The Documents of Vatican II
A Summary and Guide
by Jeffrey A. Mirus Ph.D.
Summaries with commentary of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council.
Trinity Communications
P.O. Box 582
Manassas, VA 20108
© Copyright Jeffrey A. Mirus 2010
Book ID: DV2-SG-JAM
The chapters of this book appeared first on the Trinity Communications website,
CatholicCulture.org.
Our website includes many more Catholic materials, including daily news, commentary,
liturgical year resources, Church documents, reviews, and collections of historic Catholic
writings and references. You can also sign up for daily and weekly email newsletters.
Trinity Communications is a non-profit corporation. If you would like to support our
work, please register and contribute on the website; or mail a check or money order
along with your email address to Trinity Communications, P.O. Box 582, Manassas, VA
20108, USA.
We look forward to seeing you at www.catholicculture.org.
! "#
!$ $%&' ( ")
!* ( & "+
!,- "
.- #"
- ! #)
- !/ #+
- !01 23
- !4 22
- ! 2
- !/ 2
- )#
!* 1 )5
!* )
01!01$ 5#
01!11- 5)
, 5
* 5
- #
(6- , 5
$,$ 7
1!/ +"
1!1 +)
,8 ++
/ $!* 1 7"
/ $!/9 : 7)
* !* / 7+
* !* 3
- 9 !/;- 2
- 9 !-$
- 9 !.1*
A funny thing about Vatican II …
They say a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, and that’s certainly true of the
fate of the documents of the Second Vatican Council on their way to the larger forum of
the Church in which they were implemented. It wasn’t funny funny, you understand; it
was funny peculiar. As an Englishman might say, it was damned peculiar.
This situation calls to mind the tendentious collection of essays by forty Catholic
scholars published about 20 years ago under the title of Modern Catholicism: Vatican II
and After. In a 1991 review, Piers Paul Read notes the unfailingly Modernist trajectory
of the contributors, culminating in this:
Most revealing is a section by F. J. Laishley, head of the department of Christian
Doctrine at Heythrop College, on the Council’s ‘Unfinished Business’. With a
barrage of intimidating jargon, he appears to advance the theory that the Council
fathers did not know what they were really saying and therefore did not mean what
they actually said, particularly about such things as celibacy, birth control, the
Pope, or the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
Read concludes that “this may be orthodox deconstructionism but it is not even
heterodox Catholicism if the word is to have any meaning.” He is right; the intelligentsia
took the supposed spirit of Vatican II and twisted it into something that was not so much
an ineffective implementation of Catholicism as an effective implementation of
something else entirely. That’s as succinct a summary of the damned peculiar thing that
happened on the way to the Catholic forum as any I’ve seen.
Today I’m launching an intermittent (and therefore inevitably prolonged) series
of commentaries on the individual documents of Vatican II, in which I intend to focus
very briefly on their key ideas, illustrating their depth and beauty through select quotes,
and highlighting the concepts that have become controversial, especially in light of the
peculiar thing that happened to them between their approval by Pope Paul VI and their
implementation. They were implemented, of course, by All the Usual Suspects—that is,
by the nominally Catholic theologians, bishops, priests and sisters who abandoned the
Faith without leaving the Church in the heady days of late 20th century secularization,
and who have used their power to take as many unfortunate souls with them as possible.
Now is an excellent time to review the documents precesely because the tenure of All the
Usual Suspects in the halls of Catholic influence is finally nearing an end as ignominious
www.catholicculture.org
Usual Suspects in the halls of Catholic influence is finally nearing an end as ignominious
as it was slow in coming.
Before turning to the individual documents, however, a few general remarks on the
misinterpretation of the Council are in order. By far the biggest offenders have been the
Modernists, who were extraordinarily excited (one is tempted to use the word
“titillated”) by the Council’s fresh openness to Catholic interaction with the larger world
after the siege mentality of the previous two or three generations. In their euphoria they
really did claim there was a spirit at work in Vatican II that transcended the letter of the
documents, which were viewed as but a temporary effusion of that spirit. They were
certain that the Church would move down the new path they were so vigorously blazing.
When the Church didn’t keep up, they saw it as proof that she was stifling the spirit of
the Council. Never has there been so circular an argument.
Notice that I spell this favorite word “spirit” with a lower-case “s”. These
neo-Modernists or Secularists (call them what you will) spoke of this spirit as if its first
letter were capitalized and its first name was “Holy”. It was indeed a damned peculiar
business, and here I am using the word “damned” advisedly.
But there were also some significantly misguided reactions to the Council on the
other side, reactions caused only partially by the excesses and errors of the spiritists.
Thus some champions of Catholic tradition also began to read certain conciliar texts as if
they were breaks from Tradition when, in fact, there was never any need to do so.
Having intellectual difficulty reconciling these (relatively few) texts, they fell back on
various implausible arguments to the effect that there was so little spirit of any kind at
the Council that its decrees and constitutions did not have to be taken seriously—a
position emphatically denied by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Some have even bemoaned the “vague” language of the conciliar documents, which
are actually generally quite clear and even inspiring, simply because that language
contrasts with many earlier councils which had identified long series of formal
propositions to be condemned. They seemed not to recognized that denouncing what
is not true does not take one very far. For example, if the Magisterium condemns the
statement that “the Church must conform herself with the modern world”, this
anathema teaches us almost nothing about which attitudes, ideas and approaches to
contemporary problems the Church may legitimately use, and which she may not. A
positive exposition of how the Church ought to engage contemporary culture is far more
enlightening—and far more difficult.
Vatican II offered such a positive exposition, and as a result struck a significant blow
against the growing tendency of Catholics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to live
www.catholicculture.org
their Faith prescriptively (obeying rules and fulfilling duties) rather than evangelistically
(living the Gospel out of gratitude and love). The proof that this was a huge tendency, if
any proof is necessary, can be found in what happened to Catholic life after the rules
were relaxed, and after the consequences of breaking them were de-emphasized. While
we are still struggling with the resulting chaos, it is also true that the slowly growing
number of Catholics today who fully adhere to Church teaching do not live rightly
because of rules. No, they live rightly because they love God and understand that the
Catholic Church is the key to His Presence in the world.
As we examine the documents of the Second Vatican Council, we shall see that the
text of the Council—and therefore its Spirit—almost invariably tends toward this sort of
deep and genuine renewal. And in discovering this renewal, we will at last learn what the
Council was all about.
www.catholicculture.org
The English Editions of the
Documents of Vatican II
The Second Vatican Council took place well before the era in which the Vatican Press
began to issue translations of Church documents in all major languages. For this reason,
the publication of the Council documents in various languages depended on independent
projects undertaken by publishers in the various countries around the world. I am
indebted to David A. Peterman, Ph.D for information leading to a more complete
enumeration of the English editions than I provided in the first version of this blog entry.
