Vatican II--A Radical Break With the Past

Plaque marking the 1986 interfaith

gathering in Assisi hosted by Pope

John Paul II

As we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Council, I want to make some comments on the Robert Blair Kaiser lecture I posted on October 19^th .  In particular I want to address the issue of whether the Council represents a “hermeneutic of continuity” as some claim; “a hermeneutic of rupture” as others claim, or the “hermeneutic of reform” as Benedict XVI has now picked up.  In other words—does the Council mark a sharp departure, even a reversal, with the past?  Are the teaching of the Council consistent with the teachings of the Church before the Council?  Or have the teachings of the Church been “reformed” (reformulated?) as part of the “development of doctrine” that is part of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) expansion of human understanding of Divine Truth?  Let’s look at one area that clearly was revolutionary, Ecumenism and Interfaith Religious Dialogue: 

The Council changed the way we thought about God, about ourselves, about our spouses, our Protestant cousins, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, even the way we thought about the Russians. When a handful of bishops kept pushing for conciliar condemnation of Communism, John XXIII kept insisting that that kind of talk would only blow up the world. Pope John and his Council made some preliminary moves that helped end the Cold War. For this, the editors of Time made John XXIII the Man of the Year.

The Jews? The Council reversed the Church's long-standing anti-Semitism. Until the Council, Catholics believed that, if Jews didn't convert to Catholicism, there was something wrong with them. The Council Fathers took another look at that idea and decided that Jews were still living their ancient covenant with God. We decided there was nothing wrong with the Jews; they became our brothers and sisters. ….

 Before the Council, we were told we were excommunicated if we set foot in a Protestant Church. After the Council (where Protestant observers were welcomed, given seats of honor, and spoken of no longer as Protestants, but as 'separated brethren'), we stopped fighting the Methodists and the Presbyterians and conspired with them in the fight for justice and peace and marched with them to Selma.

I recently gave a talk at an adult education program in a bustling suburban parish.  As I looked out at my audience before speaking I suddenly had a chilling awareness.  “How many of you were born after 1962, the year the Council opened?” I asked my audience.  Four-fifths of the audience raised their hands.  Today most Catholics have no idea of what life was like before Vatican II.  I am old enough to remember the world before the Council.  I can rattle off the old “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutum meum” of the days when altar boys were altar boys and could rightfully swagger about the sanctuary, proud of the immense amount of nonsense syllabus they had committed to memory.  And I remember when to enter a Protestant Church was considered seriously sinful and when the Jews were annually called “perfidious” in the Liturgy.  (Oremus et pro perfidis Iudæis…. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam iudaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis…)  The Catholic Church had established a long policy condemning the ecumenical movement—or rather claiming that authentic ecumenism was that all schismatics (the Eastern Churches) and heretics (The Protestant Denominations) should “return” to the Papal Catholic fold.  Any prayer with such schismatics or heretics—so much as saying the Lord’s Prayer together—was forbidden as mortally sinful.  Rome had been horrified with American participation in the 1893 World Parliament of Religions held at Chicago’s Columbian Exhibition (see entry for March 30, 2011).  Pius XI had been outraged at Cardinal Mericer’s “Malines Conversations” with the Anglicans in the years after World War I even though Mercier—Archbishop of Brussels in Belgium had had the permission of Pius’s Predecessor, Benedict XV for the dialogues.  Pius XI issued an encyclical condemning ecumenism, Mortalium Animos, in 1928 and through the reign of Pius XII any ecumenical activity was strictly prohibited.  When John XXIII announced the Council in January 1959 and explicitly declared that one aim of the Council was heal the breach in Christianity represented by the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this was radical news.  For these religious bodies to be invited to send official delegations to the Council and the warmth with which these delegations were received would have been unimaginable only four years previous.   And when the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Reintegratio) and the Decree on Non-Christian religions were published (1964 and 1965 respectively), the book had to be rewritten from beginning to end.  No, on ecumenism and interfaith dialogue the hermeneutic is certainly not “continuity” and not even “reform”—in fact not even “reform” but an entirely new beginning. 

