Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

SPEED IS OF THE ESSENCE


On January 4, 1964, shortly after the closing of the second session, Bishop Franz Hengsbach, of Essen, Germany, wrote in America: “After the Council has completed work on the five or six essential schemas, all remaining matters should be left for treatment in directories or handbooks to be assembled by post-conciliar commissions set up by the Council and following its basic directives.” Such manuals would serve as guidelines, “but without the authority which comes from a decision of the Council itself.”

At that time, there were still thirteen schemas on the agenda of the Council. The question was, Which were the five or six schemas regarded by the Bishop as essential? As a leading figure in the German hierarchy, he might well have been taking this occasion to announce a new policy of the European alliance. If so, it was to be expected that the Coordinating Commission of the Council would shortly take action along those lines.

And in fact, eleven days after the appearance of Bishop Hengsbach’s article, the nine-member Coordinating Commission met in the Vatican and made decisions of so drastic and revolutionary a nature as to undo four years of work on six major Council documents.

It instructed the Commission on Oriental Churches to reduce its schema to “some fundamental points.” It instructed the Commission on the Discipline of the Clergy and Faithful to reduce its decree on priests to a number of propositions. The decree was ultimately shortened to exactly one hundred lines. The Commission on Studies and Seminaries was instructed to reduce its constitution on seminary training to “the essential points for presentation in the form of propositions ... The rest of the material will be used in the coming revision of the Code of Canon Law, or in particular instructions to be issued by the Holy See.” The same Commission was also instructed to shorten its constitution on Catholic schools. The Commission on Religious was instructed to reduce its thirty-four-page constitution to “its essential points.” The Commission on the Sacraments received similar instructions concerning its decree on the sacrament of Matrimony. Three months later, the Coordinating Commission instructed the Commission on the Missions to reduce its decree on that subject “to a few sentences or propositions.” That raised to seven the number of schemas affected.

When the Secretary General informed the Council Fathers of these decisions by a letter dated May 11, 1964, he also intimated that the shortened schemas would be put to the vote in the Council hall but would not be discussed.

These, then, were clearly the schemas regarded as being of secondary importance. The “essential” ones, therefore, must have been those unaffected by the instructions mentioned—the schemas on divine revelation, on the Church, on bishops, on ecumenism, on the apostolate of the laity, and on the Church in the modern world. And those six schemas were precisely the ones in which the German-speaking Council Fathers, and the European alliance in general, were most interested, and in regard to which they had the most control. Two of them—on the apostolate of the laity and on the Church in the modern world—were within the competence of the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity, to which Bishop Hengsbach had been elected at the outset of the Council by the highest number of votes.

The reduction of seven schemas to the status of “propositions” was an attempt to speed up the work of the Council. Many formal petitions from individual Council Fathers, as well as from entire episcopal conferences, had requested that the Council should move faster; the United States hierarchy, for instance, had officially petitioned the Pope to make the third session of the Council the final one. On the other hand, the solution adopted by the Coordinating Commission was very unrealistic. All nine members could have anticipated that their decision would be overruled by the Council Fathers, at least in the case of the propositions on priests. For how could the bishops offer their priests a mere one hundred lines, never discussed in the Council hall, when they had spoken in detail and at such great length about their own role as bishops?

But perhaps there was some other reason behind the Coordinating Commission’s decision. The controlling power in the individual Council commissions was in the hands of the European alliance. However, those commissions were not empowered to set aside a part or parts of individual schemas that they considered unsatisfactory. The Coordinating Commission, on the other hand, was so empowered, and it made use of its prerogative by instructing the various commissions to reduce their schemas, thereby ensuring that many, if not all, unsatisfactory elements would be eliminated. The seven schemas, as reduced to propositions, could then be expanded as a result of new suggestions from the Council floor.

In the latter part of April, Cardinal Dopfner wrote to the bishops of Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Scandinavia, inviting them to a conference on Council matters to be held at Innsbruck, Austria, from May 19 to May 22. Referring to the decision of the Coordinating Commission that the propositions should not be discussed, he indicated that the last word on the matter had not yet been said, and that it was also “an open question whether or not there will be a fourth session of the Council.” The Cardinal said that the same observers from the hierarchies of neighboring countries would again be invited to attend. He announced further that, as in previous years, those “in our circle who are members of a Council commission will
prepare drafts on the individual schemas with the help of the periti of their choice, and those drafts will serve as the basis for discussion.” Holding the conference so early had a considerable advantage, he pointed out, for “in this way our proposals can be passed on in time to the Council Fathers of other countries who have requested them.”

The Coordinating Commission took still further steps to speed up the Council’s work at its next meeting, on June 26. These steps involved amendments to the Rules of Procedure and were approved by Pope Paul VI on July 2. From now on, all cardinals and Council Fathers who wished to speak had to submit written summaries of their proposed addresses to the Secretary General “at least five days before discussion of the topic begins.” As a result, rebuttal was virtually impossible. According to the original Rules of Procedure approved by Pope John XXIII, any Council Father who wished to refute a statement could inform the Secretary General of his wish to speak, and was then to be given the floor as soon as the list of speakers was exhausted. During the second session, this request had to be supported by five signatures. Now, however, according to a new clause added to the rules, such a request had to be made in the name of at least seventy other Council Fathers. As might have been expected, the figure was such as to discourage anyone who did not belong to a highly organized group from asking for the floor; and the measure proved very effective in silencing minority views.

On July 7, the Secretary General informed the Council Fathers by mail that the sequence of schemas to be discussed and voted upon at the third session was as follows: on the Church, on bishops, on ecumenism, on divine revelation, on the apostolate of the laity, and on the Church in the modern world. The remaining schemas, which had been reduced to propositions and were not to be discussed, would be “submitted for voting in the sequence and manner to be determined by the Council Moderators in due course.”

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION

September 14 to November 21, 1964

ORGANIZED OPPOSITION

For a long time it appeared as though the European alliance would have undisputed control over the Council. This could have proved unfortunate, because power, be it financial, political, military, academic or theological, has a way of being abused when a near monopoly is obtained over it. As the Council progressed, however, at least half a dozen organized opposition groups came into being and performed yeoman service by forcing the majority to take a closer and more careful look at schemas before accepting them.

We have already seen how the Bishops’ Secretariat came into being to concentrate on texts concerning religious orders, and how it collaborated at all times with the Roman Union of Superiors General.

During the third session Archbishop Heenan of Westminster (formerly of Liverpool) founded the St. Paul’s Conference, an English-language group which placed the chief emphasis on matters of a practical nature. Its members were drawn from the British Commonwealth, principally, and also from Ireland and the United States.

Another opposition group, to be treated in detail in a later chapter, consisted of thirty-five cardinals and five superiors general, who concerned themselves especially with the problem of collegiality.

Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans, Louisiana, founded an opposition group at the very end of the Council to give weight to certain amendments that he wished included in the war section of the schema on the Church in the modern world.

Cardinal Siri of Genoa, working in collaboration with Monsignor Luigi Rossi, faculty member of the Genoa major seminary, prepared and printed numerous qualifications and commentaries on schemas which were widely circulated among conservative elements in the Italian hierarchy and in the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking hierarchies of Europe and Latin America.

Besides these six organized opposition groups, which were either ignored by the press or unknown, there was the International Group of Fathers (in Latin, Coetus Internationalis Patrum), which—together with the Roman Curia—was depicted as the epitome of conservatism, holding back the progressive elements in the Council. This group received much unfavorable publicity in newspapers, reviews, and books. Its founder and driving force was Archbishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud of Diamantina, Brazil, and the group was founded precisely to help gain a hearing for conservative minority views.

During the first and second sessions Archbishop Sigaud organized weekly conferences, but the Italian members left the group when it was rumored that Monsignor Loras Capovilla, the private secretary of Pope John XXIII, had stated that he would not consider attacks on the Roman Curia as an offense against the Pope. New impetus came from the number of votes against combining the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary with the schema on the Church, since this proved, as Archbishop Sigaud said, that a very large number of Council Fathers were “trying to orientate the Council along doctrinal lines traditionally followed in the Church.” But no conservative cardinal bold enough could be found to give the organization the needed backing until September 29, 1964, during the third session, when Cardinal Santos of Manila agreed to serve as the organization’s vocal patron in the College of Cardinals.

This group then purchased a small offset press, installed it near the Vatican, and hired an office staff. Three days after the meeting with Cardinal Santos, Archbishop Sigaud issued a bulletin announcing that the International Group of Fathers would sponsor a conference every Tuesday evening open to all Council Fathers. The purpose of these meetings, the announcement said, was “to study the schemas of the Council—with the aid of theologians—in the light of the traditional doctrine of the Church and according to the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiffs.” Patrons of the meetings were Cardinals Santos, Ruffini, Siri, Larraona, and Browne.

Soon the International Group of Fathers became so active and influential that it aroused the indignation of the European alliance, and one of the alliance cardinals stated that Archbishop Sigaud ought to I be “shot to the moon.” Katholische Nachrichten Agentur, the Catholic news agency subsidized by the German bishops, called him an archconservative and depicted him and his group as working covertly against the aims of the Council. In spite of this, an almost endless flow of circular letters, commentaries on schemas, interventions, and qualifications flowed from his pen and those of the bishops and theologians whom he united through his group. Long before a schema came I up for discussion, a careful program had been worked out, indicating exactly what aspects of the schema should be supported or attacked in written or in oral interventions.

On November 9, 1963, during the second session, Bishop Carli, one of the group’s most active members, drafted a letter to Pope Paul VI in which he appealed to him “to ask the Cardinal Moderators to abstain completely from making public interventions in their own name, both inside and outside the Council hall.” In the eyes of all, he said, they appeared to be “interpreters of the mind of the Supreme Pontiff,” and there was suspicion that they had leanings “in a certain definite direction.” But Cardinal Ruffini advised against making this appeal, and it was dropped.

Father Ratzinger, the personal theologian of Cardinal Frings, while dining one day with a group, mentioned that the liberals had thought they would have a free hand at the Council after obtaining the majority in the Council commissions. But in the speeches and voting in the Council hall, he said, they began to notice some resistance to their proposals, and consequently commissions had to take this into consideration when revising the schemas. Unknown to Father Ratzinger, one of those seated nearby and within hearing distance was Archbishop Sigaud, who chuckled at this public admission by a representative of the European alliance.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

INFORMATION PLEASE!

Acoustics at the First Vatican Council, which began on December 8, 1869, were notoriously bad. All General Congregations took place in a transept of St. Peter’s without the assistance of a public address system. At first not even the speakers who had powerful voices could be heard by all the Council Fathers, so the hall was reduced in size. But even then many of the seven hundred Fathers could still not hear everything that was said.

During the Second Vatican Council, thanks to the installation of a public address system which operated flawlessly, none of the more than two thousand Council Fathers ever had any difficulty hearing the speakers. Never once in the four sessions did the system fail, nor did it cause an interruption in a single meeting. The acoustical problems had been solved by the technicians of Vatican Radio, and the Latin which came over the loudspeakers was crystal clear.

In spite of the excellence of reproduction, however, many Council Fathers were disappointed that a simultaneous translation system had not been installed. Mr. Mauro Ercole, a Vatican Radio engineer, stated that the problem was not a technical one. Experiments had been carried out, and all technical problems had been solved. Nor was the problem a financial one, because Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston had offered to finance a complete simultaneous translation system,

At a press conference on October 29, 1963, halfway through the second session. Archbishop John Krol of Philadelphia, an Undersecretary of the Council, said that there would be no simultaneous translation system operating during the Council “because of personnel problems.”

By the time the fourth session began, this was an idea long since forgotten. But two American priests, Father Daniel J. O’Hanlon, a Jesuit from Los Gatos, California, and Father Frank B. Norris, a Sulpician from Menlo Park, California, found simultaneous translation an absolute necessity for their work. The number of English-speaking observers and guests for whom they provided translations of Council interventions during the meetings had grown so large by the fourth session that it was no longer possible to reach all of them with the unaided human voice. Although the two priests had received no previous formal training, they began providing simultaneous translation services on September 30, 1965, and continued them until the end of the Council.

Some bishops noticing the system in operation listened in and expressed the wish to have something similar. Father O’Hanlon, Father Norris, and Mr. Ercole all said that it would have been a simple matter to hook up headphones to the same microphone for the benefit of all Council Fathers who understood English. This system could have been used also for the five other languages.

The chief reason why simultaneous translation was not introduced on a large scale, however, was the objection by some Council Fathers that their interventions might not be correctly translated. Since doctrinal matters were at issue, they feared that a completely wrong interpretation might be placed upon their words through the incorrect translation of a word or phrase, and they therefore preferred to address the general assembly directly in Latin.

Another factor contributing to the poor state of internal communications at the Council was the complete lack of any official public record of the oral and written interventions submitted each day. Although the members of every responsible legislative body around the world have the right to obtain the full text of all speeches, this was not true at the Second Vatican Council.

Some questioned the advisability and even the possibility of printing the complete text of the written and oral interventions and giving them to the Council Fathers. This would have amounted to more than a hundred pages each day. Although it would have been impossible for everyone to read each intervention, those among the Council Fathers or among the periti who were experts in the subjects under discussion would have appreciated being able to make a careful study of the interventions, which in turn would have aided them to be more precise in submitting or preparing proposals and amendments.

An ideal arrangement would have been to print the entire texts of all oral and written interventions, in the Latin original, together with a Latin introduction of some fifteen lines in which the author of the intervention summarized his own proposals. In this way each Council Father could have had a reliable written summary of all interventions, and could have carefully examined the complete text of those which particularly interested him. Also, if the Council Fathers had been informed that their written interventions were to be placed in the hands of every member of the assembly, there would have been less reason for so many wanting to speak in the Council hall.

The lack of any official daily record for the Council Fathers was one of the great weaknesses of Vatican II. In seeking substitutes, large numbers of bishops subscribed to L’Osservatore Romano, which, during the first session, carried brief summaries of each General Congregation in Italian, English, German, French, and Spanish. But from the second session onward only the Italian version was published.

Father William K. Leahy, faculty member of St. Charles Seminary at Overbrook, Philadelphia, was a student of Sacred Scripture in Rome when Vatican II began. Personally convinced that a great theological reawakening was taking place at the Council, and dismayed that American bishops apparently had not been caught up in this fast-moving stream of theological thought, he decided that the reason for this was a lack of information on the precise nature of the discussions which were taking place in the Council hall. He then got the idea of producing for the American bishops a daily summary in English of all interventions read on the Council floor. He called it the Council Digest and, with the help of a handful of young priests, prepared the daily synopses of the oral interventions. The first issue appeared on September 30, 1963, the date of the opening business meeting of the second session, and the bulletins continued uninterruptedly until the final business meeting of the fourth session.