Although various scholars translated one document or another, the first
comprehensive English translation of the documents was prepared by the National
Catholic Welfare Conference. These translations were published individually, and
later as a group under the editorship of Rev. J. L. Gonzalez, by the Daughters of St. Paul,
which in those days made a considerable point of providing English translations of many
Church documents to the general public. The full Gonzalez edition was published as The
Sixteen Documents of Vatican II and the Instruction on the Liturgy in 1967, which
actually made it the second full set to become widely available. Later in 1999, the
Daughters’ Pauline Books and Media published an edition entitled <em>The Sixteen
Documents of Vatican II with Introduction</em> by Douglas G. Bushman, which
included outlines. These translations are long since out of print. Though it was once used
in at least one college course, the relatively recent Bushman edition will no longer even
show up used on Amazon.
The two most well-known English editions of the Documents of Vatican II were put
together by Walter M. Abbott, SJ and Austin P. Flannery, OP. The first—which I read as
soon as it was published immediately following the Council in 1966—was prepared
under the general editorship of Fr. Abbott. It contains an extensive introductory note by
the translation editor, Msgr. Joseph Gallagher, which acknowledges a debt to the NCWC
translations. Though now also out of print, this was the most widely circulated editon of
the conciliar documents in English for many years. The introduction to the volume was
written by Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Archbishop of Baltimore, but it also includes a
brief introductory essay by Bishop Reuben H. Mueller, President of the National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the USA, entitled “An Adventure in Ecumenical
Cooperation”. Each document is prefaced and followed by comments from one scholar or
www.catholicculture.org
another—priest or lay, Catholic or non-Catholic—except that the majority of the
introductions are by Jesuits. The documents were presented in a kind of logical order,
beginning with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and ending with the
Declaration on Religious Freedom. The edition was published by the Jesuit-run America
Press.
A second English translation was published nine years later, in 1975, under the
direction of Austin P. Flannery, OP. Happily, it is still widely available new in an
inexpensive paperback. The edition was issued mainly to take into account various
follow-up documents which had been issued in the intervening years to clarify or provide
further implementation of the various conciliar texts, and the most important of these are
included in the volume. In 1982, a second volume (Vatican II: More Postconciliar
Documents) was issued, making the two-volume edition the best way to follow the
official documentary continuation of the Council’s work. In preparing the fresh
translation for this edition, Fr. Flannery was able to compare the new translation with
both the French and Italian editions, and the Abbot edition, which were already in use.
The Flannery edition presents the Council documents in chronological order, based on
the date of issue at the Council itself; it omits the papal addresses which opened and
closed the Council’s individual sessions and the Council as a whole. It was published by
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Interestingly, while the Abbott volume deliberately cultivates an ecumenical and
even progressive tone, the Flannery volume suggests just the opposite. The Preface was
by the conservative John Cardinal Wright. Clearly this edition was designed to indicate
how Rome understood the Council documents as evidenced by her subsequent decrees.
Indeed, in explaining his decision to include the follow-up documents issued by the Holy
See, Fr. Flannery notes:
One knows, of course, that there are many, perhaps very many priests, religious and
lay people who, since the controversies of the sixties, are unlikely to lose any sleep
over the location of a Roman document—any Roman document! In fact they may
find the mere mention of a Roman document a soporific. For some of them, the
phrase, “Roma locuta, causa finita: Rome has spoken, the case is finished,” may
have taken on a new and cynical meaning, best rendered perhaps by “Rome has
spoken, that’s one more subject buried.” That is a pity, and they are themselves the
poorer.
Thus the battle with theological dissidence within the post-conciliar Church was already
www.catholicculture.org
well joined by the mid 1970’s.
Had it not been for a kind note from Dr. Peterman, I would have continued to think
the state of the editions of Vatican II has remained unchanged since that time, but not so.
In 1990, Norman P. Tanner put together an immense two-volume work of some 2,500
pages entitled Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, which includes the official
documents of every ecumenical council from Nicaea through Vatican II. It appears to
have been published both by Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, and new
copies of the two-volume set are still available, though they cost over $150. This edition
is particularly valuable in that the Latin and the English texts appear on facing pages and
the translation is reportedly the best of the bunch. Clearly this should be the first choice
for a scholarly study of the texts, despite Tanner’s decision to employ inclusive
language.
At some point in the past ten years, the Vatican added the documents of Vatican II in
multiple languages, including English, to its web site (www.vatican.va). A quick check
of these texts suggests that they may have been modified slightly from whichever of the
pre-existing translations the Vatican thought best. Whatever the case, the texts supplied
in the CatholicCulture.org library are the same as those on the Vatican web site. In the
commentaries which follow, all quotations will be taken from these digital texts.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Liturgy: Introduction
Some of the documents of Vatican II are longer and more detailed, more central to the
Church’s purposes, or more controversial in their application than others. It has therefore
become apparent that if I am to comment usefully on each document within the medium
of the On the Culture blog, I will have to devote multiple entries to some of the texts.
The very first document on the Liturgy is a stellar example. In terms of length, it is in the
second tier of the sixteen documents (along with the Decree on the Ministry and Life of
Priests and the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity); only the two documents on
the Church herself are longer. The liturgy is the central action of the Church—the
worship Christ offers in and through His mystical body to the Father. And the
implementation of the Council’s proposals for the liturgy touches all Catholics directly
and has been extraordinarily controversial. Therefore, I will have to devote four entries
to this topic.
The first document issued by the Second Vatican Council was the Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) on December 4, 1963. Clearly the reform and
renewal of the Church’s public worship was a key concern of the Council. Among the
problems which had been noted by many bishops and even Pope Pius XII in previous
years were the lack of understanding of the words used in the liturgy on the part of most
people, a lack of involvement in the action of the liturgy on the part of the laity, and a
lack of clarity and simplicity that had gradually afflicted the Tridentine rituals, as well as
excessive repetition, which detracted from the “noble simplicity” which was considered
the hallmark of the Latin Rite.
Many people feel very strongly about liturgical matters. Moreover, given the
liturgical upheaval following the Council, including all the liturgical horrors that came to
pass in the first post-conciliar generation, some conservative Catholics have reacted by
arguing that the Tridentine Rite as we employed it in the early 1960’s was so perfect that
there was never any need for liturgical renewal in the first place. By way of defending
the Council itself, let me suggest that this extreme position is difficult to maintain unless
one really wants to argue (to take one example from among many) that praying the
Rosary while the priest attends to the Mass (a common practice at the time) is an ideal
mode of participation. Also, whatever may be said about the ease with which Mass
regularly attended in Latin may be understood, especially with the aid of bilingual
missals, the same cannot be said about those sacraments in which the faithful participate
www.catholicculture.org
only seldom and typically without benefit of textual aids (such as baptism, confirmation,
or anointing of the sick).