Is Vatican II in Danger?-- III a closer look behind the scenes

Yesterday we spoke of how the ecumenical and inter-faith agenda of Vatican II has fared in the years since the Council. It might be important to clarify our terms. “Ecumenical” refers to relationships among Christian groups. “Inter-faith” refers to relationships among religious groups that do not share faith in Christ, or relationships between Christians and non-Christian religions. Thus Catholic-Presbyterian dialogues over worship, for example, would be Ecumenical. Catholic-Buddhist or Catholic-Jewish (or Muslim , Hindu etc.) dialogues or collaborative charities, or other efforts would be “Inter-faith.” We obviously have much more in common with other groups that profess faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Savior than we do with groups that may recognize him as a Prophet (Islam) or a Holy Man (Hinduism) or who see him as simply a historical or mythological figure. There is therefore a sort of hierarchy of relationships. We have more in common with Jews, for example, than other non-Christian religions as we see that we share with them the Revelation of the Law and the Prophets given to the People of Israel. We share with Jews—and Muslims—the Abrahamic faith in the One God which gives us a closer tie with Islam than with the non-Abrahamic faiths. But while we do not share the faith in the One God revealed to Abraham with Buddhists or Hindus or others there is much truth in the wide spectrum of Asian religions—and indeed many of the indigenous religions of the world and at Vatican II the Catholic Church explicitly acknowledges this truth and affirms that we Catholics do not reject any element of this truth. The Council Fathers declared
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (NA para2)
This statement is a bone of contention for many who reject—in whole or in part—the Second Vatican Council. In fact there are three decrees of the Council which are extremely contentious—and I am not counting the decree on the Liturgy among them. That is an entirely separate issue and not nearly as divisive—though it has been divisive enough—as the three I will mention. They are the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Reintegratio), the Decree on Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), and the Decree on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Opponents of the Council claim that these decrees represent a total reversal of the Church’s doctrine from before Council. And they are correct. The second Vatican Council did a 180 degree about-face on what the Catholic Church had taught on Ecumenism, Non-Christian Religions, and Religious Liberty. Some of the opponents of the Council have gone so far as to claim that this reversal, as a rejection of previously defined magisterial teaching, is heresy and therefore the “popes” who have supported it (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI) are—as heretics—barred from the papal office and that the Chair of Peter is and has been since the Council began—empty. They are called “sede-vacantists” which comes from the Latin for “empty chair” (sede vacante). They reject all and everything about the Second Vatican Council.
A slightly less extremist position are the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. While they are known mostly for their rejection of the new Liturgy, the Archbishop’s major complaint about the Council was the same complaint of the sede-vacantists, namely that the those three conciliar documents represent a repudiation of doctrines taught by the Popes and Councils and held by the faithful before the Second Vatican Council. Particularly troubling to Archbishop Lefebvre was the Document on Religious Liberty. Lefebvre came from a family whose political (and religious) ties were to a faction in French politics that are dedicated to restoring the Monarchy and reversing the French Revolution. Ever since the nineteenth century there has been a small but dedicated ultra-Catholic faction in France that seeks to establish the ancien regime with its alliance of Throne and Altar. Americans are generally not aware of this but the Catholic Church taught—up until the Second Vatican Council—that the Union of (the Catholic) Church and State was the political ideal and that Catholics had a duty towards political action that would establish the Catholic Church as the official State Religion—with restrictions on and even prohibition of other religious groups—in whatever nation they lived. This doctrine was generally overlooked in the United States as it was on conflict with our Constitution but there are some extreme right-wing Catholics—mostly in the Sede Vacantist group—who do still teach it today. Solange Hertz would