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

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE FULDA CONFERENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

After Pope Paul’s announcement that the second session would open on September 29, 1963, the Council Fathers throughout the world resumed their study of the various schemas. In some countries, such study was undertaken by the episcopal conference as a whole. In the United States, some 125 bishops gathered in Chicago in early August 1963 for an unofficial review of Council questions. The bishops of Argentina met in plenary session from August 6 to 10 to decide their stand on particular Council issues. The Italian episcopal conference met in Rome on August 27 and 28.

The South African bishops met in Pretoria, also in August, and the Spanish episcopal conference met in Madrid in mid-September.

The meeting that drew most attention, however, was the one held at Fulda, Germany, from August 26 to 29.

The Coordinating Commission of the Council convened in Rome on July 3 for a two-day session. It examined and approved the schemas on the missions and matrimony; and on the second day, Cardinal Suenens reported on the schemas on the Church (Part II) and the Church in the Modern World. A proposal for improved press relations during the second session, put forward by Monsignor Vallainc, was also discussed and accepted in principle.

Immediately after that meeting, Cardinal Dopfner contacted Cardinal Frings and Cardinal Konig, with a view to arranging a mutually acceptable schedule for the Fulda conference. The opening date was fixed for August 26.

On July 9, Cardinal Dopfner sent a detailed letter to all Council Fathers in Germany and Austria, inviting them to the conference. As in February, he told them, the Council Fathers of Switzerland and Scandinavia would also be invited, as would Council Fathers “from neighboring lands to the west.”

The letter contained a twelve-point program. It listed successively the twelve schemas approved by Pope John XXIII on April 22, and distributed to Council Fathers, together with the names and addresses of the German or Austrian bishops belonging to the commissions responsible for the schemas concerned. Observations on a particular schema were to be sent to the appropriate bishop, who was to prepare an analysis of the schema and mail it to all participants two weeks before the opening of the conference. At the conference, the author of the analysis was to lead the discussion. On the basis of such discussion, a new and expanded analysis of the schema would be drafted, indicating its positive and negative aspects.
That final text would be forwarded to the General Secretariat of the Council as the common stand taken by the German-speaking Council Fathers assembled at Fulda. Each member and guest of the conference would also receive a printed copy of that final text.

Cardinal Dopfner also wrote that he would endeavor to obtain exact information from Rome as to the order in which the schemas were to be treated. Depending on the answer, he explained, the twelve-point program might be considerably shortened. “As soon as I receive definite word from Rome, I shall pass it on to you.”

When the conference opened on August 26, there were present four cardinals and seventy archbishops and bishops, representing ten countries. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries were represented by nearly all of their archbishops and bishops. France, Belgium, and Holland had representatives; Cardinal Alfrink himself represented Holland. Cardinal Frings presided.

The work carried out by the European alliance at Fulda was very impressive, and it is to be regretted that all national and regional episcopal conferences did not work with the same intensity and purpose. Had they done so, they would not have found it necessary to accept the positions of the European alliance with so little questioning. The Council would then have been less one-sided, and its achievements would truly have been the result of a world-wide theological effort.

Since the position of the German-language bishops was regularly adopted by the European alliance, and since the alliance position was regularly adopted by the Council, a single theologian might have his views accepted by the whole Council if they had been accepted by the German-speaking bishops. There was such a theologian: Father Karl Rahner, S.J.

Technically, Father Rahner was Cardinal Konig’s consultant theologian. In practice, he was consulted by many members of the German and Austrian hierarchy, and he might well be called the most influential mind at the Fulda conference. Cardinal Frings, in private conversation, called Father Rahner “the greatest theologian of the century.”

Bishop Schroffer of Eichstatt, who had been elected to the Theological Commission by the highest number of votes received by any candidate to that Commission, was responsible at Fulda for the three schemas produced by the Theological Commission, namely, the schemas on revelation, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Church. In mid-August, he sent separate analyses of these schemas to each of the Council Fathers invited to Fulda. He explained that these analyses had been prepared by Father Rahner and subsequently examined and commented on by three other German theologians—Father Ratzinger, consultant theologian to Cardinal Frings; Father Aloys Grillmeier, S.J.; and Father Otto Semmelroth, S.J. It had been impossible, the Bishop wrote, to find other theologians to examine the text in the short time available, but those three theologians had fully endorsed Father Rahner’s analyses, expressing only “a few wishes,” which had been incorporated in the text. The extent to which the bishops of Germany and Austria, and the entire Fulda conference, leaned on Father Rahner may be gauged by comparing his original observations with those submitted to the General Secretariat of the Council.