Such concerns, and others, are reflected in the text. It is also important to note that
the Council sometimes used the term “restoration” to describe its proposed reform of the
liturgy. This is the key word in the title of the very first chapter of the Constitution,
“General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy.” Thus it is
clear that the Council was not completely happy with the way in which the Tridentine
rite had evolved through various accretions over the years, nor with how that Rite had
been adapted to changing historical and cultural situations, nor with what they perceived
as a decline over an extended period of the active participation of the whole body of the
Church in what should be the central action of the Body of Christ. With these
background considerations in mind, we may proceed next to the text itself.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Liturgy: Overview & General
Norms
Having briefly introduced the concerns of the Council Fathers, let’s take a closer look at
the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, leading up to the General Norms which the Council
promulgated to guide liturgical reform. Following an introduction which attempts to
balance the need for revision with fidelity to tradition, the Constitution on the Liturgy is
divided into seven chapters:
General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy;1.
The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist;2.
The Other Sacraments and the Sacramentals;3.
The Divine Office;4.
The Liturgical Year;5.
Sacred Music;6.
Sacred Art and Sacred Furnishings.7.
There is also an Appendix on the Revision of the Calendar. These divisions show the
scope of the document. Perhaps the most important thing to be said from our vantage
point is that while what we have now in the areas of chapters 3, 4 and 5 bears a
reasonably close resemblance to what the Council called for, things are quite otherwise
with chapters 1, 2, 6 and 7. Thus, if we were to attempt to guess what Vatican II said
from what we see in these areas today, we will be nothing short of astonished when we
read the actual text of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
This astonishment will be nowhere more evident than in rereading the first
sub-section of the very first chapter, on “The Nature of the Sacred Liturgy and Its
Importance in the Church’s Life”. Consider:
Every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of his
Body, which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action
of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree. (7)
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is
www.catholicculture.org
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is
celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims,
where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the holies and of the
true tabernacle. (8)
The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is
also the fount from which all her power flows. (10)
From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, grace is poured forth
upon us as from a fountain, and the sanctification of men in Christ and the
glorification of God to which all other activities of the Church are directed, as
toward their end, are achieved with maximum effectiveness. (10)
Without arguing here for any particular change or expressing a preference for any
particular rite, I believe most deeply committed Catholics now would agree that the
community-oriented liturgical celebrations so common today, which in many dioceses
and parishes seem more concerned with a light-hearted celebration of the congregation
itself than with glorifying the most high God, do not derive their fundamental inspiration
from words such as these. In any case, this seems to be the judgment of Pope Benedict
XVI.
There are in fact five sub-sections in this all-important first chapter (General
Principles). The first sub-section calls for a clear focus on the Paschal Mystery at the
heart of the Church’s life and liturgy, with a concentration on Christ’s presence in the
minister, the Word, and—above all—the Eucharist. This is so important that “pastors of
souls must, therefore, realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is
required than the laws governing valid and lawful celebration. It is their duty also to
ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in
the rite and enriched by it” (11). The second sub-section calls for appropriate training in
seminaries and other programs so that all priests and future priests will be well-equipped
to promote this sort of active participation. Sub-sections four and five deal briefly with
the promotion of liturgical life in the diocese and parish and with the development of
commissions on the liturgy to foster true liturgical renewal at the level of the conference,
the diocese and the parish. Some will cringe at this, but only because—in the
event—such commissions were mostly hijacked by those with ideas of their own.
The third sub-section, entitled “The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy”, sets forth the
basic path of restoration and renewal for the liturgy which the Council proposed:
The liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of
www.catholicculture.org
The liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of
elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be
changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of
anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less
suitable. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express
more clearly the holy things which they signify. (21)
The Council declared in its first General Norm that the “regulation of the sacred liturgy
depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws
may determine, on the bishop” (a principle frequently ignored with results we have all
witnessed). The Fathers also insisted on careful theological, historical and pastoral study
of each part of the liturgy to be revised. One may also question the pastoral wisdom
which informed these theological and historical studies in the years to follow.
But in this same section of General Norms there was one principle which has, in fact,
been successfully implemented:
Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it
is from it that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung. It
is from the scriptures that the prayers, collects, and hymns draw their inspiration
and their force, and that actions and signs derive their meaning. Hence in order to
achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy it is essential
to promote that sweet and living love for sacred scripture to which the venerable
tradition of Eastern and Western rites gives testimony. (24)
Here, apart from continuing quarrels over the translation of Scripture, it is universally
acknowledged (indeed, it really cannot be denied) that the use of Scripture in the Novus
Ordo is substantially greater and more thorough than before. The faithful are exposed
to significantly more of the Bible at Mass over the two and three year cycles of readings.
In this one area, at least, the intentions of the Council have been fulfilled.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Liturgy: Particular Norms &
the Eucharist
Following the General Norms, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy outlines more
particular norms for authentic renewal which clarify more precisely what the Council
Fathers intend. In the “Norms Drawn from the Hierarchic and Communal Nature of the
Liturgy”, the Council emphasizes that liturgical services are not private functions but
“celebrations of the Church which is ‘the sacrament of unity,’ namely, ‘the holy people
united and arranged under their bishops’” (26).
Therefore, liturgical services “pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They
manifest it, and have effects upon it. But they also touch individual members of the
Church in different ways” (26). The text specifies that “each person, minister or layman,
who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to
his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy” (28). And to promote
active participation, “the people should be encouraged to take part by means of
acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns, as well as by actions, gestures and
bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed” (30).
In the “Norms Based upon the Educative and Pastoral Nature of the Liturgy”, we find
that “the rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear,
and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the people’s powers of
comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (34). In context, this
may legitimately taken as a call to purify the Tridentine rite of some of its repetition and
obscurity. It is undeniable that the structure of the Novus Ordo is easier to follow and the
relationship among the parts clearer. Many would argue, however, that liturgists have
shown so little respect for the intelligence of non-professionals that they have introduced
triviality and banality as a substitute for “noble simplicity”.
In this section also belongs the norm for the use of both Latin and the vernacular.
Essentially, “the use of the Latin language…is to be preserved in the Latin rites” but
because the use of the vernacular in Mass and the sacraments “may frequently be of great
advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives
and in some prayers and chants” (36).
The second Chapter, on the Eucharist, provides the quotations which most closely
enshrine what the Council hoped to achieve with respect to the Mass. Two sections are
www.catholicculture.org
worth quoting at particular length:
The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this
mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the
contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take
part in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full
collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word, and be nourished at the
table of the Lord’s Body. They should give thanks to God. Offering the immaculate
victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, they
should learn to offer themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator, they should be
drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other, so that
finally God may be all in all. (48)
And, therefore:
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their
substance. Parts which with the passage of time came to be duplicated, or were
added with little advantage, are to be omitted. Other parts which suffered loss
through accidents of history are to be restored to the vigor they had in the days of
the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. (50)
In this section again, the Council calls for the purposes and relationships of the parts of
the Mass to be made clear; for the homily to further honor the Word of God by drawing
its inspiration from the readings of the day; for the restoration of the prayer of the
faithful; for increased use of the vernacular; for the use of hosts at Communion which
were consecrated at the same Mass (this was commonly not the practice before the
Council); for the faithful to understand that they should attend the whole Mass (both the
liturgy of the Word and of the Eucharist, as many inthose days short-changed everything
before the Offertory and after Communion); and for proper procedures for
concelebration.
