It has now been almost fifty years since the Catholic Church created waves by opening the Second Vatican Council. And for many, the tumult continues. Vatican II has become nothing less than a battle over the mission of the contemporary Church.
The progressive left sees the Council as an open-ended innovation whose revolutionary promise has yet to be fulfilled. The traditionalist right views it with deep suspicion and is sometimes heard to say (if not openly, at least sotto voce) that the Church would have been better off had it never occurred. But the vital center of Catholicism—if it can be called that—has always defended the Council as a necessary and faithful extension of the Church’s evangelical mission to the modern world. The historian Edward Norman gave voice to this perspective when he wrote:
The remarkable thing about the Council was that it was able to produce more or less exactly what it set out to do: a statement of the Catholic faith in modules of understanding intelligible to modern culture yet completely conformable to past tradition—an achievement the more remarkable in view of the incoherence of western culture in the 1960s.
Norman’s perspective is better appreciated today. John Paul II’s Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985, and Benedict XVI’s insistence on a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than rupture have both helped to recover a “deeper reception of the Council” as the Synod’s final report requested. The wonderfully clarifying universal Catechism was one of the Council’s greatest fruits. But even as Vatican II, properly understood, remains an achievement of the first order, its immediate consequences were anything but.
No sooner had the final session of the Council ended than dialogue gave way to worldly adaptation: Priests started abandoning their collars and nuns their habits, if not their orders. Large portions of the Catholic laity, flushed with a sense of unbounded freedom, stopped going to confession and Sunday Mass. Consciences once formed in the light of Catholic teaching began to morph into self-interest. The Church’s teaching against contraception, for example, was effectively thrown out the window by the laity. These events were not authorized by the Council, and somehow secularism and relativism had penetrated the Church.
Leading Catholics whose writings had done so much to influence the Council—men like Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, Louis Bouyer and Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jacques Maritain and Dietrich von Hildebrand—sounded the alarm. By 1967, Congar was asking: “Where do we go from here? Where shall we be in twenty years? I, too, feel almost every day a temptation to anxiety in the face of all that has changed or is being called into question.”
But none of these men turned their back on the Council or the Holy See. As von Hildebrand stressed:
When one reads the luminous encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Pope Paul VI or the magnificent ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ [Lumen Gentium] of the Fathers of the Council, one cannot but realize the greatness of the Second Vatican Council. But when one turns to so many contemporary writings…one can only be deeply saddened and even filled with grave apprehension. For it would be difficult to conceive a greater contrast than that between the official documents of Vatican II and the superficial, insipid pronouncements of various theologians and laymen that have broken out everywhere like an infectious disease.
Among those who share von Hildebrand’s concerns is Father Paulo Molinari, S.J., who was a contributor to Lumen Gentium. Several years ago, I had the privilege to speak to him in Rome. In our lively discussion, three things stood out.
First, Vatican II was not a bolt out of the blue from Pope John XXIII. It was preceded by twenty ecumenical Councils, and Congar writes that “the Church has always tried to reform itself.” Pius XI and Pius XII had seriously considered holding a new Council themselves. Next, John XXIII’s famously jovial personality has led many to believe he was an unabashed progressive, and this has colored many accounts of the Council. But Molinari, a close friend of the pope, told me that this popular image of “Good Pope John” as easygoing and tolerant of almost any proposal, is “absolute nonsense.” Finally, statistics about the Church in the pre-Conciliar years are misleading, because there were many trends afoot—in theology, morality, politics, science, and exegesis—that were already having an unsettling impact on the internal life of Catholics.
At the end of our discussion, I still had one question: “All that being said Father, and granting the necessity, beauty, and orthodoxy of the Council’s teachings—how did their implementation go so disastrously wrong in the immediate years that followed?”
“The Council called us to find fulfillment in Christ,” he said gently, “but many Catholics confused that with their own self-fulfillment.” Stunned, I finally murmured, “That’s a pretty big mistake.” “Yes,” he replied, with tremendous understatement.
The Second Vatican Council wasn’t about us, but about Christ’s call, lovingly offered, to fulfill our potential on his terms, in and through the moral and spiritual teaching of his Church. It is the transformation that awaits us all—if we are prepared to accept it—promised by Christ two thousands years ago: “He that finds his life shall lose it and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.”
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII.
