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

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

COLLEGIALITY


In the minds of many Council Fathers, the purpose of the Second Vatican Council was to balance the teaching of the First Vatican Council on the papal primacy by an explicit doctrine on episcopal collegiality. Just as the doctrine of the papal primacy clarified the right of the Pope to rule over the Universal Church alone, so too collegiality was to establish the right of bishops to rule the Universal Church in union with the Pope. It was to be expected that collegiality should be differently interpreted by different groups in the Council.

Among the adherents of the European alliance, for example, some theologians took the view that the Pope was bound in conscience to consult the College of Bishops on important matters. But not all Council Fathers shared this view. In fact, it was not even clear whether a majority of Council Fathers favored the principle of collegiality in any form, even after the matter had been discussed for nine days.

On the final day of discussion, Tuesday, October 15, the Cardinal Moderators announced that four points would be presented to the Council Fathers in writing on the following day to determine the four principal arguments of Chapter 2 of the schema on the Church, and that these points would be put to the vote one day later. On Wednesday, however, the Moderators announced that the distribution of the four points would take place “on another day.” Day after day passed, and no further mention was made of the matter.

The action suggested by the Moderators had been an innovation, not provided for by the Rules of Procedure, and had been overruled by the Presidency.

Subsequently, on October 23, a compromise solution was finally worked out by the Presidency, the Coordinating Commission, and the Moderators, and on October 29 the printed text of the four points was distributed to the Council Fathers.

The text asked the Council Fathers whether they wished to have Chapter 2 of the schema on the Church revised to state:

1. That episcopal consecration was the highest grade of the sacrament of Holy Orders;

2. That every bishop legitimately consecrated and in communion with other bishops and the Roman Pontiff, their head and principle of unity, was a member of the College of Bishops;

3. That this College of Bishops succeeded the College of Apostles in its role of teaching, sanctifying, and caring for souls, and that this college, together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without him (whose primacy over all bishops and faithful remained complete and intact), enjoyed full and supreme power over the Universal Church; and

4. That that power belonged by divine right to the College of Bishops united with its head.

An accompanying note informed the Council Fathers that these points would be put to the vote the following day. It explained further that by their votes the Council Fathers would “neither approve nor reject any text” contained in the schema, since the voting had no other purpose than to “make it possible for the Theological Commission to determine the feelings of the assembly concerning the proposed points.” The Commission expressly obliged itself, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Council, to “give due consideration to the individual interventions of Council Fathers”; furthermore, it would submit the text of the schema in its entirety for a vote by the Council Fathers in a General Congregation. It was explained further that the Moderators were taking this action because it had been requested by many Council Fathers, and even by entire episcopal conferences.

These carefully phrased qualifications on the significance of the vote indicated clearly that there were some influential Council Fathers who feared that the vote might be used by the controlling liberal element in the Theological Commission as a reason for ignoring all arguments to the contrary that had been presented in oral and written interventions.

The voting which took place on October 30 was another brilliant victory for the liberals. The first point was carried by 2123 votes to 34; the second by 2049 to 104; the third by 1808 to 336; and the fourth by 1717 to 408.

Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh, a liberal member of the Theological Commission, said that the vote was of the greatest importance because it showed that an overwhelming majority of Council Fathers shared “the tendencies of the Council in this important matter.” He did not attach any importance to the 408 negative votes on the question of collegiality, saying that those who had voted against the point had done so for many different reasons, and this did not necessarily signify that they did not have “faith in this project.” They might be against the formulation, or they might consider the moment inopportune.

Father Gregory Baum of Toronto, one of the periti, hailed the voting results as “support of the position of the Moderators.” He also said that the successful use of this procedural device would enable the Cardinal Moderators in the future to discover the majority feeling of the Council Fathers on a particular subject without the need to hear an interminable stream of speakers.

On November 5, when the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses came up for discussion, at least six Council Fathers found fault with it because it appeared to ignore the notion of collegiality.

The next day, Cardinal Browne of the Roman Curia, Vice-President of the Theological Commission, said that there was no foundation for the objections made the previous day, “because the notion of collegiality has not yet been determined accurately by the Council or by the Theological Commission.” He stated that it would be necessary to await the report of the Theological Commission for clarification of this basic point before taking any practical action.

Two days later, Cardinal Frings referred to Cardinal Browne’s remarks as “indeed amazing.” Those remarks, he said, would seem to imply that the Theological Commission had access to sources of truth unknown to the rest of the Council Fathers. Such observations, he went on, lost sight of the fact that the Council commissions were intended to function only as instruments of the General Congregations, and to execute the will of the Council Fathers. While the October 30 vote had been merely indicative, “an almost unanimous assent should not be considered as of no value at all.”

In another part of his address. Cardinal Frings called for a clear distinction between administrative and judicial practice in the Roman Curia. “This distinction should also be applied to the Holy Office," he declared. “Its methods in many cases no longer correspond to modern conditions, and as a result many are scandalized.” The task of safeguarding the faith was extremely difficult, he said, but even in the Holy Office “no one should be judged and condemned without a hearing, and without an opportunity to correct his book or his action.” The Cardinal was applauded several times during his address.

