant moments of this first session: John XXIII’s visionary and programmatic address, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia (Mother Church Rejoices); the bishops’ refusal to accept the Roman Curia’s organization of the conciliar commissions; the debates on the liturgy, revelation, and the Church; the rejection of the Curia’s draft document on the Church. New winds were obviously blowing through the Church.

    “Good Pope John” died on June 3, 1963; he was succeeded by Paul VI who announced his firm intention to continue the Council. Paul VI’s address at the opening of the second session (September 29) listed four aims: the development of a deeper idea of the Church, its renewal, the unity of all Christians, and dialogue between the Church and the world. At the end of this second session (December 4), the first two Council documents were formally approved (Sacred Liturgy and Social Communication).

    In the eight-month interval between Council sessions, Paul VI took some key initiatives: he visited Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in the Holy Land (January 1964); on Pentecost Sunday (May 1964) he established the Secretariat for Non-Christians [renamed in 1988 the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue]; in August he issued his first encyclical letter, Ecclesiam Suam; over half of the document focused on “dialogue” as an important key to the identity of the Church.

    The third session of the Council extended from September 14 until November 21, 1964. There were discussions on a wide variety of complex topics: religious liberty, the Jews, the laity, the Church in the modern world, marriage, culture, the missions, and the formation of priests. Three documents were issued (The Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, and Ecumenism).

    The intervening months between the third and fourth Council sessions witnessed some important events: Paul VI attended the Eucharistic Congress in India (November 1964); Cardinal Bea visited the World Council of Churches in Geneva (February 1965); Paul VI publicly celebrated Mass in the vernacular on the very first day it was permitted (March 1965); Paul VI issued his encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei (September 1965).

    The fourth and final session of the Council began on September 14, 1965. The very next day Paul VI established the long-awaited Synod of Bishops. The Council Fathers debated the documents on the missions, religious life, priestly formation, priestly life and ministry, and non-Christian religions. Much of this session was devoted to a careful discussion of the document on the Church in the Modern World. Eleven more documents were issued, four of which bear the date December 7, 1965, the final public session of the Council. The closing ceremony was held in Saint Peter’s Square on December 8, 1965. The sixteen Council documents include: four Constitutions, nine Decrees, and three Declarations. The official Latin texts, exclusive of 992 footnotes of varying length, run to approximately 103,014 words. A phenomenal achievement!

    Startling Statistics. While recognizing that the significance of the Second Vatican Council is to be found in its sixteen documents as well as in the renewal of the Church wrought by the action of the Holy Spirit, one may enjoy looking at some of the “impressive” facts of the entire Vatican II project.

    Vatican Radio statistically summed up the Council in five sentences. There were 168 general meetings and 10 plenary ones; the first session had 36 general meetings, the second 43, the third 48, and the last 41. During the general meetings there were 147 introductions or reports read, and 2,212 speeches; there were also 4,361 written interventions. The average daily attendance of bishops was 2,200; the peak of 2,392 was reached on December 6, 1965. During the period of the sessions, 242 Council Fathers died, including 12 cardinals. The number of officially designated experts was 460, of whom 235 were diocesan priests, 45 were Jesuits, 42 Dominicans, and 15 Franciscans.

    Additional fascinating statistics (with some minor variations) are given by Ralph Wiltgen, SVD (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber). The total cost to the Vatican for the Council and its preparatory work was $7,250,000.00. Since 2,860 Council Fathers attended all or part of the four sessions, which stretched over 281 days, the average outlay was $2,530 per Council Father, or $9 per day. These costs, however, did not include the expenses borne by the Council Fathers themselves; 67% paid their own transportation costs, and 53% paid for their own lodging. Of the total spent by the Vatican, 33% was used for lodging; 30% for transportation; 9% for furnishing the Council hall; 8% for the combined expenses of computers, Council Press Office, printing jobs, and telephone installations; 20% went for other costs.

    Sickness, old age, or government-imposed restrictions prevented 274 Council Fathers from attending. Between the opening and closing dates, 253 Council Fathers died, and 296 new ones were added. Of the 98 cardinals who took part, 11 died before the Council was over; the only cardinal not in attendance was Josef Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary. The average age of the Council Fathers was 60. Two-thirds were secular clergy, and the rest were members of religious orders.

    The records of the Council are contained in two hundred large volumes that have the alphabetical lists of Council Fathers, indicating how each one voted on all 544 ballots. In addition to having all the documents on file, the archives contain a complete magnetic tape recording of all 168 general congregations, filling 712 reels, each 1,300 feet long, which run for 542 hours. Pope Paul VI praised the General Secretariat of the Council for its work in providing a complete theological, organizational, and administrative record of the Council. Statistics do not tell the full story of the Council, but they certainly reveal another rich dimension of John XXIII’s ambitious project.

    “Genius of the Heart.” During his lifetime Pope John XXIII was immensely popular with people from all walks of life; he was often given various “titles.” He was known as “The People’s Pope” and as “Good Pope John.” When he died on June 3, 1963 (Pentecost Monday) a major newspaper headline simply read: “A Death in the Family.” Since his beatification on September 3, 2000, he is “Blessed Pope John.” His incorrupt body can now be viewed through a glass-faced coffin near the main nave of Saint Peter’s Basilica.

    This writer prefers to give another title to John XXIII, calling him a “Genius of the Heart.” He lived and loved life—to the full. An easy-going man, he enjoyed people, stopping to talk, for example, with the gardeners while on a stroll. He invited the new recruits of the Swiss Guard to have a drink with him so he could get to know them. He spent his first Christmas as pope with the sick in two Roman hospitals; the next day he visited the prisoners at Rome’s Regina Coeli prison. He had known the horrors of World War I, having been drafted into the military as a chaplain. His deep faith and prayer-life were evident; he prayed the fifteen decades of the rosary daily. He was a “Good Shepherd” who knew people’s hearts; he was a “Genius of the Heart.”

    Everyone loved Pope John’s wit, his zest for life. He possessed in abundance a quality exceptional in a pope—a hearty sense of humor. A few incidents and quotes reveal this dimension of the “Father of Vatican II.”

    A newly accredited diplomat to the Vatican was received by the Pope and he asked: “How many persons work at the Vatican?” John XXIII replied with a wink in his eye: “Oh, no more than half of them.” On another occasion, when the Pope was preparing to meet President and Mrs. Kennedy, he asked a monsignor what proper protocol would be; several suggestions were given (e.g. Madame). However, when he entered the audience room, he spontaneously opened his arms, smiled broadly, and exclaimed: “Ah, Jacqueline!” When the Pope visited the Holy Spirit hospital in Rome, he met the Mother Superior who said: “Most Holy Father, I am the Superior of the Holy Spirit.” “Well, I must say you’re lucky,” replied the Pope. “I’m only the Vicar of Jesus Christ!”

    During processions the Pope was often carried on the sedia gestatoria (portable chair) so the crowds could see him better. John XXIII found it distasteful, saying that it made him dizzy; he protested: “This is the most uncomfortable chair I know!” On one occasion he overheard two Italian women speaking of his appearance; they said he looked ugly; he was so fat and his nose so huge. The Pope quipped to them: “Being Pope is not a beauty contest!”

    When he was Apostolic Nuncio to France, the future pope was asked during a dinner party: “Are you embarrassed, Monsignor, when there are women present who wear very low-necked dresses? It’s often a scandal.” Msgr. Roncalli replied: “A scandal? Why, no! When there’s a woman with a plunging neckline, the guests don’t look at her. They look at the Apostolic Nuncio to see how he is taking it.”

    John XXIII spoke of the Council on various occasions. “The Council?” he said as he moved towards a window, gesturing as if to open it. “I expect a little fresh air from it…. We must shake off the imperial dust that has accumulated on the throne of Saint Peter since Constantine.” John’s intentions were clear: “We desire above all that the Council be an act of goodness.” There would be no condemnations during the Council, because today the Church must prefer “the balm of mercy to the arm of severity.” When a concerned prelate of the Curia told the Pope that it was absolutely impossible to open the Council in 1963, he replied: “Fine, we’ll open it in 1962!”

    Pope John confessed that he had some difficulty in falling asleep on the night after he announced the Council. He said that he talked to himself in this way: “Giovanni, why don’t you sleep? Is it the Pope or the Holy Spirit who governs the Church? It’s the Holy Spirit, no? Well, then, go to sleep, Giovanni!” Once, during the first session of the Council, he quipped: “I would like very much for Our Lord to appear to me to tell me when the Council will end. To get it started, I am in command, but to finish it….” On the evening of the opening day of the Council in 1962, the Pope addressed the Romans assembled in Saint Peter’s Square: “When you go back to your homes, hug your children for me. Tell them that it is an affectionate embrace from the Pope.” Without doubt, people around the world found a special place in their heart for John XXIII; he was the loveable and compassionate man, who now, as “Blessed Pope John,” intercedes for us.

    Reflection. As the Church celebrates the fortieth anniversary of the close of the Council (1965-2005), she needs to assess the impact of Vatican II. A key question to be asked is focused on the “reception” of the Council in Asia. How have the vision and the experience of the Council changed and renewed the Asian local Churches? Has the “rush of the Spirit” been felt deeply, changing people’s awareness, attitudes, and behavior? Where are we four decades after John XXIII began his program of aggiornamento? What are the new pathways of the Spirit we Asian Catholics are challenged to discern and travel—all in fidelity to the Council?

[B]  SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
A Synthetic Overview

R. Trisco and J. Komonchak

    This lengthy presentation provides an extended summary of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Following a short introduction, the material is unfolded in four major sections: I. Preparatory Commissions; II. Rules and Procedures; III. Periods [Council Sessions: 1962-1965]; and, IV. Pronouncements of the Council.

    Introduction. On January 25, 1959, less than one hundred days after his election, in a speech in which he outlined the broad lines of his papacy, Pope John XXIII told a group of cardinals gathered at Saint Paul-Outside-the-Walls that he intended to revive two ancient forms for stating doctrine and ordering discipline: he would hold a diocesan synod for Rome and an ecumenical council for the universal Church. The two events would be followed by a reform of the Code of Canon Law. The announcement of a council surprised most Catholics. No ecumenical council had been held since the First Vatican Council, and some churchmen were of the view that its definitions of papal primacy and infallibility made further ecumenical councils superfluous. Both Pius XI and Pius XII had considered reconvening Vatican I, but although consultations were undertaken and some considerations of an agenda were begun, in the end both popes decided not to proceed.

