Vatican II - a Work in Progress

For many Catholics the Second Vatican Council is ancient history. 

They may acknowledge that it was important, momentous, decisive.  And even if they were not alive when the Council  met (1962-65) and did not personally experience the changes and challenges it brought about, they can agree that it was a critical moment in the life of the Church. But it happened a long time ago, and it may appear to them to be dated and irrelevant for the Church of today.

The truth is: though it ended in 1965, the work of the Council is still underway. Vatican II is not over; in many ways it has just begun.

Vatican II set the direction for the Church as she ended the 20^th and entered the 21^st century. The 16 documents developed by the bishops and approved by the pope provide goals and strategies for implementation. 

More than 50 years later Pope Francis urges the people of God to follow that direction.

Dozens of subsequent documents, such as instructions on proper implementation, have been issued by the pope and Vatican offices over the years to insure correct understanding of the Council’s pronouncements and to encourage their appropriate application to a variety of pastoral situations and circumstances not necessarily addressed by the Council documents themselves.

The Church can be compared to an ocean liner; it cannot change course on a dime. It takes time, and returning it to its proper course and destination is still underway.

One example of the changes to be implemented is respect for “competent territorial ecclesiastical authority.” Among the decisions articulated in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium, approved on December 4, 1963) is recognition that regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs to various kinds of bishops’ conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories (22.2).

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, therefore, has a right to regulate, with approval of the Apostolic See (the pope), certain aspects of the celebration of the sacraments. Translation from Latin for use in the liturgy is one of those aspects which must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority (36.4).

The recognition of this local input flows from the Council’s acknowledgement that the Church does not want to impose rigid uniformity, but rather respects and fosters the qualities and talents of various races and nations (37).

With this in mind the Council agreed that competent territorial ecclesiastical authorities may specify adaptations for administering the sacraments, for processions, liturgical language, sacred music and the arts (39).

In 2001, Liturgiam authenticam, a directive from a Vatican office, insisted that translations from the Latin  “in so far as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet."

In effect the translation now used for the prayers at Mass so follows the word order and structure of the Latin phrasing that the English version is often awkward and sometimes a challenge to understand.

The “poster-child” of such challenging prayers is the collect for the 19^th Sunday in Ordinary Time: “Almighty ever-living God, whom, taught by the Holy Spirit, we dare to call our Father, bring, we pray, to perfection within our hearts the spirit of adoption as your sons and daughters that we may merit to enter into the inheritance which you have promised. Through our Lord Jesus Christ…”

In pre-Vatican II days priests often before Mass translated the Latin into English so they could understand what they were saying. Today many priests before Mass translate the “English” into English.

In September, 2017, a directive from Vatican II-minded Pope Francis affirmed for bishops conferences that it is their responsibility faithfully to prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

It remains to be seen whether the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and other English-speaking Episcopal conferences will re-visit the translation of the Roman Missal we are currently using. Such a re-assessment and the development of a truly vernacular translation would be an example of the spirit and letter of Vatican II  —a worthy project for 2018 (as the current copies of the Roman missal are showing wear and need repair).

The Old Guys in the AUSCP

The average age of the members of the Association of U. S. Catholic Priests (AUSCP) is about 70, and one of its aims is to promote the direction and spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

I recently read a blog critical of the AUSCP, a blog which took special note of the average age of the members and commented, "Are you getting the picture here? This is not a youth movement."

The blogger continued, "I'm saying this movement is fading....For a growing number of Catholics, Vatican II is simply another part of  Catholic history...What's coming, not too far in the future now, is a re-appraisal...a more sober assessment of Vatican II's strengths and weaknesses, a rediscovery of what Vatican II really says...When that happens, I think the old, V2 pro or con dialectic will be as gone as the dinosaurs."

This assessment may be true. Twenty years from now most of the current members of the AUSCP will be dead. Twenty years from now there may be a reappraisal of the Council. Twenty years from now there may be a more sober assessment of Vatican II's strengths and weaknesses.

But part of the dynamic for that reappraisal and more sober assessment will be the energy expended by the old guys in the AUSCP who cherished and promoted what Vatican II did.

Some of the strongest critics of the AUSCP and their Vatican II-orientation were youngsters or not even born when the Council took place.

Some of the strongest critics of Vatican II create a "straw list" of items which they say  Vatican II said, and then use their list to ridicule AUSCP's efforts to promote the Council's directions and spirit.

Perhaps the major reason that most of the AUSCP members are 70 or older is that these men remember the days before the Council.

Vatican II Changes

Without denying that there were abuses and misdirection in the immediate wake of the Council, the majority of the AUSCP members cherish the many good results produced by Vatican II's aggiornamento, resourcement, and rapprochment.

A partial list of the happy results of Vatican II includes:

1) greater participation of the people in the liturgy

2) restored awareness that the Holy Spirit works in all the people of God

3) biblical literacy among the laity

4) restoration of permanent diaconate

5) return of the Rite of Christian Initiation

6) renewed emphasis on Church as communio/koinonia (eucharistic ecclesiology)

7) retrieval of the theology of the common priesthood

8) hospitable recognition of other Christians

9) reaching out to the world as friend rather than enemy

10) re-evaluation of marriage as partnership of life and love rather than simply legal contract

11) re-examination of collegiality of episcopacy

12) recognition of the right to religious freedom

The list could go on.

Members of the AUSCP remember what it was like before. They are eager (perhaps anxious) to see maintenance of these changes and the promotion of the directions set by the Council.

They have reason to be concerned.

Vatican II called for an updating of the liturgy, a simplification of the rites, the elimination of accretions, the restoration of elements that were lost. Papal permission to use the pre-Vatican II Mass (Tridentine Rite) which the bishops voted to change is counter to the Council's directives.

Vatican II acknowledged the role of the bishop in his diocese and the role of bishops' conferences when it comes to liturgy and the vernacular. Curial rejection of the US Bishops' translation and their insistence on a new Roman Missal translation that is more than awkward counters the Council's direction.

Vatican II returned to the concept of episcopal collegiality. The idea of a Bishops' Synod with an agenda prepared by the Curia runs counter to the collegial spirit envisioned by the Council.

Vatican II urged ongoing dialogue with members of Christian denominations and with other religions. The current official dialogue barely exists and falls far short of the direction set by the Council.

Experience

Most members of the AUSCP lived in the pre-Vatican II church. They experienced both the excitement and the confusion that came as the Council's aftermath. They struggled with the changes, sometimes changes they did not at first want or understand. But they lived it.

For most of the ASUSCP members Vatican II was a gift and they are eager to hand it on to future generations. They do not want the Church to go back to the way it was.  They know what it was like. They see the value in what we have in the Vatican II tradition.

It takes a long time for the deliberations of a Council to be reviewed, a long time for its decisions to be accepted.

The AUSCP simply wants to keep the vision alive.

The blogger critical of the AUSCP, of its aged members and their agenda, noted that more and more of the faithful are not buying the concern about Vatican II as proposed by the Association.

