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

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

ADOPTION OF THE SCHEMA ON COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

The schema on communications media was presented at the first session on November 23 by Archbishop Rene Stourm of Sens, France, on behalf of the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity, the Press and Information Media. After recalling that the press, radio, television, motion pictures, and other communications media were often sources of genuine pleasure and relaxation, he cited world-wide figures to illustrate their range: 8000 daily newspapers with 300 million circulation; 22,000 other publications with 200 million circulation; 1000 television stations and 120 million television sets; 6000 radio stations and 400 million radio sets; 2500 new motion pictures produced annually and shown to 17 billion viewers in 170,000 theaters. He therefore judged that these were “the most universal and most effective” vehicles of opinion, doctrine, and human communication.

The Church, he said, could not ignore the problem of mass media, since “by its very mission and nature it must make known the one and only message necessary for men, the message of salvation.” For the first time in history, the Church had the possibility of making its message known to the whole world. Should it not regard the mass media as “a providential means for transmitting the Christian message more rapidly, more universally, and more effectively?” A profound scrutiny of modern communications media would reveal an invitation from God himself, “asking us to assume the task of guiding them.” Yet instead of providing leadership in this field, and thus bringing others to Christ, he pointed out, the Church was experiencing more difficulty than ever before, and was seeing even its own sons “neglect the voices of their pastors to follow mercenaries imbued with a pagan or materialistic concept of life.”

In order to remedy this situation, said the Archbishop, the Church must “establish norms for the faithful which will make it possible for them to enjoy such wonderful inventions with advantage.” For the Church realized that modern man “would be nourished, educated, and formed by these media.” Therefore the Church requested of the faithful “that they should work together with it to perfect them and bring about their righteous and honest use, so that through them the Christian concept of life and of the world might be more extensively and vigorously promoted.” Those had been the underlying considerations in the preparation of the schema now before the Council.

By way of conclusion he referred to weaknesses in the schema, pointing out at the same time that the priests who specialized in this field were nearly all absorbed in the production aspect of communications, and stressing the fact that “the theologians have not yet made the contribution desired of them in this particular field ” There had been a liturgical movement in the Church, a biblical movement, and an ecumenical movement, but there had not been an enduring communications movement.

Archbishop Stourm’s address was aimed at rousing the bishops of the world from their lethargy, but relatively little constructive reaction to the schema resulted. Some Fathers pointed out that the schema was too long, too diffuse, too specific on points that were subject to daily change. They maintained that the schema should simply enunciate certain fundamental principles of permanent validity and leave the practical application to the experts. It was repeatedly stressed that laymen rather than clergy should be urged to take the leadership in the field of mass communications.

On the third day, after fifty-four Council Fathers had spoken on the schema, the assembly voted to close the discussion. And on the following day, by a vote of 2138 to 15, a three-point statement on the schema was adopted. First, the assembled Fathers declared the substance of the schema satisfactory; it was fitting, they said, for the Church in view of its teaching office to treat explicitly of a matter of such great pastoral importance. Secondly, they instructed the Commission on communications media to review and summarize the essential principles and pastoral guidelines contained in the schema, and to submit the schema in shortened form. Thirdly, the balance of the existing schema should be revised and published in the form of a pastoral instruction.

The schema on communications media, as revised after the first session, was presented at the second session on November 14. It had been reduced from eleven chapters to two, from 114 articles to twenty-four, and from forty pages to nine.

When the vote was taken, 92 negative votes were cast on Chapter 1, and 103 on Chapter 2. The Secretary General announced that under the Rules of Procedure the schema in its revised form had received the necessary approval of the assembly. Nevertheless, the Moderators had decided to invoke Section 7 of Article 61 of the rules, which “in special cases” permitted another vote on the schema as a whole. No specific date was set for that vote, as the Commission concerned wished to examine the schema once more in the light of the new amendments that had been submitted.