    In various speeches and messages over the next years, John XXIII set out three general purposes for the Council: (1) he wished it to be an opportunity for a spiritual renewal and reinvigoration of the Church that would make it more faithful to Christ’s will and (2) for an updating (aggiornamento) of its pastoral attitudes, habits, and institutions to make them more effective in the changed conditions of the modern world. If these two goals could be achieved, the Council would also (3) greatly promote the restoration of unity among Christians.

    I. Preparatory Commissions. On Pentecost Sunday, May 17, 1959, the pope established an Antepreparatory Commission headed by Cardinal Tardini, with Monsignor Pericle Felici serving as secretary, and composed of ten clerics who held important posts in the Roman Curia. This commission’s tasks were to consult the bishops of the world, the offices of the Curia, and the theological and canonical faculties of Catholic universities for their advice and suggestions about a conciliar agenda. They were also to sketch the general lines of the topics to be discussed at the Council and to suggest various bodies that would prepare the material for conciliar deliberation. The bishops and others consulted were left complete freedom to make suggestions in the areas of doctrine, discipline, pastoral activity, and contemporary problems. Over 75% of those invited responded; their responses filled fifteen large tomes in four volumes. Proposals ranged in significance from the sublime to the trivial and reflected a very broad range of theological and pastoral perspectives; there were those who opposed any change and those who hoped the Council would be an opportunity for major reforms. If the majority of bishops were rather cautious and earth-bound in their suggestions, it could have been in part because of the deadline for their submissions, and also in part because it was not at all clear what Pope John himself wished the Council to be and to do.

    In the vast material received, the antepreparatory commission found no fewer than 9,338 suggestions which it organized for convenient reference according to the traditional divisions of dogmatic and moral theology and also according to the books and topics of the Code of Canon Law. The proposals received were placed under the seal of secrecy and could be consulted only by those officially engaged in the preparation of the Council. As the structure of the preparation took shape, the materials were divided once again, drastically reduced in number, and presented in the form of questions for further study.

    On Pentecost, June 5, 1960, John XXIII announced the structure of the preparatory period. Ten commissions were established to draw up texts for the Council to consider: (1) for matters of faith and morals (the theological); (2) for bishops and the governance of dioceses; (3) for the discipline of the clergy and the Christian people; (4) for religious; (5) for the discipline of the sacraments; (6) for the liturgy; (7) for studies and seminaries; (8) for the eastern churches; (9) for the missions; (10) for the apostolate of the laity. In addition, the pope created two secretariats, one for the communications-media and the other for promoting the unity of Christians which, it was said, would enable non-Catholics to follow the work of the Council. A Central Commission was also established to supervise and coordinate the work of the other commissions, to review the texts they prepared and recommend them to the pope for the conciliar agenda, and to draw up the rules that would govern the Council’s work.

    The ten commissions were chaired by the cardinal-heads of corresponding offices in the Roman Curia, with Curial figures also serving as secretaries on most of them. The personnel of the commissions consisted of members and consultors, the former having voting rights, the latter offering advice when asked. Among the members and consultors, it was noted, were some theologians who had been under suspicion or the subject of disciplinary measures during the previous decade, among them Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Bernard Häring, and Karl Rahner. No women and no lay people were appointed to the preparatory commissions.

    The commissions set to work on the basis of the questions proposed by the antepreparatory commission, although they were permitted to suggest additional questions. The work of preparation suffered from a lack of supervision and from the failure of the most of the commissions to collaborate on common or related problems. The Theological Commission, headed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, added to the problem by insisting that it had exclusive responsibility for doctrinal questions. As it would not enter into practical pastoral problems, so it expected all other commissions to submit to itself any and all matters of doctrine. In further expression of its conception of its own sovereignty, the Theological Commission refused to collaborate with other commissions and in particular with the Secretariat for Christian Unity. Compounding this lack of coordination, the pontifical secret that was supposed to surround the work of the commissions was widely understood to prohibit speaking about the work of one’s own commission, even with members of other commissions.

    The commissions brought before the Central Commission a total of 75 texts which were later culled, some remanded to the postconciliar reform of canon law, some combined with others, so that a total of 22 Schemas were in the end considered fit for conciliar discussion. The texts prepared by the pastoral commissions generally flew very close to the ground; they did little more than recommend mostly minor changes in the Church’s canonical and disciplinary norms; there was very little evidence that the commissions had considered the serious sociological and theological discussions of pastoral activity that had been going on for three decades. The one exception to this description was the Commission on the Sacred Liturgy whose members included many of the most important scholars in the liturgical movement; they decided to undertake serious historical and theological studies of the various topics they addressed and were therefore able to buttress with effective arguments their recommendations of significant liturgical reform.

    The Theological Commission prepared eight texts: a new formula for the profession of faith, meant to be used at the opening of the Council, and seven constitutions: (1) on the sources of revelation, (2) on the moral order, (3) on defending the deposit of faith, (4) on chastity, virginity, marriage and the family, (5) on the Church, (6) on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and (7) on the community of nations and the social order. In general, these texts were meant to confirm with the Council’s high authority the orientations and emphases that had characterized the papal magisterium for the previous century and a half, in particular as these had been expressed at Vatican I, in the anti-modernist documents, Pascendi and Lamentabili, and in the encyclical Humani Generis. Their general tone was very defensive, suspicious of most of the recent movements of theological renewal in dogmatic and moral theology and in biblical studies, and at best indifferent to ecumenical implications.

    During the preparatory period the Secretariat for Christian Unity, chaired by Cardinal Augustin Bea, represented a different notion of what the Council might do and how it might do it. Early on, it received permission from Pope John to prepare texts to alert the other commissions to the ecumenical dimensions of various subjects. When its efforts to collaborate with the Theological Commission were rebuffed, it began to prepare texts that the Pope said could eventually be brought to the Council itself. Some of the Secretariat’s texts addressed questions being considered also by the Theological Commission, among them the Word of God, membership in the Church, hierarchical authority, and religious freedom. These texts were written with an eye to overcoming misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine on the part of other Christians, to exploring their views with sympathy, and to proposing ways of understanding and stating Christian doctrine that would go beyond polemical impasses.

    All of the texts written by the preparatory commissions were brought for review before the Central Commission, which was composed of cardinals and archbishops from all over the world and which met in six meetings between June 12, 1961, and June 20, 1962. The members of this commission were not reluctant to criticize the prepared texts and to offer amendments. Had people been aware of the quality and vigor of the discussions within the Central Commission, the public might have anticipated the drama that unfolded when some of these texts reached the Council floor. The criticisms and proposed amendments were referred to a subcommission whose work was then to be reviewed by the whole Central Commission; time did not permit this last step and consequently the texts went before the Council as altered or not by the subcommission.

    II. Rules and Procedures. By the motu proprio Appropinquante Concilio (August 6, 1962) John XXIII laid down the rules that were to govern the conduct of the Council. For the direction of the general congregations, in which the proposed decrees were to be discussed and voted on, he established a board of ten presidents, all cardinals, who were to supervise the debate and maintain discipline, one of them presiding each day. He also set up ten commissions, which were the same as those in the preparatory phase, although the first was now called the Commission for the Doctrine of Faith and Morals, and the last was now charged with matters pertaining not only to the apostolate of the laity but also to mass media and entertainment. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, the Technical-Organizational Commission, and the Financial Secretariat were carried over, and at the last minute the Pope added a Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs which would examine new questions proposed by the fathers. Besides the chairman, who was named by the pope, each conciliar commission consisted of 24 members, two-thirds of whom were elected by the fathers and the rest chosen by the pope; this represented a change from Vatican I where all the members of the conciliar commissions were elected by the assembly. Latin was to be used in the public sessions and general congregations; modern languages could also be used in commission meetings. The speeches of individual fathers were not to last more than ten minutes. The majority required for approval of all matters except elections consisted of two-thirds of those present and voting. Some of these provisions would be later modified in the light of the conciliar experience.

    On July 23, 1962, the General Secretariat of the Council, with Archbishop Pericle Felici continuing at its head, sent the conciliar fathers a first volume containing the texts that would be discussed at the first session of the Second Vatican Council. It contained the following draft texts: (1) on dogmatic constitutions on the sources of revelation, (2) on the defense of the deposit of faith, (3) on the Christian moral order, (4) on chastity, marriage, the family and virginity, (5) on the sacred liturgy, (6) on the mass media, and (7) on the unity of the Church (dealing with the Oriental Catholic Churches). Why out of the mass of material prepared these seven texts were chosen for the initial conciliar agenda is not known. That the draft of a dogmatic constitution on the Church and on the Blessed Virgin Mary was not included was explained by the fact that the final revisions and editing of these two texts were not completed when the Council opened. A second volume would be distributed to the fathers only early in November.

    The ecumenical goal of the Council was reflected by invitations sent to the major Christian churches and communities. Their representatives were permitted to attend not only the public sessions but also the general congregations, but they did not have the right to vote or to speak; they would prove able, however, to make their views known to the commissions through the Secretariat for Christian Unity and through personal contacts with conciliar fathers. It was a great disappointment that most of the Orthodox Churches were not represented at the first session, but a decision made at a pan-Orthodox meeting in Rhodes in 1961 had decided upon a common response. On the very eve of the Council, however, the Moscow patriarchate broke with the rest and decided to send representatives. The representatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople would not attend the Council until the third session. Ecumenical representation at the Council increased from year to year; 17 Orthodox and Protestant denominations were represented by 35 delegate-observers and guests at the first period, while at the fourth period 93 represented 28 groups.

    The announcement of the Council and the years of its preparation had created widespread interest both within and without the Catholic Church. A spate of historical surveys and studies of the previous 20 ecumenical councils appeared, along with monographs on topics likely to be discussed at Vatican II, particularly in the areas of liturgy and ecclesiology. Surveys of the desires and wishes of Catholics with regard to the Council were published, and several authors’ published proposals for a reform agenda.