That may be true. But the AUSCP believes that Vatican II, as Pope John put it, "rises in the Church like daybreak, a forerunner of a most splendid light. It is now only dawn."

The AUSCP believes that there must be among all of us (clergy and laity) what Pope John asked of the bishops in council: "serenity of mind, brotherly concord, moderation in proposals, dignity in discussion, and wisdom of deliberation."

The AUSCP believes that the Council's documents "have lost nothing of their brilliance," as Pope John Paul II said in 2001. "They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative tests of the magisterium, within the Church's tradition."

The Holy Spirit, fifty years ago, gave the Church a sense of direction in an ecumenical council, in which the college of bishops has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 883).

The membership of the AUSCP may be a fading one, but the importance of Vatican II is not.

True and False Reform

I've just finished reading Yves Congar's True and False Reform in the Church (Liturgical Press, 2011). Though first published in French in 1950, it remains a compelling invitation to look at the Church today and to embrace the notion of its ongoing reform.

One fascinating possibility connected with Congar's study is that it contributed to Pope John XXIII's decision to call for an ecumenical council.

It was at Vatican II that Congar learned that Archbishop Angelo Roncalli in 1952, when he was the Vatican's envoy to France, read the book, and mused, "A reform of the church: is such a thing really possible?"

Some who have read Congar's book and heard Pope John XXIII's opening address to the Council hear an echo of Congar's thesis in the Holy Father's understanding of the need for reform.

Blessed John XXIII's observation that "the substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another" sounds like Congar's observation, "...ideas of the 'outdated' or of  'change' do not bear upon Christianity in itself or upon its dogmas and its hierarchical structure. What is called into question, frankly, are certain forms, practices, or habits of historical Catholicism."

The Vatican's initial response to True and False Reform in the Church was negative, and the Holy Office ordered that the book not be translated or republished.

"As far as I myself am concerned, from the beginning of 1947 until the end of 1956," Congar later wrote, " I have never known anything from that quarter (that is, the Vatican's Holy Office) except an uninterrupted stream of denunciations, warnings, restrictive or discriminatory measures and distrustful interventions."

By 1962, however, Congar was serving as a peritus at the Second Vatican Council, and over the four sessions contributed many paragraphs to several Vatican II documents.

Congar, of course, was not alone in such rehabilitation. Prior to Vatican II Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and John Courtney Murray had also experienced their share of investigation and disciplinary actions before becoming expert consultants for the Council Fathers. (And the investigations and discipline continue today for a newer slate of theologians as Bradford Hinze of Fordham University records in the first chapter of When The Magisterium Intervenes, edited by Richard R. Gaillardetz, Liturgical Press, 2012.)

One of Congar's main convictions about true and successful reform in the Catholic Church is that would-be reformers must remain in the Church. He faults Martin Luther for his violence and irritability, and suggests that had Luther advanced what was good and Christian in his thinking without breaking with the Church he would have better served the cause of reform.

There are, in Congar's analysis, four conditions for reform without schism: 1) The primacy of charity and of pastoral concerns. He quotes Pope Pius XI: "Every true and lasting reform in the last analysis had its point of departure in holiness, in persons who were inflamed and impelled by the love of God and neighbor."

2) Remaining in communion with the whole Church, and the reason for that communion with the whole body is  that "complete truth is to be found only in total communion."

3) Having patience with delays. Says Congar, "In any reform movement, impatience threatens to ruin everything...The innovator, whose reform turns to schism, lacks patience."

4) Genuine reform through a return to the principle of tradition (not through the forced introduction of some novelty). He writes, "A Catholic reform movement therefore will be obliged to begin with a return to the fundamental principles of Catholicism ...Tradition is essentially the continuity of development arising from the initial gift of the Church ...Resourcement consists in a re-centering on Christ and on the paschal mystery."

Congar is the first to acknowledge that reform is not easy to effect. He recognizes the role of the hierarchy is to be conservators. He acknowledges that institutions are by nature reluctant to change.

At the same time he recalls the insights of St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Pope Nicholas I and St Gregory VII: "When you have custom without truth, all you have is antiquity of error" and "The Lord never said, 'I am the custom,' but rather 'I am the truth.'"

Pope Paul VI consulted with Congar on more than one occasion. Perhaps Congar's insight influenced Pope Paul as well as Pope John. In his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, August 6, 1964, Pope Paul wrote, "...when we speak about reform we are not concerned to change things, but to preserve all the more resolutely the characteristic features which Christ has impressed on his Church. Or rather we are concerned to restore to the Church that ideal of perfection and beauty that corresponds to its original image.." (47).

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Vatican II!

Catholic University of America (CUA)  in Washington, DC, sponsored a four-day symposium titled "Reform and Renewal: Vatican II After Fifty Years," September 26-29, 2012.

Keynote speakers included Cardinal William Levada, former prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Father John O'Malley, SJ, historian and professor of theology at Georgetown University, and Monsignor Paul McPartlan, professor of systematic theology at CUA.

Their talks and subsequent workshops offered a positive interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and highlighted the many encouraging consequences resulting from the Council's teaching.

Cardinal Levada echoed Pope John Paul II's assessment that Vatican II was "the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century...a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning."

His Eminence noted the many developments in theology that preceded the Council and which became part of the Council's teaching, such as the liturgical movement, Patristic revival, and the biblical movement, "sparking a ressourcement in theological and historical disciplines."

The text of Levada's talk is online at http://trs.cua.edu/res/docs/news/Cardinal-Levada-CUA-Keynote

Father O'Malley's focus was on "The Hermeneutic of Reform: From Gregory VII to Benedict XVI," proposing that the reforms of Vatican II were motivated by and developed from a combination of resourcement (a return to the past to correct the present), aggiornamento (Pope John's term for renewal), and development (the theology proposed by John Henry Cardinal Newman in the 19th century).

O'Malley added, "When Pope Benedict XVI proposed a hermeneutic of reform for interpreting Vatican II, he stepped away from the sharp dichotomy of rupture/continuity that he had earlier insisted upon. Historians, surely, must welcome the new category. They know that the sharp dichotomy of rupture/continuity is never verified in historical events, which are always a mix of the old and the new. An event as radical as the French Revolution did not destroy the deep bond that contributed to define what it meant to be French."

The text of O'Malley's talk is online at http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-301555259/-the-hermeneutic-of-reform-a-historical-analysis.

Monsignor McPartlan addressed the issue of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, insisting on the primacy of charity in ecumenism and observing that we need less arguing and more praying if we are to achieve a sense of unity.

Other CUA professors spoke to the apostolate of the laity, the liturgical and theological developments, religious freedom, Gaudium et spes, renewal of moral theology.

Over 500 participants attended one or more of the four day's sessions, many clergy and religious, seminarians and lay people, some students at CUA, and a few attendees from other parts of the country.

The tone of the symposium was positive, though some speakers (Cardinal Levada among them) acknowledged that some of the Council's initiatives have yet to be realized.