Publication of the Council Digest had been authorized by the Administrative Board of the United States Episcopal Conference “for the information of the Bishops of the United States.” Since Father Leahy’s team consisted of skilled theologians who used the actual texts of the oral interventions, the Council Digest became the most authentic public report available to bishops. From the beginning two hundred copies were printed for the American bishops, and seventy copies for the Canadian bishops. But it soon became necessary to print a total of 750 copies because English-speaking bishops from more than twenty-five countries were anxious to receive these authentic summaries.

It was very strange that the Council Fathers, who were able to pass any bill they wished, and who at the end of the second session solemnly promulgated a decree on communications media in which they spoke about the right to information, were unable for lack of united effort to properly and officially inform themselves about their own Council.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE CHURCH

Chapter 7 of the schema on the Church, entitled “The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the Church in Heaven,” was the first item to come up for discussion at the third session. This chapter had been introduced in the schema at the wish of Pope John XXIII. The “eschatological” character of a Christian’s life was described as “a continuity of life which begins on earth and reaches perfection in heaven.” The underlying doctrine is that the Church on earth and in heaven constitutes a single People of God and a single Mystical Body of Christ.

Cardinal Urbani, of Venice, called the structure of the chapter satisfactory, adding that it corresponded to the ideas expressed at the second session by Cardinal Frings on behalf of the bishops of Germany and Scandinavia.

The Latin-rite Patriarch of Jerusalem, Alberto Gori, objected strongly to the chapter, saying that the text should not be silent “on the existence of hell, on the eternity of hell,” and on the possibility of “personal damnation.” These were truths that had been explicitly revealed, he said, and should today be given their proper emphasis. So many, in their sermons, he said, seemed to shrink from expressing these doctrines openly and clearly.

Maronite Archbishop Ignace Ziade, of Beirut, Lebanon, said that far too little prominence had been given to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. “The scope of my intervention is simple,” he said. “How is it possible to speak of our eschatological calling without any reference to the Holy Spirit?” The Orientals, he declared, were not able to recognize their traditional doctrine on the Holy Spirit in “such a deficient profession of faith.”

The eighth and final chapter was taken up on the following day. This was the text on the Blessed Virgin Mary, now included as a chapter in the schema on the Church instead of being treated as a separate schema. The chapter was a compromise text produced by two periti—Monsignor Philips and Father Balic—of widely differing views on the matter. Monsignor Philips insisted on leaving out the titles “Mother of the Church” and “Mediatrix,” but the Theological Commission decided to include “Mediatrix,” convinced that if neither of the two were in the text, it would not get the desired unanimous approval from the Council Fathers.

Thirty-three Council Fathers took the floor to discuss this chapter. Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, said that the schema “almost veiled” the cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption, which had been willed by God. And since the text also contained the unqualified statement that “Mediatrix" was a title given to the Blessed Virgin, it was necessary to explain clearly what that title meant, so that “non-Catholics will come to realize that the use of this title implies no lessening of the dignity of Christ, who is the one absolutely necessary Mediator.”

Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, of Warsaw, Poland, speaking on behalf of seventy Polish bishops, drew attention to Pope Paul’s encyclical, Ecclesiam suam, published some six weeks earlier. In that encyclical, said the Cardinal, the Pope called attention to the fundamental importance of the Blessed Virgin in the life of the Church. On the basis of that affirmation, the Polish bishops had sent a memorandum to Pope Paul, requesting that he proclaim the Blessed Virgin “Mother of the Church.” Cardinal Wyszynski also asked, on behalf of the same Polish bishops, that the chapter on the Blessed Virgin be numbered second instead of last in the schema, since in that way it would receive more attention and would better illustrate the role of the Blessed Virgin in relation to Christ and his Church.

Cardinal Leger, of Montreal, said that it was necessary “to renew the Marian doctrine and cult.” This renewal, or reform, had already begun among the theologians, he said, “but it must also reach the pastors and the faithful, and this final chapter of the Constitution on the Church offers the best opportunity for promoting it.” The desired renewal “consists in using accurate words and precise and sober terms to express Mary’s role” In that connection, he questioned the use of the titles given to Mary in the schema—“Mother of Men,” “Handmaid of the Lord Redeemer,” “Generous Companion,” and “Mediatrix.” The origin and meaning of all these titles, he said, should be carefully studied in the light of the best theological research, before their use was endorsed in a conciliar text.

Cardinal Dopfner spoke next, in the name of ninety German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops, repeating what had been decided at the Innsbruck conference. He said that the chapter contained solid doctrine on the Blessed Virgin, without entering into disputed questions, and he felt that it would be best not to add anything more than was in the text concerning the role of Mary as Mediatrix.

Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, also objected to the title “Mediatrix.” A Council text, he said, was not intended as a manual for personal devotion. What the Council Fathers had to decide was whether each and every affirmation made in the text was sufficiently thought out and theologically proven to be presented by the Council, as the highest Church authority. Since the role of Mary as Mediatrix was still disputed by some theologians, it should not be included in the text.

Archbishop Corrado Mingo, of Monreale, Italy, severely criticized the text. Contrary to what had been promised in the Council hall, the text had been “absolutely and radically mutilated” in the process of being turned into a chapter of the schema on the Church. The title “Mother of the Church” had been deleted without any justification whatsoever, he said, contrary to the wish expressed by Pope Paul in his discourses of October n, 1963, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, and December 4, 1963, at the closing of the second session of the Council. Not only should the title “Mediatrix” be retained in the text, he said, but it should be amplified to read “Mediatrix of all graces.”

When the schema entitled “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother I of the Church” was incorporated as Chapter 8 in the schema on the Church, its title was changed to read “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” Bishop Juan Hervas y Benet, of Ciudad Real, Spain, said that the original title should be restored. He also criticized the text severely, saying that it was not an adaptation but a completely new version of the original text, which did not correspond to the wishes expressed by the Council Fathers. The revised text had reduced the doctrine on the Virgin Mary to the absolute minimum; yet it had been stated in the Council hall at the time of the vote that “by inserting the schema on the Virgin Mary in the schema on the Church, no such diminution was intended or would be carried out.”

Leo Cardinal Suenens, of Mechelen, Belgium, also objected to the revised text, saying that it appeared to minimize the importance of Mary, a tendency which today constitutes a real danger.” The text did not place the spiritual maternity “which Mary continues to exercise in the Church even today” in its proper light. It was also somewhat defective in its exposition of what the ordinary teaching authority of the Church had to say about Mary, and what the faithful believed regarding the cooperation of the Virgin in the work of redemption. It was necessary, he felt, that the schema should make the faithful realize that they were associated with the maternal action of Mary in carrying out their apostolate.

For this one brief moment Cardinal Suenens had the courage to break away from the party line of the European alliance and speak out his own mind. It would have been strange, indeed, if the Cardinal of Belgium—a land so noted in the Catholic Church for its great devotion to the Virgin Mary—had taken any other public stand.

Bishop Francisco Rendeiro, of Faro, Portugal, speaking on behalf of eighty-two bishops, expressly asked that the title “Mediatrix” should be retained in the text. Its omission would generate scandal among the faithful, since the public was by this time aware that the matter had been discussed in the Council hall.

Auxiliary Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France, said that the public was getting the false impression from the press that the Council Fathers did not have equal veneration for the Virgin. In order to offset this impression, it was necessary to obtain unanimous approval for the chapter. He attempted to show that the text was in fact a compromise, since it mentioned the title “Mediatrix” but at the same time gave it no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study. “Perhaps the title ‘Mediatrix’ might be listed with other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one.”

Archbishop Rafael Garcia y Garcia de Castro, of Granada, Spain, speaking on behalf of eighty Spanish bishops, took the Theological Commission to task for “completely refashioning the text instead of adapting it, as the Council Fathers had desired.” He was also of the opinion that the original title—“On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church”—should be restored, since it corresponded to the pontifical documents issued by Popes Benedict XIV, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, John XXIII, and Paul VI, as well as to the writings of the Fathers of the Church, in particular SS. Irenaeus, Augustine, and Leo the Great. To change the title and to omit this doctrine would be an affront to the teaching of the popes, and would undermine the devotion shown by the Christian people to the Virgin, the Archbishop declared.

Archbishop Giuseppe Gawlina, director of the Polish hospice in Rome, said that devotion to Mary was evidently no obstacle to ecumenism, since Martin Luther had said in 1533—long after his break with Rome—that “the creature Mary cannot be praised enough.” In 1521, in his dissertation on the Magnificat, Luther had written: “What can please her [Mary] more, than if in this way you come to God through her, and from her you learn to believe and hope in God. .. . Mary does not wish that you come to her, but that through her you should come to God.” Four days later the Archbishop died suddenly of a heart attack.

The Moderators had decided that two days of discussion on this chapter would suffice. From the thirty interventions read at the General Congregations of September 16 and 17, it was quite clear that the assembly was still divided on the same lines as before, with large groups opposing and defending the two titles “Mother of the Church” and “Mediatrix.” Concerned that these divisions might nullify everything that had been accomplished, Father Balic approached Cardinal Frings and begged him to address the general assembly the following day to urge acceptance of the compromise text as it stood.

The Cardinal agreed. In his address, he said that the chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary contained nothing contrary to Catholic faith or to the rights of the separated brethren. It offered a middle road between diverse opinions “and in a certain way may be considered a compromise.” It would be difficult to change the text, he said, since a two-thirds majority would be required. Therefore it seemed best that each one “sacrifice some, personal ideas, even very right ones,” and approve the schema after certain amendments had been made in the scriptural citations and particular passages, as requested in the course of the debate. “Theologians can then use this text as a starting point for making more profound studies of the doctrines which are not yet clear, and can better develop those which are still disputed.”

Cardinal Alfrink, of the Netherlands, spoke next in the name of 124 Council Fathers from his own country, Africa, Latin America, Germany, Italy, and other countries. He repeated in substance the arguments put forward by Cardinal Frings, but he felt that the title “Mediatrix” should not be insisted upon, since it generated such great difficulties.

Bishop Laureano Castan Lacoma, of Siguenza-Guadalajara, Spain, speaking on behalf of eighty Council Fathers, said that, since the Church was a family, the title of the chapter should read “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church,” as before. He saw no reason for its deletion by the Theological Commission.

The text was now referred back to the Theological Commission for revision. In addition to the texts of the oral interventions, the Commission had to take into account a number of written interventions and other comments submitted even before the opening of the third session. When the work of revision was completed. Archbishop Maurice Roy, of Quebec, announced to the assembled Fathers that the chapter would be put to the vote as a whole. The voting took place on October 29; the result was 1559 affirmative votes, 521 qualified affirmative votes, and 10 negative votes. The required two-thirds majority had been achieved, and Father Balic credited the address of Cardinal Frings for this success.

Three weeks later, on November 18, the text as revised in the light of the qualifications submitted by the 521 Council Fathers was put to the vote again. When the assembly was asked if it was satisfied with the manner in which the qualifications had been handled, 99 per cent replied “yes.”

Archbishop Roy explained that, although the title “Mother of the Church” was omitted from the final text, it was equivalently expressed in Article 53, which stated, “Taught by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church honors her [Mary] with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.”

As for the controversial title “Mediatrix,” the solution proposed by Cardinal Ruffini, Bishop Ancel, and others had been adopted in Article 62, which stated: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, I however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.”

Professor Oscar Cullmann, a guest of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a lengthy press conference at the end of the Council in the course of which he said: “We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment that we experienced at seeing the title of ‘Mediatrix’ given to Mary. . . . The fact that the text on Mary, after so much discussion as to where it should be placed, should have finally become the concluding chapter of the schema on the Church—a decision which was in fact intended to weaken Mariology—has in reality made it even stronger, because everything stated about the Church culminates, so to speak, in this chapter.”

He went on to observe that, in the light of the many ceremonies honoring Mary during the Council, and also of the statements made about her by both Pope John and Pope Paul, it must be concluded “that Mariology at this Council has in general been intensified to a degree which is not in keeping with the ecumenical tendencies of Protestantism . . . and with a return to the Bible. Our expectations in this connection have not been fulfilled.” It was clear, he said, “that we could not require the surrender of a teaching and tradition which belongs to the very kernel of Catholic piety.” What he had expected, however, was “a weakening of emphasis, not some sort of revision of the fundamental relationship to the Virgin Mary.”

Just as the attempt by some circles to bring about “a weakening of emphasis” had failed, so too the attempt to reduce the text in length had failed; the new chapter was one third longer than the original schema.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

No text was subjected to as many revisions by the Council as the one on religious freedom. Before its promulgation as a declaration on December 7, 1965, the day preceding the closing of the Second Vatican Council, six different drafts had been laid before the Council. One of the United States bishops said that, without their support, “this document would not have reached the floor.”

The original schema on the Church, rejected by the Council at the end of the first session principally as a result of the efforts of the European alliance, had included a short chapter entitled “On the Relations Between Church and State.” This chapter was suppressed altogether by the Coordinating Commission at its first meeting in January 1963. The action occasioned no little displeasure among a number of Council Fathers,
particularly those from the United States.

Auxiliary Bishop Primo Gasbarri, of Velletri, a suburb of Rome, drew attention at the second meeting of the second session, on October 1, 1963, to the deletion of the chapter, and insisted that the matter must be treated because it was intimately bound up with the Church’s right to fulfill its mission. A conciliar statement on the subject was necessary, furthermore, to counteract the propaganda conducted against the Church and to clarify the Church’s position in countries where it was subjected to persecution.

Bishop Ernest Primeau, of Manchester, New Hampshire, expressed agreement with Bishop Gasbarri. The text, he said, should lay down general principles governing Church-state relations.

In an interview that Bishop Primeau gave me for the Divine Word News Service, he enlarged upon his ideas. “I do not think that the Council should go into particulars,” he said, “or into the particular relationships that exist between the Church and the state, but some general principles should be laid down.” As examples he mentioned freedom of conscience for individuals and freedom of action for the Church in carrying out its mission.

Bishop Primeau said that there would be little concern over such a statement in countries such as Spain, Italy, “or even England, curiously enough, which is a pluralistic society. But in our country, the Protestant intelligentsia are always asking for a definite statement on Church and state.” Many Council Fathers were opposed to a Council declaration on Church-state relations, he said, because they felt it was a controversial matter. “But we have not come here just to rubber-stamp the status quo. There are knots to be cut.”