    In the spring of 1962, several important members of the Central Commission, among them Cardinals Suenens (Malines-Brussels) and Léger (Montreal) and Archbishop Dennis Hurley (Durban, South Africa) [see article containing his interview in 2000], wrote to Pope John to express their concern that the pastoral and ecumenical goals he had outlined for the Council were unlikely to be met on the basis of the texts the Central Commission had reviewed. Such fears spread as the character of the official texts became more widely known. There was some apprehension that the Council, which was not expected to last more than two sessions, would entail little more than rubberstamping the documents placed before the fathers. As the bishops began to gather in Rome in the second week of October 1962, contrasting fears and hopes divided them.

    III. Periods. The Second Vatican Council met in four periods or sessions: from October 11 to December 8, 1962; from September 29 to December 4, 1963; from September 14 to November 21, 1964; and, from September 14 to December 8, 1965.

    In the course of the four years of Vatican II, 3,058 fathers participated, by far the largest number in the history of the ecumenical councils. Besides the 129 superiors general of clerical religious orders, their numbers and the percentages of all those who attended, ranked by continent, are: Europe 1,060 (36%); South America 531 (18%); North America 416 (14%); Asia 408 (14%); Africa 351 (12%); Central America 89 (3%); and Oceania 74 (3%). Participation by those who had a right to attend fluctuated. It was the highest at the first (84.34%) and at the fourth (84.88%) periods; 82.34% attended the second and 80.23% the third. These numbers would have been higher had many bishops from countries under Communist domination been permitted to attend.

    A. First Period. The most dramatic of the four periods of the Council opened with a solemn ceremony attended by representatives of 86 governments and international bodies. In his opening speech Pope John disagreed with “those prophets of doom who are always forecasting disaster” and recommended that the fathers instead consider whether God might not be providing new opportunities for the Church. He wanted the Council not only to defend the patrimony of the faith but to also consider how to understand and present it to contemporaries; to this end he distinguished between the substance of the faith and the fashion in which it is articulated, and he urged a pastoral goal and the use of the methods of research and literary forms of modern thought. In the face of errors he advised the fathers to avoid condemnations and instead to give a positive demonstration of the validity of the Church’s teaching. He emphasized the duty to work actively for the fulfillment of the mystery of unity with other Christians and with non-Christians. To those familiar with the preparatory material, it appeared that the pope was declaring his dissatisfaction with the official schemata and proposing that the Council adopt a different approach [see The Documents of Vatican II (W. Abbott, ed.), pp. 710-719, for John XXIII’s opening speech].

    The first general congregation (October 13, 1962) had permanent consequences for the Council, for instead of proceeding immediately, as had been planned, to electing the 16 members of each commission with only the lists of members and consultors of the defunct preparatory commissions to guide it, the Council, at the motion of Cardinal Achille Liénart (Lille) and of Cardinal Josef Frings (Cologne), adjourned after a few minutes to allow more time for consultation among the bishops of the various countries or regions. Thereupon, the national or regional episcopal conferences decided to recommend one or two candidates of their own number for each commission. In the second general congregation (October 16), before the fathers cast their ballots, a composite list of all these nominees was distributed. In this way the commissions became more nearly representative of the whole assembly and did not merely perpetuate the mentality of the preparatory commissions, which had been largely dominated by curialists and could have been expected merely to defend texts which many fathers considered to be unacceptable. Continuity was assured, however, by the pope’s appointment as presidents of the conciliar commissions some of the same curial cardinals who had presided over the corresponding preparatory commissions. The postponement of these elections was a first indication that the fathers were going to accept their responsibility for the Council, and the consultations undertaken established the importance for the Council of cooperation within and among the episcopal conferences.

    In the course of this first period the Council discussed the schemata on the liturgy, on the sources of revelation, on mass media, on the unity of the Church, and on the Church. Lively discussions took place on the liturgical schema’s proposals to allow greater use of vernacular languages, more common practice of communion under both kinds and concelebration, and greater authority in liturgical matters for episcopal conferences. The long debate came to a close with a vote on the general principles set out in the draft. An overwhelming majority of the fathers (2,162 to 46) showed themselves ready to embark upon significant Church reform.

    The second important debate concerned a schema on the sources of revelation which focused on two questions: the relationship between Scripture and Tradition and the value of modern historical critical methods in the interpretation of the Bible. The text was sharply criticized for its negative tone and lack of ecumenical and pastoral sensitivity, for prematurely settling the legitimately debated issue whether all revealed truths are found in the Scriptures, and for looking with such suspicion on the problems uncovered by modern biblical scholarship that it would prevent any fruitful Catholic contribution. Defenders of the text argued that the dogmatic issue had been settled at the Council of Trent and by subsequent common teaching and that the faith was being endangered by books and articles calling into question the historical character of both Old and New Testaments. A vote was taken on whether to discontinue the debate or to continue it with discussions of the individual chapters. Although the vote to discontinue (1,368 to 822) fell just short of the two-thirds majority required, the pope, to avoid prolonged and probably fruitless debate, intervened, halting the discussion and remanding the text to a special commission under the joint chairmanship of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea to rewrite the text. It had become clear that a substantial majority of the fathers wished to compose texts different in orientation and purpose from those composed by the Theological Commission, and that the pope would back them up.

    Now that the Council had clearly demonstrated its pastoral and doctrinal interests, the rest of the first period was somewhat anticlimactic. A few days were given at the end to a preliminary discussion of the schema on the Church, commonly considered the chief business and central theme of the whole Council. The official text was subjected to a by now familiar litany of complaints, and it was understood, even without a formal vote, that it too would have to be substantially revised. In fact, that would prove to be the fate of all the prepared schemata. On December 6, 1962, it was announced that the Pope had appointed a Coordinating Commission, chaired by Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, whose task it would be to review the draft texts prepared for the Council, and, in the light of the goals of the Council as stated by Pope John and ratified by the Council’s votes, to decide which were to be retained on the conciliar agenda, which could be left for post-conciliar decisions, and what changes in content, method, or tone needed to be made. This “supercommission” rapidly reduced the texts to be retained to 17, the last of these being a new schema, championed in particular by Cardinal Suenens, to address the presence of the Church in the modern world. Throughout the intersession, the conciliar commissions undertook what has been called a “second preparation” of Vatican II.

    The first period ended without its having approved a single schema, but the decisions made at it determined the orientation of the whole course of the Second Vatican Council. The people and the purposes that had largely dominated the preparation of the Council had been replaced; new leaders would now pursue goals largely ignored during the preparation.

    With the death of John XXIII on June 3, 1963, the Council and all activities related to it were automatically suspended. But, the day after his election (June 22), Pope Paul VI promised that the Council would be resumed and that it would pursue the goals set for it by his predecessor. Five days later he fixed the opening date of the second period for September 29.

    B. Second Period. Before the fathers reconvened, Paul VI issued a revised edition of the Ordo Concilii … celebrandi in order to correct some of the defects in organization and procedure manifested in the first period and to expedite the labors and ensure the freedom of the participants. He abolished the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs and enlarged to 12 members the board of presidents; it would be their duty to see that the rules were duly observed and to resolve any eventual doubts and remove difficulties. He also appointed four cardinals Agagianian, Prefect of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide; Giacomo Lercaro (Bologna); Julius Döpfner (Munich and Freising); and Leo Joseph Suenens (Malines-Brussels) as moderators, who were to take turns in directing the discussions in the general congregations. The pope also made various changes in the procedural rules, such as reducing to 50 percent plus one the majority required for the rejection or deferment of a schema or a part of one, and permitting one father to speak in the name of others.

    For the improvement and expansion of the news services, about which there had been many complaints during the first period, Paul VI appointed a Press Committee chaired by Archbishop Martin J. O’Connor. The pope increased the number of non-Catholic Christian observers invited to the Council, and 31 more were present at the second period than at the first. John XXIII had invited one Catholic layman, Jean Guitton, to the latter part of the first period; Paul VI provided for the attendance of several lay auditors at the general congregations and for their assistance to the commissions; in addition to Guitton, ten other laymen from various countries, for the most part representing international Catholic organizations, were welcomed at the start of the new period.

    At the public session which opened the second period on September 29, 1963, Paul VI gave a memorable address in which he emphasized the pastoral nature of the assembly and specified its four purposes: (1) to define more fully the notion of the Church, especially with regard to the position of bishops; (2) to renew the Church; (3) to promote the restoration of unity among all Christians [he asked for non-Catholics to pardon Catholics for their faults in the schisms and condoned injuries done to Catholics]; and, (4) to initiate a dialogue with the contemporary world.

    The conciliar discussions began with the revised schema on the Church. Heated debate arose over the schema’s discussion of the collegiality of bishops and its relation to the primacy of the pope defined at Vatican I. On October 30, the moderators, employing a procedure not envisaged in the Ordo, put to votes for the guidance of the Doctrinal Commission five propositions contained substantially in the schema’s third chapter. Four of them concerned the sacramentality of the episcopate and its collegial character and authority; the fifth concerned the restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order. All five of the propositions received majorities of more than two-thirds, thus removing all doubts about the progressive tendency of the Council. But the “irregular” character of the votes would be evoked many times afterward to call into question their validity.

    Also in connection with the schema on the Church, another division among the fathers appeared over the question whether the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary should be a separate text or be incorporated into the schema on the Church. After an emotional debate, the question was put to a vote on October 29, and by the narrowest margin in all the Council’s deliberations (1,114 to 1,074) the assembly decide to incorporate it into the constitution on the Church.

    During a discussion of the schema on bishops and the governance of dioceses (November 5-15), one of the Council’s rare dramatic confrontations occurred when Cardinal Frings frankly criticized the methods of the Holy Office; Cardinal Ottaviani, its secretary, vehemently defended them. The first three chapters of the schema on ecumenism were discussed (November 18 - December 2) and were approved on condition of revision, but, to the consternation of many fathers, all action on the fourth chapter (on the Church’s attitude toward non-Christians and especially the Jews) and on the fifth (on religious freedom) was deferred to the third period, allegedly because of lack of time for mature consideration.