be one; Atila Sinke Guimarães is another. This school not only represents a renunciation of the Second Vatican Council, but of Western culture since the Enlightenment with its positive values (I for one do not think all the values of the Enlightenment are positive) of equality of persons under law, freedom of conscience, republican government and other elements that provided the founders of our nation with the foundational principles of the American Revolution and Constitution. We will touch on this topic in future blogs when we treat some of the reasons for Anti-Catholicism in American history. Those voices who, especially in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, claimed that Catholics could not be good Americans actually knew Church teaching better than most American Catholics who did not see a conflict between their Church and their loyalty to the United States—but all that is for the future.
While the Holy See does not take the Sede-Vacantists seriously—and for the most part they, like Mrs. Hertz and her friends—are people who have constructed a bit of psychotic bubble, a universe of alternative realities, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made serious overtures to the Lefebvrist camp. Indeed Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunication and received them back into the Church without clearing up the Lefebvrist dissent from the Council. This is problematic for a variety of reasons. First it legitimizes dissent from official Church teaching. Secondly it may require revisiting the Council and its decrees to try to find ways to accommodate the Lefebvrists. This may explain one of the reasons for a reinterpretation—usually claimed to be an “authentic interpretation” of the Conciliar Documents. If this is so it will open yet more issues for while the Lefebvrists are willing to tolerate the existence of the “new liturgy” as long as they don’t have to use it, they are quite firm on rejecting the doctrinal changes that have permitted Ecumenical and Inter-faith relationships to develop on any official level.
When one recalls the heady enthusiasm of the Coinciliar years, Ecumenism has been for the most part hugely disappointing. I don’t think that any of us expected that Inter-religious dialogue would progress beyond the point of mutual respect and collaboration in projects that better the lives of people both locally and around the globe. It still has the promise to do that and in the process we have learned about some common ground that has been mutually beneficial. This has not been without controversy, however, particularly in the area of the influence of Buddhist and Hindu meditation techniques. But we had great hopes for Ecumenism during and after the Council. Forty years ago many of us thought that by this time we would have come to the point of, if not corporate reunion, at least sacramental sharing. There are reasons why this has not happened and not all the blame goes on the Catholic side. As I had written previously, the decision by most Protestant and Anglican Churches in the favor of the ordination of women has been a huge stumbling block . Underneath the surface is also a very different theology of human sexuality, manifest not only in divergent views of homosexuality but in the role of sex in marriage. There is also a different anthropology that gives a different level of urgency to the abortion issue as well as questions of embryonic stem-cells, in-vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and other topics very pertinent to today’s world. But our mistake, I believe, in not making greater progress while there was still much consensus on these other issues, was that we did not talk frankly and openly about our different ecclesiologies and theologies of the Sacrament of Orders. We avoided the tough questions where feelings are sensitive. Now we have several more tough and sensitive questions and it will be all the more difficult to resolve them. Far from backing off from Ecumenical dialogues we need to sit down, indeed chain ourselves to the table, and examine all the neuralgic points in full detail, ready on both sides (or all sides) to listen and open to being convinced (note, I said open, not predetermined). We still need the polite gestures and cordial ceremonial gatherings but we also need “to talk turkey.” Reconciliation will never come about without honest, truthful, frank, conversation, indeed argument. Somewhere here I have passed from history-in-the-making to theological turf where I have sworn not to go, so better to end this here. Next installment of Vatican II—in Danger? will be on the liturgy but probably not for a few days. I want to cover the issues of the nuns on the battlefields of the Civil War first.