Archbishop Lawrence Shehan, of Baltimore, speaking later in the name of the more than two hundred bishops of the United States, said that the question of Church and state was “entirely too important and too delicate to be treated only in passing, almost casually, in a discussion of the apostolate of the laity.” He was referring to Chapter 3, on the laity, of the schema on the Church. The question required careful treatment, he said, and pertained not exclusively to the laity, but to the entire Church, While religious freedom was only one aspect of the larger problem of Church-state relations, it was definitely one of the most important. A conciliar declaration on the matter was further necessary as a preliminary step before the Catholic Church could become seriously engaged in the ecumenical movement. Such a declaration, stating that the Catholic Church officially recognized the rights of members of other religions, would be considered by non-Catholics as a test of Catholic sincerity and would establish the basis for further contacts. Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat, therefore, soon after it was founded in i960, had set to work preparing a schema entitled “Freedom of Cult.” This schema was examined by the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, and again by the Coordinating Commission at its first meeting, in January 1963, after the close of the first session. The Coordinating Commission authorized the Secretariat to incorporate in its schema on freedom of cult whatever it wished to take from the chapter on Church-state relations in the original schema on the Church.

Cardinal Bea’s revised text was ready for presentation to the Council Fathers before the opening of the second session. But since doctrinal matters were involved, and since the chapter on Church-state relations had originally been within the competence of the Theological Commission, the schema had to be approved by that Commission before it could be presented on the Council floor. The long delay gave rise to accusations in the press that Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, was deliberately blocking the document. Finally it was released with the necessary approval.

Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat decided to present the text as Chapter 5 of the schema on ecumenism, which had already been distributed. They felt that to introduce it as an independent schema might jeopardize its passage. It was entitled “On Religious Freedom” and was distributed on November 19, 1963.

Cardinal Ritter, of St. Louis, Missouri, addressing the assembly on November 18, said that he regarded religious freedom as “a basis and prerequisite for ecumenical contacts with other Christian bodies.” He called for “an unequivocal declaration on religious freedom” and said that “without such a declaration, mutual confidence will be impossible, and serious dialogue will be precluded.” He was also speaking for other American bishops when he said that such a declaration should include “considerations on the absolute freedom of the act of faith, the dignity of the human person and his inviolable conscience, and the total incompetence of the civil government in passing judgment on the Gospel of Christ and its interpretation. Such a declaration should also “reaffirm the complete independence of the Church of any civil government in fulfilling its mission.”

The report on Chapter 5 was read on the following day by Bishop De Smedt, of Bruges, Belgium. He said that the Theological Commission had carefully examined the text and made “well-founded and useful observations and suggestions.” He then listed the four chief reasons why “a very large number of Council Fathers have most insistently requested that this Sacred Synod openly express and proclaim man’s right to religious freedom”:

1. The Church must teach and defend the right of religious freedom because this is one of the truths committed to its custody by Christ;

2. The Church cannot keep silent today while nearly one half of humanity is deprived of religious freedom by various kinds of materialistic atheism;

3. The Church, using the light of truth, must show men how to live peacefully with their fellow men, at a time when people all over the world belong to different religions or have no religion at all; all are expected to live peacefully together in one and the same human society;

4. Many non-Catholics harbor resentment against the Church, or at least suspect it of some form of Machiavellianism, believing that it demands the free exercise of religion when Catholics are in the minority in a country and that it disregards the right to religious freedom when Catholics are in the majority.

Bishop De Smedt described religious freedom positively as “the right of a human person to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Negatively, it could be described as “immunity from all external force in those personal relationships with God which are proper to the conscience of man.” Bishop De Smedt expressed the view that the entire matter could be discussed, voted upon, and approved before the end of the second session. “We shall work day and night,” he declared.

Cardinal Leger, of Montreal, pointed out that, while the schema on ecumenism concerned the unity of Christians, religious freedom was a doctrine which concerned all religions; it should therefore not be a chapter of the schema on ecumenism, but should constitute a separate schema.

On the following day. Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, expressed a contrary view. The question of religious freedom, he said, was intimately bound up with both theoretical and practical ecumenism, and he therefore urgently requested that the text be retained as Chapter 5 of the schema on ecumenism. On this point, he said, “I think I express the view of many bishops, especially from the United States."

In view of the considerable opposition to Chapter 5, the Moderators I postponed the vote on the acceptability of the chapter as a topic of discussion.

Cardinal Bea was the last speaker at the final General Congregation of the second session, on December 2, 1963. Obviously aware of the discontent fomented by some bishops and periti who were wrongly blaming conservatives for holding back the vote, he stated in deliberate and solemn tones that the only reason why the chapter had not been debated was I that time had run out. There was “no other reason,” he asserted. And he repeated this for all to hear. “I think we should be grateful to the venerable Cardinal Moderators for wishing to give ample opportunity for discussion of the three fundamental chapters,” he said.

“The new prophets of doom and gloom,” as they were subsequently called by a bishop in an anonymous article in America after the second session, had made charges of “obstruction, foot-dragging, dirty pool in the committee,” in explaining why the chapter on religious freedom had not come up for discussion. By way of rebuttal, the bishop cited Cardinal Bea’s reason that time had simply run out, adding that nobody present could seriously say that there had been a filibuster.

In point of fact, however, there had been “foot-dragging” and “obstruction.” Those responsible—by their own admission—were the Moderators.

Cardinal Suenens made the admission on Sunday, December 1, 1963, the day before Cardinal Bea’s speech in the Council hall. In a lecture at the Pontifical Canadian College, he said that the Moderators could have insisted that Chapter 4, on the Jews, and Chapter 5, on religious freedom, should be voted on, but they had decided against it. He explained that the Moderators believed that, after a cooling-off period and after the issues had been aired in the press, the two chapters would stand a much better chance of acceptance. The Moderators intended, he said, to present the two chapters for a vote early in the third session.

True to their word, the Moderators introduced the discussion on religious freedom on September 23, 1964, nine days after the opening of the third session. Bishop De Smedt again presented a report, and said that in the interval between the second and third sessions no fewer than 380 written observations and amendments had been submitted by Council Fathers, and that these had been “most carefully examined by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.” The new text still needed to be perfected in many points, he said, “since religious freedom, as you all know, has never been treated at an Ecumenical Council.” The revised text was no longer presented as Chapter 5 of the schema on ecumenism, but as an independent declaration.

Three American cardinals spoke on that first day of debate. The first was Richard Cardinal Cushing, of Boston.

Speaking “in the name of almost all the bishops of the United States,” he said that “the declaration on religious freedom in general is acceptable.” He expressed the hope that amendments would make the text even stronger, rather than weaker. It was of the greatest importance, he said, that the Church in this declaration should “show itself to the entire modern world as the champion of liberty—of human liberty and of civil liberty—specifically in the matter of religion.” He also said that “the substance of the doctrine as we have it here is true and solid, and is most appropriate for our times.”

Cardinal Ritter, of St. Louis, called religious freedom a natural right of every man, one of the aspects of natural human freedom, a truth that was certain, and one that was limited only by the common good of society. However, he took exception to the proofs for religious freedom set out in the text, saying that they did not have the same simplicity, clarity, and certainty as religious freedom itself. He therefore asked that all argumentation be omitted from the declaration, since the nature of a declaration was simply to declare, and not to prove. The more simple and brief the document was, he said, the more effective it would be. There was a danger, moreover, that the Council Fathers, in rejecting the arguments proposed, might also reject the declaration itself. He therefore petitioned the Moderators to hold two distinct ballots on the two issues.

Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, said that the declaration should be accepted, since it reaffirmed the teaching of recent popes, clarified traditional doctrine, and was especially needed at this time, when men greatly desired a statement from the Church encouraging religious freedom. By affirming the innate freedom of the person, he said, the Church would show that true religion consisted in the free and generous subjection of the individual to the Creator. This affirmation was essential, moreover, for a fruitful dialogue with non-Catholics. It was also a necessary prelude “if anything else that we have to say is to be accepted by the world.”

Cardinal Silva Henriquez, of Santiago de Chile, speaking in the name of fifty-eight Latin American bishops, said that the great value of the declaration “consists in its being issued not as a chapter in some schema, but as an independent declaration intended for all mankind.” That, he said, was one of the “special reasons why we approve of the text.” There could be no real ecumenical movement in Latin America, he added, until non-Catholic Christians became aware of “our sincere recognition and defense of this fundamental liberty.”

The next speaker was Cardinal Ottaviani. He said that the declaration stated a principle which had always been recognized, namely, that no one could be forced in religious matters. But the text was guilty of exaggeration in stating that “he is worthy of honor” who obeys his own conscience. It would be better to say that such a person was deserving of tolerance or of respect and charity. “The principle that each individual has the right to follow his own conscience must suppose that that conscience is not contrary to the divine law,” he asserted. There was missing in the text “an explicit and solemn affirmation of the first and genuine right to religious freedom, which objectively belongs to those who are members of the true revealed religion.” Their right was at once an objective and a subjective right, he said, while for those in error there was only a subjective right.

The Cardinal said that it was “a very serious matter” to assert that every kind of religion had the freedom to propagate itself. That would “clearly result in harm for those nations where the Catholic religion is the one generally adhered to by the people.” He also said that an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church could not ignore the fact “that the rights of the true religion are based, not only on merely natural rights, but also, and to a much greater degree, on the rights which flow Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, pointed out that, although there was only one true religion, the world was in darkness and error, and consequently tolerance and patience must be practiced. Distinctions must be made in the text, lest the Council should appear to endorse religious indifferentism and to say no more than had the United Nations in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. From certain statements in the text, he said further, it would seem that a state was not entitled to grant special favors to any one religion; if that were the case, then the papal agreements with Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Dominican Republic would require revision.

Cardinal Quiroga y Palacios, of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, called for the complete revision of the text. From its style and language, its dominant preoccupation appeared to be to favor union with the separated brethren, without sufficient consideration of the very serious dangers to which it thereby exposed the Catholic faithful. The text was filled with ambiguities, he charged, new doctrine being favored at the expense of traditional doctrine, and the Council was being invited to give its solemn approval to that liberalism which the Church had so often condemned.

Jose Cardinal Bueno y Monreal, of Seville, Spain, said that the entire text was pervaded by a twofold ambiguity. Only the Catholic Church had received Christ’s mandate to teach all nations. Objectively speaking, no other religious doctrine had the right to propagate itself, he said. In the social sphere, every freedom was subject to limitations, and these derived from the rights and freedoms of others, and from the requirements of law and order. The right to preach one’s religion was valid, he maintained, as far as those who freely chose to listen were concerned, but not in relation to those who did not wish to listen. Those who were unwilling to accept the propagation of false religions or harmful moral teaching were undoubtedly entitled to demand that such public propagation not be allowed.

Bishop Smiljan Cekada, of Skoplje, Yugoslavia, pointed out that religious freedom had become the principal social problem for millions of men, because many countries were under the influence of Communism. He proposed that the Second Vatican Council should request the United Nations to remind public authorities throughout the world of their obligation to respect the religious freedom of all men and all groups.

As the first day of discussion on religious freedom came to an end, it was clear that it was not a matter which could be rushed through the Council.

On the following day, Cardinal Konig, of Vienna, said that the declaration was altogether acceptable as it stood, but he maintained that it should not keep silent regarding the tragic fact that nations existed where no religious freedom was enjoyed.

Cardinal Browne, of the Roman Curia, stated that the declaration could not be approved in its existing form. Archbishop Parente, also of the Roman Curia, made the same point, on the grounds that the rights of God were subordinated in the text to the rights of man and human liberty. It was an unfortunate suggestion, he said, that the Church should make use of its extraordinary teaching authority in a Council to proclaim absolute religious freedom.

Father Aniceto Fernandez, Superior General of the Dominicans, maintained that the text required complete revision because it was too naturalistic.

Bishop Carlo Colombo, chairman of the theological faculty of the major seminary of Milan, said that the declaration on religious freedom was “of the greatest importance,” not only because of its practical consequences, but also and perhaps above all because of the judgment that would be passed on it by the well educated. They would look upon it as a key to the possibility of dialogue between Catholic doctrine and the modern mentality. He called for the further development and improved organization of the doctrinal content of the text, especially in regard to references to the fundamental principles of Catholic doctrine on religious freedom. Basically, he said, the text was making “a new application of unchangeable principles.” Considerable importance was attached to Bishop Colombo’s words, since he served as Pope Paul’s personal theologian.

Immediately after this address, the discussion on religious freedom was closed by a standing vote. Nevertheless, at the next General Congregation, four more speakers addressed the assembly on this point in the name of seventy or more Council Fathers. All spoke out strongly in favor of the text, saying that a simple declaration on religious freedom was not enough. They insisted that the doctrinal foundations for religious freedom should be included in the text.

At this point the discussion on religious freedom came to an end, and once again the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity set about preparing a new revision, its third draft. There would also be a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, before the document would be ready for promulgation.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

JEWS AND MOSLEMS


Pope John XXIII received Cardinal Bea in private audience on September 18, i960, three months after the foundation of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and gave him an explicit oral mandate to prepare a special Council schema dealing with the Jews. The schema was ready for presentation to the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, but the Commission did not take it up. As Cardinal Bea explained later, this was “not because of ideas or doctrine expressed in the schema, but only because of certain unfortunate political circumstances existing at the time.”

What had happened was that a member of the World Jewish Congress had given the impression to the press that he might attend the Second Vatican Council as an official observer. No official action had ever been taken in the matter, either by the World Jewish Congress or by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Had the author of this story been an American or a European, little notice might have been taken of it; but he was from Israel and had served in the Ministry of Religion. The story was immediately taken up by the Arab press, and the Vatican was charged at great length with establishing political ties with Israel. The time was therefore judged inopportune for discussing and releasing a schema on the Jews.

The only mention made of the Jews at the first session was by Bishop Mendez Arceo, of Mexico, on December 6, 1962, two days before the session ended. He suggested that the Council should define the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews.

Later that same month, Cardinal Bea sent a long report to Pope John on the question. He stressed especially that the only point at issue in any document that the Council might prepare on the Jews would be a purely religious one. He maintained that there would be no danger of the Council’s becoming involved in the grave political problems arising out of Zionism or the relations between the Arab nations and the state of Israel.

Pope John sent Cardinal Bea a reply in his own hand, dated December 23, 1962, saying, “We have carefully read this report of Cardinal Bea, and we agree with him completely on the importance of the matter and on the responsibility which we have to give it due consideration.”

On the strength of Pope John’s reaction, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity set to work putting the final touches to its draft, entitled “A Document on the Purely Religious Relations Between Catholics and Jews.” But no official action was taken in the matter before Pope John’s death, early in June 1963.

Cardinal Bea submitted the final text to the Coordinating Commission after Pope Paul VI had declared, at the end of June, that the Council would be continued. But no action was taken during the second session. And as late as October 18, 1964, three weeks after the opening of the third session, the Coordinating Commission still had made no decision about the distribution of the document or the manner in which it should be presented.

On November 8, 1964, a communique was issued by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, stating that that morning there had been distributed to the Council Fathers a draft on “the attitude of Catholics toward non-Christians, particularly toward the Jews.” The communique went on to say that the draft would form Chapter 4 of the schema on ecumenism. The document, continued the communique, “cannot be called pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist, since it considers these as political questions and entirely outside its religious scope. In fact, any use of the text to support partisan discussion or particular claims, or to attack the political claims of others, would be completely unjustified and contrary to every intention of those who have composed it and presented it to the Council.”