It is perfectly consistent with the Council’s understanding of the importance of the
Liturgy to the Church’s life that this second chapter on the Eucharist should complement
the first in articulating most clearly the Council’s desires and goals. It remains in my final
commentary on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to look briefly at matters of
concern apart from the Mass itself.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Liturgy: Related Concerns
Having commented at some length on the Norms for liturgical renewal which first and
foremost affect the Mass, the most important work for the understanding and importance
of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is completed. Still, as we have seen in the list
of chapter titles, the Council did not neglect closely related subjects: the other
sacraments, sacramentals, the Divine Office, the Liturgical year, sacred music and
sacred art. I can touch only fleetingly on these topics.
Thus the Council calls for the extension of the vernacular in the other sacraments and
sacramentals so that these may be more easily understood and appreciated. It further
calls particular attention to the fact that Anointing of the Sick should not be construed (as
it certainly was at the time) as a sacrament applicable only to those in imminent danger
of death.
The Council also mandates a reform of the Divine Office (or Liturgy of the Hours). It
calls for the restoration of the traditional sequence of the hours so that the Divine Office
may be more easily used to sanctify the entire day; it stresses the importance of an
excellent selection of readings from Scripture, the Fathers and other great saints; it
encourages the laity to also make use of the Office (as many have since done); and it
urges the public celebration of Vespers on major feasts and Sundays.
The Council also calls for a revised liturgical calendar to emphasize, first, the
richness of Christ’s salvific work; second, the salvific importance and maternal solicitude
of Mary; and third, the witness of the martyrs and saints. The Fathers also call strongly
for the encouragement of both internal individual and external social penance during
Lent.
In the area of sacred music, Gregorian Chant and the pipe organ are accorded pride
of place, and instruction is given for the use of other musical compositions and
instruments. Such instruments are always to be “suitable for sacred use” so that they
“accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the
faithful” (120). Texts for chants and hymns are to be drawn from Scripture and liturgical
sources.
And in the final chapter, norms are set down for education in, and the selection and
cultivation of, sacred art. Given what we see so much of in Church architecture and
Church adornment today, the following quote may occasion additional astonishment:
www.catholicculture.org
Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith,
morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by
depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or
pretense, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places. (124)
One would think that such a stricture could have protected the faithful not only from
many older, poorly-done and saccharine statues, but from crucifixes that look like
grasshoppers and many a glib banner, not to mention churches which, in their
fundamental architecture, more or less deliberately obliterate Christian symbolism or
even any sense of the sacred at all.
But I digress, and we must mention in closing the unusual appendix, which addresses
two special calendar issues, issues that must have been in the air then, but which I am
quite sure very few will remember now. Thus, for the Church’s own liturgical calendar,
the Council does not oppose the proposal of celebrating Easter on a fixed date, but only if
it can be worked out with all concerned parties, including the Orthodox. For the civil
calendar, the Council does not object to the proposal for a civil perpetual calendar as
long as it preserves the seven-day week, which is essential to the rhythm of the
Church’s life.
The sections devoted to these topics are quite short. On these and any of the topics
summarized in this four-part commentary, a quick re-reading of the appropriate sections
of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself will quickly acquaint the reader with the full mind of
the Council. No consideration of the Liturgy can be complete, of course, without due
attention to the many liturgical documents which have been issued since the Council.
But in these days when the Pope is clearly working on a “reform of the reform”, it is
important to return to Sacrosanctum Concilium so that we can better evaluate where the
desires of Vatican II on the liturgy have been realized, and where they have been
thwarted by those who claimed to implement the Council’s norms.
www.catholicculture.org
On Social Communication
The second document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council was the Decree on
the Means of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica), issued on December 4, 1963. It is
extremely brief, its contents are predictable, and it is easily summarized in a single post.
The essential concern of the Council here was to enjoin upon all Catholics the
importance of using social media responsibly, for the common good, and to enhance the
apostolic ministry of the Church.
The Council also mandated that the Holy See’s office of social communication issue
a more complete pastoral instruction “to ensure that the principles and rules of the
Council on the means of social communication be put into effect” (23). This was
fulfilled in the lengthier Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication
(Communio et progressio) in January of 1971. As a non-conciliar document it does not
concern us here, but it is worth noting that its foreword states that the Council’s
teachings on the media are not limited to Inter Mirifica, but may also be found in the
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Decree on Ecumenism, the
Declaration on Religioius Freedom, the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the
Church, and the Decree on the Pastoral Duties of Bishops. Still, one step at a time.
Inter Mirifica has just two (untitled) chapters. The first focuses on moral
responsibility in the use of the media. The second covers the use of the media to enhance
and expand the apostolate.
Moral Responsibility
The Council immediately affirms that the principles of the moral order must be applied
to the media as elsewhere, but it notes that there are two aspects to this application: first,
“the subject-matter, or content, which each medium communicates in its own way”; and
second, “the circumstances in which the content is communicated.” Thus:
The circumstances can modify and even totally alter the morality of a production.
In this regard, particular importance may attach to the manner in which any given
medium achieves its effect. Its impact may be such that people, especially if they
are insufficiently prepared, will only with difficulty advert to it, control it, or, if
need be, reject it. (4)
With respect to both of these concerns, the Council stresses several points:
www.catholicculture.org
With respect to both of these concerns, the Council stresses several points:
The “right to information on the subjects that are of concern to men either as
individuals or as members of society” which “demands that the content of the
communication be true and—within the limits set by justice and
charity—complete” (5);
1.
The need to establish a proper relationship “between the rights of art…and the
moral law”, especially given increasing controversies arising from an “erroneous
understanding either of ethics or of aesthetics,” for the moral law “alone is
superior to and is capable of harmonizing all forms of human activity, not
excepting art” (6);
2.
The importance of avoiding representations of moral evil which, instead of
leading to “a deeper knowledge and analysis of man and to a manifestation of the
true and the good”, actually undermine the good of souls through presentations
which “lead all too easily to base desires in man wounded by original sin” (7).
3.
The text goes on to indicate the proper exercise of responsibility among all parties. Thus
the media consumer should possess “a properly motivated selectivity” which “would be
wholly in favor of whatever excels in virtue, culture and art” while avoiding “whatever
might be a cause or occasion of spiritual harm” (9). All consumers, “especially the
young, should learn moderation and discipline in their use” of the media, while parents
must remember that “it is their duty to see that entertainments and publications which
might endanger faith and morals do not enter their houses and that their children are not
exposed to them elsewhere” (10).