It is encouraging to see that other Catholic universities (e.g., Georgetown, October 11-12, 2012, as well as Saint Louis University, Saint Joseph's University) are not letting the Council's anniversary go unnoticed. Parishes across the country are also commemorating the golden anniversary, using the jubilee as an occasion for reviewing the letter and the spirit of the Council and recommitting to the direction set by this 21st ecumenical council of the Church.

It is good to know that fifty years later, Mother Church is still rejoicing that the Second Vatican Council, "by the singular gift of Divine Providence...here beside St. Peter's tomb" was solemnly opened by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962.

Happy Birthday!

Criticism and Reform

This summer seven Catholic priests in Portsmouth, Hampshire, invited their fellow priests to form an association for Catholic priests in England to promote the ongoing reform of the Church. They urged their brother priests and in fact all the faithful to read the signs of the times.

In response to their bishops' call to foster "a culture of dialog and solidarity," the seven noted issues which they believe need attention and discussion, such as married priests, Church teaching on sexual matters, and the Curia's by-passing of Vatican II teaching by countermanding the local bishops' authority for vernacular translation of  liturgical texts.

One response to their invitation came from a seminarian in England who suggested that these priests should "look at the reaction of the young people to the current Holy Father. They appreciate his clarity and his uncompromising Christianity. I think people have become sick of a Church that has tried to be trendy; they want to be part of a Church that knows what it stands for. If these Priests want to go with the times, they might wish to consider moving to the Church of England!"

Clearly not all clergy agree with them or the other priest-associations in Austria, Ireland, Australia, and the United States who are also issuing calls to action.

Some Catholics see criticism of the Church, the pope, the Vatican or the bishops as equal to insubordination, disloyalty, even mutiny. History and theology, however, suggest that talk of reform and critical comment are needed to keep the Church on course, true to its Gospel mission. 

Reformans et reformanda is Church tradition.

Criticism and change was at the heart of Paul's encounter with Peter: "And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong" (Gal 2:11).

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was upset with Church leadership in his day, and in a homily opined that "they love their perquisites, and they love them more than they love Christ...Show me a bishop not more concerned with discharging his people's purses of their money than their souls of sins" (Homily 77 on Song of Songs).

And in the midst of the Second Vatican Council Pope Paul VI reminded the Roman Curia that "we have to accept criticism with humility and reflection and admit what is justly pointed out. Rome has no need to be defensive, turning a deaf ear to observations which come from respected sources, still less, when those sources are friends and brothers" (Acta Apostolica Sedis, 797).

It must be acknowledged that some criticism can be devoid of respect for authority, divisive, and destructive. Karl Rahner addressed this matter, insisting that "attachment to the Church must also be part of the spirituality of the future. Otherwise it (criticism) is elitist arrogance and a form of unbelief"  (K. Rahner, Concern for the Church, Crossroad, 1981, p. 153). Criticism without reason, respect, and love is counter-productive, but those who love the Church, who bring intelligent observation, and couch their critiques in reverence for others and for the magisterium deserve a hearing.

Former Archbishop of San Francisco John R. Quinn applauded Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Ut unum sint, calling it "a revolution." He wrote, "For the first time it is the Pope himself who raises and legitimizes the question of reform and change in the papal office of the Church" (J R Quinn, The Reform of the Papacy, Crossroad, 1999, p.14).

Quinn quotes the encyclical frequently, noting John Paul's openness to exercising his primacy in a new situation, and highlighting the pope's request for prayer for the ongoing conversion of the Bishop of Rome. The Holy Father wrote, "I earnestly invite the faithful of the Catholic Church and all Christians to share this prayer. May all join me in praying for this conversion" (UUS, 4).

Yves Congar's book True and False Reform in the Church was met with censure by the Curia in the 1950s, but there is evidence that Archbishop Angelo Roncalli's reading of that study influenced his decision to summon the Second Vatican Council when he became pope.

Congar began with the plea that those who read his book would understand that "this is not a book of negative criticism but of love and trust --above all, of total love for and absolute trust in the truth."

He recalled the words of Pope Pius XII: "The free expression of one's opinion is the prerogative of every human society...In the eyes of Christians, repressing the expression of opinion or forcing it into silence is an attack upon the natural rights of persons, a violation of the world order that God has established...The church is a living body, and it would lack an element of its life if the free expression of opinion was lacking  --a lack for which both pastors and faithful would be blamed" (cf. Osservatore Romano, 2/18/1950, as quoted in Congar's book, p. 35).

A group of 35 Cincinnati-area priests (including one from the diocese of Columbus OH, and four from the diocese of Covington KY) met July 30 at Good Shepherd Church, Cincinnati, to review the agenda, policies, and plans of the recently formed Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP) which held its inaugural convention at St. Leo University in Florida in June.

The Cincinnati-meeting surfaced laments about the state of the Church today which were very similar to those aired at the Florida meeting (e.g., the rift between younger and older clergy, lack of dialog, sense that Church authorities are backtracking on Vatican II, creeping infallibility).

Those who participated at the Cincinnati meeting also expressed their hopes and dreams (e.g., holding to the vision of Vatican II, promotion of lay involvement, overcoming a climate of fear, keeping Christ as the center of priestly ministry, observing the 50th anniversary of the Council, finding a voice through the AUSCP).

The great majority of AUSCP members, locally and nationally, are loyal to the Church, concerned about deviations from the Gospel and from the directions set by Vatican II, and dedicated to their parish members.

Their criticism proceeds not from a desire to impose their personal opinions upon the Church, but from a sincere commitment to keeping the Church true to its mission.

Bishop Quinn's observation is worthy of consideration: "The failures of the Church in the second millennium --the loss of whole peoples to Catholic unity in the sixteenth century, the loss of the workers in the nineteenth, the alienation of the intellectuals in the twentieth-- have been due not so much to reform within the Church as to the lack of timely reform, the failure to weigh carefully enough the signs of the times, and the failure to act in time" (Reform of the Papacy, p. 44).

Congar at the Council

I just finished reading Yves Congar's My Journal of the Council. I suspect it is the closest we can come to "being there" --in the aula of St Peter's, in committee meetings all over Rome, in the mind of an eyewitness who contributed to the results of that great council!

We read Congar's summaries of hundreds of interventions on the council floor. We attend meetings in which bishops argued about and experts contributed to the formulation of doctrinal and pastoral statements on faith and the future of the Church.

We sense the politics, the back-room machinations, the suspense and surprise of the bishops' votes.

Congar is insightful: "When one persists in one's objection or criticism, one always ends up gaining something" (p. 55). "The further I go, the more I find that the preparation of the Council has been totally haphazard, not to say hopelessly inadequate.." (p. 203). "Without any doubt, Mgr Philips is the architect No.1 of the theological work of the council" (p. 510).

Congar is blunt: "(Cardinal Giuseppe) Pizzardo, who is an idiot and known to be such by all..." (p. 42). "Rahner, once again, monopolized the conversation" (p. 393). "Intervention by Fulton Sheen...He commanded attention, despite a somewhat theatrical and artificial manner. He was applauded (not by me)" (p. 663).