It was also pointed out in the communique that the part that the Jewish leaders of Christ’s day had played in bringing about the crucifixion “does not exclude the guilt of all mankind. . . . The personal guilt of these leaders cannot be charged to the whole Jewish people either of Christ’s time or of today.” Therefore it was unjust, the communique said, to accuse the Jewish people of “deicide” or to consider them “accursed” by God.

The title of the draft, however, was misleading, because it spoke of “the attitude of Catholics toward non-Christians,” whereas the draft itself dealt exclusively with the Jews.

On November 12, 1964 ,1 arranged a press conference for Mr. Zachariah Shuster, the European director of the American Jewish Committee. He called the distribution of the draft on Catholic-Jewish relations “certainly one of the greatest moments in Jewish history.” He was confident “that Jews of this generation will feel fortunate to have witnessed this historic step on the part of the Church.” During the three years that the draft had been in preparation, he said, the Vatican had solicited the views of the most competent scholars and religious leaders, both Christians and Jews. “One may confidently say that there is not one Jewish group or trend or leading Jewish thinker that has not expressed his, or its, views, to the authorities in Rome at their request.” He was particularly satisfied that the document contained “a total rejection of the myth of Jewish guilt for the crucifixion.”

Before taking up the individual chapters of the schema on ecumenism, the Council discussed it in a general way, beginning on November 18.

The first speaker was Ignace Cardinal-Patriarch Tappouni, of the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch, who said that the chapter on the Jews was especially inopportune. He did not understand why the Secretariat headed by Cardinal Bea had presented the chapter at all, since the purpose of the Secretariat was to foster the unity of Christians. In some regions where Christians were in a minority, he said, the chapter on the Jews would cause prejudice against the Church and the local hierarchy. Because of the current political situation and because of ignorance or indifference, the good intentions of the Council Fathers would not be understood, or would be misinterpreted by opposing factions, bringing harm to Christians. He felt that the explanations contained in the chapter would not suffice to counter these dangers.

Peter Cardinal Tatsuo Doi, of Tokyo, speaking on behalf of the Japanese bishops, said that the title of Chapter 4 should be amended to read, “On the Attitude of Catholics Toward Jews and Toward Other Non-Christians ” He felt that the document should state that the Catholic Church respected the truths contained in the religions and ethical systems of non-Christians, and considered them as providential preparations for the Christian way of life.

Patriarch Stephanos I Sidarouss, of Cairo, head of the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria, said that a schema on Christians was not the place to speak of the Jewish people. To treat of the Jews might hurt the cause of religion in a particular nation.

Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh also maintained that the chapter was out of place. And if it should be retained “for some reason of which I am not aware,” then a separate section should be devoted to it. If mention was made of the Jews, he said, “then we should also mention other non-Christians—for example, the Moslems.”

Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, was the first speaker on November 20. He said he believed it was the view of many bishops, especially those from the United States, that the chapter on the Jews should remain right where it was. The questions treated in the chapter, he said, were “intimately connected with both theoretical and practical ecumenism.”

Bishop Angelo Jelmini, of Lugano, Switzerland, speaking for all the bishops of Switzerland, said, “In these days of atheism we should speak not only of Jews, but also of Moslems and of all who believe in God.” He said that the schema on ecumenism was the proper place to treat of the Jews, since the schism between the Synagogue and the Church was the source of all other schisms.

Since the chapter on the Jews had received as mixed a welcome on the Council floor as the chapter on religious freedom, the Moderators decided not to present it for a preliminary vote for fear that it might be rejected. They deferred the discussion until the third session.

It was obvious to all that there had been a threefold reaction to the chapter. One was, “Why treat of the Jews at all?” The second was, “Why treat of the Jews in a schema on ecumenism, which deals with Christian unity?” And the third was, “Why not include other non-Christian religions as well?” The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Council as a whole realized that the only solution was to have a document, distinct from the schema on ecumenism, in which the Jewish and also other non-Christian religions would be mentioned, especially Islam (the religion of the Moslems).

The surprise announcement by Pope Paul at the end of the second session that he would make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land seemed like a stroke of genius calculated to help the Council Fathers resolve this particular problem more calmly. On that pilgrimage, the Pope would spend most of his time in the Arab state of Jordan and some of his time in the Jewish state of Israel. There were bound to be many occasions during that pilgrimage for the Pope to show the Moslems that the Catholic Church was as deeply interested in them as in the Jews.

Pope Paul’s pilgrimage in this respect proved more than successful. He was back in Rome little over a month when Father Farhat, my Lebanese friend at Vatican Radio, on February 17, 1964, delivered a ten-page report to Monsignor William Carew at the Vatican Secretariat of State, entitled “Islam in the Middle East: Some Impressions on the Journey of the Holy Father to Palestine.” The report stated that, by his attitudes, gestures, discourses, and prayers, the Pope had shown the Moslems, “who find it hard to distinguish between the temporal and the spiritual, the political and the religious orders,” that he had come to Palestine for no other reason than “to show respect for the places where Jesus was born, where he lived, where he died, and where he rose from the dead for the salvation of the world.” Father Farhat described Moslem reactions to the Pope’s visit; he had experienced them firsthand, having been sent to the Holy Land by Vatican Radio to report on the pilgrimage. For years to come, he said, Christians would talk to their Moslem friends about the visit of Pope Paul VI to the kingdom of King Hussein, descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

At the end of the report, Father Farhat made three practical suggestions. First, he recalled that the Pope, in his statement of September 12, 1963, had said that a secretariat for non-Christians would be established at an opportune time, and asked whether that “opportune time” might not be considered as having arrived. In the second place, he suggested that Moslem observers be invited to the third session, a gesture which would deeply touch the hearts of the Moslems. Thirdly, he proposed a plan to counteract the propaganda accusing the Church of evil intentions for introducing the chapter on the Jews. If carried out, he said, it would also prevent governments in Moslem countries from exploiting the chapter on the Jews to the harm of Christendom. His plan was to balance the chapter on Judaism with a chapter on Islam. This new chapter might then serve as a basis for eventual religious dialogue with the Moslems.

Monsignor Carew, like Father Farhat, had been in Jerusalem at the time of the Pope’s visit, and had also been struck by the religious awe and reverence manifested by the Moslems. He assured Father Farhat that the report would be laid before the Holy Father without delay. After carefully reading it, the Pope asked that a copy be made for Paolo Cardinal Marella, and another for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

On February 27, 1964, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity met in plenary session. At this meeting, all proposals regarding the chapter on the Jews that had been submitted by Council Fathers either in oral or in written interventions were carefully examined. The Secretariat reached the following conclusions: the schema on ecumenism proper would, as was logical, discuss only the question of unity among Christians; the revised chapter on the Jews would be retained because of internal reasons, because of its importance, and because of the universal expectation which it had aroused; because special bonds united the people of the Old Covenant with the Church, the document on the Jews would be retained as an appendix to the text on ecumenism; that appendix would also deal with relations between Christians and non-Christian religions, with special emphasis on Islam.

Three months later, on Pentecost Sunday, May 17, 1964, Pope Paul invited all ecclesiastical students in Rome to attend a special Mass he was celebrating in St. Peter’s. At the close of his sermon, he mentioned the great efforts made by the Catholic Church to draw closer to separated Christians and to those belonging to other religions. He then said, “In this connection, we shall make a special announcement for you, hoping that it may draw significance and value from Pentecost. It is this: as we announced some time ago, we shall establish here in Rome, in these very days, a Secretariat for Non-Christians. It will have a structure analogous to the Secretariat for Separated Christians, but of course will have different functions. We shall entrust it to the Cardinal Archpriest of this Basilica, who, in addition to the wisdom and virtue which endear him to the Church of Rome and win for him its respect, has a rare competence in regard to the religions of the peoples of the world.”

The “Cardinal Archpriest” referred to by Pope Paul was Cardinal Marella, Roman by birth and a member of the Roman Curia, who had served as Apostolic Internuncio in Japan during World War II, and currently headed the Sacred Congregation responsible for the maintenance of St. Peter’s.

Two days later, on May 19, 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Secretariat for Non-Christians, placing Cardinal Marella in charge.

Two weeks before the opening of the third session, on August 31, 1964, I received a visit from Dr. Joseph Lichten, director of the Intercultural Affairs Department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. He was deeply concerned over the fact that the phrase exculpating the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ had now been deleted from the Council document, and maintained that the phrase in question was the most important part of the document as far as the Jews were concerned. He had visited various cardinals in Europe on the matter, he told me, and was busy making contacts in Rome. He said further that Cardinal Bea was preparing a special amendment to be presented in the Council hall “on this unfortunate deletion.”

At the eighty-eighth General Congregation, on September 25, 1964, Cardinal Bea gave a report on the revised declaration. The problem, he said, was “whether and in what manner the Jewish people, as a people, are to be considered guilty of the condemnation and death of Christ the Lord.” He disagreed strongly with those who maintained that the chief cause of anti-Semitism was the aforesaid guilt of the Jewish people. He explained that there were many reasons for anti-Semitism which were not of a religious, but of a national, political, psychological, social, or economic nature.

In his theological exposition. Cardinal Bea said that “the leaders of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem” had been guilty of the death of Christ, as the efficient cause in the historical order; denied that “the entire Jewish people of that time, as a people,” could be declared guilty for what the leaders in Jerusalem had done; and stated that this guiltlessness of the Jews as a people at the time of Christ was all the more true with regard to the Jews of today. The Jewish leaders who condemned Christ to death, he said, were clearly not formally guilty of deicide, since Christ himself (Luke 23=34), St - Peter (Acts 3:17), and St. Paul (Acts 13:27) had all said that those leaders had acted without full knowledge of Christ’s divinity. Before concluding his report. Cardinal Bea called attention to the specific reference to Moslems in the new text.

The first of the thirty-four Council Fathers to speak on the revised text was Cardinal Lienart, of France. He said that the Council Fathers from the East were preoccupied with political questions, whereas the matter at hand was an exclusively religious one, to be considered from an ecumenical and pastoral point of view. He was in favor of the text and wanted it to be made even more complete.

Cardinal Tappouni solemnly repeated the grave objections which he and other Eastern patriarchs had raised during the second session. Their observations were not to be interpreted as hostility toward the Jewish religion, he said. Because they foresaw that difficulties would be placed in the way of their pastoral work, however, and because they wished to defend the Council against the unfounded accusation that it was following a particular political line, they felt it necessary respectfully to call the attention of the Council Fathers to the inopportuneness of the declaration. They said that they were fully conscious of the cause at issue and urged the assembly to set the matter aside altogether.

Cardinals Frings, Lercaro, Leger, Ritter; Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger, of Paderborn, Germany; Bishop Pieter Nierman, of Groningen, who spoke for all the bishops of the Netherlands; and Bishop Jules Daem, of Antwerp, Belgium—all urged that the text be retained and improved.

Cardinal Konig, of Vienna, considered the text good, but said that more accuracy was needed in certain sections.

Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, said that if Jews and Moslems were to be mentioned in the text, then Buddhists and Hindus should also be mentioned.

Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, called for the restoration of the previous year’s text, because it was more explicit in rejecting the accusation of deicide. He also wanted the declaration to treat of the Jews exclusively. The sections on the other religions were important, he said, but should be treated elsewhere.

On the same day, September 28, the bishops of Germany issued a statement through their news agency, Katholische Nachrichten Agentur, declaring their support of the Council decree on the Jews, “especially because we are aware of the severe injustice committed against the Jews in the name of our people.”

On September 26, at a Vatican press conference, Archbishop John Heenan of Westminster, then Vice-President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that “the question of the culpability of the Jews for the death of Jesus has been given an altogether exaggerated importance.” He did not believe, he said, that most Christians “think of the Jews, when thinking of the passion and death of Our Lord,” but rather of their sins since “it is of faith that Christ is the victim of sin and that all sinners—Christians as well as non-Christians—are in this sense responsible for his death.”

On the second day of discussion, September 29, Jose Cardinal Bueno y Monreal, of Seville, recalled that Pope Paul VI, in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam suam, had invited Catholics to enter into dialogue with all non-Christians and maintained that the Council could not, therefore, exclude the declaration on the Jews from its acts. However, out of respect for the objections stated on the previous day by the representatives of the Eastern-rite Churches, he said that perhaps all suspicion of politics might be avoided if the title were simply “On Non-Christians,” leaving out any mention of the Jews. The declaration could begin with an invitation by the Catholic Church to non-Christians to dialogue. Then mention might be made of the Jews and Moslems. The religions of India, China, and Japan might also be mentioned by name, and all other religions might be mentioned in general. The declaration might then conclude with a condemnation of every kind of discrimination. Such a change in structure might eliminate the difficulties that had been indicated on the Council floor.

These suggestions were to a great extent followed. The declaration was revised in the course of the third session, and given the title “On the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” The text dealt first with non-Christian religions in general, then with Hinduism and Buddhism by name, but briefly. Islam was treated next and at- greater length because of its absolute monotheism and numerous finks with revelation as contained in the Scriptures. The Jews were treated next, at even greater length, because of their singular destiny in the plan of salvation. In conclusion, the text ruled out all discrimination, both in theory and in practice.

On November 20, at the last General Congregation of the third session, a vote was taken on this revised text. There were 1651 affirmative votes, 99 negative votes, and 242 qualified affirmative votes. Between the third and fourth sessions, the declaration was revised in the light of the suggestions submitted with the affirmative votes.

In mid-October 1965, at the fourth session, 1763 Council Fathers expressed satisfaction with the way in which the qualifications had been incorporated in the text, and 250 expressed dissatisfaction. The text then went to Pope Paul, who decided that it should be presented for a final formal vote at a public meeting on October 28. The result of this vote was 2221 in favor, and 88 opposed. The Pope immediately promulgated the declaration.

Cardinal Bea was overjoyed, calling it a “nearly unanimous vote.” It was “providential,” he said, that, through discussion, the text had come to include reference to all non-Christian religions as well as the Jewish religion.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

THE SCHEMA ON DIVINE REVELATION: SOME PAPAL DIRECTIVES


In the preface to its dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Second Vatican Council declares that, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, it “wishes to set forth authentic teaching about divine revelation and about how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe; by believing, it may hope; and by hoping, it may love.” In Chapter I, divine revelation is described as an action whereby “the invisible God out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends and fives among them, so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them.”

The life span of the schema on divine revelation covered all four sessions.

At the first session, discussion was deadlocked on the crucial matter of a single or twofold source of revelation. Pope John XXIII resolved the deadlock by creating a special joint commission representing both conflicting tendencies and instructing it to draw up a new text. This text was distributed to the Council Fathers in May 1963.