Those involved in the creation and dissemination of social media—journalists,
writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics,
etc.—self-evidently bear “a very great responsibility” because “they have power to direct
mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the
pressure they exert”. The Council recommends the formation of professional
associations “capable of imposing on their members…a respect for the moral law” (11).
Civil authorities also bear particular responsibilities because of their role in fostering the
common good. They are bound to ensure that “public morality and social progress are
not gravely endangered through the misuse of these media” (12).
Apostolate
www.catholicculture.org
The second chapter concentrates on the need to make apostolic use of all the means of
social communication. The Council begins by emphasizing that if “one really wants to
form readers in a truly Christian spirit, an authentically Catholic press ought to be
established and supported” and “the faithful should be reminded of the need to read and
circulate the Catholic press if they are to judge all events from a Christian standpoint”
(14). Brief attention is also given to radio, television, film and theater. The Internet,
obviously, was not yet foreseen, but any set of specific media examples clearly serves to
highlight the requirements of all.
The Council recommends appropriate training among Catholics for the apostolic use
of the media. It is noteworthy that it does not regard a noble purpose as sufficient.
Rather, apostolic use of the media “should excel by technical perfection and by
effectiveness” (14). At the same time, appropriate training must not be merely technical;
it must include “a complete formation, imbued with the Christian spirit and especially
with the Church’s social teaching” (15).
The Council mandates that a day be set aside each year in every diocese “on which
the faithful will be reminded of their duties” regarding Catholic social communications
(18). It also states that all projects for Catholic social communications, regardless of who
engages in them, are to be overseen in each diocese by the bishop, “to promote and,
where they touch the public apostolate, to regulate them, including those under the
control of exempt religious” (20). At the national level, the same office is to be
undertaken by episcopal commissions or bishops appointed to the task (21); at the
international level, such oversight belongs exclusively to the Holy See (22).
The Council concludes by expressing its confidence that:
all the sons of the Church will welcome the principles and regulations contained in
this decree and will observe them faithfully. Thus they will not suffer damage as
they use the media. Rather will the media, like salt and light, add savor to the earth
and light to the world. (24)
Sadly, contemporary media, even in the Catholic world, seldom resembles what the
Council envisioned; clearly the spiritual and moral principles in the Decree on the Means
of Social Communication have been observed too often only in the breach.
Nonetheless, the time may now be ripe. Once again, therefore, it is worth reminding
ourselves of what the documents of the Second Vatican Council really say.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: Introduction
The third document issued by the Second Vatican Council, on November 21, 1964, is
undoubtedly the crown jewel—the impressive Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
(Lumen Gentium). It is one of the Council’s two major documents on the Church, the
other being the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The former document
is clearly devoted to describing the nature of the Church in her deepest identity, while
the latter is pastorally oriented toward her specific situation in the modern age, and her
mode of action in contemporary circumstances.
It is noteworthy that the Council issued two dogmatic constitutions, this one on the
Church and another on Divine Revelation, and it is necessary to note at least in passing
that the very titles of these documents are sufficient to refute those who maintain that,
because Vatican II was called primarily for a pastoral purpose, it never intended to teach
anything in matters of faith or morals. Not only does this odd notion suggest that faith
and morals are irrelevant to the Church’s pastoral activity, but it also ignores the obvious
intent of the Council’s decision to entitle two of her documents as “dogmatic”.
Tellingly, the two documents on the Church (again, one dogmatic, the other pastoral)
are by far the longest. Each is roughly twice as long as any other document. Clearly these
two enshrine the Council’s most central and important purpose, which may be described
as bringing the Church to a fuller understanding of herself so that every member of the
faithful might more effectively contribute to the fulfillment of her mission in the world.
The Dogmatic Constitution, removed as it is from issues of place and time and focused
on the very nature of the Church herself, is necessarily the font from which all the
Council’s pastoral initiatives must draw their wisdom, strength and efficacy. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Lumen Gentium is one of the most beautiful, deeply spiritual
and inspiring documents ever issued by the Magisterium of the Church.
It consists of eight chapters, as follows:
The Mystery of the Church1.
On the People of God2.
On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate3.
The Laity4.
The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church5.
www.catholicculture.org
Religious6.
The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the Church
in Heaven
7.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the
Church
8.
There is also an Appendix, not promulgated by the Council but attached to the official
Latin text of Lumen Gentium in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, on the Constitution’s
treatment of the bishops as a “college”. This appendix consists of four theological notes
which clarify the term “college” in light of the document’s text. To the reader after the
fact these clarifications appear to be so amply included in the text itself as to be all but
unnecessary; for example, the Conciliar text repeatedly takes great pains to ensure that
the idea of “college” is not conceived independently of the authority of the pope, who is
the college’s head. Thus it is clear that these clarifications grew out of the memory of the
debates which preceded the approval of the final document, memories which were still
coloring a proper understanding of the text.
A Necessary Interruption
There is one more point to be made, though it seems a shame to have to give
it disproportionate space. Some of those who have been appalled by the secularization of
the Church in the West between 1965 and the present, and who have erroneously
assumed that this secularization was brought about by a faithful implementation of the
conciliar documents, have found themselves with a sort of psychological vested
interest in establishing that the Council, for all practical purposes, dealt only in
recommendations that the faithful could either take or leave. This has given rise to a
fruitless quarrel over the authority of the Second Vatican Council. The Theological
Commission (the committee of bishops charged with the drafting of the
document) addressed this issue briefly prior to the vote on the Dogmatic Constitution of
the Church, and while not part of the official text of the Constitution, its remarks are
also included in the Appendix published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The need for this
arose because some councils have been more or less entirely dogmatic in character,
consisting of brief texts which were almost exclusively composed of formal definitions
or anathemas, but Vatican II did not take this form.
Therefore, the Commission stated that “the Council’s text must always be interpreted
in accordance with the general rules that are known to all” and to make these rules clear,
www.catholicculture.org
it briefly summarized them. First, the Council “defines as binding on the Church only
those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
Second, everything else must be “accepted and embraced by each and every one of
Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council” as known from the “matter
treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological
interpretation.”
This is simply a succinct statement of the normal rules (“known to all”) of theological
interpretation that apply to all magisterial teaching, including that of the papal
Magisterium, as in encyclicals. In other words, this statement represents the magisterial
norm; it is not some special license for confusion in accepting and obeying the Conciliar
decrees. In the light of longstanding quarrels, I have been forced to comment on this. But
in fact no part of the Appendix need detain us further in our exploration of the text,
because all parts of the Appendix simply reaffirm what is already clear in the text of the
Constitution itself when read “in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.”
In closing, is worth noting that Lumen Gentium has two sets of footnotes. The first
and longest set are devoted exclusively to Scripure references, enabling the reader to
grasp at a glance the rich Scriptural underpinnings of the document. The second set of
notes provide doctrinal references to past Magisterial documents and patristic texts.