RESOURCES
Cindy Wooden, Jesuit Expert Continues to Examine Vatican II’s Implementation
Paul Molinari, The Following of Christ in the Teaching of Vatican II
EWTN, The Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops
Pope Benedict XVI, Address on the Hermeneutic of Continuity
Edward Norman, The Roman Catholic Church: An Ilustrated History
Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church
Yves Congar, True and False Reform in the Church
Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God
Mathew Lamb and Mathew Levering, Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
How simple it is, really, to interpret the Council. One need only take it at its own word!
Are any of our writers reading the apposite history in this area? Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Bernard Haring dissented from Humanae Vitae publically and were two of the most influential theologians in Europe and no Pope censured them on this position (Fr. Charles Curran in the US and Uta Ranke Heinneman in Germany were both dechaired from Catholic teaching on a broader spectrum of dissent). Dissenting theologians in Washington DC were punished by their Bishop then relieved of that punishment by the Vatican if they were to sign a statement affirming that HV was "authentic Church teaching" which they signed because it did not imply infallibility. The Lateran feted Rahner's theological work in the early
2000's with a retrospective at which the CDF's Archbishop Amato called Rahner "an orthodox theologian" to John Allen. Germain Grisez and Fr. Ford defended the traditional Vatican position in the Jesuit periodical "Theological Studies" against opposing authors who wrote back in subsequent articles....all uncensured by Rome.
No Pope in all this time since the Council has chosen to work on a clearly (canon 749-4) infallible encyclical on this; and pointing to long tradition in the ordinary magisterium doesn't work because the death penalty goes back to Genesis 9:6 (before Onan) and John Paul called it "cruel" twice and we are now seeking abolition in Georgia after Connecticut) despite ccc 2267 implying that it can be necessary.
You can't throw out tradition on the death penalty in a herd movement over here and then claim tradition is key, critical, hallowed over here on sex.
And the laity is to blame....a laity in 1968 who had been drilled as children in respect to the 1950 Assumption encyclical...that ex cathedra was when the Pope was perfectly certain. Ex cathedra was the "bomb", the apex, the best encyclical.
After that drilling, Humanae Vitae was introduced by Monseignor Lambrushini at its press conference as non infallible twice. How did anyone think the rythmn method, ex cathedra generation was going to take that introduction? Catholic writers...stop simplifying these issues and periods for clicks or for money or for whatever your motives are.
It does seem to me that the reforms of Vatican II were absolutely necessary, and that we who have borne some of the crosses of its difficult side effects will have made a real contribution to Catholics of the future who will reap many good fruits from the Council. One sows, and another reaps.
… the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council … wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries … has become the common patrimony of men. …
Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries.
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. …
We might say that heaven and earth are united in the holding of the Council -- the saints of heaven to protect our work, the faithful of the earth continuing in prayer to the Lord, and you, seconding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order that the work of all may correspond to the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world.
"On the other hand, there is the 'hermeneutics of reform', of the renewal of the continuity of the single Church subject, which the Lord has given us: it is a subject that grows in time and develops, remaining however always the same, the one subject of the People of God on their way."
And later in the same address he said: "In opposition to the hermeneutics of discontinuity is the hermeneutics of reform, as was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his speech for the Council's opening, October 11, 1962, and then by Pope Paul VI in the closing speech of December 7, 1965. "
The Second Vatican Council wasn’t about us, but about Christ’s call, lovingly offered, to fulfill our potential on his terms, in and through the moral and spiritual teaching of his Church. It is the transformation that awaits us all—if we are prepared to accept it—promised by Christ two thousands years ago: “He that finds his life shall lose it and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.
In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.
In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In the Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.
The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.
Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?
"The college or body of bishops has for all that no
authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff,
Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority,
let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful,
remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by
reason of his office as the Vicar of Christ, namely,
and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme,
and universal power over the whole Church, a power
which he can always exercise unhindered." "Lumen
Gentium", no.22.
Stated differently, Vatican II expressly and unambiguously holds that the Pope is "the supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful", the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Id., no. 25.
The words "spirit of Vatican II" appear nowhere in any of the 16 documents generated by the Council. Likewise, the concept of a so-called "spirit of Vatican II" cannot be discerned from any fair reading of the Council's documents. In fact, the only "spirit" present at Vatican II was the Holy Spirit. The notion of a "spirit of
Vatican II" in the immediate aftermath of the Council is heresy (as much as Arianism or any other documented heresy).