On August 9, 1963, Bishop Schroffer, of Eichstatt, Germany, a liberal member of the Theological Commission, informed the Council Fathers who were preparing to attend the Fulda conference later that month that the revised schema was “the result of a laborious struggle” in the joint commission, and was no more than “a compromise with all the disadvantages that a compromise entails.” It had not been possible, he said, to achieve further concessions, and “not much more” was to be hoped for.

He enclosed with his letter detailed comments on the schema prepared by Father Rahner, as supported by Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, according to which the schema was “a peaceful compromise which avoids many causes of division, but which therefore avoids mentioning many things concerning which additional doctrine would be welcome.”

The Fulda conference prepared an official statement on the schema, largely based on Father Rahner’s comments, including an “urgent request” that the schema on divine revelation “should not be treated at the very beginning of the second session of the Council, but at a later time.” The further request was made that the discussion should start with the schema on the Church. Cardinal Dopfner delivered the statement in person to the Council authorities in Rome and attended the meeting of the Coordinating Commission on August 31, which determined the agenda for the coming session. On his return to Munich, he informed the Council Fathers who had attended the Fulda conference that the schema on the Church was first on the provisional agenda; the schema on divine revelation was not listed at all.

Although F'ather Rahner had told the bishops at Fulda before the second session that there was “virtually no hope of substituting a new and better schema,” this hope was revived at the end of the second session when the European alliance succeeded in having four new members elected to the Theological Commission, which was responsible for the schema on divine revelation. It was announced at the same time that further amendments could be submitted by mail until January 31, 1964.

Three weeks after the close of the second session, the Coordinating Commission instructed the Theological Commission to proceed to a revision of the as yet undiscussed schema. Special subcommissions of the Theological Commission were created to handle the revision; their members included Bishop Andre Charue, of Namur, Belgium, chairman; Bishop van Dodewaard, of Haarlem, the Netherlands; Archbishop Ermenegildo Float, of Florence, Italy; Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Heuschen, of Liege, Belgium; Abbot Butler, of Downside, superior of the English Benedictines; Bishop Georges Pelletier, of Trois-Rivieres, Canada; and a large number of periti, including Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, Castellino, Cerfaux, Garofalo, Turrado, Rigaux, Kerrigan, Gagnebet, Rahner, Congar, Schauf, Prignon, Moeller, Smulders, Betti, Colombo, Ramirez, and Van den Eynde.

The bishops and periti of this special subcommission worked privately before meeting in Rome from April 20 to 24, 1964. Their revised text was sent for approval to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, which replied on May 30 that is was generally satisfied with the text and felt that a joint meeting with the Theological Commission would not be needed.

The text was next taken up at four meetings of the Theological Commission, from June 3 to 5. On June 26, the Coordinating Commission approved the revised text, and on July 3 it was approved by Pope Paul VI as a basis for discussion. On September 30, 1964, two weeks after the opening of the third session, the draft constitution on divine revelation was introduced on the Council floor by Archbishop Florit.

The Archbishop said that many of the written observations submitted by Council Fathers had requested that the schema should include a fuller treatment of tradition. Many had also called for a more profound treatment of revelation itself, asking “that the concept of revelation be further developed, as well as its object, which should include not only truths about God, but God himself; for God reveals himself not only in words but also in deeds carried out by him in the history of salvation.”

Another member of the Theological Commission, Bishop Franic, of Yugoslavia, said that the schema as it stood, while not erroneous, was “notably defective” in its treatment of the fullness of tradition.

Cardinal Dopfner, of Munich, speaking in the name of seventy-eight German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers, commended the text highly, saying that it had successfully skirted the difficult problem of defining whether the whole of revelation was or was not contained in Sacred Scripture.

Cardinal Leger, of Montreal, called the text more than satisfactory and said a fine balance had been achieved regarding the relation between Sacred Scripture and tradition.

Archbishop Shehan, of Baltimore, called the schema defective because “it does not express what happens to the subject of revelation, that is, to a human mind which receives revelation from God, interprets it, and then transmits it to the People of God.”

Bishop Compagnone, of Anagni, Italy, said that there should be no deviation from the doctrine of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, which affirmed that tradition was more extensive than Sacred Scripture, and that revelation was contained not only in Sacred Scripture but also in tradition. Although the majority did not consider it opportune to introduce this teaching in the text, care should be taken to avoid giving the impression
that the Council was turning its back on earlier decisions.

Abbot Butler, of Downside, discussed the historicity problem of the Gospels. “In the light of faith,” he said, “it is certain that the Gospels, like the other books of the Bible, are inspired, with all the consequences resuiting from that dogmatic truth. But it is also certain that the notion of so-called literary types applies to the Gospels as well as to the other books. And it is likewise certain that through this principle many difficulties in the Old Testament have been solved in such a way that no harm was done to faith. At the same time, apparent contradictions between the inspired books and other known truths, whether scientific or historical, have disappeared. .. . There is no reason from faith or from dogma why the same might not happen in the case of the Gospels.” He readily admitted that errors might arise, and that some exegetes might even turn this liberty into license, but this danger must be faced in view of the greater good to be achieved.

The debate was closed on October 6. All suggestions made during the five days of debate, as well as those contained in written interventions, were examined anew. On November 20, at the last General Congregation of the session, the new edition of the schema was given to the Council Fathers, who were told that they might submit further observations up to January 31, 1965.

The International Group of Fathers sent a ten-page criticism of the schema to its mailing list with an accompanying letter stating that one in conscience could give an affirmative vote at the fourth session, if the enclosed amendments were adopted in the schema. The group urged that its amendments be submitted before the January 31 deadline, since experience proved that “suggestions and amendments made to Council Commissions have almost no weight unless they are supported by the largest possible number of signatures.”

The effort was wasted, however, because the Theological Commission did not make a revision, in spite of the announcement made in the Council hall.

Voting on the schema took place early in the fourth session, between September 20 and 22, 1965. Contrary to Article 61, Section 3, of the Rules of Procedure, no report was read by a representative of the Theological Commission before the vote. In the course of six ballots, qualifications were submitted with 1498 affirmative votes. The Theological Commission, however, was not obliged to adopt any of these changes, because each part of the schema had received far more than the required two-thirds majority.

The qualified affirmative votes chiefly concerned the relation between Scripture and tradition, in Article 9; the inerrancy of the Scriptures, in Article 11; and the historicity of the four Gospels, in Article 19. From the outset, these three points had proved particularly difficult, because of different schools of theological thought, because of varied positions dictated by modern biblical studies, and because of ecumenical implications.

Practically the same proposal was submitted by hi Council Fathers in connection with Article 9. They wished to have the following words added to the text; “Consequently, not every Catholic doctrine can be proved from I Scripture alone.”

To assist the Theological Commission in its deliberations on this point, Pope Paul on September 24 sent it the following quotation from St. Augustine: “There are many things which the entire Church holds, and they are therefore correctly believed to have been taught by the Apostles, even though they are not to be found in written form.” For some reason, the quotation was never brought up at any of the meetings of the Commission on October 1, 4, and 6. A long and heated discussion took place on the proposal of the in Council Fathers, and the decision was finally reached on October 6 to retain the text unchanged.

In connection with Article 11, on the inerrancy of the Scriptures, 184 Council Fathers asked for the deletion of the phrase “pertaining to salvation” from the statement that “the books of Scripture .. . must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, with integrity, and without error, the truth pertaining to salvation.” They argued that the phrase seemed to confine the inerrancy of the Scriptures to matters concerning faith and morals. The Commission decided that the schema as it stood did not in fact restrict the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and again it decided to make no changes in the text.

The point at issue in Article 19, on the historicity of the Gospels, was the phrase “true and sincere things about Jesus” in the statement, “The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels... always in such manner that they told us true and sincere things about Jesus.” An amendment prepared by the International Group was submitted by 158 Council Fathers to reword the phrase to read “true and sincere history,” or “true historical narrative.” The argument was that a writer could be sincere, yet still write only fiction. They also felt that the schema confined the truth of the Gospels to those things which were narrated “about Jesus”; it should be made clear that what was said in the Gospels about other persons was also historically
true and sincere. Eighty-five other Council Fathers suggested that the words “true and sincere things about Jesus” should be replaced by the words “objective truths as regards the historical accuracy of the facts.”

But again the Theological Commission decided not to change the text. The majority justified their stand on the grounds that the general assembly had already accepted the schema in its existing form by more than the required two-thirds majority, and that the Commission therefore had no authority to alter the text on the basis of suggestions made by a relatively small minority. This position was legally correct, since the vote had in fact proved a great victory for the liberals. Article 9 had been adopted by 83 per cent of the assembly; Article 11, by 84 per cent; and Article 19, by 85 per cent.

Understandably, these decisions occasioned great disappointment in the minority groups concerned, both inside and outside the Commission. Complaints immediately began to reach the Pope through numerous channels. Some periti maintained that the schema as it stood contained serious doctrinal error. Bishops pleaded urgently for an authoritative intervention by the Pope. And still others assured the Pope that there was no cause for alarm, and that there was no danger that a false interpretation might be given to the schema. If the Pope was to take any action in the matter, it would have to be prior to the final series of votes on the manner in which the Theological Commission had handled the qualifications.

A solution to the problem of Article 9 was submitted to Pope Paul by Archbishop—now Cardinal—Florit, of Florence, who had helped formulate Article 9 and had supported it in the Theological Commission. He suggested that Pope Paul reconvene the Commission and ask it to reconsider carefully the necessity, or the opportuneness, of stating explicitly in the schema that not every Catholic doctrine could be proved from Scripture alone. The thorny problem of whether tradition contained more revealed truths than Scripture was an altogether different question and would not be touched upon. It was merely a matter of stating more precisely that tradition provided a more explicit and complete expression of divine revelation than Scripture, since tradition could be the determining factor in some cases for arriving at an exact knowledge and understanding of what had been revealed. An affirmation of this sort, said Cardinal Florit, would be fully in harmony with the text. He proposed, therefore, the addition of these words to Article 9: “Consequently, not every Catholic doctrine can be proved from Sacred Scripture alone.” This amendment, incidentally, was nearly identical with the one proposed earlier by the Council Fathers, and rejected by the Theological Commission.

On October 8, Pope Paul received a memorandum from the International Group of Fathers regarding Article n. The phrase “truth pertaining to salvation,” wrote the authors of the memorandum, had been deliberately introduced in order to confine the inerrancy of Scripture to supernatural matters concerning faith and morals; this was in open conflict with the constant teaching of the Church, they continued, and would encourage exegetes to become increasingly audacious in their demands. Other reactions to this article also reached the Pope, some spontaneously, some solicited by him, and of all shades of opinion.

Complaints were also submitted to Pope Paul concerning Article 19, and it was known that he himself felt the phrase “true and sincere things” to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory. An account that was historically reliable would have a wholly different value from one that was merely sincere, he said. Upon inquiry he learned that Cardinal Bea and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, together with the Theological Commission, technically made up the joint commission which was competent for revising the schema, but the Theological Commission had drawn up the objectionable passages independently. Pope Paul then conferred with Cardinal Bea.

The Pope gave these questions his most earnest attention, studying the relevant literature and consulting with competent persons. After discussing the matter with the four Moderators on October 12, he received from one of them a memorandum two days later on Article 9, pointing out that the Theological Commission had been obliged to act in accordance with the mandate which it had received from an overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers. To allay every anxiety, however, the writer suggested, it might still be stated that not all Catholic doctrine could be known with certainty from Scripture alone, without the help of tradition or the teaching authority of the Church. That solution, he said, would substantially strengthen the Catholic position in the face of the Protestant position, without touching upon the question still controverted among Catholic theologians.

The view of the Moderator coincided with the proposal made earlier by Cardinal Florit. On October 14, Pope Paul sent that proposal to the Theological Commission as his own.

In a letter dated October 18 to Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, the Secretary of State enclosed further observations of Pope Paul on the three disputed articles, and informed the Cardinal of the Pope’s decision to reconvene the Commission. The observations, he explained, were not intended “to alter substantially either the schema itself or the work of the Commission, but rather to improve it in some points of great doctrinal importance.” The incorporation of these changes . would enable the Holy Father “in all tranquility” to give the requested approval for the promulgation of the document which involved “great responsibility for him toward the Church and toward his own conscience.” The Secretary of State further gave notice of the Pope’s wish that Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, who had also served as co-president of the special joint commission established by Pope John XXIII, be invited to attend the meeting of the Commission.

This letter had been dictated by the Pope himself on October 17.

The Commission met on October 19 to hear the contents of the letter.

The first of the three papal directives concerned Article 9, and suggested seven possible renderings. Cardinal Bea explained why he preferred the third one. After some discussion and balloting, the Commission decided to add to Article 9 the words: “Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything which has been revealed.” This had been Cardinal Bea’s choice.

In regard to Article n, the Commission was invited by Cardinal Cicognani, on behalf of Pope Paul, to consider “with new and serious reflection” the advisability of omitting the expression “truth pertaining to salvation” from the text. The Cardinal pointed out that the issue here was a doctrine that was not yet commonly accepted in the theological and Scriptural teaching of the Church; moreover, it did not seem to have been sufficiently discussed in the Council hall. Further, he said, in the judgment of very authoritative persons, the phrase might easily be misinterpreted. The omission of the phrase would not rule out the future study of the problem.

Cardinal Bea also maintained that the phrase was inopportune and open to misinterpretation. He drew attention to the fact that the phrase had not been decided upon at a meeting of the special joint commission, but had been introduced later.

After further discussion and several ballots—there was controversy as to which of these ballots was to be considered valid—the Commission decided to reword the phrase as follows: . . the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Almost the same wording had been suggested by 73 of the 260 Council Fathers who had submitted qualifications to Article n nearly a month before.

With regard to Article 19, Cardinal Cicognani advised the Commission that Pope Paul regarded the words “true and sincere” as insufficient. That expression, he said, did not seem to guarantee the historical reality of the Gospels, and he added that the Holy Father clearly “could not approve a formulation which leaves in doubt the historicity of these most holy books.”

Cardinal Bea subscribed to the views stated by Cardinal Cicognani on behalf of Pope Paul, and supported the alternative formulation suggested by the Pope.

Other Commission members, however, pointed Out that not even the suggested formulation would eliminate the difficulty, since many Protestants would place their interpretation upon it. It was then suggested that the historicity of the Gospels should be asserted without equivocation earlier in the same paragraph; this would preclude any ambiguity concerning the words “true and sincere,” which could then be retained.

This solution, which achieved the purpose intended by the Pope and also contained the substance of his proposal, was voted upon and adopted. The beginning of Article 19 was thus amended to read as follows; “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels, . . . whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ . . . really did and taught for their eternal salvation.”