Numerous other criticisms of schemas, as well as some substitute schemas, were distributed either shortly before or immediately following the conference. Abbot Johannes Hoeck, President of the Benedictines of Bavaria, and a member of the Commission on Oriental Churches, wrote to all on attended the Fulda conference, asking for a “yes” or “no” reply to four specific points, so that he would know what stand to take on behalf of the German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers at the meeting of his Commission, which was to begin one week before the opening of the second session.

Each of the German-speaking Council Fathers had been supplied with a total of 480 mimeographed pages of comment, criticism, and substitute schemas by the time he left for the second session. All this work was accomplished in connection with the Munich conference in February and the Fulda conference in August.

A meeting of Council Fathers from so many nations was bound to interest the press, and a succession of newspaper stories appeared with references to a “conspiracy” and an “attack” upon the Roman Curia and some of its representatives. Some of the Council Fathers were styled “progressives,” others “traditionalists,” still others “antiprogressives.” It was insinuated that the Fulda conference was intended to counteract the possible “personal inclinations” of the new Pontiff in regard to the direction to be taken by the Council, which might make it deviate from the path which Pope John had indicated.

Such statements produced a prompt and authoritative reaction. Cardinal Frings gave a press conference at which he said that the conference had been held to discuss the Council schemas. He pointed out that all observations had been transmitted in writing to the competent authorities in Rome. The word “conspiracy” as applied to the Fulda meetings was “an unjust stupidity.” And the German episcopal conference issued a statement expressing “profound consternation” at the “completely absurd” conclusions drawn from the Fulda conference.

On August 26 and 27, the Fulda conference completed its examination of three of the most important Council schemas, those on the Church, divine revelation, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. The numerous proposals were quickly drawn up; they filled a total of fifty-four long typewritten pages. These Cardinal Dopfner took to Rome on August 31, when he left for the fourth meeting of the Coordinating Commission. They were presented to the General Secretariat in the name of the German-speaking Council Fathers and the Episcopal Conference of Scandinavia.

Cardinal Dopfner took this opportunity to visit Pope Paul VI at Castel Gandolfo on September 2. Among other things, they spoke of the Fulda conference. “It was a great relief to me,” Cardinal Dopfner said later, “when I saw that His Holiness had not taken seriously the reports which had appeared in the Italian press about Fulda.” The audience had been “very cordial.” In order to counteract “these press reports, which have received much attention in Italy,” Cardinal Dopfner had discussed with Archbishop Felici an explanation to clarify the issue, which was subsequently published by the Council Press Office in L’Osservatore Romano, on September 4, 1963.

This “explanation” stated that the presence at Fulda of representatives from neighboring episcopal conferences had not been an innovation, but merely a continuation of a practice initiated in Rome during the first session. The purpose of the meeting had been to guarantee “a more careful and serious preparation for the coming Council meetings.” It was also stated that the German-speaking bishops, after their Munich conference and again after their Fulda conference, “had transmitted the results of their studies to others.”

Cardinal Dopfner informed the bishops of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Scandinavia in a letter dated September 7, 1963, of his audience with Pope Paul and of the article published in L’Osservatore Romano through the cooperation of Archbishop Felici. He took the opportunity to inform the Council Fathers that “at the moment the sequence of schemas to be treated at the coming session of the Council is as follows:

(1) the Church; (2) the Blessed Virgin Mary; (3) the bishops; (4) the laity; (5) ecumenism.”

Meanwhile, major changes were being prepared in the organization and procedure governing the Council. These were announced by Pope Paul VI on September 13. “On the advice of certain venerable Council Fathers, he said, he was revising the Rules of Procedure which had been approved thirteen months earlier by Pope John. Under the revised rules, the Presidency received an increase in membership but suffered a loss of power.

The number of Cardinal Presidents was raised from ten to twelve, and their function reduced to that of policing the Council, enforcing the rules, and “solving doubts and difficulties.” They were no longer to have any authority in the matter of the direction of Council discussions.