Congar records gossip: "News about the pope (John XXIII) is very bad: two or three transfusions every week" (p. 292)..."Paul VI is constantly besieged by petitions and pressures of all kinds...On the conservative side, attempts are being made to instil fear into him" (p. 426)..."about bishops at the Council having been found in brothels" (p. 720)

Congar was in pain: "I was barely able to walk...I wonder will I be able to keep going until the end of the Council" (p. 95). "At 5:15 pm appointment with a doctor...He examined me for an hour, very carefully. Difficult case, he said: several things are possible. He adopted the hypothesis of myelasthenia, and gave me some strong medication" (p. 397). "Health: VERY bad. During the Mass, unable to make all the gestures, unable to walk. NO strength" (p. 411).

Congar recognized his influence: "I was involved in a great deal of work, over and above a general influence of presence and spoken contributions. I contributed: Lumen Gentium, the first draft of several numbers of Chapter 1 and numbers 9, 13, 16, 17 of Chapter II, plus some particular passages" (p. 871) and to several other of the 16 documents as well.

Congar prayed: "O my God, who have shown me since 1929-30 that if the Church were to change her face, if she were simply to show her TRUE face, if she were quite simply the Church, everything would become possible on the road to unity; raise up effective workers, pure and courageous, for this work which you have undertaken and which I beg you not to abandon!" (p. 204).

Congar's journal records many (but not all) of the major moments in the Council's four sessions. He was there when Bishop Bandeira of Brazil publicly made the preposterous assertion that the council must not touch the Roman rite which, he explained, was instituted by St. Peter himself! (p. 147).

He wasn't there when Cardinal Ottaviani went over his allotted time to speak and the moderator Cardinal Alfrink turned off his microphone, much to the pleasure and applause of many in the assembly (p. 163).

I know I shall consult this journal again and again as I try to understand the workings of the Council and of the Spirit. I shall always be grateful to Congar for taking me there.

While it is our faith conviction that the Holy Spirit breathes where she will, and works in ways that steal past our perception and elude our comprehension, Congar's journal in some measure records the working of that Spirit.

Though I have read the journal from beginning to end, I cannot estimate its full value, even though I consider it a treasure and a legacy to be cherished.

The best I can do for now is repeat what Congar himself wrote: "I am keeping this little journal as a witness. I do not mix in the expression of my personal feelings...My own health problems, the total exhaustion that I have been experiencing these two months, is not this also something in the invisible and mystical history of the Council? I believe so strongly in the Gospel's 'the one who loses, gains.' I believe so strongly in 'Cum infirmor, tunc potens sum' ['When I am weak, then I am strong,' II Cor 12:10)]..."

My thanks to Yves (Cardinal) Congar!

People Change

One of the priests who served as a theology expert at the Second Vatican Council wrote in the 1960s a retrospect on the opening days of the council's first session in October of 1962.

He remembered a "certain feeling of exhilaration in the opening of the Council in Rome, the mysterious sense of new beginnings that has a way of stirring man and propelling him forward."

He sensed "the imminence of an event of historic significance."

He experienced the "diversity of tongues...the prospect of rich new encounters, the promise of what was coming."

Father also acknowledged a "strange ambivalence of feelings" in experiencing the opening ceremonies.

"The mighty basilica, the grandeur of the ancient liturgy, the colorful diversity of the visitors from all over the world --all this was magnificently impressive," he wrote. "Yet there was, on the other hand, an undeniable uneasiness, whose most obvious symptom was annoyance with the endlessly long ceremonies."

He realized that the liturgy did not involve all who were present. "Did it make any sense," he asked, "for 2,500 bishops, not to mention the other faithful there, to be relegated to the role of mere spectators at a ceremony in which only the celebrants and the Sistine Choir had a voice?"

His criticism continued, "Was not the fact that the active participation of those present was not required symptomatic of a wrong that needed remedy?"

Happily, he noted further, things were different only a couple months later, when at the ceremonies on the last day of the first session, "the responses and other fixed parts were sung in unison by the bishops and all those present. This was the result of the bishops' own initiative."

He also celebrated the day when the bishops were to elect members to the council's various commissions. The assembly objected to the curia's schedule and postponed the election until the bishops had time to think over their choices and consult with one another about the best candidates. Clearly the 2500 members of this meeting did not know one another. This proposal met with what Father called "a lively ovation, despite the official prohibition against applause."

This decision, he explained, allowed for a broader representation, what he described as "horizontal Catholicity," something which he said had been lost in the Church's practical life.

And further, in this decision "the curia found a force to reckon with and a real partner in discussion...Now it became clear that, besides the official curia organs (subordinated to the pope), the body of bishops was a reality in its own right, infusing into the dialogue and the very life of the Church its own spiritual experience."

"Without saying much," Father wrote, "Pope John, by the influence of his personality, encouraged the Council to openness and candor...Here there emerged a new awarewness of how the Church could conduct a dialogue in fraternal frankness without violating the obedience that belongs to faith."

Catholics across the board, especially any who tend to criticize or reject Vatican II, would do well to experience even these fifty years later a first-hand account of the excitement, freedom, spirit and magisterium of Vatican II.

Reading the written experiences and analyses of a Council peritus (a person accepted and designated by the Council as an expert in a given field) is eye-opening and mind-expanding, allowing later generations access to the formulation of the Church's path for the future.

If you would like to read more of this first-hand account, find a copy of Theological Highlights of Vatican II by the peritus and eye-witness Joseph Ratzinger.

If John XXIII Had Lived

I wonder what the Church would be like today if Pope John XXIII had lived for all four years of the Second Vatican Council.

The Council met over a four year period, 1962-65. Pope John died in 1963 and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the recommendation of the Papal Commission on birth control.

Pope John had established the commission in 1963 at the suggestion of Cardinal Leon-Joseph Suenens. The Vatican II Council fathers were reminded on at least three occasions that this delicate issue was not to be debated on the council floor because the matter was being studied by this special papal commission.

Suenens, however,  caused a major stir when he suggested that it was time to review the old teaching on birth control and perhaps accept that the doctrine was due for "development." He further urged Pope Paul VI to reveal the names of the members of the papal commission. It is said that Paul was a little more than irked by Suenens' speech.

When the majority of the members of the papal commission on birth control recommended a change in the church's position, Pope Paul reserved the matter to himself, and in 1968 published his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, electing to make no change.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the question of episcopal collegiality, that is, how the bishops as a college relate to the pope.

General editor of the five-volume History of Vatican II Giuseppe Alberigo summarized the issue this way: whether the bishops constituted a single body, a "college," a fraternal union of persons dedicated to a common task, just as the apostles had been "the Twelve."

Alberigo wrote that nearly 130 of the bishops spoke to this matter, many of them stressing "the close association between the 'college' of the apostles and that of their successors, the bishops." Opponents of this "collegiality" feared that such an idea would undermine the authority of the pope.

Further there were bishops who proposed that the Church should be run by a committee of bishops in union with pope, replacing the authority of the Curia, the Vatican Bureaus.