On October 29, Cardinal Florit read a report to the general assembly on the manner in which the Theological Commission had handled the qualifications submitted with the affirmative votes. No mention was made of the special meeting of the Commission or the role of Pope Paul. When the ballot was taken, 2081 Council Fathers expressed approval of the manner in which the qualifications had been handled, and 27 expressed disapproval.

On November 18,1965, the Council Fathers, gathered in the presence of Pope Paul VI, voted 2344 to 6 to accept the Constitution on Divine Revelation. The Constitution was immediately promulgated by the Pope.

While Pope Paul was considering whether to intervene in the matter or not, he received a letter from a leading personality at the Council—not a member of the Theological Commission—who had taken it upon himself to act as the spokesman for some alarmists at the Council. The writer said that if the Pope reconvened the Commission, as it was rumored, he would be guilty of using moral pressure on the Commission and the Council. Such a step, continued the writer, would damage the prestige of the Council and the Church, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, the United States and Canada, where people were particularly sensitive to any violation of Rules of Procedure.

To this, Pope Paul replied:

We wish to let you know immediately that it is in fact our intention to invite the Theological Commission of the Council kindly to consider the advisability of improving some points of the schema on divine revelation. We consider it our duty to reach a degree of doctrinal certitude which will allow us to add our approval to that of the Council Fathers.

We believe also that this intervention of ours in the Council Commission is perfectly in order, since it is our responsibility not only to ratify or reject the text in question, but also—like every other Council Father—to collaborate in improving it with opportune suggestions. . . . This also seems the simplest and most courteous way of bringing to the attention of the Commission all those elements which are useful for the work that has been assigned to it. We take the liberty of pointing out, however, that no offense is being committed against the authority of the Council, as you indeed suspect, but rather that a necessary contribution is being made so that it may carry out its functions.

Further, nothing can cause us more pleasure than to see attention called to the liberty of the Council and to the observance of the rules of procedure that have been laid down. These principles are no less dear to the Romans than they are to the Anglo-Saxons. They have been most rigorously observed in the Council.

Father Giovanni Caprile, S.J., who has had access to papal archive material on the Council, has said that the Pope’s intervention in this phase of the Council’s history “makes us appreciate once more the firm and at the same time gentle moderating action exercised by Paul VI. Together with the Council Fathers, at their side and as their leader, delicately fulfilling the command to strengthen the brethren, he has been the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to assure the Church a flowering of conciliar texts rich in wisdom and safe in doctrine.”

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION

September 14 to November 21, 1964

WOMEN AT THE COUNCIL


Several months before the opening of the third session, it had been rumored that Pope Paul intended to appoint a number of nuns and laywomen as official auditors—literally, listeners—at the Council. A remote basis for such rumors was Cardinal Suenens’ suggestion, on October 22, 1963, during the second session, that “a number of women should be invited to the Council, because women constitute one half of the population of the world.” At the same time, the Cardinal had suggested that the number of male auditors should be increased, that their representation should be on a broader international basis, and that the great congregations of brothers and sisters, “who contribute so signally to the apostolic work of the Church,” should also be represented.

It was therefore not too surprising to hear Pope Paul say in his opening address on September 14, 1964, “We are delighted to welcome among the auditors our beloved daughters in Christ, the first women in history to participate in a conciliar assembly.” All present were thrilled with the news, and many tried to get a glimpse of these privileged women. But there were none to be seen. Although the Pope had indicated early enough the names of the future women auditors, the invitations had not been sent out.

*In Italian usage this term includes German-speaking peoples.

The only layman invited as an auditor to the first session was Professor Jean Guitton of the University of Paris, a close friend of Pope John, and the rules governing the proceedings of the first session had contained no reference to auditors. But when a revised edition was published on September 13, 1963, immediately before the opening of the second session, it included an article headed “Auditors,” which read: “By gracious concession of the Supreme Pontiff, renowned laymen may attend public sessions, general congregations and commission meetings. They may not speak, however, unless they are invited by the Moderator of the assembly or by the president of a commission to express their views, in special circumstances, in the same way as periti .” Eleven men were invited by Pope Paul to attend the second session as auditors.

On September 20, 1964, the first Sunday of the third session, the Holy Father celebrated a special Mass in St. Peter’s for a number of lay Catholic groups engaged in apostolic work. One of the groups represented was the Mouvement International pour l’Apostolat des Milieux Sociaux Independants, which was holding its first general assembly in Rome for representatives from twenty-six countries. At the end of the Mass, the Pope addressed this particular group in French, and mentioned its president by name— Mile. Marie-Louise Monnet, of Cognac, France. He said that the laity’s role was to help spread the Council’s message throughout the world, “since it is through the common effort of all the baptized that the Council will bear fruit. That is why we insist that the laity should be represented at the Council, and why our choice falls upon men and women completely dedicated to the apostolate. Today we can tell you—in confidence—that your president is on the list of women whom we intend to call to the Council in the role of auditors. May this be an encouragement to you to persevere with renewed ardor in your apostolate for the Church in your own particular walks of life.” In this dramatic way, the Pope informed the first woman auditor of her role at the Council. She was then escorted to the papal throne.

On the following day, Miss Rosemary Goldie of Sydney, Australia, Executive Secretary of the Permanent Committee for International Congresses of the Lay Apostolate, received word from the Secretary General of her appointment as an auditor. As the days and weeks passed, more and more women auditors were invited. By the end of the third session, there were forty official auditors at the Council, seventeen of them women. Among the latter, nine were nuns and eight laywomen. Mr. and Mrs. Jose Alvarez Icaza of Mexico City, founders of the Christian Family Movement in Mexico, were the first married couple to be invited.

Miss Goldie told me at the end of the third session that all forty auditors had seats reserved for them in St. Andrew’s balcony near the Council Presidents. Each day they received Holy Communion together at the opening Mass. There were no rules regarding dress, she said, and she had worn black only once; the laywomen wore black veils, however. Translation services were provided by periti seated nearby for those who did not understand Latin. “We receive all the Latin documents that the Council Fathers receive,” Miss Goldie said, “and we are allowed to keep them for our files.” The auditors also had many opportunities to discuss Council topics with Council Fathers, periti, and observers from the separated Christian Churches. Every Monday evening, continued Miss Goldie, and very often also on Thursday evenings, all the auditors gathered for a two-hour meeting at which a Council Father or peritus usually gave a short explanatory talk on a schema currently under discussion. The auditors also drafted proposals which were officially submitted to commissions. They had been invited, Miss Goldie said, to collaborate with the Council Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity, and they had organized themselves in such a way as to ensure that both men and women would sit on each of the five subcommissions. When I asked Miss Goldie whether some women might be given the opportunity to speak at the Council, she replied, “It seems premature.”

The nuns chosen as auditors were all mothers general or heads of large federations of sisters. To their great disappointment, they were at no time invited to attend a meeting of the Commission on Religious. They were perfectly free, however, to submit proposals to the Commission and to speak with its members.

The schema on the apostolate of the laity had been on the agenda of the second session but had not been taken up for discussion. Following the second session, the Coordinating Commission instructed that it be reduced to a few propositions. That order, however, was not carried out. The official reason given by Bishop Hengsbach of Essen, Germany, on behalf of the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity, was that “such a reduction, in the light of the purpose of the Council, would hardly have satisfied the Council Fathers and the expectations of the laity.”

The schema was presented for discussion at the third session, on October 7, 1964, by Bishop Hengsbach, who pointed out that the document insisted on “the vocation of all the faithful to participate in the apostolate of the Church.” The aim of the apostolate, he said, was “men’s conversion, their progress toward God, the Christian restoration of the temporal order, and the exercise of charity toward one’s neighbor.” The discussion went on until October 13.

Cardinal Ritter of St. Louis said that the text in general was prolix, diffuse, and often abstract. There was a marked lack of organization in the material, and the whole schema was permeated by an excessively clerical spirit.

Cardinal Browne of the Curia drew attention to the statements in the schema that the vocation to the apostolate was “of the very essence of the Christian vocation,” and that “everyone” must receive training in the apostolate. The affirmation of such a universal obligation, he said, was too categorical.

Coadjutor Archbishop Angelo Fernandes of Delhi, speaking on behalf of all the bishops of India, found fault with the schema for reducing the apostolic action of the laity to some sort of “vague philanthropy.” The schema, he said, was not sufficiently impregnated with a supernatural spirit, and was in great need of revision.

Bishop Carlo Maccari of Mondovi, Italy, conceded that there were some good points in the schema, but felt that in general it had been hastily pieced together with fragments which did not always fit perfectly. The style and Latin terminology were not accurate enough, and it was hardly satisfactory for a Council document. There was too much repetition, he maintained, and the material had not been developed organically.

Archbishop D’Souza of Bhopal, India, claimed that “a radical reorganization must take place everywhere in the Church” if laymen were to fulfill their proper roles. “My brothers,” he asked, “are we—the Catholic clergy— truly prepared to abdicate clericalism? Are we prepared to consider the laity as brothers in the Lord, equal to ourselves in dignity in the Mystical Body, if not in office? Are we prepared no longer to usurp, as formerly we did, the responsibilities which properly belong to them? Or rather—if I may express this a bit more discreetly—are we prepared to leave to them what is more pertinent to them, such as the fields of education, social services, administration of temporal goods, and the like?”

The Archbishop asked why the Church should always have to be represented on international bodies by priests. Why might not laymen take the place of many of the clerics in the Roman Curia? Why might not laymen be admitted to the diplomatic service of the Holy See, and even become nuncios? Numerous possibilities existed, he said, for substitutions of this kind, “on the world level, on the national level, on the diocesan level, and on the parish level.” This would make it possible for l^ie clergy “to devote themselves to the exercise of the sacred and sacramental office for which they were ordained.” He predicted that such principles in the schema would open up a new era for the Church. The Archbishop’s statement was vigorously applauded.

Archbishop Owen McCann of Cape Town, South Africa, said that the schema was poor in inspirational content and did not correspond to the great expectations of bishops, priests and laity throughout the world.

Archbishop Cesar Mosquera Corral o£ Guayaquil, Ecuador, observed that, while the schema mentioned various types of apostolic work to be performed by laymen, it did not formulate “a true doctrine on the spirituality of the laity, which today constitutes one of the greatest deficiencies in the life of the Church.” On October 13, Mr. Patrick Keegan of London, president of the World Movement of Christian Workers, became the first layman to address the general assembly. He spoke in English and thanked the Cardinal Moderators “for the honor and opportunity of addressing this great assembly.”

He was very conscious, he said, of his responsibility, “at this historic moment, to try, however inadequately, to voice the sentiments of the faithful laity throughout the world.” He called the lay apostolate a part of the new dynamism of the Church which was “seeking new ways to implement the message of the Gospel, seeking new means which are better adapted to the different social, economic and cultural situations of modern man.” His eight-minute address was warmly applauded by the Council Fathers.

Even a superficial study of the schema made it clear that it gave preference to the form of apostolate known as Catholic Action, particularly popular in France. It was the only organized form of apostolate mentioned by name, and it was treated at great length. Cardinal Suenens, known as an ardent champion of the Legion of Mary, called this imbalance to the attention of the general assembly. He felt that no form of apostolate should be specifically mentioned in the text, since the apostolate carried out by the laity might be harmed thereby.

Bishop Stefan Laszlo of Eisenstadt, Austria, replying to Cardinal Suenens, insisted that Article 16 on Catholic Action be left unchanged. It was impossible, he said, to satisfy everyone; he pointed out that the matter had already been thoroughly discussed in the Council Commission, and that it had not been possible to find a formulation which would take account of all the different opinions.

Many other Council Fathers, however, voiced objections to the singling out of Catholic Action, and proposed that all forms of the apostolate should be treated on the same footing. This never came about.

At the end of the discussion. Bishop Hengsbach promised on behalf of the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity that the suggestions made would be given careful consideration in a revision of the schema. On May 28, 1965, the revised version was approved by Pope Paul, and on June 12 it was mailed to the Council Fathers. This was now the fourth schema on the apostolate of the laity. It was a large booklet of seventy pages, containing the old and new texts in parallel columns, with detailed reasons for the numerous changes and extensive additions that had been made.

The new schema was voted on at the fourth session, between September 23 and 27, on twenty-two different ballots. There was no further discussion, but Bishop Hengsbach read a short report, pointing out that a new article had been introduced on the spirituality of the laity and another on youth and the apostolate, as many Council Fathers had requested. On every ballot, the necessary two-thirds majority was obtained. On six of the ballots, however, a total of 1374 qualifications accompanied affirmative votes. These were examined by the Commission, and the text of the schema altered in more than 150 places. At the public session on November 18, 1965, it was officially announced that the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity had received 2305 affirmative votes and only two negative votes. Pope Paul then promulgated the decree.

Twelve days later, on November-30, the Secretary General announced that the definitive vote was 2340 to twmJWhen the ballots had originally been counted, he explained, some of them had been torn by the electronic computer and so were not included in the totals. Notaries, however, had examined the torn ballots and supplied the definitive count.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

EXPANDING THE PROPOSITIONS ON PRIESTS AND THE MISSIONS

In the first ten days of the third session, numerous petitions were submitted by Council Fathers and episcopal conferences requesting that a normal discussion period should be granted for all schemas that had been reduced to a series of propositions. On Friday, September 25, 1964, only eleven days after the opening of the third session, the Secretary General announced that the Moderators had agreed to the wishes expressed by the Council Fathers and had decided to allow a short discussion before the votes were taken. He pointed out that the interventions read would not be used for the revision of the propositions, but would serve solely to assist the Council Fathers in deciding how to vote on the propositions. Any proposed changes in the drafts would have to be submitted as qualifications accompanying affirmative votes. He announced further that, by decision of the Moderators, summaries of such interventions must be presented to the General Secretariat by the following dates: on Oriental Churches, by October 10; on the missionary activity of the Church, by October n; on priests, by October 12; on religious, by October 13; on the sacrament of Matrimony, by October 14; on priestly training, by October 15; and on Catholic education, by October 16.

In the evening of September 25, the bishops representing the world alliance gathered for their weekly meeting at the Domus Mariae and expressed pleasure at this initial victory, but also apprehension lest the “short” discussion should be confined to a single day. They decided that this was not enough, and prepared formal requests, which episcopal conferences would be asked to direct to the Cardinal Moderators, that a fuller discussion of the propositions be authorized.

At their next meeting on October 2 these bishops were asked to promote a “slow down” policy, since the Council had been moving along at great speed until that date. This sudden change in Council policy, which in a matter of days was adopted by nearly all the episcopal conferences, was due to the appearance on September 30 of the Supplement for the schema on the Church in the modern world. Said to be a commentary on the schema, it was rather a collection of liberal teachings which the leaders of the European alliance were anxious to have included in the schema. The technique was to postpone discussion of this topic as long as possible, so that support could meanwhile be won for the Supplement, and then to draw out discussion of the schema so much that completing the revision of it during the third session would be impossible. An aid in achieving this goal was the authorization of a normal period of discussion for all the propositions.