    On November 21 the pope announced that the number of members of each commission would be increased to 30. After the episcopal conferences again nominated candidates, the fathers elected the greater part of the new members on November 28, and the pope appointed the rest. The commissions then elected a new additional vice-chairman and secretary. The avowed purpose of these changes was to expedite the labors of the commissions, but they seem also to have been intended to help bring some recalcitrant commissions into greater harmony with the wishes of the conciliar majority.

    During a ceremony commemorating the conclusion of the Council of Trent (December 3), Paul VI made known his motu proprio Pastorale Munus (November 30), in which he either granted or declared to be restored (his language was ambiguous) to bishops certain faculties and privileges, many of which had been proposed in an appendix to the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses. The relatively insignificant character of many of these faculties or privileges underscored in the minds of many fathers and observers the degree to which the episcopate had in the past become dependent upon the papacy.

    On December 4, the concluding public session of the second period was held. The fathers definitively passed the constitution on the liturgy by a vote of 2,147 to 4 and, by a vote of 1,980 to 164, the decree on the communications media. Against the latter decree, opposition had been raised at the last minute on the grounds that it would not answer the expectation of Christians and would compromise the Council’s authority; the final vote in a general congregation on November 25 had seen over 500 bishops vote against it. The pope, using a formula that stressed his union with the other conciliar fathers, approved and promulgated the two texts, the first of the final documents of the Council. On January 25, 1964, he issued the motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam by which he established a commission for the implementation of the liturgical constitution.

    In his closing address Paul VI thanked those fathers who had contributed toward the expenses of the Council or had aided their needy brothers, remarked that the Council had been marked by assiduous labor and freedom of expression, expressed the hope that it could complete its work in a third period, and announced his forthcoming pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

    During the interval between the second and third periods the fathers were again invited to submit further comments on the unfinished business, and with the help of this counsel the commissions continued to revise the schemata. At the direction of the Coordinating Commission and in accord with the pope’s own desires, they reduced some of the topics, namely, those on priests, religious, education for the priesthood, missionary activity, marriage, and Catholic education, to a series of brief and basic principles on which the fathers would be expected to agree easily and quickly, and without public discussion, in the third period; the fuller articulation and implementation of these principles could be left to postconciliar bodies. This reduction of the conciliar agenda, known as the “Döpfner plan,” was designed to ensure that the Council could end its work with the third session, and in furtherance of this purpose changes were made also in the conciliar procedures to prevent repetitions and to expedite decisions.

    Just before the third period was to open, the pope announced that women would now join the lay men as auditors of the Council. Among the increased number of observer-delegates, for the first time, were representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

    C. Third Period. Pope Paul opened the third period on September 14, 1964, with a public session at which he concelebrated Mass with 24 conciliar fathers, a first conciliar expression of the concrete reforms approved in the constitution on the liturgy at the end of the second period. The conciliar discussions began with chapters of the schema on the Church not yet approved in general and then with successive votes on the eight chapters as amended. In the discussion of the chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary, debate focused on whether to accord her the titles “Mediatrix” and “Mother of the Church.” Very great interest attended the votes on the third chapter, on the hierarchical constitution of the Church with special reference to bishops. The battle over the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality had not grown less fierce, and in fact, on the very eve of the third period, Paul VI had received a confidential note from prominent cardinals and heads of religious orders begging him not to allow the teaching of the chapter to be voted on and not very subtly implying that if he did not so act, he would be guilty of squandering the authority of his office. After four formal reports on the chapter were read out to the assembly, the voting did proceed, and on the major issues under debate the votes were overwhelmingly favorable.

    Discussions followed on the schema on the pastoral office of bishops whose progress, however, was impeded by the need to await the results of the voting on the schema on the Church. The schemas on religious freedom and on the Jews, which had originally been part of the schema on ecumenism, were now to become distinct documents; the debate on them was vigorous and was marked by concerns both theological and political. The text on religious freedom was criticized for departing from the Church’s traditional insistence on the unique rights of the true religion; it was defended as reflecting the development of political realities, respecting the dignity and freedom of persons, and a prerequisite for any serious ecumenical or interreligious dialogue. The schema on the Church’s relationship with Jews continued to receive criticism because of the political consequences it was feared it would have for Christians in the Middle East. A revised text on divine revelation was also discussed as was a schema on the lay apostolate. Early in October the revised schema on ecumenism was put to a series of votes and approved.

    Opposition to the Döpfner plan and to a premature closing of the Council grew during the early weeks of the third period, and it was to show itself when the drastically reduced and so-called “minor schemas” came before the fathers. On October 12 a revised schema of 12 propositions “on the life and ministry of priests” was brought before the Council; it was attacked by many fathers as inadequate, superficial, jejune, and disappointing; by a vote of 930 to 1,199 it was sent back to the competent commission to be completely recast. The discussion of the schema on the Church’s missionary activity was initiated by Paul VI himself, but despite his favorable judgment of it, most of the speakers found it unsatisfactory because of its brevity and skeletal nature, and at the proposal of the commission the fathers by a vote of 1,601 to 311 remanded it to be completely rewritten. The schema of 19 propositions on the renewal of the religious life was also criticized but was accepted by a narrow margin (1,155 to 882) provided that it be extensively modified to take account of the thousands of reservations (modi) expressed. The schema of 22 propositions on education for the priesthood was more favorably received and was substantially adopted. The schema on Christian education, developed from the inadequate previous schema of propositions on Catholic schools, was substantially approved in spite of 419 negative votes. A brief document (votum) on the sacrament of marriage, intended for the guidance of the commission for revising the Code of Canon Law was discussed, and by vote the fathers accepted the moderators’ proposal to submit the schema to the pope for his action in accord with their two-day discussion.

    The Council also discussed the schema on the Oriental Catholic Churches and the long-awaited schema of a constitution on the Church in the world of today, commonly called Schema 13 from the number of its place on the agenda. The debate on the latter focused on the methodology of the schema, on whether it properly distinguished and related the realms of the natural and the supernatural, and on the appropriateness of a council addressing the very contingent questions discussed in appendices to the schema. The fathers were admonished to avoid the subject of artificial contraception, which the pope had reserved to the study of a special group of clerical and lay experts and to his own final judgment.

    Four events in the last days of the third period were received so poorly by substantial numbers of the fathers that they spoke of “the black week.” Because a minority persisted in its objections to the third chapter of the schema on the Church, the pope ordered that an “explanatory note” be prefaced to the Doctrinal Commission’s explanation of the final revisions; drawn up to allay the minority’s fears, this text was declared to provide the authoritative interpretation of the doctrine contained in the third chapter. Although the Council was never given an opportunity to discuss or to approve this note, it succeeded in its purpose and in a vote on November 17 only 47 out of 2,146 fathers were opposed to the text.

    On November 20, the revised text on the Church’s relationship with non-Christian religions was approved by the Council with the provision that recommended amendments would be taken into account. The revised schema on religious freedom suffered a different fate. It was distributed to the fathers on November 17 and, according to the moderators’ decision was to be voted on two days later. Since the new schema differed considerably in structure, length, and argument from the text discussed earlier in the period, some fathers requested more time for study and consultation; to accommodate them, the moderators and presidents decided to take a preliminary vote to determine whether or not the fathers wished to proceed at once to the scheduled vote. But on the appointed day (November 19) Cardinal Tisserant in the name of the presidents announced that no vote would be taken in that period. Amid strong feelings of disappointment and resentment an urgent petition for an immediate vote, drawn up by U.S. bishops, was circulated in the council hall and was signed by 441 fathers (and later by hundreds more); it was then presented to Paul VI by Cardinals Albert Meyer (Chicago), Joseph Ritter (Saint Louis), and Paul Leger (Montreal). The Pope upheld the decision to postpone the vote on the grounds that the Ordo required more time, but he promised that the schema on religious freedom would be the first item on the agenda of the fourth period.

    On the same day, November 19, 19 modifications, which at the last minute had been introduced by papal mandate into the schema on ecumenism by the Secretariat for Christian Unity were distributed to the fathers; they were accepted by them the next day in the final vote on the whole schema, the alternative being rejection of the whole schema. The modifications were intended to clarify the text, but many of them were found offensive to and by Protestants.

    At the public session that ended the third period, Paul VI concelebrated Mass with 24 priests having major Marian shrines in their territories. Then the fathers passed the constitution on the Church (2,151 to 5), the decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches (2,110 to 39), and the decree on ecumenism (2,137 to 11), and the pope promulgated them. In his closing address the Pope, having expressed his pleasure at the doctrine concerning the episcopate and the Church in general, proclaimed on his own authority Mary to be the “Mother of the Church,” that is, of all the faithful and all the pastors. The Council had followed the Doctrinal Commission’s advice and declined to accord her this title explicitly and had contented itself with presenting the idea in equivalent terms. Many saw the pope’s act as intended to reassert his own distinct papal authority.

    D. Fourth Period. Paul VI opened the fourth and last period of the Council at a public session on September 14, 1965, at which he again concelebrated Mass with 24 fathers. He announced that he was establishing (by the motu proprio Apostolica Sollicitudo, dated September 15) a Synod of Bishops previously promised and as the fathers were requesting in the as yet unfinished schema on the pastoral office of bishops; in this way the close cooperation between the pope and the bishops could continue to benefit the Church even after the end of the Council.

    Of the 16 final documents of Vatican II, 11 were completed, approved, and promulgated at public sessions during the fourth period; 5 texts were promulgated on October 15, 2 on November 18, and 4 on December 7. The pace of developments was rapid, and to expedite matters opportunities for the bishops to intervene orally in the hall were reduced even more than during the third period.

    As the pope had promised, the schema on religious freedom was the first discussed, and while opposition to it continued to be voiced, a preliminary vote on it taken on September 21 found that a majority of 1,997 to 224 had accepted it as the basis for a definitive text. This overwhelming success represented one of the high-points for the U.S. bishops and for their chief adviser on the issue, John Courtney Murray, SJ. Amended further, and with some last-minute changes from the pope, it was approved on October 15 by vote of 1,954 to 249.