It is said that Pope Paul had misgivings about these proposals, so on his own initiative he announced that he was going to establish "the Synod of Bishops," but it would be an advisory body with no authority beyond what the pope would give it.

Church historian Father John O'Malley assessed the papal document (Apostolica Sollicitudo) as "a preemptive strike." Paul did not even use the word collegiality. He stressed papal primacy.

Synods of bishops continue to meet periodically with the pope in Rome today, but the Vatican sets the agenda. The proposals for a collegial rule of the Church have been ignored.

It is pure speculation, of course, but I wonder how Pope John would have dealt with the question of optional celibacy for priestly ordination in the Roman branch of the Catholic Church.

The issue of clerical celibacy came up in 1962 at a preparatory commission meeting  about what to do about priests who had left the ministry. The question was whether such men should be relieved of the obligation of celibacy. The commission thought the matter too complicated for open discussion and suggested the matter be left to the pope. Pope John XXIII took the matter off the table.

Although priestly celibacy was not an issue in 1962, by 1965 a small minority of bishops  thought the rule should be revised, at least for some regions of the Church. When a number of Brazilian bishops wanted to bring the matter to debate on the council floor, Pope Paul VI intervened and took celibacy off the agenda.

In his book What Happened At Vatican II, Father O'Malley summarized the situation: He (Pope Paul) believed such a discussion highly inappropriate...The bishops, even most of those who talked about possible change in the discipline, agreed that to open the matter on the floor of St. Peter's would probably generate more heat than light, send the media into a frenzy, and result in inadequate treatment because the time left to the council was so short (p.271).

Although it would be pure speculation to wonder about what would have happened in the areas of collegiality, contraception, and celibacy if Pope John XXIII had out-lived the council, there is no doubt that some Catholics think "things" would be different now.

The issue of episcopal collegiality versus Curial rule festers yet today. Contraception remains an area of dispute for many Catholics. Clerical celibacy is still a stumbling block, especially in the light of the Church's practice of welcoming married Episcopalian priests into the Roman fold.

The Second Vatican Council may be 50 years old, but its direction continues, its hopes abide, and its controversies linger.

A Climate of Fear

Fear is an emotional response to the threat of danger. It often induces flight or excessive caution. Sometimes it paralyzes.

"Do not be afraid" is frequently heaven's advice in encounters between God and human beings.

Fear or inducing fear is a common tool used by those in authority to maintain control over their subjects. Israel's God uses it with people, parents use it with children, court judges use it with those on trial, bishops use it with priests.

The Book of Proverbs teaches that fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (1:7). The Hebrew word for fear is yare. Depending on context it can also be rendered reverence, but there are psychological and emotional differences between fear and reverence.

Bishops deserve reverence. They take the place of the apostles. We give them the title "Most Reverend."

But are bishops to be feared? They themselves agreed that "in exercising his office of father and pastor the bishop should be with his people as one who serves" (Vatican II, Christus Dominus, 16).

Lumen Gentium, 28, explained that priests should see in their diocesan bishop "a true father and obey him with all respect," while the bishop "should treat the priests, his helpers, as his sons and friends, just as Christ calls his disciples no longer servants but friends."

The relationship between bishop and priest, between bishop and people, between priest and people, then, is to be marked by reverence, not fear.

Should bishops be afraid? The relationship between bishops and the pope is difficult to comprehend. And without doubt we hold that the college of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff as its head. Nevertheless it is also clear that bishops are not to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff (Christus Dominus, 27). They have authority too.

Bishops owe the pope reverence but should they be afraid of him or fear the Curia (the Holy Office, that is, the Vatican bureaucracy)?

It is well-known that the bishops at Vatican II were eager to reform the Curia. For example, Bishop Maximos IV (more correctly known as His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh) proposed the establishment of a central government of the Church composed of pope and bishops from around the world rather than pope and Roman-oriented clergy. He urged a rotating membership. He said he wanted the central office to reflect the doctrine of collegiality.

Not much came of his intervention. Historian John O'Malley noted that the proposal to create a body superior to the Curia was well-received by most in the assembly, but Pope Paul VI stepped in and created the less effective Synod of Bishops as an alternative.

How the Church was to be run was a fundamental issue at the Council. Would it continue its highly centralized mode of operation or would it accept management with broader consultation and sharing of responsibility?

Saigh's proposal to reform the Curia or create a superior body for oversight of the Curia's work did not produce much fruit. In many areas it seems as if Vatican II never happened.


The collegiality of conferences of bishops around the world has been stifled; for example, the US Bishops' Conference's translation of the Roman Missal was rejected by the Vatican and the current translation was substituted.

Pope Benedict XVI has permitted use of the Tridentine Liturgy (the reformation of which was the primary focus of the liturgical renewal envisioned by the Council).

The Vatican's handling of the pedophilia crisis, the silencing of Church representatives who discuss ordination of women, the secret disciplinary meetings reprimanding bishops and priests, the refusal to include in catechetical texts the writings of Trappist monk Thomas Merton on the spiritual life --all seem contrary to the direction of Vatican II.

Further, these policies and disciplines create a climate of fear. Priests are afraid of being reprimanded or disciplined by their bishops; bishops fear censure by the Curia.

As a result many if not most bishops are reluctant to accept any innovative ways of evangelizing or overseeing their dioceses lest they offend Roman sensibilities. Bishops routinely require letters of acceptability from other bishops before allowing speakers into their dioceses. An Ohio priest was reprimanded by his bishop for publicly criticizing the new Roman missal translation.

Reverence is never out of style, but there is a great deal of fear in the Church climate of 2012.

As I look at the Church I think things are not as they should be, and I know that reform has always been part of the Church's self-assessment (reformans et reformanda). 


I need to remind myself frequently that Jesus remains the life and spirit of his Church, no matter its confused state. I need to pray for the ongoing reform of the Church. I need to hear, "Do not be afraid."

Faith and Logic

Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are invalid.

Part of the formal study of philosophy is the science of logic. Logic results from our applying reason to argument and making correct or reliable inference. Logic is sound judgment.

It is logical to draw the conclusion that "John is mortal" when we propose this argument: "All men are mortal; John is a man; therefore John is mortal."

This syllogism, made up of a major premise ("All men are mortal") and a minor premise ("John is a man"), leads to the logical (reasonable, reliable) conclusion that "John is mortal."

Not every appeal to logic, that is, to a reasonable, reliable conclusion, is valid. A post hoc argument is contrary to reason.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning argues that one event ("B") happened after another event ("A"), and therefore "A" must have caused "B" to happen.

For example, "I washed my car on Monday, that's why it rained on Tuesday." This kind of argumentation is logical fallacy, also known as false cause or correlation but not causation.

Just because something happened after something else, does not mean that the something else caused the something to happen. Nor can we conclude that avoiding "A" will prevent "B."

If you are still with me, I hasten to add that my reason for all this philosophizing is to debunk the arguments that the troubles we are now experiencing in the Church are caused by the Second Vatican Council.