In the morning of October 7, each Council Father received a revised and expanded version of the propositions on priests, differing from the propositions circulated by mail before the third session. The Secretary General announced that the revision had been authorized by the Coordinating Commission, and was based on written interventions that had been officially submitted to the General Secretariat “in the last few months.” It was immediately apparent that some 90 per cent of the additions and changes resulted from the proposals submitted by the German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops after their conference at Innsbruck in May 1964.

On October 12, the Secretary General announced that, at the decision of the Moderators, the short discussion on the propositions on priests was to begin on the following day, “because the reports for the schema on the Church in the modern world are not yet ready.” Psychologically, this was the worst possible moment to launch a short discussion of the 100 lines on priests, since four days had just been devoted to discussing the 476 lines on the apostolate of the laity.

The first speaker on October 13 was Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, who said that the topic of priests merited a proper schema of its own, as well as ample discussion, similar to the discussion devoted to the schema on bishops. His suggestion, he said, was based upon the necessity for giving testimony to the esteem, interest and solicitude which all the bishops in the Council felt for their priests. He found fault with the propositions for speaking exclusively of the obligations of priests, without taking into consideration anything which might comfort or encourage them in fulfilling their difficult role. He was applauded when he stated, in conclusion, drat the document should be redrafted.

Speaker after speaker pointed out weaknesses in the schema, calling it shallow, especially in regard to priestly spirituality. Fourteen Council Fathers spoke on that first day.

On the following day, it was announced that the discussion on the propositions on priests would end on the same day. Three cardinals, from Brazil, Italy and Spain, said that the propositions were too much concerned with externals in the life of a priest and too little concerned with his sanctification. Archbishop Salvatore Baldassarri of Ravenna, Italy, stated that it was impossible for the Council to treat of priests, the closest collaborators of bishops, in so offhand a manner. He called for a schema on priests as thorough as the schemas prepared on bishops and the apostolate of the laity.

Archbishop Fernando Gomes dos Santos of Goiania, Brazil, speaking on behalf of 112 bishops of Brazil and other countries, said: “We are not at all ignorant of the good intentions of those who drafted this text. In fact, we praise their intentions. But it is what they have produced that we deplore!” The text, he said, had proved “a very great disappointment to us . .. and there is no reason why we should not say so." The text of these propositions, he said, was “an insult to those most beloved priests who labor with us in the vineyard of the Lord.” If the Second Vatican Council was able to say “so many sublime and beautiful things about bishops and the laity,” he asked, “why are so few and such imperfect things now to be said about priests?”

Many things, he said, were urged upon priests in the propositions which the bishops had not dared to prescribe for themselves. He appealed to the general assembly—“and we earnestly beg the most eminent Moderators”— that the matter should be given mature consideration, and that the present text should not yet be submitted to a vote. “Instead, let a new and worthy text be drafted, to be discussed and voted upon at the forthcoming fourth session of the Council. . . . The priesthood is too great and sacred a thing for us to speak hastily about it. We owe at least this testimony of love and veneration to our priests, who have been called to share with us in the work of the Lord.”

At the end of the morning, with only nineteen of the twenty-seven speakers on the list of speakers having addressed the assembly, the Moderators sent new instructions to Archbishop Felici, and had him announce that interventions would continue on the following day and that the vote would be postponed until such time as the Moderators saw fit.

On October 15, eight more Council Fathers addressed the assembly. The first speaker was Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht, Holland, who maintained that it was the conviction of many Council Fathers that the propositions could not be published as they stood without gravely disappointing priests.

He therefore suggested that the Commission concerned should be asked to prepare a new text which would better correspond to the expectations of priests and the proposals made by Council Fathers. His suggestion was greeted with applause.

After the eighth speaker, the Moderator announced that the vote would be taken at some as yet unspecified future date. The “short” discussion had extended over three days.

On the following day, the Secretary General read out the following notification: “Many Fathers have requested the most eminent Moderators that all the schemas reduced to propositions, or at least some of them, should be sent back to the Commissions concerned after a short discussion, to be redrafted on the basis of the observations made by the Fathers. The Moderators therefore considered it opportune to refer this matter to the Coordinating Commission, which in turn has carefully examined the requests of the Fathers. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the Rules of Procedure, this Commission has decided that, after a short discussion of each set of propositions, the views of the Fathers should be requested on the following statement, ‘Would it please the Fathers to proceed with the vote now that the discussion is over?’ If an absolute majority of the Council Fathers (50 per cent plus 1) should reply in the affirmative, then the votes on the individual points in the propositions will be taken immediately in accordance with the threefold formula, ‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ and ‘Yes, with qualifications.’ If on the other hand the reply should be negative, then the entire matter will be referred back to the Commission with instructions to revise the schema speedily in accordance with the observations made by the Fathers.”

The Secretary General then announced that the vote on the propositions on priests would be taken at the next meeting, on Monday, October 19.

On that day, by a vote of 1199 to 930, the propositions were referred back to the Commission concerned for revision in accordance with the observations made in the oral interventions. Notice was also given that additional suggestions might be made in writing within three days. The strategy of first expurgating undesirable elements from the text and then expanding it again by new proposals had been successful.

The reaction to the propositions on the missions was no less heated than the reaction to the propositions on priests. The propositions on the missions had been approved by Pope Paul on July 3, 1964, for distribution to the Council Fathers. Almost immediately thereafter there appeared a counter schema called Documentum nostrum I (“Our document No. 1”), followed in quick succession by revised editions entitled Documentum nostrum II and Documentum nostrum III. All three were in circulation by August 3.

The leader of the group supporting the counter schema was Bishop van Valenberg, who had been connected with the efforts of the Dutch hierarchy early in the first session to secure the rejection of certain schemas. Others in the same group were the superiors general of the White Fathers, the Montfort Fathers, the Society of African Missions, the Picpus Fathers, the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, the Holy Cross Fathers and the Assumptionists. The group claimed to have found considerable support among bishops and superiors general, and submitted Documentum nostrum III to the General Secretariat with the request that it be officially printed as a commentary on the existing propositions, to assist the Council Fathers “in properly and fully understanding the propositions which are to be voted on.” But the General Secretariat did not react favorably to the suggestion.

When bishops from mission lands began to arrive in Rome for the third session, it was evident that they were very displeased with the propositions on the missions. This was especially true of the bishops of Africa. The Commission on the Missions had in fact voted unanimously in favor of the propositions at its plenary session from May 4 to 13, 1964. Knowing this, and seeing the dissatisfaction of the missionary bishops, I asked Father Schiitte, Superior General of the Divine Word Missionaries, how this could be explained. “Not one of us on the Missions Commission was satisfied with the propositions,” he said. “We voted unanimously in favor of them, however, because the Coordinating Commission had ordered drastic cuts, and we believed that the six pages were the best that could be produced in the circumstances.” He had foretold, at that meeting, that the missionary bishops were unlikely to accept the propositions, “since many of them had come to the Council precisely because a full-size schema was dedicated to the missions.”

On Wednesday afternoon, September 30, the general secretariat of the Pan-African Episcopal Conference assembled to discuss the announcement made on September 25 that there would be a “short” discussion of all propositions before the voting. This general secretariat consisted of the presidents of the eleven national and regional episcopal conferences of Africa and Madagascar. Archbishop Zoa of Yaounde, vice-president of the organization and a member of the Commission on the Missions, announced that, at a recent meeting of the Commission, he had suggested that the propositions on the missions should be discussed in the same way as any other schema. The other members on the Commission had also favored the idea, he said, and Cardinal Agagianian, President of the Commission, was to present the proposal in writing to the Council Presidency and the Cardinal Moderators.

As a practical resolution of this meeting, it was decided that each of the eleven national and regional episcopal conferences should directly petition the Council Presidency, the Cardinal Moderators and the Coordinating Commission for a normal discussion of all the propositions. A form letter was drawn up in Latin containing the points to be included, and each conference was to make its own translation and desired changes.

On October 6, the Missions Commission met in plenary session and voted 20 to 4 in favor of asking all episcopal conferences to make a formal request of Pope Paul VI that Documentum nostrum 111 should be printed by the General Secretariat of the Council as an official document and brought up for discussion on the Council floor. At the weekly meeting of the general secretariat of the Pan-African Episcopal Conference on the following day, Archbishop Zoa informed the members of the decision of the Missions Commission, and invited them to send formal requests to the Pope in the name of their episcopal conferences for the official printing and distribution of Documentum nostrum III.

At the meeting of the West African Episcopal Conference, held on October 8 at the Residenza Adele di Trenquellion, a hotel at which some sixty African bishops were staying, Archbishop John Amissah of Cape Coast, Ghana, announced that a tactful letter had already been sent to the Holy Father on behalf of many episcopal conferences—including the West African Episcopal Conference—to ask for “sufficient time” to discuss all the propositions on the Council floor.

On October 21, the report on the propositions on the missions was distributed, and it was announced that this topic would be taken up after the discussion on the Church in the modern world. By this time, more than 100 Council Fathers had notified the Secretary General that they wished to speak on the propositions on the missions. Among the Fathers who had requested to speak were outstanding figures such as Cardinal Bea, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Alfrink, Laurean Cardinal Rugambwa, of Bukoba, Tanzania, Cardinal Silva Henriquez, Cardinal Suenens and Bishop De Smedt. Each had been requested to speak by a small group of superiors general headed by Father Leo Volker, Superior General of the White Fathers. The complete texts of their interventions were printed in large quantities for advance circulation among the Council Fathers.

On Thursday morning, November 5, the Secretary General announced that the discussion of the schema on the Church in the modern world would be interrupted on the following day, and discussion of the propositions on the missions would begin in the presence of Pope Paul VI. That afternoon the Roman Union of Superiors General met to listen to a report on the propositions on the missions prepared by Father Schiitte.

“For most of us superiors general gathered here,” he said, “hardly any schema apart from the one on religious concerns us as much as do the propositions on the missions.” He gave a brief history of the process whereby the original schema had been reduced to a series of propositions, and then commented point by point on the thirteen articles included in the propositions. Many improvements, he said, could be made in the propositions, but even if all were adopted, many missionary bishops would remain skeptical and hesitant, because they would feel that the world-wide missionary activity of the Church had not received from the Council the treatment which its significance and urgency demanded.

Father Schiitte suggested that the Council Fathers should be allowed to indicate by a vote whether they were satisfied with the propositions, or whether they wished to have a proper schema on the missions. “If the vote should be in favor of a real schema on the missions—and I have no doubt that this will be the case—the new schema should be drawn up by the competent Commission, making use of the former schemas on the missions.” The superiors general decided to do everything in their power to secure the rejection of the propositions and the drafting of a new schema.

The same evening, Father Schiitte approached Cardinal Frings to ask him to speak in favor of a genuine schema on the missions on the following day, Friday. Cardinal Frings agreed to do so the day after, since he was already scheduled to give a conference on Friday. Still the same evening, Father Schiitte set to work with Father Karl Muller, one of his periti, to compose a letter to the Cardinal Moderators, stating that the short propositions were utterly unacceptable because the missionary aspect of the Church was far too important. Numerous copies of the letter were made so that signatures might be collected on the following day.

The next day, Friday, November 6, Pope Paul addressed the general assembly. He said that he had chosen to be present on a day when the attention of the Council was centered on the schema on the missions, “because of the grave and singular importance of the topic.” He said that he had examined the text which was in the Council Fathers’ hands, and had “found many things in it deserving of our praise, both as regards content and as regards orderly explanation. We believe, therefore, that the text will be approved by you without difficulty, after you have pointed out where further improvement is needed.”

These words of the Pope were immediately construed as a “qualified affirmative vote” for the propositions. Nevertheless, Father Schiitte went on collecting signatures, convinced that the Pope’s statement had been based on misinformation regarding the feeling of the Council Fathers on the propositions.

After the Pope’s address, Cardinal Agagianian, as president of the Commission on the Missions, read his introductory report, and then the Pope left. All of the remaining speakers that morning suggested major changes in the text.

That afternoon and evening, Father Schiitte sent priests of his order to the residences of bishops for additional signatures, and in this way obtained several hundred more, all of which he turned over to the Cardinal Moderators.

The first speaker on Saturday, November 7, was Cardinal Frings of Cologne, who said that the missionary role of the Church was of such importance, especially in present-day circumstances, that the matter could not be disposed of in a few propositions. Instead, he argued, a complete schema on the missions should be prepared and submitted at the fourth session of the Council. This, he said, was not only his opinion, “but also the fervent desire of the superiors general, of many bishops of Africa and of other missions. I humbly ask that this desire may yet be fulfilled.” His proposal that the text should be referred back to the Commission on the Missions for complete revision was greeted with two distinct waves of applause, reaching from end to end of the Council hall.

Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht agreed that it was impossible to give adequate treatment to the missions “in a set of simple propositions.” Cardinal Suenens, speaking on behalf of all the bishops of Africa, asserted that the text required major amendments.

Bishop Donal Lamont of Umtali, Southern Rhodesia, speaking on behalf of many bishops of Africa, said: “The presence of the Supreme Pontiff yesterday in the Council hall was a consolation far beyond anything that we had hoped for. We missionaries were all thrilled to see His Holiness, the first missionary, sitting amongst us, and for this we offer him our most profound thanks from our hearts.” Then he went on to compare the propositions to the “dry bones without flesh, without sinew,” in Ezechiel’s vision.

Six more speakers addressed the assembly before the debate was closed on Monday, November 9. The Council Fathers were then asked, “Is it agreed that the schema of propositions on the missionary activity of the Church should be revised once again by the competent Commission?” In reply, 1601 Council Fathers said “yes” (83 per cent), and 311 said “no.” This meant that the propositions were rejected and that a proper schema would now have to be prepared by the Commission on the Missions for presentation at the fourth session.

How explain Pope Paul’s words? Did he not know of the great dissatisfaction with the propositions on the missions which had been manifested as soon as they were distributed by the General Secretariat?

Did he not know of the objections repeatedly voiced by the bishops of Africa and other missionary countries, and by the superiors general of missionary orders? Had none of the petitions directed to him personally reached him? Did Cardinal Agagianian, President of the Missions Commission, fail to inform him of the great dissatisfaction manifested in the Commission itself? Did the other three Cardinal Moderators fail to inform the Pope of the dissatisfaction which they had witnessed and—in part—promoted ? Was the Cardinal Secretary of State unaware of the state of affairs?

