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!

AUSCP Inaugural Convention

Two hundred and forty priests from 55 dioceses across the country gathered June 11-14, 2012, at St. Leo University, northeast of Tampa, Florida, for the first national meeting of the newly formed Association of United States Catholic Priests (AUSCP).

The focus of the meeting was "Vatican II Lives," a call to keep alive the vision and passion of the Council.

Key-note speakers were Dr. Richard Gaillardetz, president-elect of the Catholic Theological Society of America, and Father Anthony Ruff, OSB, teacher of liturgy and Gregorian Chant at St. John's University School of Theology.

The AUSCP was founded in August of 2011 when an organizing committee of 27 priests met and agreed that US Catholic priests need a common voice in their efforts to "celebrate and keep alive the visionary concepts of Vatican II."

Father David Cooper, one of the founding fathers and chairman of the AUSCP board, explained that the association is not positioning itself to be a controversial voice, but a collaborative one.

AUSCP is one of several associations of priests around the world, including Ireland, Austria, Australia, and the Philippines.

The convention began with  a session in which priests were invited to verbalize their "laments" about their ministry, their perception of the Church, their struggles with living the priestly vocation.

The intent was to spell out what a priest can control, what he can influence, and what are the facts of life he cannot change.

Their lamentations included recognition of a climate of fear, a distortion of Vatican II, the return of legalism and clericalism, the manner in which women are treated in the Church, stretching priests to the breaking point, struggles with the hierarchy, and loneliness.

The exercise served as a kind of release valve, a letting go of negative energy, recognizing that "mourning can move into kairos" as Psalm 42 implies.

Gaillardetz's key-note presentation described Vatican II as the construction of a new set of walls around the old Church. The old remains (continuity with the past is maintained) but the new construction enables the old to relate to the world of today.

He urged the AUSCP to insist on the "facticity" of the Council (Vatican II happened, and it was an ecumenical council), and at the same time to engage in "holy conversation" (avoid demonizing those who disagree).

In his key-note Ruff addressed the issue of the translation of the Roman Missal, noting that the responsibility of episcopal conferences for translating into the vernacular, as spelled out in Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium, has been reclaimed by the Curia.

He believes that Liturgicam authenticam, the 2001 instruction from the Holy See calling for exact, word-for-word translation of the Latin, should be withdrawn. In effect an office in the Vatican is translating the Mass prayers in a language foreign to the people who are to pray them.

Three sessions of the conference were devoted to business: 1) approval of by-laws/constitution, 2) acceptance of the board of officers, and 3) consideration of several proposals.

Among the proposals passed by the assembly were a letter of support to the LCWR (the Leadership Conference of Women Religious), and the acceptance of all US bishops (retired and active) who apply for membership in the AUSCP.

The median age of the priests in attendance was about 70. Most consider themselves "Vatican II priests." One celebrated his 86th birthday during the convention. Among the younger clergy was a priest who had been ordained for one year; he assessed the association as a threat to the Church.

Retired Bishop Rembert Weakland, who led a workshop on liturgy, and  retired Bishop Tom Gumbleton were present.

Father Hans Bensdorf, a representative of the Austrian Priests Initiative, and Father Luis Alfonso Contono, from El Salvador and a representative of the COOPESA for priests, spoke briefly to the assembly and audited the sessions.

Other presenters were Cleveland diocesan priest Father Don Cozzens (author of several books, including The Changing Face of the Priesthood) and Father Peter Fink, SJ (author of Worship: Praying the Sacraments).

In a general assessment of the conference, a number of priests were vocal: this is an intelligent, pastoral and fun group... this has nourished my hope... I realize I am not alone... "thank you" to the leadership team... this was good "holy conversation"... we must go forward, not back to the 50s, not back to the 70s, but forward... Vatican II was a gift and it is our job to be faithful to the gift God has given us.

The next AUSCP national convention will be held June 17-20, 2013; location to be announced. 

Membership inquiries can be made at AUSCP, PO Box 263, Calumet City IL 60649, or online at www.uscatholicpriests.org. As of June, 2012, there were 650 members.

Priests Convocation

Every five years, by custom, the Archbishop of Cincinnati "convokes" his diocesan priests for a three-day gathering of talks, discussions, prayer, and fellowship. The most recent convocation was held June 4-7, 2012, in Columbus, Ohio.

The theme for the conference was "Claiming Our Common Sense of Purpose as Priests of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati."

The underlying motive for the theme was concern over the gap or rift between older and younger clergy.

It is common to refer to these two "cohorts" as Vatican Two Priests and John Paul the Second Priests.