    The schema on the Church in the modern world had been greatly expanded by the inclusion of the appendices to the previous draft. Differences among progressives appeared with regard to this text with some fathers, particularly Germans, arguing that it was too positive, neglecting realities of sin, and confused the realms of the natural and the supernatural. The French-speaking bishops and theologians defended its incarnational approach. A rather evangelical approach, articulated by Cardinal Lercaro, was particularly upset that the text was not stronger in its section on war and peace. This section was criticized also, but on nearly opposite grounds, by some U.S. bishops on the grounds that it ignored the deterrent role played by nuclear weapons and implied criticism of the defense policies of the west. Some controversy also arose over the sections on marriage and the relationship among its ends and on the regulation of births. A large number of bishops were also upset that their plea for an explicit condemnation of communism was not seriously considered. On December 6 the schema was approved by a vote of 2,111 to 251.

    The revised schema on divine revelation continued to be the subject of debate, particularly on the question of the relationship between scripture and tradition, on inerrancy, and on the historical character of the Gospels. Last-minute interventions of the pope once again reduced opposition, and the text was approved on October 29 by a vote of 2,081 to 27.

    All the other texts went through the final stages of their redaction and approval without great controversy; the schemas were the pastoral office of bishops, renewal of religious life, priestly formation, Christian education, the Church’s relation to non-Christian religions, the apostolate of the laity, the Church’s missionary activity, and the ministry and life of priests.

    In a dramatic event on December 7, the day before the Council closed, Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, in order to remove the psychological barrier to reconciliation, expressed their regret for the mutual excommunications of the Roman See and Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1054 and for the offensive words, unfounded reproaches, and reprehensible gestures that accompanied those acts on both sides. They also expressed a desire to remove the memory of those events from the midst of the Church and committed them to oblivion. Finally, they deplored the preceding and subsequent untoward incidents, which, under the influence of various factors including lack of mutual understanding and trust, ultimately led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

    The last public session of the Council was held outdoors in front of Saint Peter’s Basilica on December 8, 1965. After a Mass celebrated by the pope alone, a series of messages to the world, composed in French, were read out: to rulers, scholars, artists, women, workers, the poor and sick, and youth. The apostolic brief In Spiritu Sancto ordering the closure of the Council was then read by the secretary general and the acclamations traditional at ecumenical councils since the fifth century were chanted, and the fathers professed their obedience to the conciliar decrees.

    To acquaint the faithful with the teachings of the Council and to stimulate them to acceptance of its decrees, to incite them to the desired spiritual renewal in their private, domestic, public, and social life and to gratitude to God for the Council, and to develop in them a feeling for and an awareness of the Church, Paul VI, by the apostolic constitution, Mirificus Eventus (December 7, 1965), proclaimed an extraordinary jubilee to be celebrated in all the dioceses of the world from January 1 to May 29 (Pentecost), 1966. By the motu proprio Integrae Servandae (December 7, 1965) he changed the name of the Holy Office to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and altered its procedure. Then, by the motu proprio Finis Concilii (January 11, 1966) he established post-conciliar commissions for (1) bishops and the governance of dioceses, (2) religious, (3) the missions, (4) Christian education, and (5) the apostolate of the laity, all of which were composed of the same chairmen, members and secretaries as the corresponding conciliar commissions had been, and were to be assisted by experts chosen especially from among the conciliar periti. He established also a new central commission for the purpose of supervising the work of the other five commissions and of interpreting the documents of the Council. Finally, he confirmed the permanent existence of the three secretariats: for promoting Christian Unity, for Non-Christian Religions, and for Non-Believers.

    IV. Pronouncements of the Council. The Council issued a total of sixteen documents: four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations.

    A. Constitutions. These four documents covered the Church, divine revelation, liturgy, and the Church in the modern world.
    1. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). In the fathers’ discussion of this constitution the principal points centered on: Biblical figures for the Church; the Church as a Mystery; the theological, spiritual, and juridical aspects of the Church; the relation between Christ’s Church and the Roman Catholic Church; the position of separated Christians and of non-Christians vis-àvis the Church; the authority of the body of bishops (collegiality) and its relations to the papal primacy; restoration of the permanent diaconate with or without celibacy; universal priesthood of the faithful; functions of the laity and their relation to the hierarchy; existence and role of charisms; the position of separated Christians and of non-Christians vis-à-vis the Church; balance between equality and authority; concern for the poor and the afflicted and for social justice; the missionary obligation of the Church; relations between Church and State; and the Blessed Virgin Mary as mediatrix of grace and as mother of the Church.

    The constitution has the following chapters: (1) “The Mystery of the Church,” (2) “The People of God,” (3) “The Hierarchical Structure of the Church and the Episcopate in Particular,” (4) “The Laity,” (5) “The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church,” (6) “Religious,” (7) “The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and its Union with the Church in Heaven,” and (8) “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church.”

    2. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum). The discussion centered on the nature of tradition and its relation to Scripture; whether all revelation in somehow contained in the Scriptures; inerrancy of the Bible, historicity of the Gospels; and reading, diffusion, and interpretation of the Bible. The chapters of the constitution are: (1) “Revelation Itself,” (2) “The Handing on of Divine Revelation,” (3) “Sacred Scripture,” (4) “The Old Testament,” (5) “The New Testament,” and (6) “Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church.”

    3. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). The conciliar discussion touched on the Biblical, Christological, and ecclesiological foundations of the liturgy; its didactic value; liturgy as a unifying factor; the best ways to secure active and intelligent participation; simplification of rites; use of Latin and of modern languages; incorporation of local or national customs or traditions; making liturgy an effective influence in society; the competence of episcopal conferences and of individual bishops; concelebration of Mass; Communion under both kinds; Anointing of the Sick; and the length, language, and composition of the Breviary.

    In addition to an introduction, which states that the liturgy is the outstanding means whereby the faithful express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church, the constitution contains the following chapters: (1) “General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy,” (2) “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist,” (3) “The Other Sacraments and the Sacramentals,” (4) “The Divine Office,” (5) “The Liturgical Year,” (6) “Sacred Music,” and (7) “Sacred Art and Sacred Furnishings.” An appendix contains “A Declaration on the Revision of the Calendar.”

    4. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). The fathers discussed the meaning and value of temporal activity; dignity of the human person; the conflict in the world between good and evil; the presence of sin; the role of women in society; racial discrimination; problems of the third world; world poverty and hunger; problems of emigration; atheism, Marxism, and communism; freedom and encouragement of scholarly research; the Church’s influence on culture; Christian humanism and anthropology; the equality of all human beings; the necessity for Catholics to work with all people of good will; the solidarity of the Church with the world; the light shed by revelation on the mentality, problems, and forces of our age; the benefits of religion to civilization; the nature, ends, acts, and indissolubility of marriage; family life; abortion; economic production; the conditions of workers; relations between the Church and political society; the arms race; the possession and use of nuclear weapons; obligatory military service and conscientious objection; the obligations of nations toward an international authority; the growth of world population; aid to underdeveloped nations.

    The constitution contains an introductory statement on “The Situation of People in the Contemporary World.” Part I, entitled “The Church and the Human Person’s Calling,” consists of four chapters: “The Dignity of the Human Person,” “The Community of Mankind,” “Human Activity throughout the World,” and “The Role of the Church in the Modern World.” Part II, entitled “Some Problems of Special Urgency,” has five chapters: “Marriage and the Family,” “Development of Culture,” “Economic and Social Life,” “Political Community,” and “Peace and the Community of Nations.” A concluding section states that the Church desires honest dialogue between her own members, with the separated brethren and communities, with all who acknowledge God, with those who cultivate the noble qualities of the human spirit without believing in God, and even with those who oppress the Church.

    B. Decrees. The Council issued nine decrees on a wide range of topics.

    1. Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops (Christus Dominus). The discussions centered on the bishop’s office and the powers needed to exercise it; the Roman Curia and its relations with bishops; internationalization of the Curia; the powers needed for the proper discharge of bishops’ duties; freedom in the appointment of bishops; compulsory retirement of bishops; the subjection of religious to the local ordinary; care for migrants; personal dioceses for people of a peculiar rite or nationality; powers of episcopal conferences; and, a central organ of bishops to assist the pope in governing the Church.

    2. Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). Points of discussion included: the need of humility, charity, forgiveness, and the acknowledgement of errors and faults of all parties; assurance that unity does not mean uniformity; no simple “return” of the separated brethren; the meaning and use of the word “ecumenism”; the propriety of calling certain Protestant communities “churches”; the danger of engendering confusion and indifferentism in the minds of the faithful; participation in religious services with non-Catholic Christians; the validity of marriages celebrated before non-Catholic ministers; ways of conducting the dialogue; the desire for the restoration of unity among all followers of Christ. In conclusion, the decree exhorts Catholics to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, to be faithful to the truth received from the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, and to act in conjunction with the separated brethren so that no obstacle be put in the ways of divine Providence and no preconceived judgments impair the future inspirations of the Holy Spirit.

    3. Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum). The discussion treated structure of the Church; the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs; the evils of forced Latinization; determination of the rite of Oriental converts to the Catholic Church; the participation of Oriental Catholics in the religious services of Oriental non-Catholics and vice versa (communicatio in sacris); and marriages between Oriental Catholics and non-Catholics. The decree expresses the Catholic Church’s esteem for the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions, and the established standards of Christian life of Oriental Catholics.

    4. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis). Central points of discussion included: the dignity and excellence of the priesthood; the spirituality and holiness of priests; the connection between their spiritual life and their ministry; their participation in Christ’s priesthood; obedience and poverty; the importance of celibacy; life in common; associations of priests; their relations with bishops and laymen; an advisory council for the bishop; rights of priests; their duties toward non-Catholics; extraparochial apostolates; training in preaching; their intellectual activity and continued education in the ministry; the administration of the Sacrament of Penance; the missionary dimension of the priesthood; the equitable distribution of priests throughout the world; remuneration and financial equality of priests; abolition of the system of benefices and of honorary titles; and care for ill, aged, and fallen priests. The preface of the decree states that the decree applies to all priests.

    5. Decree on Education for the Priesthood (Optatam Totius). Points of discussion included: the notion of a vocation to the priesthood and means of fostering it; the nature and purpose of minor seminaries; adaptation of seminary discipline to modern times and to life in the world; organic unity in the spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral formation of candidates for the priesthood; sending them from other parts of the world to study in Europe; the place of scholasticism, especially Thomism, in the teaching of philosophy and theology; the need of natural, human virtues in candidates; the development of a missionary or apostolic spirit in them; isolation of seminarians from the world; a period for acquiring preliminary experience in the ministry or else a pastoral apprenticeship after ordination; and, reform of the Congregation of Seminaries.