It is difficult to understand how the Pope could have spoken so optimistically about the propositions in the Council hall had he truly realized the position. The reports which subsequently appeared in the press, stating that the Council Fathers had contradicted the view expressed by the Pope, necessitate a closer examination of what the Pope really said. He did not say that everything in the propositions was deserving of praise, but that he had found “many” things “deserving of our praise. ’ Even Bishop Lamont, who spoke more strongly than anyone else, stated that the propositions had much to recommend them, that they were positive in their approach, and that they were useful and necessary. Thus the Pope’s judgment on the propositions did not conflict with that of the Council Fathers. He erred, however, in thinking that the propositions would be approved without difficulty, after further improvements had been indicated. In depicting the incident as defiance by the Council Fathers of the Pope, the press was perhaps not aware that the interventions read on the Council floor had been prepared long in advance and would have been delivered had the Pope made his address or not.

There were those who charged that Cardinal Agagianian had invited the Pope to attend the session, hoping thus to win the Council’s support for the propositions which he was known to favor. The Cardinal, however, most emphatically denied this, stating that the Pope had spontaneously decided to attend the meeting.

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

SEATING THE PATRIARCHS

No other Council document had so short a conciliar life span, from the time it was first discussed on the Council floor to its solemn promulgation, as the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches. The general assembly discussed the schema at the third session, from October 15 to 20, 1964. Votes were taken on individual parts of the schema on October 21 and 22. The schema was then returned to the Commission for revision, and submitted to the general assembly for a further vote on November 20. On the following day, it was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, at the public session which concluded the third session. Thus its conciliar life span had been five weeks and two days.

The position of the Eastern-rite Churches to the Latin-rite Church was bluntly stated early in the second session by Coptic Archbishop Isaac Ghattas of Thebes, in Egypt, in connection with the schema on the Church. “It would seem,” he said, “that for many Council Fathers the Universal Church is the Latin Church, which through a separate schema concedes so-called privileges to a minority group, the Eastern Churches.” Many churchmen of the Latin Church, he said, looked upon the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, “as ecclesiastical oddities or exotic creations,” instead of “as sister Churches which together with the Latin-rite Church make up the Universal Church.” This attitude of the Latin-rite Church was resented, he said, and neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Eastern Churches would or could accept the Latin Church’s tendency to act as though it alone were the Universal Church, dispensing privileges. In the course of his intervention, he pointed out that the schema on the Church made no mention of the different rites within the Church, or of the patriarchs.


Archbishop Ghattas spoke on Thursday, October 10, 1963. On the following Monday, October 14, a visible change was evident in the seating arrangements in the Council hall. Six patriarchs of the Eastern-rite Churches, who had formerly occupied places immediately after the cardinals, were now seated at a table of their own, directly across from the cardinals. Their table, like those of the Moderators and Presidents, was covered with a green cloth and draped in red. It was on a platform one step high. (That of the Moderators was two steps high and that of the Presidents three.) In the official announcements that day, the Secretary General drew attention to the fact that the patriarchs of the Eastern rites had been assigned new places in the Council hall.

The casual observer might have thought that this greater attention and eminence bestowed upon the patriarchs was a direct result of the fiery intervention of Archbishop Ghattas four days earlier. But the Church of Rome moves much too slowly for the cause to have been as recent as that! The cause went back not four days but four years, to a letter written to Pope John XXIII by Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh, Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, Lebanon.

In that letter, written on October 8, 1959, the Patriarch expressed his joy, and that of the Greek-Melchite-Catholic Church as a whole, at the Pope’s announcement of an Ecumenical Council. Despite his advanced age (he was eighty-one at the time of writing), he said that he wished to take part in the Council in person, because the Eastern Catholic Church represented the hope existing for reunion between the large numbers of Orthodox Christians and the Holy See in Rome. However, he said, there was “one preliminary difficulty” in the way of his personal and fruitful participation in the work of the Council, which he wished to explain “with simplicity and confidence.” It concerned the rank of the patriarchs in the Catholic hierarchy and at the Ecumenical Council.

He explained that this question had “occupied much of the attention of the bishops and superiors general of our Churches gathered for their annual synod, over which we presided, at Ain-Traz, in the second half of August 1959.” To that synod, he said, it had seemed illogical that the Council, while striving to break down the barriers between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, should at the same time seat the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches after the cardinals. One of the most cherished rights which the patriarchs had always enjoyed was their precedence in rank. In earlier centuries, the patriarchs had always followed immediately after the Pope, who himself was still called Patriarch of the West.

“In fact,” the letter continued, “ecclesiastical tradition from the earliest centuries consistently lists the rank of the sees in the Universal Church in the following order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Ecclesiastical tradition is likewise unanimous in recognizing that those in office in those five patriarchal sees take precedence, in accordance with the rank of their respective sees, over all other ecclesiastical dignitaries. In conformity, then, with this ancient and unanimous tradition, the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome is followed immediately in the hierarchy of the Church by those who head these four other patriarchal apostolic sees.”

Patriarch Maximos explained that the cardinals gathered around the Pope were really his auxiliaries in so far as he was Bishop of Rome. Their dignity sprang from their participation in the dignity of the first see, which was Rome. But since this dignity was theirs only by participation, it was not logical that they should take precedence over the patriarchs of other patriarchal sees.

At the First Vatican Council, the patriarchs had been seated after the cardinals. This was the first time in history that such a thing had happened, and Patriarch Maximos described it as the result of “a regrettable anti-Eastern mentality which at the time dominated certain elements of the Roman Curia, a mentality comprehensible during a period of history when the West did not know the Eastern Church as it does in our day, and when the Eastern Catholics themselves . . . had a certain inferiority complex toward Europe, which was then at the height of its colonial power. But Your Holiness would certainly not approve of such a mentality.”

The members of the Orthodox Churches, he went on, “wish to see from our example what place the Roman Church would give to their patriarchs in case of reunion ” He closed the letter with an expression of confidence that Pope John would take the necessary steps to provide the “only just solution which our proposal merits.”

Patriarch Maximos never received a reply to this letter.

Undaunted, he wrote another letter in the same vein on September 20, 1962, three weeks before the opening of the Council. He addressed it to Archbishop Felici and explained that the annual synod of the Greek-Melchite-Catholic Church had begged him to make a further attempt to reach Pope John, and also the Council Presidency, through the Secretary General. The request was the same: that the patriarchs of the East should have reserved for them at the Council “the rank assigned to them by the canons of the earliest ecumenical councils, that is, the first place immediately after the Supreme Pontiff.” He pointed out that the decisions of the earliest ecumenical councils in this matter had been respected at the Council of Florence in 1439, where, by order of Pope Eugene IV, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph II, had occupied the first place after the Pope and preceded the cardinals.”

Patriarch Maximos was making this appeal, he explained, because the patriarchs of the East knew that those responsible for protocol at the Vatican were preparing to give precedence to the cardinals over the patriarchs at the forthcoming Council. “The question is a grave one,” he warned, “and may constitute a nearly insurmountable obstacle to future union between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.” But for the fact that he might give scandal to his own people, he would prefer “not to appear at the forthcoming Council so as to avoid a diminution, in our person, of the honor due to the patriarchal sees of the East.” A week later he sent Archbishop Felici six copies of a memorandum “on the rank of the Eastern patriarchs in the Catholic Church.”

On October 4, Archbishop Felici acknowledged the receipt of the letter and memorandum. “I have attentively read the considerations presented on the question,” he wrote, “and shall submit them to the Holy Father.” But again there was no reply from Pope John. And when the Council opened ten days later, the patriarchs of the East were seated after the cardinals, just as they had been at Vatican I.

After the first session, another synod was held at the residence of Patriarch Maximos IV at Ain-Traz. Since no action had been taken by the Vatican on their previous requests, the patriarch and synod now decided to publish the entire correspondence on this matter as an open letter to the Council Fathers. This drastic measure seemed, however, to have no more effect than previous measures, since, at the opening of the second session, under Pope Paul VI, the patriarchs were still seated after the cardinals.

Ten days after the opening of the session, Archpriest Borovoy, one of the two observer delegates from the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, told a reporter, “When I return to Russia, no one is going to ask me what the theologians said. But they will ask, Were some of the Eastern patriarchs there, and what places did they occupy?” Then he added, “I must tell you that the places which they occupy in St. Peter’s are not in fact conducive to ecumenical dialogue.” These remarks were published in the Paris Figaro of October 12, 1963.

When the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches walked into the Council hall on Monday, October 14, they found waiting for them new places of honor opposite the cardinals. The significant gesture had been ordered by Pope Paul VI. But did it mean that they were above the cardinals in rank? Most people thought so.

A year later, at the third session, the schema on the Eastern Catholic Churches came up for discussion.

Archbishop Ghattas proposed on October 16, 1964, that the schema should be suppressed and its contents inserted in other schemas, where the treatment of the subject more properly belonged. Since the Eastern Catholic Churches were parts of the one Catholic Church, he said, there should not be a separate schema on them.

Patriarch Maximos said that the weakest chapter of the schema was “indubitably the one devoted to the patriarchs.” He called it “inadmissible” in its existing form. “In the first place, it is false to present the patriarchate as an institution proper to the East,” he said. “The first patriarch in the Catholic Church is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is described in the Annuario Ponlificio itself as ‘Patriarch of the West’.”

He also objected to the “infinite number of times” that patriarchs were obliged to have recourse to the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia. The patriarch and his synod, he said, “without prejudicing the prerogatives of the successor of Peter,” should normally be the highest authority for all affairs concerning the patriarchate.

Maronite Bishop Doumith of Sarba, Lebanon, told the assembly that the great hopes stirred in the Eastern Churches by the Second Vatican Council had “almost completely vanished after an examination of this schema.” Apart from the praise which was usually given the Eastern Churches in any discussion of the subject, he said, “there is nothing of momentous importance in the schema: prejudices are not corrected, useless things are repeated, special problems are not always resolved in the best manner and, finally, the more serious matters which ought to be treated are avoided.”

The most serious problem of all, he said, that of having bishops of different Eastern Catholic rites in the same see, with jurisdiction over the same territory, was passed over. In so doing, he maintained, “the Council seems to be neglecting forever a unique occasion for bringing about a necessary reform. At least it should be stated that reform is necessary, even if it cannot be carried out at once." After pointing out that little would remain if matters which were better handled in other schemas were omitted, he requested the assembly to “reject the entire schema in all tranquillity, inserting certain points in other schemas, and referring other points to the code of canon law.”

Auxiliary Bishop Gerald McDevitt of Philadelphia pointed out that the schema obliged converts throughout the world to retain their rite on becoming Catholics. This was contrary to the entire spirit of the Second Vatican Council, he said, which had so much to say on liberty of conscience and the pastoral and ecumenical spirit. Recalling his ten years of service in the apostolic delegation in Washington, D.C., he said, “I worked almost daily on petitions requesting transferral to another rite, and I know well how much time is required to prepare these petitions for the Holy See . . . Ordinarily six months and often a full year are required before such petitions are processed and a decision reached.’ In his opinion it was “quite surprising, not to say cruel,” to make it compulsory for persons who became Catholics to apply to the Holy See for permission to transfer from one rite to another.

Discussion of the text on the Eastern Catholic Churches ended on October 20. Since 88 per cent of the assembly asked for an immediate vote, the voting took place on October 21 and 22. On each of the seven ballots, an average of 91 negative votes and 235 qualified affirmative votes were cast. On the second ballot, on the section covering the point stressed by Bishop McDevitt, there were 719 qualified affirmative votes and 73 negative votes. This meant that only 63 per cent of the assembly was satisfied with the text as it stood, and that the text must therefore be revised.

A total of 607 Council Fathers had submitted qualifications which in substance favored the proposal made by Bishop McDevitt. The Commission on the Eastern Churches, however, divided up the qualifications on the basis of wording and not of meaning, and then reported back to the assembly that a majority in the Commission had decided against the adoption of the suggested changes. This meant that less than thirty Council Fathers on the Commission on the Eastern Churches were powerful enough to overrule the wishes expressed by ballots of 607 Council Fathers.

In the amended text which the Commission presented for a vote on November 20, 1964, merely a word here and a phrase there had been changed. That was the only evidence of four days of debate on the Council floor and of 1920 qualifications submitted. When the Council Fathers were asked to signify their approval or disapproval of the manner in which the Commission had handled the qualifications, a total of 471 negative votes were cast on two separate ballots. But when the schema was voted upon as a whole, the negative votes dropped to 135. And on November 21, when a vote was taken in public session in the presence of Pope Paul VI, 2110 affirmative votes were cast and 39 negative votes. The Pope then promulgated the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches.

The official recognition which Pope Paul had given to the rank of patriarchs at the Council removed one of the obstacles to unity with the Orthodox Churches, those Eastern-rite Churches which do not accept the principle of the primacy of Rome. Several schisms between those churches and the Church of Rome had led to a final break in 1054, when Patriarch Michael Caerularius of Constantinople and his adherents were excommunicated by a legation of the Roman see under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus. The Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople thereupon pronounced excommunication of the legates, and the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem followed the Patriarch of Constantinople into schism. Temporary reunions were effected by the second Ecumenical Council at Lyons in 1274, and the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439. But in 1472 all union was repudiated by a Synod called by Patriarch Dionysius I of Constantinople.

In an effort to remove these and other obstacles to union, Pope Paul VI at the beginning of 1964 personally visited Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, successor to Patriarch Michael Caerularius, to exchange a fraternal embrace and to discuss inter-Church relations. The resulting improvement was so great that, on December 7, 1965, the day before the closing of Vatican II, the Pope and the Patriarch simultaneously lifted the excommunications dating back to 1054.

On that same December 7, the recently consecrated Bishop Willebrands of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity read a declaration in the presence of the Pope and the Council Fathers. He said that, after their meeting in the Holy Land, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I had determined to omit nothing “which charity might inspire and which might facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus initiated between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that, by this action, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again ‘one,’ as the Lord Jesus asked of his Father for them.” The reading of the declaration drew thunderous applause from the Council Fathers.

While this statement was being read in the Vatican, it was also being issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople at Istanbul, where Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore had been sent by Pope Paul as leader of a special mission. The ceremony took place in the patriarchal cathedral of Fanaro. After the excommunications had been mutually lifted, Patriarch Athenagoras I and Cardinal Shehan embraced, while the bells of the cathedral rang out. News of this act of charity, which brought the two Churches closer together, was then formally communicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, and to the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Azerbaijan and Cyprus.

Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, with his Synod, said in their joint declaration that they hoped that “the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, will appreciate this gesture.” It was intended “as an expression of a common and sincere desire for reconciliation.” It was also to be considered “as an invitation to continue in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with God’s help, will lead, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the Kingdom of God, to that living together again in the full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.”

The apparent precedence enjoyed by the patriarchs during the Council was short-lived, because the Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook) for 1966 once again listed them behind the cardinals, unless they happened to be cardinals themselves.