The divide seems to be centered on how the priests in each group view their ministry and vision of Church.

One analysis of the differences notes that the older clergy think of themselves as servant leaders and the younger clergy think of themselves as spiritual fathers.

Perhaps a further distinction can be drawn between the older clergy's perception that the Church must enter into and learn from the world, while the younger clergy tend to find the world an environment that threatens the Gospel and the life of the Church.

Not all of the older or younger clergy fit nicely into those categorizations, and some would disavow such distinctions.

The talks or presentations focused on the history, charism and spirituality of the Cincinnati presbyterate (Bishop Joseph Binzer), on the history of the Cincinnati presbyterate (Father Robert Obermeyer), a review of the Cincinnati presbyterate as one of the older clergy sees it (Father Gerald Haemmerle), a look at the Cincinnati presbyterate as a younger priest hopes to see it (Father Daniel Hess), and a layman's view (Miss Emily Bissonnette and Mr. Joseph Ollier).

Reception of the various presentations varied.

Questions and comments were surfaced about clerical dress (some younger clergy wear collars or cassocks whenever in public while some older clergy seldom or never do).

It was reported that in one of the small group discussions a younger priest said he considered the ministry of the "senior priests" to be a failure.

It was said by some older priests that clerical clothing does not make a man a priest, that a priest is known by his character and ministry not by his clothing.

Such differences or observations, however, did not disrupt the overall civility and patient listening of the priests as a body. A truly Christian spirit prevailed.

Final presentations focused on upcoming diocesan initiatives and programs, plus a brief summation of the diocese's financial well-being.

The final presentation was a "question and answer" session with the Most Reverend Dennis Schnurr, the Archbishop of Cincinnati.

Once compiled, the evaluation forms filled out by those in attendance will provide a more encompassing picture of the efforts and effects of these three days.

"I" or "We"

I've found it difficult to remember at Mass that the new translation of the Creed begins with "I" rather than "we."

Of course, the "consubstantial with the Father" has caused its share of questions.

"What does that word mean?"

"It means, one in being with."

"Well, we were already saying that."

"I know, but I guess someone thought 'consubstantial' was more exact. But in that case we really should be saying homoousion --that's the word the bishops used at the Council of Nicea."

Wikepedia explains: Ancient Greek: ὁμοούσιος, from the Ancient Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and Ancient Greek: οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being."

But back to my "I" versus "We" problem.

The Latin version of the Nicean (Constantinople) Creed begins with "credo," which is rendered "I believe."

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, took a different approach. It says:

"'I believe' (Apostles Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism.

"'We believe' (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers.

"'I believe' is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both 'I believe' and 'We believe'" (#167).

Pope Benedict quoted article 167 of the Catholic Catechism in his Apostolic Letter Porta Fidei, announcing a Year of Faith (October 11, 2012 to November 24, 2013). He seems to agree that we should be saying "we believe" at Mass.

The "We" reflects the assembly of believers.

I wish the translators of the Mass had been influenced by the Catechism.

My sense of the liturgy, as I stand with the congregation to recall the tenets of our belief, naturally calls for "We believe."

The World --Friend or Foe?

Are those who oppose the reforms of Vatican II conservative or liberal?

In the 50 years since the Second Vatican Council the label "conservative" has been applied to those who want to go back to the Church as it was in the 1950s: Tridentine Mass, decisively clerical leadership, and papal (curial) control of Church doctrine and discipline.

Those who want to see a more vigorous application of the reforms proposed by the Council are labeled "liberals."

Even during the Council's sessions the majority of the bishops were described as "progressives" and the minority were called "traditionalists."

One can argue whether those labels are accurate. A true conservative could be one who wants to go back to the practices of the Church as they were at the beginning: liturgy in the vernacular, popular election of bishops, married priests, biblically based theology and catechesis.

A liberal, then, would be one who wants to hold fast to the changes in the Church, especially those of the Middle Ages: Latin (papal) liturgy, centralization in Rome, European cultural accretions, emphasis on the separation of clergy and laity.

In that light today's conservatives are really liberals, and the liberals are really the conservatives.

More recently discussions (disagreements) about Vatican II have been couched in terms of continuity versus event (aka discontinuity).

 Some commentators prefer to emphasize Vatican II as an event, as a moment of major change, a rupture; in opposition are those who emphasize the continuity of Vatican II teachings with the teachings of past councils.

Very few proponents of Vatican II have suggested that the Council broke with the previous magisterium. Those who hail the pastoral orientation of Vatican II and mark significant change in the practices and orientation of the Council do not think it caused a rupture.