Finally, while a subsequent summary of each chapter of Lumen Gentium would be
appropriate, in my opinion it would make the series too long. Therefore, the rest of this
seminal document will be covered in just four additional posts.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: The Mystery
The central purpose of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) is “to
unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner
nature and universal mission” (1). The first two chapters clearly build toward the
document’s great third chapter on the episcopacy, but because they have generated
considerable controversy in their own right, I will treat them separately here.
The first chapter (“The Mystery of the Church”) teaches that the Church is the
kingdom of Christ “now present in mystery” and that the Holy Spirit was sent on
Pentecost to “continually sanctify the Church”, which He “both equips and direct with
hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits” (4). At the same time, while
growing slowly, “the Church strains toward the completed Kingdom and, with all its
strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King” (5). The Council also
takes up the various images or metaphors of the Church, as used in Scripture and
developed by the Fathers. Among other realities thus expressed, the Church is a body
with Christ as its head and a bride loved by Christ the bridegroom.
This first chapter closes with a consideration of the Church’s visibility. She is a
visible society governed by the Pope and the bishops, “a living organ of salvation” which
“by no weak analogy…is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word.” In other
words:
[T]he society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ,
are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the
spiritual community, nor the earthy Church and the Church enriched with heavenly
things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a
human element. (8)
It is in this context that the Council makes a statement which has been abused by both
Modernists and Traditionalists: “[T]his Church constituted and organized in the world as
a society subsists in the Catholic Church” (8; emphasis added). Because earlier doctrinal
statements had used “is” where the Council uses the more philosophical term “subsists
in”, some thought the Council was teaching that the Church of Christ also exists fully
beyond the visible borders of the Catholic Church. But that the Council meant no such
thing is clear from the same sentence, which specifically notes only that “many elements
of sanctification and truth [for example, Scripture and the action of the Holy Spirit] are
www.catholicculture.org
of sanctification and truth [for example, Scripture and the action of the Holy Spirit] are
found outside of its visible structure” (8; emphasis added). In fact, “these elements, as
gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity” (8)
(cf.
Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the
Church and Commentary).
The second chapter, “On the People of God”, develops the idea of the Church as a
messianic people with Christ at its head:
[A]s a messianic people, although it does not actually include all men, and at times
may look like a small flock, it is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope
and salvation for the whole human race. Established by Christ as a communion of
life, charity and truth, it is also used by Him as an instrument for the redemption of
all, and is sent forth into the whole world as the light of the world and the salt of
the earth. (9)
Thus can the Church serves as the sacrament of salvation even for those outside her
visible borders, as the Council will later note. This section goes on to discuss the role
played by each of the sacraments in the priestly and salvific character of the Church, and
also emphasizes that “the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy
One, cannot err in matters of belief” (12)—an expression of the Church’s indefectibility.
Because “all men are called to belong to the new people of God” (13) and because
the Council emphatically reaffirms that the Church “is necessary for salvation” (14), the
chapter concludes with an extended consideration not only of the Church’s catholicity
(universality) but also of the relationship of non-Catholics to this universal Church. After
clearly outlining what it means to be “fully incorporated in the society of the Church”
(14), the Council considers the different degrees of relationship to the Church
characteristic of catechumens, non-Catholic Christians, and those who have not yet
received the Gospel.
Based on the earlier material describing the Church as the necessary priestly
sacrament of salvation for all, the Council notes that salvation is open to those who
“through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet
sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is
known to them through the dictates of conscience” (16). It is worth mentioning that this
point is footnoted to the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949
concerning the affair of Fr. Leonard Feeney, which gives a corresponding presentation of
the Church’s understanding of the axiom “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
www.catholicculture.org
Unfortunately, this is another passage which has been abused by both Modernists and
Traditionalists. The former have frequently acted as if it means the Church is irrelevant
to salvation (the very opposite of what the Council taught) while the latter have accused
the Council of changing Catholic doctrine and effectively rendering missionary activity
irrelevant by casting altogether too wide a net. However, not only had these exact points
been authoritatively taught earlier, particularly by Pope Pius XII in his great encyclical
On the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis), but the Council also specifically
refutes this objection by noting that missionary activity is essential in order to fulfill
Christ’s command, overcome the deceptions of the devil, and save men from despair (16)
as well as to “snatch them from the slavery of error and of idols…so that through charity
they may grow up into full maturity in Christ” (17).
This second chapter of Lumen Gentium concludes by clearly focusing the Church’s
mission on the glory of God:
Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good
lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only
saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory
of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. (17)
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: The Bishops
In his Angelus message of October 22, 1995, Pope John Paul II called Lumen Gentium
“the keystone of the Council’s whole Magisterium”. In many ways its most important
chapter was the third, “On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on
the Episcopate”, for it was here that the Council intentionally presented its greatest
doctrinal development on a single topic. Referring to (and fully endorsing) Vatican I’s
work on the papacy, the Council fathers state: “Continuing in that same undertaking, this
Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning
bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the
Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living
God” (18).
The core of this “doctrine concerning bishops” is this:
By episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacramental Orders is conferred, that
fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the
language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme
power of the sacred ministry. But episcopal consecration, together with the office
of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and governing, which however, of
its very nature can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and
the members of the college. For…it is clear that, by means of the imposition of
hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred,
and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way
sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that
they act in His person. (21)
In other words, bishops have the fullness of orders by which they, like the Pope, have
the office of teaching, ruling and sanctifying in the Church. Bishops are, indeed, vicars
of Christ in their own dioceses, as the Pope is in the universal Church. But unlike the
Roman Pontiff, who “has full, supreme and universal power over the Church…and is
always free to exercise this power”, the “college or body of bishops has no authority
unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its
head” (22). Within this context, the bishops, like the apostles and like Peter, have the
power to bind and loose.
This principle of collegiality, by which Christ’s governance of His Church is most
www.catholicculture.org
This principle of collegiality, by which Christ’s governance of His Church is most
fully imaged and represented when the bishops act in union with their head, is “exercised
in a solemn way in an ecumenical council” (and a council “is never ecumenical unless it
is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter”) (22). Indeed, while
the pope is “the visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the
faithful” within the universal Church, “the individual bishops…are the visible principle
and foundation of unity in their particular churches” (23).
Having established the immense dignity and authority of the bishop, which depends
at one and the same time upon his possession of the fullness of sacred orders and his
unity with the entire college including its head, the Council goes on to stress the
threefold office of the bishop:
The prophetic (teaching) office: “The infallibility promised to the Church resides
also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium
with the successor of Peter” (25).
1.
The priestly (sanctifying) office: “A bishop, marked with the fullness of the
sacrament of Orders is ‘the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood’,
especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered, and by which
the Church continually lives and grows” (26).
2.
The kingly (governing) office: “Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ,
govern the particular churches entrusted to them…. This power, which they
personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate,
although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the
Church…” (27).
3.