I've heard it said that the reason we have a scarcity of priests is because of Vatican II. I've heard it said that the reason we have fewer Catholics going to Mass on Sunday is Vatican II. I've even heard it said that the reason for the pedophilia scandal in the Church is Vatican II.

These are examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and the conclusions are illogical and invalid.

Long before Pope John XXIII was elected pope (1958) and called for an ecumenical council (1962-65), the Church was showing signs of a decline in priestly vocations. For example, Archbishop Karl J. Alter of Cincinnati in the 1950s noted "a threatening shortage of priests for the immediate future" in his diocese. The same situation was more obvious throughout Europe.

Those who propose that decline in Mass attendance is the result of Vatican II liturgical changes forget to factor in what Michael Casey, OCSO, a monk and prolific writer in Australia, calls "the movement of secularisation that swept through the West in the 1960s." He points to the social changes of that decade which "resulted both from the technological advances and as reaction to the serial horrors of the twentieth century."

You cannot blame Vatican II nor logically connect changes in the Church with the rebellion of the beatnik generation, the atrocities of the war in Viet Nam, the technological exploration of space, the struggle for racial equality, or the mind-numbing drugs and free-love of Woodstock.

And for decades before Vatican II the problem of pedophilia by priests was known and quietly, secretly, and ineffectively managed by bishops in dioceses around the world.

These and other forces were already at work changing people and cultures prior to Vatican II. Among those forces were new means of social communication, yearning for freedom by those under despotic governments, the threat and fears of nuclear annihilation, re-discovery of liturgical practices of an earlier age. Catholics were not unaffected by these cultural influences.

Blaming Vatican II for these current problems is an example of logical fallacy, even if we acknowledge that some of the things done in the Council's name were ill-considered and poorly implemented.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are not valid.

What is valid is the recognition that we cannot go back to an idealized past. All the Latin and cassocks and novenas we can muster will never bring the Church back to what it was in the 1950s. The nostalgia is understandable, but it lacks logic.

No, Vatican II set a course for the Church, and our best bet is to respond wholeheartedly to its direction.

In the area of liturgy Vatican II encouraged us to participate actively, to return to a noble simplicity in ritual, to think of liturgy as the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed.

In relating to others, we were urged to enter into ecumenical dialogue with people of other religions, to use the medicine of mercy rather than of condemnation, to promote religious freedom, to be of service to all mankind.

In our personal and communal spirituality, we were advised to read and pray with the Bible, to evangelize, to reflect the ideals of marriage and family life, to think of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life.

Pardon me if you think I am pre-occupied with the Second Vatican Council. I think and write of it often. My repetitive referrals to that Council are prompted by my conviction that the Council has pointed us in the right direction. I have a 20-year old sweatshirt imprinted with these words: "Join the revolution! Support Vatican II!"

My faith and logic tell me it is still the way to go.

Vatican II's Golden Anniversary

There is the perception among some Catholics that the Church's leadership wants to take the Church back to what it was before the Second Vatican Council.

Some clergy lean toward the theology, dress, liturgical style and clericalism of the pre-Vatican II Church.

Pope Benedict XVI decides, on his personal initiative (motu proprio), to allow a return to use of the Tridentine (Latin) liturgy.

The Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments requires English-speaking Catholics to use a new (and highly criticized) English translation of the Sacramentary (the book of prayers for Mass) beginning in Advent of 2011.

The meetings of Synods of Bishops at the Vatican fall far short of the hope for collegiality raised by the Council fathers.

I once asked a priest/historian if it is possible that the spirit and change of Vatican II might be just a momentary blip on the screen of Church history. Will we go back to the way it was?

He said, "No," and went on to explain that the pattern of history shows a period of reaction following significant change. He told me that we should expect to find people who want to return to the seeming security of the pre-Vatican II Church, but once a change has taken place history does not allow restoration to the past.

The Church has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus has assured us, "I will be with you always." The theology and renewal reflected in the documents and spirit of the Second Vatican Council cannot be rendered void; those decisions were instructed for the good of the Church and the promotion of the Gospel.

In his book Receiving the Council, canon lawyer Ladislaus Orsy, SJ, reminded his readers that when the Council fathers gathered in St. Peter's Basilica they prayed the traditional acclamation Adsumus, "we are present and listening."

Orsy proposes that the years 2012 to 2015 should be solemnly declared the years of the Council, that the entire people of God ("from the bishops to the last of the faithful," Lumen Gentium 12, quoting St. Augustine) should observe this golden anniversary with that same prayer. He pleads, "Let the cry Adsumus, 'we are present and attentive,' resound --not within the walls of St. Peter's Basilica but throughout the face of the earth."

And I would add a suggestion for still another prayer, namely, that the Church be set free from fear. The Bible is replete with heaven's plea, "Do not be afraid." 1 John 4:18 teaches, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love." I suspect that efforts to restore the Church to what it was prior to Vatican II are motivated largely by fear.

Going back to old ways does not ensure preservation of dogma nor reclamation of devotion. It is paradoxical but true that things must change to stay the same. That is what Pope John XXIII meant when he made the distinction between the truths of dogma and the language that is used to present them.

Calling a refrigerator "the ice-box" or an automobile "a machine" may have a certain nostalgic appeal, but as descriptions they are antiquated and inadequate for this age.

Vatican II set a course for the future. Lay participation in the mission and ministry of the Church is sanctioned and here to stay. Recognition of and cooperation with other religions and churches in the ecumenical movement do not pose a threat to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

When Father Orsy suggests that "For communities and individuals to enter into the dynamics of the Council is to expose themselves to the ever-surprising action of the Spirit," I say, "From your mouth to God's ears."

Let preparations for the golden anniversary begin! And do not be afraid!

A New Pentecost

I was reading The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), and found again one of the more insightful lines in poetry: The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty Centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Critics have given no single exegesis or explanation of Yeats' imagery. What is the "widening gyre?" Who is the falconer? What does the falcon represent?

The lack of consensus among the experts gives me leave to propose my own interpretations, and the freedom to change my mind with every reading. As America's librarian Archibald MacLeish insisted, "A poem should not mean, but be."

The poem's title suggests that Yeats was thinking of the Christian expectation that Jesus will come again. This parousia will herald judgment day. Yeats confirms that the world is falling apart and he sees some apocalyptic vision on the horizon forecasting a new stage in human history.

The line contrasting the best and the worst captures the formula for disaster. Jesus saw it: "The children of this world are more prudent...than the children of light." Edmund Burke saw it: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

On the world's stage or in the church's sacristy politics today seems to be in a downward spiral. Too many good people are disheartened.

I do not want to be counted among "the prophets of gloom" with whom Pope John XXIII disagreed, but I think we are in one of those valleys which characterize certain epochs of human history, including the history of the Church. Coming off the heady days of Vatican II, the Church has had to struggle to implement the council's vision and spirit. Many members are tired, some are discouraged; still others are afraid.