The new rules placed the responsibility for “directing the activities of the Council and determining the sequence in which topics would be discussed at the business meetings” in the hands of four Cardinal Moderators chosen from the membership of the Coordinating Commission, which had been expanded from six to nine by Pope Paul. The four Moderators chosen by the Pope were Cardinals Dopfner, Suenens, Lercaro, and Agagianian. Cardinal Dopfner was well known for his organizational ability; during the preparatory stages of the Council he had served on the technical-organizational preparatory commission together with the then Cardinal Montini, and throughout the first session he and Cardinal Suenens had served with Cardinal Montini on the seven-member Secretariat for Extraordinary Council Affairs. Cardinal Lercaro was known to be a liberal, an active supporter of the European alliance, and a close personal friend of the Pontiff. Cardinal Agagianian was regarded by the liberals as the most acceptable of the Curial cardinals. It therefore appeared that the Pope, in selecting these four men, was supporting the liberal element in the Council, as his predecessor had done.

By these papal appointments the European alliance grew in power and influence, advancing from control of 30 per cent of the Council Presidency and control of 50 per cent of the Coordinating Commission to control of 75 per cent of the board of Cardinal Moderators. And since Cardinal Agagianian was not a forceful person, the three liberal Cardinal Moderators often had 100-per-cent control.

In addition to this structural reorganization, there were many procedural changes. One of them, for example, provided that, if three commission members so desired, they might invite one or more pend not attached to that commission to attend its meetings. Pope John’s rules had provided that all such periti must be designated by the president of the commission concerned.

At Vatican I, the German, Austrian, and Hungarian Council Fathers had asked Pope Pius IX to authorize a minority group to defend its position before a Council commission, but the Pope had denied the request. Under the new Rules of Procedure approved by Pope Paul VI, “Council Fathers may request a hearing from any commission in order to give their views on the schema under discussion either in their own names, or in the names of a certain number of Council Fathers, or in the name of some region.” The commission was to set aside a special meeting at which such representatives could be heard.

The rules authorized by Pope John left it to the president of the commission to determine who should read the commission report on the Council floor. The new rules provided that this decision rested with the commission as a whole, and not simply with its president. As for the report itself, a new provision ruled that it must represent the majority view of the commission, but also that another relator might be designated to present the minority view.

Still another revision permitted as few as five members of a commission “to substitute another form of a proposed amendment,” and stated that “this new form, together with the original one, or in its place, must be examined by the commission.” Why was the figure set at five? It may have been mere coincidence, but the European alliance had a minimum of five members on every commission.

To preclude the possibility of a procedural deadlock (as had happened in the vote on the schema on the sources of revelation), the new rules provided that a vote on the rejection of a schema, or the postponement of its discussion, required a simple majority only (50 per cent plus one). A two-thirds majority was still required for the approval of schemas, or parts of schemas, or amendments.

The Moderator for the day was empowered, when the list of speakers was exhausted, to give the floor to other Council Fathers who requested it at the same meeting, especially to those relators who asked permission “to illustrate the issue before the Council more clearly, or to refute objections” that had been made. Like the Presidents before them, the Moderators might intervene and have the assembly vote on whether or not discussion on a topic should be discontinued. After such a vote, cardinals, and other Council Fathers as well, were still to be permitted to speak on request, “if they request permission to speak not only in their own names, but also in the names of at least five other Council Fathers.” Even after the discussion was completed, a minority was entitled “to designate an additional three speakers, even among the periti, who are to be granted the privilege of exceeding the ten-minute time limit.”

With a definite policy laid down at Munich and Fulda, which could be revised at the weekly meetings held in the Collegio dell’Anima; with 4S0 pages of comment and substitute schemas; with a German-speaking Council Father on every commission (the Bishop of Fulda was appointed by the Pope to the Commission on Missions when an elected member died in the interim between sessions); with Cardinal Frings on the Council Presidency and Cardinal Dopfner on the Coordinating Commission and serving as one of the Moderators—no other episcopal conference was so well prepared to assume and maintain the leadership at the second session.

It was clear at this point how the discussions would develop. There would be a strong German influence which would make itself felt in nearly every Council decision and statement of any importance. In every Council commission, German and Austrian members and periti would be highly articulate in presenting the conclusions reached at Munich and Fulda. With the Munich and Fulda conferences, the drastic changes that Pope Paul VI had made in the Rules of Procedure, and the promotion of Cardinals Dopfner, Suenens, and Lercaro to the position of Moderators, domination by the European alliance was assured.