The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of priests who, “although they do not
possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the
bishops in the exercise of their power, are nevertheless united with the bishops in
sacerdotal dignity” (28). It also briefly mentions deacons, “upon whom hands are
imposed ‘not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service’…in the diaconate of the
liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God.” The Council also states that
“the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the
hierarchy”, rather than being restricted to the transitional diaconate, which was then
typically the case (29).
An understanding of the immense dignity of the episcopal office, as fully developed
www.catholicculture.org
in this section of Lumen Gentium, is not only important in its own right, but it provides a
particular insight into the mind of Pope John Paul II, who was both active at Vatican II
and firmly convinced of its importance to the Church. Here we see one reason why this
Pope, for better or worse, was reluctant to govern the Church though a vigorous
discipline applied to the bishops from Rome. He chose instead to labor mightily in his
teachings, travels and prayers to encourage bishops to fully become what they truly
were—to take full and proper apostolic responsibility for the local churches under their
care, in unity with the whole college and their head.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: Lay Holiness
If the first two chapters of Lumen Gentium contain the most controversial passages and
the third contains the Council’s most important doctrinal exposition, the fourth and fifth
are vital to the Church’s mission in a very different sense. These chapters address a topic
too often neglected in earlier periods by stressing the vital part that lay people play in the
body of Christ and the fact that all Christians, not just the “professionals”, are called to
be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect. In the Church, holiness is job one—for
everybody.
In Chapter 4 (“On the Laity”), the Council said the laity are called, as “living
members” of the Body of Christ, “to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church
and its continuous sanctification, since this very energy is a gift of the Creator and a
blessing of the Redeemer” (33). Then, in a key passage, the Council went on to identify
the essence of the lay apostolate by which the laity are to answer this call:
The lay apostolate…is a participation in the salvific mission of the Church itself.
Through their baptism and confirmation all are commissioned to that apostolate by
the Lord Himself. Moreover, by the sacraments, especially holy Eucharist, that
charity toward God and man which is the soul of the apostolate is communicated
and nourished. Now the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present
and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it
become the salt of the earth. Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts
bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the
mission of the Church…. (33)
The Council pointed out that the laity can “also be called in various ways to a more direct
cooperation in the apostolate of the Hierarchy” and that “they have the capacity to
assume from the Hierarchy certain ecclesiastical functions” (33), but it is quite clear that
the Council did not intend that these extraordinary forms of “cooperation in the
apostolate of the Hierarchy” (such as the liturgical functions of lector and Eucharistic
minister) should cause the laity to be cast as miniature clergy instead of being
encouraged to engage in their own proper apostolate, which is the transformation of the
social order in Christ.
Instead, starting with the principle enunciated by St. Paul that “all things are yours,
and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:23), the Council makes the usual and
www.catholicculture.org
and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:23), the Council makes the usual and
proper focus of the lay apostolate refreshingly clear:
The faithful, therefore, must learn the deepest meaning and the value of all creation,
as well as its role in the harmonious praise of God. They must assist each other to
live holier lives even in their daily occupations. In this way the world may be
permeated by the spirit of Christ and it may more effectively fulfill its purpose in
justice, charity and peace. The laity have the principal role in the overall fulfillment
of this duty. Therefore, by their competence in secular training and by their activity,
elevated from within by the grace of Christ, let them vigorously contribute their
effort, so that created goods may be perfected by human labor, technical skill and
civic culture for the benefit of all men according to the design of the Creator and
the light of His Word…. Moreover, let the laity also by their combined efforts
remedy the customs and conditions of the world, if they are an inducement to sin,
so that they all may be conformed to the norms of justice and may favor the
practice of virtue rather than hinder it. (36)
This chapter concludes with the Council’s insistence that “the laity have the right, as do
all Christians, to receive in abundance from their spiritual shepherds the spiritual goods
of the Church.” This relates especially to the word of God and the sacraments (rights
which were too often denied through heterodox teaching and illicit liturgies in the
generation following the Council). The laity are also, “by reason of the knowledge,
competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even
obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church”
(37).
From this chapter’s stress on the vital role of the laity in the People of God, Chapter
5 on “The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church” follows logically. Important as the
concept is, the chapter simply moves through each group in the Church briefly
commenting on how true holiness produces an effective witness to Christ proper to each
group: Bishops; priests; deacons; married couples; single persons (including widows);
laborers; and the poor, infirm and sick. Any number of divisions could have been used;
they come together to make the point enunciated at the end of the section:
Finally all Christ’s faithful, whatever be the conditions, duties and circumstances of
their lives—and indeed through all these—will daily increase in holiness, if they
receive all things with faith from the hand of their heavenly Father and if they
cooperate with the divine will. In this temporal service, they will manifest to all
www.catholicculture.org
cooperate with the divine will. In this temporal service, they will manifest to all
men the love with which God loved the world. (41)
As the principle means of becoming holy, the Council identified the use of the
sacraments, “frequent participation in the sacred action of the Liturgy”, prayer,
self-abnegation, “lively fraternal service”, and the “constant exercise of all the virtues” .
The chapter concludes with a special discussion of the immense value of martyrdom and
virginity (including celibacy) for the Kingdom of God (42). Thus, “all the faithful of
Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state.
Indeed they have an obligation so to strive.”
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: Eschatological
Identity
I can see now that it was a mistake not to include Chapter 6 of Lumen Gentium, on
“Religious”, in the previous entry (as I had done in my preparatory notes), because the
chapter really covers that form of consecration which represents the universal call to
holiness (Chapter 5) in a particularly fruitful way. In contrast, Chapter 7 (“The
Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the Church in Heaven”)
and Chapter 8 (“The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and
the Church”) take up new themes, but I have decided to cover only chapters 6 and 7 here
so that, like the Council Fathers themselves, I can reserve Mary for an
unplanned separate and final entry.
The chapter on Religious, precisely because it is a special extension of the previous
chapter, is the briefest in the document. It explores religious life as a special application
of the evangelical counsels which, leading to charity, “join their followers to the Church
and its mystery in a special way” (44). Through the profession of the evangelical
counsels, the Christian intends “to free himself from those obstacles which might draw
him away from the fervor of charity and the perfection of divine worship”, becoming
“more intimately consecrated to divine service.” It is the duty of the hierarchy “to
regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law” to see that they foster “the
perfection of love of God and love of neighbor in an outstanding manner and that this
profession is strengthened by vows” (45). To locate religious life properly within the
Church, the Council notes:
From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the
religious life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. But,
rather, the faithful of Christ are called by God from both these states of life so that
they might enjoy this particular gift in the life of the Church and thus each in one’s
own way, may be of some advantage to the salvific mission of the Church. (43)
Chapter 7, “The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the
Church in Heaven”, is well summarized in its title. While Chapter 6 (Religious) is best
understood as a supplement to Chapter 5 (Holiness), it is still true that the perfection of
the consecrated life luminously expresses and looks forward to the eschatological nature
www.catholicculture.org
of the Church treated in Chapter 7. This chapter explains that the Church “will attain its
full perfection only in the glory of heaven” when “the human race as well as the entire
world, which is intimately related to man and attains to its end through him, will be
perfectly reestablished in Christ” (48). The governing principle and force of the
Church’s eschatological identity is the fact that “Christ, having been lifted up from the
earth, has drawn all to Himself.” Until the new heavens and new earth come about,
however, the “pilgrim Church in her sacraments and institutions, which pertain to this
present time, has the appearance of this world which is passing and she herself dwells
among creatures who groan and travail in pain until now and await the revelation of the
sons of God” (48).