I don't sense much conviction about the mission and ministry we reviewed at Vatican II. The excitement of celebrating new forms of liturgy, the exhilaration of seeing Catholics and Protestants in friendly dialogue, the enthusiasm of lay involvement in Church ministry, the euphoria of the council's call to holiness re-animating the spirituality of the faithful -- all these prescriptions for aggiornamento have in my estimation slowed and become commonplace.

Jesus too sensed a malaise in his day: "We piped you a tune but you did not dance, we sang you a dirge but you did not wail."

Maybe the biblical visions and images of apocalyptic literature were devised to rouse a sleeping people to awareness and action. Maybe Yeats' "blood-dimmed tide" is an echo of "the sea tuned to blood" in Revelation 8:8. Maybe the beasts of Revelation 13 are mirrored in Yeats' vast image out of Spiritus Mundi in the desert sand.

Experts in poetry may well reject the spin I've put on The Second Coming, but I suspect Yeats would nod generous approval for I am convinced that he is saying, "We've screwed up the last twenty centuries. It's time for a second start."

Yeats' prophecy of the second coming reflects his belief that Christians might do better the second time around as they waken from twenty centuries of stony sleep.

Even in his day, St. Cyprian (200-258 AD) reminisced about an earlier time when "the faith of believers was warm with a fervor of faith still new."

I think this belief prompted Pope John to pray that his council might effect "a new Pentecost in our time," a new age when the best will be full of conviction and the worst will lack passionate intensity.

Signs of the Times

I admit I did not understand what Pope John XXIII meant.

In announcing his intention to call an ecumenical council, he said that the Church must "read the signs of the times." I initially rejected such an idea on the grounds that the Church could not learn anything from the world.

Only later did I remember that Jesus had reprimanded his contemporaries for failing to judge the signs of the times, a failure which kept them from recognizing who he was (cf. Matthew 16:3).

Pope John, however, did read the signs. He saw the aftermath of two world wars, the fragmentation which came from technology and science, and the struggle between materialism and spiritual values. He believed the Church could bring hope, peace and unity.

But before it could fulfill its God-given mission, the Church had to humbly read the signs of the times and re-assess how it could best respond with Christ's message and ministry. The Second Vatican Council was to be that re-assessment.

"The Church," as John often reminded the bishops, "is not a museum." It is a servant, responsive to the needs of those it serves. The Second Vatican Council gave us a wake-up call.

The Church is alive, and therefore subject to change. The Spirit breathes where it will, and we are by divine commission sent into the world. Consequently we have a divine mandate "to interpret the present time" (cf. Luke 12:56).

In the quest to read and respond the Church must not dilute the Gospel or compromise its mission. Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever. The Church has been given testimony from Christ and may not part from it.

At the same time the Church may not divorce itself from the cry of the poor, nor condemn the evils of the world from some ivory tower. Though its dogma does not change, the lanuage used to express it may have to. Practices appropriate to one age may have to be altered to meet the needs of another.

Jesus' admonition applies to us. To be authentic and loyal, we must determine the signs of our times. I offer some suggestions and questions.

1) Church membership is splintered. Some members boast that they are "traditionalists" wanting to return to Tridentine liturgy, put the brakes on "the spirit of Vatican II," and promote papal monarchy. Others are proud to be known as "progressives" wanting to develop multiplicity of liturgical styles, push forward with the Vatican II agenda, and promote collegiality in Church government. And statistics indicate still another group whom we might call "inactive Catholics." How long can a divided house stand?

2) The clergy are choosing sides too. "Vatican II priests" generally support the social teaching and spirit of the Council and want to promote lay involvement and eschew clericalism. "John Paul II priests" are skeptical about "the spirit of Vatican II" and focus on liturgy, clerical status, and a return to the Catholicism of the past four hundred years. What would Jesus do?

3) An explosion of electronic communication is an obvious characteristic of our day. Should evangelization, catechesis and preaching adapt to cyberspace, You-Tube, and Kindle? How?

4) Church scandals such as pedophilia and homosexuality among priests, cover-ups by the hierarchy, and mishandling of Church funds have affected the Church's image and undermined Church credibility among members and non-members alike. How do we restore confidence?

5) The shortage of priests continues to impact dioceses and parishes. Is ordaining married men a solution? Is it Eucharist versus celibacy?

6) There seems to be a growing schism --not so much a public or formal revolt against the pope and bishops but rather "a schism of indifference" in which Church members find Church leaders to be irrelevant, insensitive, ill-suited to serve. Who has drifted?

The handwriting is on the wall. We must not turn a blind eye. If we are too proud to listen and learn from the world, we jeoparadize the very mission we have received. And yet, having read the signs, we need the Spirit to guide our response. Let us pray for a new Pentecost in our time so that we correctly read the signs and then speak the languages of a multifacted world.

Renewal Begins With "R"

I didn't plan it. There was no rhyme or reason for it. It was just coincidence.

But I found it amusing when I noticed in my stack of books on the coffee table that each author's name began with the letter "R."

First was Karl Rahner, the late German Jesuit whose dogmatic theology had a profound influence on the deliberations at Vatican II. Prior to the Council he had been under suspicion by Vatican authorities and forbidden to publish anything until first it was censored by Rome.

Serving as a theologian-resource for the German bishops, Rahner was asked to review various documents and provide input for their deliberations, especially on the Church, on Scripture and Tradition, and on the Church in the Modern World. He was named peritus (an expert) at the Council.

Next on my stack was a book by Rahner's friend and associate Joseph Ratzinger, a theologian likewise consulted by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council. He and Rahner were critical of the initial document on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, and the German bishops asked them to compose an alternative text.

Church historian John O'Malley suggests that Ratzinger was "perhaps the most important of the younger theologians (he was 35) at the council." As advisor and peritus to Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne, Ratzinger insisted that the Council's documents should reflect "the vital language of Scripture and the Church Fathers." Today he is Pope Benedict XVI.

The third "R" was Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who became Pope John XXIII, the initiator of the Second Vatican Council. I was reading Journal Of A Soul, the posthumously published diary which he kept from age 14 up to six months before his death.

I especially enjoy his final entry in which he reflects on his decision to call an ecumenical council. He wrote, "I was the first to be surprised at my proposal, which was entirely my own idea...we are now on the slopes of the sacred mountain. May the Lord give us strength to bring everything to a successful conclusion."

Timothy Radcliff was my fourth "R." He's the London-born Dominican friar whose preaching and writing have provided insight and encouragement for developing our spiritual lives.

His What Is The Point Of Being a Christian? explores the treasures of our Faith, and applies them to how we struggle to live in the spirit and love of Jesus. He laments the loss of debate in the Church, and suggests that "we must learn humility, to be docile before the wisdom and language of others' experience."

"R" number five is Ronald Rolheiser, a priest of the order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. He has written several books on spirituality, and both teaches and practices spiritual direction.

In The Holy Longing Rolheiser outlines the nonnegotiables of the Christian's spiritual life (worship, social action, and the centrality of Jesus' incarnation), and insists that a true spirituality cannot be divorced from one's every day life.