Cardinal Ottaviani, of the Holy Office, happened to be on the list of speakers on the same day. “I must protest most strongly concerning what has just been said against the Holy Office, whose President is the Supreme Pontiff,” he began. “Such words were spoken out of lack of knowledge—I do not use another word lest I offend—of Holy Office procedure.” He explained that experts in the Catholic universities of Rome were always called in to study cases carefully, so that the cardinals who made up the Congregation of the Holy Office might be able to base their judgment on certain knowledge. Their resolutions were then submitted to the Supreme Pontiff for his approval.

As for the votes which had been taken in the Council hall on October 30, they had been “only an indication of the drinking of the Council Fathers.” It was unfortunate, he said, that the points voted on had been proposed by the four Moderators without first being submitted to the Theological Commission, which was competent in the matter, since it touched on dogma. Those points had contained equivocal terms which should have been clarified. In particular, the point on collegiality had presumed the existence of the Apostolic College, of which the present College of Bishops was said to be the successor. “But this is a case of confusion on the nature of episcopal succession,” he said. “It is true that the bishops succeed the Apostles,
but they do not succeed the College of Apostles as a college, because the College of Apostles as such did not exist, at least not in a juridical sense.”

There had been only one example of collegiality among the Apostles, and that had been at the Council of Jerusalem. No one doubted that at Jerusalem the Apostles had acted as a college, he said, “just as no one doubts that the bishops today, in Council, are acting as a college with and under the Pope.” Christ’s words “Feed my sheep” had been addressed only to his vicar, “and therefore whoever wants to be counted among the sheep of Christ must be under the universal pastor appointed by Christ.” There were no exceptions to this rule, “not even bishops.”

Archbishop D’Souza of India charged Cardinals Browne and Ottaviani with acting as though the indicative votes taken on October 30 “were null and void because the collegiality of bishops had not yet been juridically established. . . . Does this not seem like an act of derision of the Council, to say that there is no obligation to take into consideration the views which 85 per cent of the Council Fathers have clearly expressed by vote?” He found it difficult to see how a few bishops from around the world “scattered among the various Sacred Congregations,” as called for by the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses, could have any real influence on the Roman Curia “when 2200 bishops from all parts of the world, gathered together for an Ecumenical Council, find it difficult at times to resist certain pressures.”

The common good of the Church, continued the Archbishop, would be greatly promoted “if some Senate, so to say, were formed of bishops from various countries, who might rule the Church with the Supreme Pontiff.” But it would be even more desirable “if on the one hand the power of the Roman Curia were limited, and if on the other hand the bishops were granted all the faculties for the exercise of their office which belong to them by common law and by divine law.” The Apostolic See, he said, would always “retain the right to reserve to itself those things which are opportune for the good of the entire Church.” Archbishop D’Souza’s address was greeted with tremendous applause.

At the next General Congregation, on November u, the October 30 vote was again brought up, this time by Cardinal Dopfner. The impression was being created, he said, that while the Holy Spirit was working elsewhere, some enemy had sown in the Council hall the points presented for a vote on October 30. But collegiality had not been inserted “by stealth," he said. It was after a fifteen-day study that “the competent authority, that is, the Moderators,” had presented propositions based in wording and sense upon the schema on the Church. The voting had served as a helpful indication not only for the Theological Commission but also for the Council Fathers in discussing the schema. While the votes were not definitive, “what is clear should not be made obscure.”

That evening, by coincidence, I had an appointment with Cardinal Ottaviani in his home to check out a story. When he came into the room and sat down, he seemed disturbed and said distractedly: “I have just come from a meeting of the Theological Commission and things look very bad; the French and the Germans have united everyone against us. . .

Ten days after the Frings-Ottaviani exchange, which received extensive and prolonged coverage in the press, I was approached by Bishop Dino Romoli, O.P., who had served in the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for eight years. He asked me whether I would be interested in carrying a report in the Divine Word News Service on the conduct of condemnation procedures in the Holy Office. He had informed Cardinal Ottaviani of his desire to have such a report published, and the Cardinal had readily agreed. I assured the Bishop that we would welcome his report.

To my question whether it was true that the Church’s highest tribunal would condemn an accused person without a hearing. Bishop Romoli replied: “You have to distinguish. If one member of the Church accuses another of a crime for which the Holy Office is the competent tribunal, then the accused is always given a full hearing and has every opportunity of defending himself. He receives the assistance of a lawyer and may himself present the lawyer of his choice to the tribunal. The precautions taken to safeguard the accused in such a case are so extensive and elaborate as to appear at times even excessive.”

Bishop Romoli pointed out that the condemnation of publications was an altogether different matter, “since here it is a question of a theory which, considered in itself, might be injurious to the integrity of Catholic doctrine and to souls.” In such a case, he said, “where the orthodoxy of Catholic doctrine does not appear clear, or where orthodoxy is put in doubt, the Holy Office does not always listen to the interested party before pronouncing its verdict.” In such condemnations, he said, the author’s intentions were not called into question or condemned; the tribunal was concerned only with the author’s theories.

To the question whether it would not be more humane to consult with an author before condemning his writings, the Bishop said that that could readily be done in the case of an unpublished manuscript. “But once the uncertain or false doctrines have already been published, what purpose would such interrogation serve?” It could not alter the impact of his writings on the Catholic world. “Before the Holy Office condemns a published work or issues a solemn warning to an author,” the Bishop explained, “it makes a vast, accurate, and intensive investigation by consulting with highly qualified experts from various linguistic and national groups in order to be incontestably objective and secure in its judgment. At times such investigations take several years, so great is the delicacy with which the Holy Office treats this matter.”