Simply put, the problems in the Church following Vatican II are not the result of the Council but because "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church", as Pope Paul VI stated in June 1972.
Humanae Vitae and the response thereto cannot be directly linked to Vatican II. Paul VI expressly removed the issue of contraception from the Council's agenda. In other words, contraception was not discussed at Vatican II, which closed in 1965; Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968. The link between Catholic dissent from Humanae Vitae and Vatican II is the "spirit of Vatican II" heresy that emerged after the Council.
With respect to Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of reform" discussion, later in the same document Benedict made clear that "[t]he council could not have intended to abolish the Gospel's opposition to human dangers and errors." Pope Benedict XVI's address to the Roman Curia (Dec. 22, 2005). Which, inexorably, brings us back to the irrefutable affirmation of Vatican II of the Pope's supreme authority.
Maybe I'm too young to understand (b. 1965) but I'm thinking the disastrous implementation is still disastrous. Do you realize how impossible it is to find a decent mass? I'm thinking the sins of our fathers are multi-generational. We've got generations of Catholics (if they still are) believing this way of worship is the way it has always been. The path has veered so far that most don't even know that another path existed for hundreds of years. I'm not even talking about the lack of Latin, kneelers, communion in the hand, or lounge wear -- it's foundational such as the knowledge of the Real Presence. What a legacy this progressive movement has left our children.
“but many Catholics confused that with their own self-fulfillment.”
Once again, I may be too young, but this seems to be putting the onus on the parishioners. Did the laity really demand this lack of reverence at Mass? Weren't they taught -- like me -- that there was no need to kneel, to take Our Lord on the tongue, etc? Seems to me it was "implemented" by the religeous -- or at the very least allowed. They used Vatican II, despite what it said, carte blanche. There may have been some silver-tongued theologians at the time, but there were few Polycarps or Athanasiuses.
If you (religeous) lead, we (laity) will follow. But now each has learned he will tell you how to lead. This is the lesson learned from the "immediate years that followed". It has yielded offspring to the four corners of the earth. Now we find the "lowest common denominator" ubiquitously. How to put that djinn back in the bottle?
I aplogize that my comment does not apply to the article in question, but I have come across a paragraph that is one of the most beautiful things that I have ever read, and I want to disseminate it over the Internet.
Human Person and the Tabernacle
Paragraph from page 344 of Volume 1 of The Mystical Evolution in the Development and Vitality of the Church by Father Juan Arintero, O.P.
“One day, at the time of Communion, Blessed Mariana of Jesus, the Lily of Madrid, being unusually aware of her lowliness and unworthiness, said to her Lord: “My Lord, the tabernacle in which Thou art is much more clean and beautiful.” Christ answered her: “But it cannot love me.” “From this,” said the holy nun, I understood how much more Christ prefers to reside in our souls than in gold or silver or precious jewels which are inanimate creatures incapable of love.”
.
But why a council? To offer a secular analogy, things are always in need of reform and improvement on the level of national politics, but calling a constitutional convention requires a serious, long-standing and fundamental issue that demands attention, one that cannot be addressed in any other way. Otherwise a cc can lead to more problems than it was intended to solve and the country is better off dealing with the issue in a less drastic way.
Well said. I've often thought the same thing. I wasn't around (b. 1960) but can't help thinking that there must have been a fair amount of smugness among the faithful to account for such a rapid fall. The last half century has certainly been humbling at any rate.
Perhaps the answer to your question is that the well-catechized 40's and 50's laity trusted their pastors.
Just as the Fathers of the Council trusted the Popes.
If the Council was somehow mis-implemented I have never been able to understand how this could be, since the very bishops who wrote and voted on and accepted the documents, returned to their dioceses and...well, implemented them.
It is a very strange moment in the history of the Church.
St. Vincent of Lerins seems to offer excellent advice, when one considers homosexuals accepted-sans repentance- onto parish councils by Cardinals (including the author of both the CCC and the notorious YouCat), refusal to defend the definition of marriage on the part of pastors in Washington state, pro-abortion nuns, liturgical devastation..................
".......if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty."
(St. Vincent of Lerins, Confessor, 5th century, Commonitorium)
would have been better off had there been no Vatican II.
"Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."
Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty. Yep. V2 is OK.
†