My final "R" is the Franciscan priest and speaker/writer of things spiritual --Richard Rohr. His ministry combines contemplation and action. He founded the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico to help people in social service ministries to maintain a healthy balance between prayer and activism.

Rohr's many books explore our Christian commitment and describe a plan for growth. I like Things Hidden - Scripture As Spirituality best of all. He has a way of looking at things from an unusual perspective, leading his readers to re-evaluate and re-commit.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that the books on my coffee table were all written by authors whose last names begin with "R." But I wonder if, in the light of that litany of authors, it's coincidence that renewal begins with an "R" too.

Tomorrow's Church

There is a formula, popularly known as the Hegelian dialectic, for investigating how an idea or movement develops. Although German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) did not in fact initiate the specifics of this "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" formula (he gave his contemporary Immanuel Kant the credit), the "Hegelian formula" can be useful for assessing why things turn out the way they do.

Put most simply, how things turn out (the synthesis) is the result of the tension between an idea (the thesis) and its opposite (the antithesis).

You can see such tension in the deliberations and documents of the Second Vatican Council. As the Council developed, there emerged an obvious tension between two groups of bishops, a minority and a majority, sometimes described as traditionalists versus progressives.

The final documents often reflect the ongoing contest. For example, the majority wanted to emphasize the God-given rights and role of the laity in the Church's mission by affirming that the laity receive their commission through their baptism and confirmation (cf. Lumen Gentium 33).

The minority wanted to emphasize the divinely-appointed rights and role of the hierarchy by insisting that "the laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church" (cf. LG, 37).

These two ideas or emphases are not strictly contradictory, but the final Dogmatic Constitution on the Church reflects the rivalry between the two forces. The give-and-take of the two Council parties is obvious. The document (the synthesis) is marked by compromise.

The collegial role of the bishops versus the monarchical role of the pope is another hotly contested issue, and in fact remains subject to debate and begging clarification. It will probably take Vatican III or its equivalent to sort out the differences and distinctions.

Perhaps another example of the contrasts can be found in the underlying dynamic of two themes: aggiornamento and ressourcement. Pope John XXIII described the Council as an occasion for updating and renewal (he used the Italian term aggiornamento). Several influential theologians at the Council urged a return to the sources, especially to the Scriptures and to the teachings of the early Church Fathers (they used the French expression ressourcement).

The juxtaposition of two seemingly opposing themes resulted in a synthesis which updated and renewed the Church by consulting the ancient past to rediscover the direction, simplicity and enthusiasm of our Church's origin.

Still another possible form of dialectic is operative today in the struggles between so-called conservative and liberal Catholics. There are those who want to restrain the direction and "spirit" of Vatican II and there are those who believe the Church has a long way to go before achieving the values proposed by the Council.

There are priests, sometimes dubbed "John Paul II priests" who emphasize liturgy, clerical dress, and blind obedience to papal teaching. There is also a cohort of priests, sometimes described as "Vatican II priests," who emphasize social justice, the role of the laity, and critical analysis of Vatican leadership.

There are Catholics in the pew who maintain that the Church has gone too far (too many lay people in the sanctuary, a loss of the sense of the sacred, too much dissent from official teaching and discipline), and there are Catholics in the pew who believe the Church has not gone far enough.

If the Hegelian dialectic is accurate (and experience seems to verify it), it is reasonable to say that the Church of the future will be a synthesis of the theses and antitheses of today. It looks as if the Holy Spirit, the promised guide and guardian of the Church, is working in the dialectics and resulting tensions of ecclesiastical politics.

I haven't studied Hegel's philosophy in many years, but I recall his proposing that Christianity (which he called the absolute religion) is a synthesis of two stages of religious consciousness: the religion of nature and the religion of the individual spirit.

He may not agree with my application of his insight to the Church of today, but neither would he fault me for trying to make sense of the tensions and contradictions we experience as members of that Church.

Tomorrow's Church then is likely to be a synthesis of the theses and antitheses of today --with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Letter vs. spirit of Vatican II?

After I completed an evening's talk and prayer session, a young man wanted to discuss his role in the Church. He was, he said, encouraged by what I said, and was eager to play a more active role in spreading the Gospel. I told him that his desire was exactly what Vatican II had in mind when it affirmed the role of the laity as participation in the saving mission of the Church. I said Vatican II insisted that all Catholics are commissioned to the apostolate by Jesus himself (cf. Lumen Gentium, #33), and that was certainly the spirit of the Council.

He winced a bit and expressed concern over Catholics who talk about the "spirit of the Council" rather than the letter of its documents. He wanted to be cautious about laymen who in his assessment overstep their bounds and justify their thinking and actions by appealing to some vague spirit of Vatican II. He then quoted a Catholic priest who said on TV, "If you ever find the spirit of the Council, kill it!"

I was shocked by that advice. I replied, "Ah, but Paul says, 'The letter brings death, the spirit gives life'" (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6). I did admit to him that there are people who carry the Council and its spirit to an extreme, but at the same time I cannot imagine that the extraordinary gathering of Bishops we call Vatican II had no lingering spirit to guide us.

Pope Benedict XVI has on occasion warned against interpreting the changes of the Council as advocating a complete rupture with the past, as discontinuity. The pope prefers to think of Vatican II as proposing reform not repudiation. He has righly expressed consern that some people ignore the letter of the documents and focus solely on what they perceive to be the "spirit of the Council."

The Church, of course, cannot simply reject the foundational dogmas of its magisterium, but it does (and sometimes must) reverse some teachings and practices advocated in the past.

For example, Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, said it was wrong to hold that "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he may have thought true." A hundred years later the Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Liberty declared that the human person has a right to religious freedom (#2). That is a change.

Vatican II, in effect, reversed the teaching of Pope Pius IX. In no place did it change defined dogma. Pope Benedict's concern about a radical discontinuity is more than valid when we consider defined dogma. If anyone uses the notion of "the spirit of Vatican II" to overturn defined dogma, he misunderstands theology and Vatican II.

It is my conviction that we need to re-read the Council documents, to find out what they really say, and move forward in the spirit those documents convey. I have to admit that the documents often reveal the compromises in theology and wording that opposing groups of Council fathers (the bishops) demanded in order to pass the various constitutions and decrees. Nevertheless, the give-and-take wording of the documents and the instances of ambiguity do not invalidate the sense of direction the Council intended to take.

There can be no doubt that the Council emphasized the role of the laity and urged their participation "in the saving work of the Church" (cf. LG, #33). Careful to maintain the distinction between laity and hierarchy, insistent on the divine role of the ordained, the Council nonetheless confirmed the cooperation that laity and pastors must foster in order for the Church to fulfill its mission in the world (cf. LG, ##37-38).

I know there is a difference between spirit and Spirit, but since I believe the Holy Spirit was present at the Council, I also believe that there is a lingering sense of direction (a spirit) from that Holy Spirit which helps us to interpret the letter of the documents and encourages our fulfilling the mission as well. I very much oppose killing the spirit of Vatican II. If you find it, listen to it, test it against the Council's teaching, and then, if it is valid, let it be your inspiration and guide!