That afternoon, at the U.S. Bishops’ Press Panel, the revised schema came up for discussion. Wary journalists asked panel members for a full explanation of Article 12, which provided that the civil authority had the duty “to defend and protect a true and just availability of information; the progress of modern society utterly depends on this, especially as regards freedom of the press.” They were particularly disturbed at the statement that the civil authority had “the duty of seeing to it in a just and vigilant manner that serious danger to public morals and social progress do not result from a perverted use” of communications media. This appeared to open the door to state censorship Three Catholic newsmen, Mr. Robert Kaiser of Time, Mr. John Cogley of Commonweal, and Mr. Michael Novak of the Catholic Reporter, decided to alert the Council Fathers.

They set out their views in a short statement and had four periti attest that their statement was “worthy of consideration”; the periti were Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., Father Jean Danielou, S.J., Father Jorge Mejia, and Father Bernard Haring, C.SS.R. The statement termed the proposed decree on communications media “not an aggiornamento, but a step backward,” which might “one day be cited as a classic example of how the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council failed to come to grips with the world around it.” In two important passages, said the authors, the schema seemed to give the state “an authority over mass media which is dangerous to political liberty everywhere and which in some countries like the United States is proscribed by constitutional law.” Another passage could be interpreted as “endowing the Catholic press with a teaching authority and near infallibility that is neither proper to journalism nor helpful to the formation of public opinion in the Church.”

The action taken by the three newsmen prompted some of the periti to undertake a campaign of their own against the schema before the crucial vote, which had meanwhile been set for November 25. A Latin text was circulated, stating that the Council Fathers “ought to cast a negative vote” because the revised schema was no longer substantially the one discussed at the first session but really “a new schema.” Since it might be difficult to persuade Council Fathers who had already voted in favor of the schema now to vote against it, it was suggested that the Moderators should place the following proposal before the general assembly: “Would it please the Council Fathers to have the Coordinating Commission incorporate this schema in the schema on the apostolate of the laity (on theological grounds), and in the schema on the Church in the modern world (on sociological grounds), so that the connection and force of the schema on communications media, which has been so worthily prepared by the Commission, may be more evident?” Thus an affirmative vote would in effect constitute a rejection of the schema.

Father Mejia, one of the periti who had endorsed the statement of the three newsmen, launched another drive of his own. He sent Council Fathers the following circular, printed in Latin and marked “Urgent”: “On reading the schema on communications media once more before the final vote, many Council Fathers are of the opinion that the text of this schema is not fitting for a Council decree. The Council Fathers are therefore asked to consider seriously the advisability of casting a negative vote, because the schema does not conform to the expectation of Christians, especially of those who are skilled in this matter. Should it be promulgated as a decree, the authority of the Council would be jeopardized.” Ample room was left on the paper for the signatures of Council Fathers. A brief letter accompanying the circular asked Council Fathers, if they were in agreement with the author, to obtain as many signatures as possible and to return them to the author by the evening of November 24. Cardinal Silva Henriquez, the letter said, would then deliver them the following morning to Cardinal Lercaro, who had indicated that he could make good use of them.

As was evident from the letter, Cardinal Lercaro, who was scheduled to direct that day’s meeting, had a plan to block acceptance of the schema.

On the morning of November 25, Father Mejia stood on the steps of St. Peter’s with a stack of printed copies of his petition bearing the names of twenty-five Council Fathers from fourteen countries who had signed and handed them to Council Fathers as they walked into the basilica. He was later relieved by Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Reuss of Mainz, Germany. The distribution proceeded peacefully until the huge, angry figure of Archbishop Felici appeared. The Archbishop tried to seize the papers from Bishop Reuss, a scuffle ensued, and the Bishop eventually surrendered them.