    6. Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life (Perfectae Caritatis). Renewal according to the Gospel was discussed, as well as the attitude toward traditional practices; the theology of the vows; the role of contemplatives; the place of the apostolate in religious life; accommodation to contemporary needs; the spirituality of the active life; the recent decrease of vocations; and, conferences of major superiors. The decree asserts that the adapted renewal includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to changed conditions and the needs of the Church. The religious life is a state complete in itself and should be held in high esteem. The vows of chastity, poverty and obedience are related to dedication to the love and service of God and to the works of the apostolate. Priests and religious educators should foster religious vocations.

    7. Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes). Conciliar discussion covered: the theology of the missions; the nature of the missionary vocation; flexibility and adaptation to other cultures with their own customs and values; creation of a central mission board; the new role of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith; the reason for missionary activity; the need of it for the salvation of non-Christians; dialogue with non-Christians; connection of missionary activity with ecumenism; extension of the mission area to other territories; the situation of the “new churches”; the status of prelatures nullius; the relations between missionary institutes and local ecclesiastical jurisdictions; the apostolic training of missionaries and catechists; borrowing of priests; lay missionaries; support of the missions; and, twinning or pairing of an older diocese with a new jurisdiction.

    8. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem). Points discussed included: the dogmatic foundation of this apostolate and its objectives; lay spirituality; formation for the apostolate; relations with the hierarchy; Catholic Action; lay initiative and clericalism; the apostolate of youth; social action; cooperation with non-Catholics and non-Christians; and, a secretariat in the Roman Curia.

    9. Decree on the Media of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica). The responsibility of the laity in this area was discussed, as well as the use of the media for evangelization; the need of concrete assistance in personnel and equipment in missionary countries; the formation of sound public opinion; institution of a special office in the Roman Curia or expansion of the then existing Pontifical Commission; and, creation of an international Catholic news agency. The Council asks the pope to extend the duties and competence of the Secretariat for the Supervision of Publications and Entertainment to embrace all media, including the press, and to appoint to it experts from various countries, including laymen.

    C. Declarations. The Council issued three declarations.

    1. Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). Points of discussion included: philosophical and juridical and/or dogmatic and theological arguments; connection between internal, personal freedom and external, social freedom; limitations; development of the Church’s earlier teaching, especially of the doctrine of previous popes; effects on Catholic countries and on concordats; “rights of error”; danger of giving an excuse to antireligious governments; freedom or toleration; right of evangelization or of proselytism; danger of promoting indifferentism; rights of the Catholic Church; and, application to predominantly non-Catholic countries and to those under Communist domination.

    Part I of the declaration, “The General Principles of Religious Freedom,” states that the human person has a right to immunity from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups, or any human power. Government should respect and favor the religious life of the citizenry but should not command or inhibit religious acts; in preventing abuses, it must act according to juridical norms for the preservation of public order. Part II, “Religious Freedom in the Light of Revelation,” asserts that the human person’s response to God in faith must be free. The Church must enjoy freedom and independence. The Council denounces and deplores the oppressive policies of some governments and emphasizes the necessity of religious freedom, which should everywhere be provided with an effective constitutional guarantee.

    2. Declaration on the Church’s Attitude toward Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate). The discussion covered: religious, not political, motives for a pronouncement in view of Arab opposition; the common religious patrimony of Christians and Jews; the alleged collective guilt of the Jewish people for the death of Christ (the accusation of deicide); their alleged rejection by God; the prediction of their eventual conversion to Christianity; the urgency of condemning anti-Semitism; and, bonds with Islam and other world religions. The declaration affirms that all peoples have one community, origin, and goal. People ask fundamental religious questions. The Church deplores hatred and persecution of the Jews and all displays of anti-Semitism and reproves any discrimination or harassment based on race, color, social status, or religion.

    3. Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis). The discussion covered: objectives; role of the family; obligations and limitations of the state; parents’ right freely to choose schools; freedom within Catholic schools and freedom of research, especially in the sacred sciences; duties of the postconciliar commission. The declaration recognizes the importance of education for young people and adults amid present-day progress. All persons have a right to education; children have a right to moral instruction. The Church is obliged to educate its children, and it uses all suitable aids, such as catechetical instruction, but especially schools. In Catholic colleges and universities individual disciplines should be pursued according to their own principles and methods and with freedom of research, and there should be, if not a faculty, at least an institute or chair of theology with courses for lay students. [NOTE: This presentation has been edited by J. Kroeger; it is taken from New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition (2003) XIV: 407-418; reprint permission requested.]

[C]  VATICAN II REFORM
The Basic Principles

Avery Dulles, S.J.

    On January 25, 1985, Pope John Paul II unexpectedly called an extraordinary session of the synod of bishops to meet from November 25 to December 8, 1985. This meeting, commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, was to give the bishops from the various national and regional conferences an opportunity to exchange and deepen the experience of applying the Council to the life of the Church. To allay any fears that he might be distancing himself from Vatican II, the pope declared that it “remains the fundamental event in the life of the contemporary Church,” and that for himself personally it has been “the constant reference point of every pastoral action.”

    In the past two decades (1965-1985) Vatican II has become, for many Catholics, a center of controversy. A few voices from the extreme right and the extreme left frankly reject the Council. Reactionaries of the traditionalist variety censure it for having yielded to Protestant and Modernist tendencies. Radicals of the far left, conversely, complain that the Council, while making some progress, failed to do away with the Church’s absolutistic claims and its antiquated class structures. The vast majority of Catholics, expressing satisfaction with the results of the Council, are still divided because they interpret the Council in contrary ways. The conservatives, insisting on continuity with the past, give primary emphasis to the Council’s reaffirmation of settled Catholic doctrines, including papal primacy and infallibility. The progressives, however, hold that the true meaning of the Council is to be found rather in its innovations. For them Vatican II made a decisive break with the juridicism, clericalism, and triumphalism of recent centuries and laid the foundations for a more liberal and healthier Catholicism.

    Like most other Councils, Vatican II issued a number of compromise statements. It intentionally spoke ambiguously on certain points, leaving to the future the achievement of greater clarity. Many commentators, accenting these problematical features, give the impression that the Council left nothing but doubt and confusion in its wake. It may therefore be time to acknowledge that, while leaving many open questions, the Council did present a solid core of unequivocal teaching on matters of great importance.

    Vatican II addressed an extraordinary variety of issues, ranging from highly technical questions about the theology of revelation to eminently practical questions about marriage and family life. But its central focus was undoubtedly the self-understanding of the Church, and this is the theme that the present pope evidently envisages as the agenda for the 1985 synod. As a contribution to the common reflection that precedes the synod, I shall here attempt to set forth, as simply as I can, the basic vision of the Church as understood by Vatican II. I shall concentrate on practical and pastoral matters that have a direct impact on the lives of rank-and-file Catholics. For the sake of clarity, I shall arrange my observations under the rubric of ten principles which I regard as unquestionably endorsed by the Council. Whoever does not accept all ten of these principles, I would contend, cannot honestly claim to have accepted the results of Vatican II.

    1. Aggiornamento. This Italian term, which may be translated by English words such as “updating,” “modernization,” or “adaptation,” was popularized by John XXIII, who made the concept fundamental to his own program for the coming Council. Accepting this program, the fathers at Vatican II abjured the hostility and suspicion toward the modern world that had characterized the Catholicism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Especially in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the Council declared its great respect for the truth and goodness that had been brought into the world through modernization (GS 42). It stated that we are witnesses to the birth of a new humanism in which people are conscious of their responsibility to one another for the future of the world (GS 55). The faithful, said the Council, must “live in very close union with the men of their time” (GS 62). Catholics must, moreover, “blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine” (GS 62), so that the Church may keep pace with the times and enter fully into the new age now being born. In so doing the Church can enrich itself and better understand the treasures she has received from Christ. Far from clinging to ancient forms, the Church as pilgrim must press forward toward the consummation of history, when God’s kingdom will be revealed in its fullness. Neither John XXIII nor the Council, of course, held the absurd dogma that the new is always better than the old. In fact, they frequently pointed out that modern techniques can easily be abused so as to distract people from the lasting goods of the spirit. But that is no excuse for burying oneself in the past.

    The principle of aggiornamento, like all the others we shall consider, is only a principle. To apply it requires prudence and discretion lest the gospel, in being accommodated to the spirit of the age, lose its challenging power. Still the principle itself is sound and important. The Church, glorying in its magnificent heritage, should not allow itself to become a museum piece. It must not become a relic of the Middle Ages or any past period, but rather a vital part of the modern world as it presses forward into God’s future. Confident that the Lord himself remains with his people down through the centuries, Christians can have the courage to live out the gospel and bear witness to it under the conditions of today’s world.

    2. The Reformability of the Church. In recent centuries it has been common to look upon the Church as a divine institution without spot or wrinkle. While admitting the faults of individual believers, Catholics have insisted that the Church itself is pure and holy. Vatican II, however, depicted the Church in terms of the biblical image of the People of God. As we learn from Scripture, this people, though always sealed by its covenant relationship with God, was sometimes unfaithful. The Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), therefore, was able to admit: “The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal” (LG 8). Furthermore, in the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the Council declared: “Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of human beings here on earth” (UR 6).

    The idea that the Church might be reformable caught many Catholics by surprise. In the late Middle Ages there had been several Councils having as their express aim the reformation of the whole Church “in the head and in the members,” but after the Protestant Reformation the idea of reform came under suspicion in Catholic circles. Thanks to Vatican II, however, we are relieved of the burden of having to defend the whole record of the past. We can freely admit that not only individual Catholics, but the Church itself in its official actions, has committed errors and sins, such as the burning of heretics, the persecutions of Jews, and the excesses of holy wars. We can admit that Catholics had a large share of responsibility in bringing on the divisions among Christians that so weaken the Christian witness in our time.