The pivotal question revolves around the idea of development of doctrine. Pope John XXIII reminded the Council fathers that doctrine does not change but the way in which the truth is expressed may have to change in order to express the truth accurately.

Today's theologians, however, tend to avoid both liberal/conservative and continuity/discontinuity. They see a difference that goes beyond change or no change, beyond preference for the past versus possibilities for the future, beyond clerical vs. lay,  married priests vs. celibacy, curia vs. synod of bishops, event vs. continuity.

The division between those who promote Vatican II and those who shy away from it is perhaps based more on attitude toward the world.

Is the world fundamentally good, or fundamentally evil?

The Council Fathers between 1962 and 1965 gave the Church a review and revision of Catholic theology and practice. In the past 50 years the Church has had the opportunity to reflect upon that gift and decide whether to receive it, reject it, or take some parts and leave others.

Many of the current tensions in the Church stem from how the Council has been received. It is possible to analyze the Council's reception based on the attitudes of those receiving it. Those who think of the world in friendly terms tend to affirm and promote Vatican II, while those who think of the world as a hostile environment tend to be critical and hesitant.

Massimo Faggioli,  professor of theology at the University of St Thomas (St Paul MN) describes the relationship between Church and world as "a core issue of the council."

He says, "It is not an overstatement to affirm that this issue was the origin of a major rift in the interpretation of the council, a rift much more visible after the council than during it."

And the two sides of this rift are labeled "neo-Augustinian" and "neo-Thomistic."

Scholar Ormand Rush explains, "The Augustinian school is wanting to set church and world in a situation of rivals; it sees the world in a negative light; evil and sin so abound in the world that the church should always be suspicious and distrustful of it."

Rush describes the Thomistic view as reflecting openness to the world. It is not the Thomism of neo-Scholasticism, but it emphasizes responding to the "signs of the times" and living out faith in a very real world. It is a neo-Thomism inasmuch as it is using Aquinas's attentiveness to the world.

Perhaps the litmus test of whether one is neo-Thomistic or neo-Augustianian is how one receives Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World): "The joy and hope, the sorrows and anxieties of people today...are also the joy and hope, the sorrows and anxieties of the disciples of Christ..."(1). And "Christians can have nothing more at heart than to be of ever more generous and effective service to humanity in the modern world" (93).

The majority of bishops at Vatican II would be labeled "neo-Thomistic."

Massimo Faggioli's new book Vatican II The Battle For Meaning (Paulist Press, 2012) is a worthy read.

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.

Golden Rule

I used to think that the Golden Rule was peculiar to the Bible. Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Mt. 7:12).

I came across a form of that rule in the Old Testament too: "Do to no one what you yourself hate" (Tobit 4:2).

There is also the story in Jewish literature about a man who came to Hillel, who lived about a century before Jesus, and challenged the holy man to teach him the whole of Torah while standing on one foot.

Hillel responded, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole of Torah and the rest is but commentary. Go and learn it."

Even earlier (about 500 years before Jesus) the Chinese social philosopher known as Confucius had taught, "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

And earlier still forms of the Golden Rule can be found among the ancient Greeks. Pittacus of Myteline, born about 640 BC, is credited with the saying: "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."

And Thales of Miletus (born about 624 BC, and thought by some to be the first philosopher of Greek wisdom) said, "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

There were versions of this so-called rule of reciprocity in ancient Babylon and ancient Egypt as well. The truth of the Golden Rule is apparent to thoughtful human nature.

Closer to our time a strange little man named Peter Maurin formulated still another version.

It was Maurin who taught and encouraged Dorothy Day to found the Catholic Worker newspaper to be an advocate for social justice and to establish Catholic Worker Houses to care for the homeless and broken members of society.

Day and Maurin met in 1932. In her biography of him, Day wrote, "Peter never tired of teaching, and many were the meetings held in the store, which was the first office of the Catholic Worker. Night after night, those first years, the meetings went on, from eight to ten, often far later."

In one of his lessons, Maurin insisted that he wished to be "what he wanted the other fellow to be."

That simple thought has profound ramifications.

That I should be what I want others to be would prompt more patience when I am driving, more kindness when meeting new people, more generosity to those in need.

Jesus' teaching that I should do to others as I want them to do to me is further clarified when I take on the persona of people around me.

Atticus Finch taught his daughter in To Kill A Mockingbird, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view --until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

Maurin's advice is another way of expressing that law of reciprocity, that so-called Golden Rule.

It struck me hard when I read his version. I have a lot of work to do.