The image today is a Buddhist monk with some Catholic Sisters at the beatification of Mother Teresa of Calcutta in 2003

Is Vatican II in danger? II ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue

Two years ago Herbert Chilstrom, the first and former presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, wrote an open letter to the clergy of the ELCA. His primary aim was to try to hold his denomination together in the face of an impending schism over deep divisions springing from sexuality issues, but in the course of his letter he wrote: “How long are we going to live with the illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism?” Bishop Chilstrom was referring both to a stalling—if not a chilling—of ecumenical relationships between the Catholic Church and other Christian groups and internal conflicts within the Catholic Church that indicate that the open and hopeful spirit that characterized the Catholic Church in the years during and immediately after the second Vatican Council has been replaced by a slow but determined return to preconciliar doctrines and disciplines. “The illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism” is an interesting comment from an outside observer. It is brutally frank, almost offensively so, and yet because it comes from someone outside the Catholic Church itself, it has, if not an objectivity of perspective at least a disinterested neutrality that an insider cannot make.
What are some of the signs that ecumenical and inter-religious relations have taken a step back from the heady days of the Council? The 2000 declaration of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Jesus, written by then prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II sounded one alarm bell. Dominus Jesus declares that non-Catholic Christian churches that have not preserved a valid episcopate therefore do not possess a genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery and without the fullnes of the Eucharistic mystery they are not “Churches” in the proper theological sense. In fact, the Conciliar decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Reintegratio had made the same distinction but does so in a more circumspect, even dialogical manner that invited response, conversation, argument, and dialogue. Moreover, the thirty-one years of ecumenical cordiality between John XXIII’s calling the Council explicitly to heal the divisions among Christians and the CDF issuing Dominus Jesus had created an atmosphere of open dialogue and mutual respect that the unilateral tone of Dominus Jesus undercut. The reaction from Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox officials was one of hurt and resentment. To be fair, however, the breakdown in dialogue—or perhaps better put as the dialogues are not officially terminated—the theological impasse resulted not only from the CDF document but also in great part from the decision of the majority of Churches in the Anglican Communion and the majority of Protestant Churches to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopacy or the equivalent offices. This made further dialogue, at least regarding sacramental reunion, appear pointless to the Catholic side of the discussion. Of course, dialogue does not need to have an identified point; a perceived impossibility of agreement might be reason to cease discussion in military and political circles, but there is never a reason for conversation among Christians to break down. Charity and Hope alone are sufficient reason.
It was not only Christians that were offended by Dominus Jesus. The same decree went on to declare non-Christians are seriously deficient in terms of access to the means of salvation in comparison with those who in the Church have the full means of salvation. Again, this does not substantially differ in essence from the decree on non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate, but its tone of the CDF document is far more typical of the pre-Vatican II dogmatism than the conciliar decree which highlighted that all the great world religions contain elements of truth and that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true that is held by these various religions. The exact words of Nostra Aetate are:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (NA para2)
Despite reservations about religions other than Christianity, Pope John Paul had reached out to peoples of all religions and no religion in a way that built rapport and trust, empowering Catholics to work with people of good will in addressing many of the challenges which face the human family around the globe. Pope John Paul did not hesitate to join in prayer with representatives of all the various religions of the world. In 1986 and again in 2002 John Paul hosted interfaith assemblies in Assisi. The times of common prayer were very carefully structured to avoid giving the impression that Christians were joining in the worship of deities other than the One God who is recognized by the Abrahamic faiths and the interfaith services tended to be rituals of solidarity rather than actual worship. Nevertheless, then Cardinal Ratzinger made it known that he was uncomfortable with such gatherings and he avoided---I hesitate to say” refused” to attend though that was the impression at the time—the second of these meetings.
The situation is not entirely bleak. While there seems little thaw in the air with the Patriarchate of Moscow, and while the Orthodox Church in Greece is not about to let go of their traditional bias against Catholicism, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople and the Papacy seem to be gradually becoming more trusting of one another. In one hopeful sign of the good will generated almost fifty years ago during the Council, Pope Benedict has recently announced a third meeting of religious leaders scheduled for this October (2011) in Assisi to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the first encounter. As Cardinal Ratzinger he had not been enthusiastic about these gatherings; it is very significant that now that he is Pope, he is convoking such a meeting, It must be said too that Benedict, always a gentleman, has cordially received various religious leaders at the Vatican and in 2007 did meet with a gathering of religious leaders, Christian and non-Christian, in an effort to discuss how religion might be used for reconciliation and non-violence rather than deepening the divisions in the human family. Nevertheless, the Pope’s own track record with ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue has been less than satisfactory. Anglicans have not been happy at his issuing procedures not only for individuals but for entire parishes and even dioceses to move their fold to the Catholic side. Of course, at least in the United States, far more Catholic clergy (and probably laity) have moved to the Anglican/Episcopalian bleachers than have come over to our team. Benedict’s 2006 lecture at the University of Regensburg deeply offended Muslims when he quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, as saying “show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Similarly he offended many Jews when he permitted the restored Tridentine Good Friday Service to contain the traditional prayer for the conversion of “the perfidious Jews.” His reconciliation to the Church of Lefebvrist bishop Richard Williamson, a holocaust denier, also set back the Jewish-Catholic relationship.
Perhaps the saddest thing—and the most fatal—is not what has happened on the official level but the breakdown of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue on the local level. The various ecumenical and inter-faith prayer services seem to have mostly fallen into decline. One does not usually see the clergy in one’s town any longer sharing pulpits or teaching a Sunday School in one another’s churches. Monthly lunches may survive from place to place and friendships do form but over all the ecumenical and interfaith dialogue on the local level is a thing of the past. And now when we need it more than ever as America struggles to integrate a new and—to us—very foreign religious tradition, Islam, into our society.
To do a balance sheet on Ecumenical and Interfaith relations in the last two papacies, one would have to say that we are ahead of where we were before the Council started, and overall we accomplished much in the pontificate of Paul VI and the first half of the pontificate of John Paul II but there has been not only a slowing down but a loss of ground in ecumenical and interfaith collaboration and understanding in the last twenty years. It seems to be more than a loss of steam, a threat to any long-term project; there has been a change of tone away from the dialogic and while not in the preconciliar “unconditional surrender” attitude certainly one of (to paraphrase a current movie) “my game, my rules.”
Today's image: In England the Anglican Dean of York Minster incenses the relics of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux during an interfaith service in the Cathedral two years ago. Ecumenism may not be as healthy as it once was, but it is far from dead.