    Like the principle of updating, this second principle must be applied with discretion. Not everything in the Church is suspect and fallible. Its basic sacramental structures, its scriptures, and its dogmas are abidingly valid. The grace of Christ, which comes through these channels, is more powerful than human infidelity and sin. The Church, therefore, does not have an equal affinity to holiness and to evil. Evil is against its true nature. For this reason Vatican II, while speaking of the Church of sinners, avoided the expression “sinful Church.” The difference is a subtle one, but has a certain importance.

    With regard to past historical events, we should be on guard against a kind of spiritual masochism that would transfer all the blame from the other party to our own. Often it is best to follow the principle of John XXIII: “We do not wish to conduct a trial of the past. We shall not seek to establish who was right and who was wrong. Responsibility is divided.” Still, to set the record straight, it is well to disavow certain errors. An example would be the present investigation to determine whether the papal commission erred by condemning the theories of Galileo in the seventeenth century.

    3. Renewed Attention to the Word of God. In the Middle Ages and even more since the Reformation, Catholicism tended to become the Church of law and the sacraments rather than the Church of the gospel and the word. Catholics too often neglected the spiritual riches contained in the Bible. Emphasizing the precepts of the Church, they allowed the proclamation of the good news to fall into abeyance. They celebrated the Mass in Latin—a language not understood by most of the people—and usually without any homily. In Catholic theology the Bible was viewed as a remote source of doctrine, hardly used except to find proof texts for later Church doctrines.

    Vatican II, especially in its Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), recovered the primacy of Scripture as the word of God consigned to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (DV 9). The teaching office of the Church, according to the constitution, “is not above the word of God but serves it, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully…” (DV 10). “The study of the sacred page,” according to the same constitution, “is, so to speak, the soul of sacred theology” (DV 24).

    The same constitution strongly recommended the use of Scripture by all Catholics. “Easy access to sacred Scripture,” it stated, “should be provided for all the Christian faithful” (DV 22). The Scriptures were here compared to the Eucharist, since each in its own way offers to the faithful the bread of life (DV 21). And in the same paragraph we find the following eloquent sentence: “For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power of the word of God is so great that it remains the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her children, the food of the soul, the pure and perennial source of spiritual life.”

    Besides rehabilitating the Bible, the Council sought to renew the ministry of preaching. It called on Catholic preachers to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures to the People of God (DV 23) and warned that, as Augustine had said, “those who do not listen to the Word of God inwardly will be empty preachers of the word of God outwardly” (DV 25). Thus, priests as well as lay people were exhorted to read the Scriptures prayerfully.

    Since the Council, directives such as those I have just quoted have produced excellent fruits. Catholics have learned more about the Bible; many of them attend study and prayer groups that concentrate on the Scriptures. But in this respect, as in others, further progress remains necessary. There is as yet no danger that Catholics, in their enthusiasm for the word, will turn away from ritual and sacrament or that, in their devotion to the gospel, they will neglect the law of Christ and the Church. The more relaxed attitude toward Church law at the present time, while regrettable in some respects, can be viewed as a gain insofar as it helps to overcome an almost pharisaical scrupulosity to which Catholics were subject in the years before Vatican II. Ideally, of course, contrasting elements such as law and gospel, word and sacrament, should not be played off against each other but should rather be mutually reinforcing. The effort to achieve the right balance should be high on the agenda of Catholics today.

    4. Collegiality. It is almost a platitude to assert that the Catholic Church, from the Middle Ages until Vatican II, was pyramidal in structure. Truth and holiness were conceived as emanating from the pope as commander-in-chief at the top, and the bishops were depicted as subordinate officers carrying out the orders of the pope. In our day many conservative Catholics lean toward this military analogy of the Church.

    Vatican II did not deny the primacy of the pope as it had been defined a century earlier by Vatican I, but it did put the papacy into a significantly new context. The college of bishops, together with the pope as its head, was seen as having the fullness of power in the Church. The individual bishops were portrayed not as mere lieutenants of the pope but as pastors in their own right. They were in fact called “vicars of Christ” (LG 28) an ancient title that had been given to bishops in the early Church but which, since about the eighth century, had come to be reserved to the pope.

    The principle of collegiality runs through the documents of Vatican II like a golden thread. Just as the pope is surrounded by a college of bishops, so each bishop serves as head of a presbyteral college, called presbytery, and governs his diocese in consultation with presbyters, religious, and laity. Thus, the principle of collegiality, understood in a wide sense, may be viewed as pervading all levels of the Church. Pastors, according to the Constitution on the Church, “know that they themselves were not meant by Christ to shoulder alone the entire saving mission of the Church toward the world. On the contrary, they understand that it is their noble duty so to shepherd the faithful and recognize their services and charismatic gifts that all according to their proper roles may cooperate in this common undertaking with one heart” (LG 30).

    Since the Council, many new institutions have been erected to implement collegiality on various levels; for example, the worldwide synod of bishops, national and regional episcopal conferences, national and diocesan pastoral Councils, parish Councils, priests’ senates, and the like. If in some cases too many questions have been subjected to prolonged discussion and debate, it has been necessary to go through this stage to arrive at the proper mean. Parliamentarianism or democracy, if carried too far, is likely to provoke a reaction in the opposite direction, toward a revival of the preconciliar form of authoritarianism, which seemed relatively efficient and rapid. Here the Council still calls upon us to devise mechanisms of decision making that respect both the traditional principle of personal pastoral authority and the nature of the Church as a Spirit-filled community. Neither an army nor a New England town meeting is a suitable paradigm.

    5. Religious Freedom. Up to the very time when the Council opened, it was far from certain whether the Catholic Church could subscribe to the principle of religious freedom which had by then prevailed in most Protestant bodies and won approval in the Assembly of the World Council of Churches at New Delhi in 1961. More specifically, it was being asked whether the Church could fully respect the right and duty of each person to follow his or her conscience with regard to the acceptance or nonacceptance of religious belief. For centuries the Churches, Protestant as well as Catholic, had striven to gain control of the apparatus of civil power so as to obtain a privileged status. In the 1950s, when John Courtney Murray began to defend the idea of a religiously neutral state, his orthodoxy was questioned by other American theologians and even by some Roman authorities. Over the protests of his opponents, however, he was invited to Vatican II (not indeed to the first session but from the second session on) and he, probably more than any other individual, was responsible for the Declaration on Religious Freedom. This Declaration clearly taught that there is no need for the state to profess the true religion or give it a legally privileged status. It approved of civil tolerance for all faiths and rejected, on theological grounds, any coercion in the sphere of belief.

    For most Americans the principle of religious freedom offers no difficulties. We almost take it for granted. Our danger is rather to fall into the opposite extreme, religious indifferentism. We have to remind ourselves that the Declaration itself asserted the unique status of the Catholic faith and the obligation of all believers to profess and defend that faith. Those who sincerely believe and love the truth received from Christ will strive, as did Christ and the apostles, to bear witness to it by their words and deeds, and to share their faith with others.

    6. The Active Role of the Laity. In the Catholic Church, at least in modern times, priests and religious have borne almost total responsibility for the mission of the Church. The apostolic spirit of the clergy and religious orders has been admirable, but generally speaking, the laity have been rather passive. Seeking to remedy this situation, the movement known as Catholic Action, in the period between the two world wars, sought to involve elite members of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy. Not satisfied with this, some progressive theologians during the decade before Vatican II held that the laity, besides associating themselves with the apostolate of the hierarchy, should exercise an active apostolate in their own right as baptized believers. The Council, endorsing this development, exhorted lay persons to advance the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by discharging their familial and vocational obligations in a manner faithful to Christ.

    Since the Council, some have maintained that the clergy have as their proper sphere of operation the inner affairs of the Church, whereas lay persons should regard secular matters as their area of competence. The Council, however, does not authorize such a sharp division of labor. It provides for active participation of the laity in divine worship, in pastoral councils, and even in the sphere of theology. In this last area Vatican II calls upon the laity to speak freely and openly. “In order that such persons may fulfill their proper function,” says Gaudium et Spes, “let it be recognized that all the faithful, clerical and lay, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought, and the freedom to express their minds humbly and courageously about those matters in which they enjoy competence” (GS 62).

    In the two decades since the Council, we have seen in the Church a great increase of lay ministries—not only the canonically erected ministries of reader and acolyte, but also ministries of teaching, music, social action, counseling, and even the distribution of the Eucharist. There has likewise been a great and welcome influx of laymen and laywomen into theology. These new developments, predictably, have called for adjustments that have in some cases been difficult. It is the task of the pope and the bishops to see that these new developments do not disrupt the community. In some cases this means proceeding slowly, but on the whole we must be thankful that so much has been accomplished in so short a time. In a period of diminishing vocations to the clerical and religious life, it is urgent that lay persons assume greater responsibility than ever for the faith and life of the Church.

    7. Regional and Local Variety. From the late Middle Ages until Vatican II the characteristic emphasis of Catholicism had been on the universal Church, commonly depicted as an almost monolithic society. Vatican II, by contrast, emphasized the local Churches, each of them under the direction of a bishop who is called, as already mentioned, a “vicar of Christ.” Many of the Council texts portray the universal Church as a communion, or collegial union, of particular Churches. “In and from such individual Churches,” says the Constitution on the Church, “there comes into being the one and only Catholic Church” (LG 23). The local bishop, on the ground of his ordination and appointment, is given authority to be a true pastor of his own community, making responsible decisions rather than simply carrying out Roman directives (LG 27).

    Vatican II made provision also for regional groupings. Speaking of the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity, the Council declares: “Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, such diversity of customs and observances only adds to her comeliness, and contributes greatly to carrying out her mission” (UR 16). Vatican II accordingly recognizes a legitimate variety among regional Churches, even in the formulation of doctrine. Elsewhere it states: “The variety of local Churches with one common aspiration is particularly splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church” (LG 23). “The accommodated preaching of the gospel,” says the Pastoral Constitution (Gaudium et Spes) “ought to remain the law of all evangelization” (GS 44). Each nation, we are told, must develop the ability to express Christ’s message in its own way, and must foster a living exchange between the Church and the particular culture (GS 44).

    The differences between the Catholicism of different regions are much more evident today than twenty years ago [1965], when the customs and liturgy of the Roman Church, with its Latin language, were universally enforced. This diversification has not yet run its course. John Paul II, in a visit to Zaire, spoke in favor of Africanization.