Before the voting took place that morning, Cardinal Tisserant, as Chairman of the Council Presidency and in the name of the Moderators, addressed the assembly on the matter. The distribution of circulars, he said, was “most vehemently to be deplored,” particularly since the schema concerned had already been approved by more than the required two-thirds majority. He described the action as directed against conciliar tranquility, as unworthy of an Ecumenical Council, and as an attack on the Council Fathers’ freedom. Later the Secretary General announced that one of the Council Fathers named on the circular had deplored seeing his name published without his knowledge. In the face of this unfavorable publicity, the planned attempt at blocking the schema was dropped.

The result of the vote on the schema as a whole was 1598 in favor and 503 opposed. In accordance with normal procedure, the Cardinal Moderator presented the schema to the Pope for promulgation as a decree, since it had received the required two-thirds majority.

On November 29, the following letter was sent to Cardinal Tisserant by eighteen of the twenty-five Council Fathers whose names had appeared on Father Mejia’s circular:

Adoption of the Schema on Communications Media

“The President of the Sacred Council, together with the Moderators, at the General Congregation of the Council on November 25 of this year, deplored and designated as unworthy of the Council the fact that in St. Peter’s Square papers signed by twenty-five Council Fathers were distributed, inviting other Council Fathers to consider seriously whether they should cast a negative vote on the schema on communications media. But there is no positive law of the Sacred Council forbidding the distribution of such papers; in fact, a short time earlier, a similar distribution took place without any mention of it being made by the President of the Sacred Council. Further, nowhere in the world where civil liberty flourishes is it forbidden to call the attention of those who are voting to the seriousness of their vote, nor is it even forbidden to win them over to one’s own side.

“Therefore our manner of acting cannot be considered as a disturbance of the tranquility of the Council, nor does it infringe upon its freedom. We took this action because no other way existed for us to appeal to the Council Fathers.

“Since that is how the matter stands, the Council Fathers who signed the aforementioned circular, and who sign below in their own hand, consider the statement made by the President of the Sacred Council as an offense, and they hope that the Most Eminent Chairman of the Council Presidency, when better informed about the affair, will discover some way of rectifying the matter.”

Cardinal Tisserant answered with individual replies, dated December 2, as follows:

". . I am very displeased that Your Excellency has taken offense. It was my intention, and likewise that of the Moderators, to provide for proper order in the Council, since this seemed to have been disturbed as a result of the distributed circulars. For, if the dignity of the Sacred Council and the liberty of the Council Fathers are to be safeguarded, it cannot be admitted that near the Council Hall, a few moments before a vote is to be taken, activity may be carried on against the text of a schema which has been properly prepared, properly presented, properly discussed, and properly approved, chapter by chapter, and which according to the norms governing Council procedure (Article 61, Section 6), can already be considered as being completely approved.

“Besides, it was the Most Eminent Moderators themselves who ordered me to deplore this affair, since complaints had been brought to them by Council Fathers.

“This, Your Excellency, is what I have to say in answer to your letter. For the rest be assured that I am filled with veneration toward

Your Excellency, and I remain, your most devoted brother,

+Eugenius
Card. Tisserant.”

At a public session in St. Peter’s on December 4, the Council Fathers gave their formal approval to the decree on communications media by a final vote of i960 to 164. Pope Paul VI immediately promulgated the decree.

In that same month of December the Holy Father issued new norms for the periti, as follows:

“1. According to the work assigned, the reverend periti should answer with knowledge, prudence, and objectivity the questions which the commissions have proposed to them.

“2. They are forbidden to organize currents of opinions or ideas, to give interviews, or to defend publicly their personal ideas about the Council.

“3. They should not criticize the Council, nor communicate to outsiders news about the activities of the commissions, observing always in this regard the decree of the Holy Father about the secrecy to be observed concerning conciliar matters."

Before the opening of the third session, still another directive was issued: “Without the express permission of the President, which is to be obtained through the Secretary General, no one is permitted to distribute papers, treatises, printed matter, etc., of any kind whatsoever within the Council hall or in its vicinity. It is the duty of the Secretary General to see to it that this rule is observed.”

These new norms and rules seemed to be aimed at pressure groups inside the Council.