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

[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.