    Americanization [“Asianization”] has been and is taking place in our own Catholicism. Because of our distinctive cultural and political tradition, we have different views from most other nations on how the Church ought to relate to politics and economics. We have different conceptions regarding human rights, growing out of our common-law tradition. Probably, too, we are more prepared than many other countries to see women rise to positions of leadership in the Church, as they have in political and economic life.

    While seeking a sound inculturation, we must avoid thinking that our own national traditions are above criticism, or that Americans are a superior people who have nothing to learn from other countries. Even where legitimate differences exist, we must take care that they do not disrupt our communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. In this regard we should respect the authority of the Holy See, which has the responsibility before God both to “protect legitimate differences” and to make sure that “such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute to it” (LG 13).

    8. Ecumenism. Since the Reformation, Catholics have commonly adopted hostile and defensive attitudes toward other Christian Churches, and especially toward Protestantism. Such hostility may even be found in official documents of the Holy See, notably between Pius IX and Pius XI. In this regard John XXIII and Vatican II effected a quiet revolution. The Council in its Decree on Ecumenism expressed reverence for the heritage of other Christian Churches, called attention to their salvific importance for their own members, and acknowledged that they possess true elements of the Church of Christ. As a result, anathema has yielded to dialogue. In the ecumenical dialogues since the Council, great progress has been achieved in overcoming major differences that have divided the Churches for centuries. While formal reunion between the Catholic Church and other communions remains only a distant prospect, Christians of different confessional groups have achieved a far greater measure of mutual understanding, respect, and solidarity.

    The proper implementation of ecumenism, as of the other principles we are here considering, requires realism and good judgment. On the one hand, we must overcome our habitual attitudes of hatred and suspicion and be open to appreciate all the sound values in other forms of Christianity, both Eastern and Western. On the other hand, we cannot surrender what is true and valid in our Catholic tradition or act as though all the ecumenical problems had already been solved. Instead of simply wishing away the remaining disagreements, we must work patiently over a long period to achieve, through prayer and dialogue, a consensus based on the truth.

    9. Dialogue with Other Religions. The Second Vatican Council was not slow in perceiving that the changed attitude of Catholics toward other Christian Churches called for a corresponding shift in their attitude toward other religions and their adherents. The Council accordingly drew up a Declaration on Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), which contained a major section on Jewish-Christian relationships. Since the Council, there have been important dialogues between Catholics and Jews, both in this country and abroad. Christians are finding that the riches of other religious traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, can help to revitalize their own faith and worship. Missionaries are finding new ways of helping non-Christians to relate better to God within the faiths of their ancestors.

    The principle of interreligious dialogue, like the other principles I have mentioned, challenges us to a mature and responsible reaction. Some commentators have introduced an antithesis between mission and dialogue, as if the importance of the one must undercut the necessity of the other. The Council, however, kept mission and dialogue in balance. While recognizing elements of truth and goodness in all the great religions, and hence the desirability of respectful dialogue, the Council insisted on the God-given uniqueness of the Church of Christ and consequently on the “absolute necessity” of missionary activity so that Christ may be acknowledged among all peoples as universal Lord and Savior.

    For most Christians the most obvious application of the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions has to do with Judaism; there is still among many Catholics a latent attitude of hostility, deeply rooted in ethnic and cultural factors. We need to make a special effort to rise above these negative attitudes, which are utterly contrary to the gospel precept of love. As I mentioned earlier, the Church collectively has much to repent of in its historic dealings with the Jewish people. Let us not add to these crimes.

    10. The Social Mission of the Church. Since the Reformation the Catholic Church has tended to regard its mission as an exclusively religious one, aimed at preparing individuals through faith, worship, and right behavior to attain eternal life. Gradually, with the social encyclicals of popes such as Leo XIII and Pius XI, the Church began to assume responsibility to teach the principles of a just social order, but this order was viewed in terms of conformity to the natural law rather than as an implementation of the Gospel.

    With John XXIII and Vatican II, the emphasis shifted. The apostolate of peace and social justice came to be seen as a requirement of the Church’s mission to carry on the work of Christ, who had compassion on the poor and the oppressed. This changed attitude was eloquently expressed in Vatican II’s “Message to Humanity,” released nine days after the opening of the Council in 1962. It was more fully elaborated in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), which described the Church as endowed with “a function, a light, and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community” (GS 42). Since the Council this trend has gained momentum. It was reflected in the encyclical of Paul VI on the Progress of Peoples (1967) and even more clearly in the synod document on Justice in the World (1971), which depicted the struggle for justice and the transformation of society as constitutive dimensions of evangelization. Seeking to carry out the Council’s mandate to discern the signs of the times in the light of the gospel (GS 4), popes and episcopal conferences have given increasingly concrete directives concerning matters of public policy. The theme of the Church’s special solidarity with the poor, already broached at Vatican II (GS 1), has given rise in Latin America to the idea of a “preferential option” for the poor.

    This tenth principle is no easier to implement than the other nine. It would be irresponsible for the Church to avoid all comment on the moral and religious aspects of public policy issues, for the world legitimately looks to religious leaders for advice in reshaping society, according to what Bishop James Malone has called “a God-given value system.” On the other hand, ecclesiastical authorities must respect the freedom of individuals and groups within the Church to reach conscientious decisions about policies on which intelligent and committed Catholics can disagree. The turbulent debates surrounding the collective pastorals of the American bishops on peace and on the economy make it evident that, while real progress is being made, the right approach to sociopolitical issues is only gradually being found through a process of trial and error.

    These ten principles are not intended to exhaust the achievements of Vatican II, even in the field of ecclesiology. But they do show, in my opinion, that the Council, in spite of all hesitations and compromises, gave clear directives on a number of crucial issues. The extraordinary synod of 1985, commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the close of the Council, may reaffirm and clarify some of these basic, unequivocal teachings. It could in this way assist Catholics all over the world to address the problems of the coming decades with greater confidence and unanimity. [NOTE: This presentation has been slightly edited by J. Kroeger; it originally was published in Church (Summer, 1985): 3-10; reprint permission requested.]

[D]  THE STRUGGLE OF VATICAN II
An Interview with Denis E. Hurley, O.M.I.

        Archbishop Denis E. Hurley OMI led the South African Catholic Church for forty-five years (1947-1992) through intense social upheaval, especially through the nation’s struggle against apartheid. Hurley was also an active Church leader, involved with ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy). He remembers well his experience at the Second Vatican Council in this interview which was conducted in October 2000.

    QUESTION: Could you tell us a bit about your background and your early days as head of the Church in South Africa?

    ANSWER: I was ordained in Rome as a member of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in 1939. In May 1940 we were told that if we wanted to get out of Italy, we had better leave. So I returned to South Africa where I had been born in 1915. My father had been the son of a farmer in West Cork, Ireland, and to escape the farm he joined the British navy. The navy took him to South Africa during the Boer War. He left the navy and went into the lighthouse service. He served at Cape Point and then on Robben Island, where later Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. We spent three years on Robben Island. I once told Nelson Mandela that I had been on Robben Island long before he had.

    I was assigned as an assistant priest in the Emmanuel Cathedral, Durban, and three years later appointed superior of a small Oblate seminary. In March 1947, I was ordained bishop of what was then called the Vicariate Apostolic of Natal. I was just thirty-one, for a year the youngest Catholic bishop in the world. It seemed as if Rome had confused my consecration with my confirmation.

    The Church in South Africa was strongly white-oriented though largely black in numbers. I felt that we had to respond more fully to the situation and that there had to be much more consultation among the priests about how we were to proceed. So I spent some time in gatherings of priests. I was concerned about the injustices we could see all around us.

    Q: On January 25, 1959, when Pope John XXIII announced that he was going to convene a Council, what did you think?

    A: It caught me by surprise. I had been brought up to believe that Councils were called when a heresy was breaking out and you had to deal with Arians or Lutherans or some such. I did not see any great heresy afflicting the Church at the time. So I wondered why there was going to be a Council. I didn’t respond very quickly to the first request for items for the agenda for Cardinal Tardini. Then he sent us a reminder, so I pulled out the Latin dictionary and grammar and wrote out some points. Quite a few of them related to the social mission of the Church, another concerned liturgy. I don’t think I went as far as saying “give up the Latin.”

    To my surprise I was selected for the Central Preparatory Commission. I thought it was because Rome did not have up-to-date information on the situation in South Africa and thought I was still chair of the episcopal conference, whereas Archbishop McCann (later Cardinal) had taken over. I went to Rome and right away realized that we were up against something: a big division between conservatives and progressives.

    Those resident in Rome, mainly cardinals, were strongly conservative in regard to theological attitudes, the training of priests, and the preservation of the Church in the established tradition. By contrast, I found myself wholly in sympathy with the transalpine cardinals like Alfrink, Frings, König, and so on. Cardinal Suenens was not there at the beginning. The transalpines were progressives who had been taking part in the great theological resurgence in Western Europe, under the Congars, the Chenus, the Rahners. I found myself immediately in sympathy with them. I had done a good deal of reading in the late forties and through the fifties; it was an exciting decade for me. It opened up my mind and heart to a different view of theology from the Scholastic “mathematics” I had learned as a student. This new view was much more scriptural and historical.

    Q: What specific authors had been especially important for you at the time?

    A: I can remember the names of Congar, Chenu, de Lubac, Rahner, Jungmann, Aubert the historian, Clifford Howell, and John Courtney Murray. Then there was Maritain and finally Teilhard de Chardin, who was the cherry on the top for me. He brought everything together in a magnificent, coherent view of creation and salvation. I think I came across him around 1960. By the time I got to the Central Preparatory Commission I was a real Teilhardian.

    Q: Was there a distinction between optimism and pessimism, hope and despair, between the conservatives and progressives?

    A: What I didn’t realize at the time, but did afterward, was that the Church had been on the defensive for four hundred years. There was the Reformation, Galileo and the beginnings of the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of the great division between capital and labor, and then socialism and Marxism. All these developments of human culture seemed to be kept at arm’s length by the Church. The Church wasn’t touching them except to condemn them. I got the impression then that we could go on forever like that.

    The progressive cardinals (including Montini, later Pope Paul