Meanwhile we must be constantly vigilant in order to “merit to enter the marriage
feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed, and that we may not be ordered to
go into eternal fire”, for “before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made
manifest before the tribunal of Christ”(48). Even so, the faithful, whether living or dead,
“all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and
neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God. For all who are in Christ,
having His Spirit, form one Church and cleave together in Him” (49). The Council
teaches that “our union with the Church in heaven is put into effect in its noblest manner
especially in the sacred Liturgy” and that, as a result of the Church’s consciousness of
the communion of the whole Mystical Body, she has always cultivated both prayers for
the dead and the intercession of the saints (50).
Near the end of this chapter, there is a passage which, while applying specifically to
popular devotion to the saints, clearly shows the method of renewal adopted by the
Council Fathers throughout the rest of their pastoral program. For this reason it is worth
quoting at length:
This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our
ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly
glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees
of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.
And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all
concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what
is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller
praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic
cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather
in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of
www.catholicculture.org
the whole Church, we seek from the saints “example in their way of life, fellowship
in their communion, and aid by their intercession.” On the other hand, let them
teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is
understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way
weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to
God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (51)
I leave the profoundly inspiring last paragraph of this chapter for the reader to discover
on his own, but I will remark in closing that this second-last paragraph quoted above
once again raises the question of how so many persons, in many of the trends which
have plagued the Church for the past fifty years, could have taken such extreme
positions on the question of reform with so little attention to what the Council actually
said.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church: Mary
The final chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is devoted to “The Blessed
Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church”. This is the only
chapter divided into sub-sections. It had been originally planned that the Council would
issue a separate document on Mary, but by a small majority the Council Fathers decided
instead to add a chapter on Mary to the Council’s central and foundational document,
Lumen Gentium. This chapter deliberately unites the separate perspectives which led
some fathers to emphasize Mary’s relationship with Christ and others to emphasize her
relationship with the Church.
The section are entitled as follows:
Introduction1.
The Role of the Blessed Mother in the Economy of Salvation2.
On the Blessed Virgin and the Church3.
The Cult of the Blessed Virgin in the Church4.
Mary the Sign of Created Hope and Solace to the Wandering People of God5.
In the Introduction, the Council explains that Mary is endowed with the “high office and
dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God” yet at the same time, as one of the
offspring of Adam, she is also “one with all those who are to be saved.” Thus she is “the
mother of the members of Christ…having cooperated by charity that faithful might be
born in the Church” and “she is hailed as a preeminent and singular member of the
Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity.” Indeed, the Church
“honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother” (53). Here the
Council effectively identifies Mary as the mother of the Church, but that precise title was
not actually formally conferred until Pope Paul VI did so in his final allocution closing
the Council.
The second section, covering the role of Mary in the economy salvation, is a
beautiful and inspiring exposition of Mary’s unique role in the history of our salvation,
beginning with the earliest passages of the Old Testament concerning “the figure of the
woman” (55) and ending with Mary’s exaltation as “Queen of the universe, that she
might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin
www.catholicculture.org
and death” (59).
It is in the third section, on Mary’s relationship with the Church, that the Council
most fully presents the synthesis of Mary’s relationships to both Christ and the Church.
This process begins by emphasizing the unique mediation of Christ:
…the maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes [the]
unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific
influence of the Blessed Virgin originates, not from some inner necessity, but from
the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ,
rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no
way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful
with Christ. (60)
In outlining Mary’s role the Council repeatedly acknowledges Christ’s pre-eminence.
“By her obedience, faith and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back
supernatural life to souls” Mary his become “our mother in the order of grace” (61). Nor
did she lay aside this salvific duty after Christ’s work was completed and she herself was
assumed into heaven, “but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of
eternal salvation”, sustaining “this maternity in the order of grace”, which will last “until
the eternal fulfillment of all the elect.” Hence “the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the
Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.” But this honor
given to Mary must be “so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything
to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”:
For no creature could be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.
Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and
by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different
ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not
exclude but rather gives rise to manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this
one source. (62)
In this context, just as Mary is preeminently “united with her Son”, she is also “intimately
united with the Church.” She is “a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and
perfect union with Christ” (63). In addition, the Church in “contemplating her hidden
sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the
word of God in faith, becomes herself a mother” (64). But while in Mary “the Church has
already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle,” the followers of
www.catholicculture.org
Christ “still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin.” Therefore, “they turn their
eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of
virtues” (65).
In the fourth section, the Council turns to the cult of the Blessed Virgin and, in
contrast to so much of what was done in the Council’s name during the first generation
following its conclusion, the Council deliberately “admonishes all the sons of the
Church” that:
the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin be generously fostered,
and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the
Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those
decrees which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of
Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed. (67).
The Council also issues appropriate warnings: “Let the faithful remember moreover that
true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain
credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of
the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the
imitation of her virtues” (67).
The chapter on Mary concludes with a very brief final section on Mary as a sign of
hope and solace.There follows immediately the final paragraph of Lumen Gentium,
which leaves no doubt as to the document’s authority. It is Pope Paul VI’s statement of
promulgation:
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met
with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us
by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree
and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be
promulgated for the glory of God. (68)
www.catholicculture.org
On Eastern Catholics
The fourth document issued by the Second Vatican Council, on November 21, 1964, was
the Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite (Orientalium Ecclesiarum).
This is a very brief decree designed to set down the basic principles for the proper
understanding and operation of Eastern Rite Catholic Churches within the whole body of
the Church of Christ.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum must be read against the background of the prevailing
attitudes of the preceding period which had led to a somewhat restricted understanding,
and perhaps even somewhat restricted operations, of the Catholic Churches of the
Eastern Rites. The Council wished to reaffirm the importance and the equality of the
Eastern Catholic Churches, and so it begins by declaring:
The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the
faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same
sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various
groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. (2)
It follows that:
[T]hese individual Churches, whether of the East or the West,…are, each as much
as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the
divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church.
They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the
others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same
obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16,
15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff. (3)
The leaders (“hierarchs”) of the various Churches “with jurisdiction in one and the same
territory should, by taking common counsel in regular meetings, strive to promote unity
of action” (4), while at the same time each Catholic “must retain his own rite wherever
he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability” without prejudice to the
right of recourse to the Apostolic See.
Having established the value and importance of the Churches of the East, the Council
www.catholicculture.org
solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have
a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its
own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their
venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more
suited to the promotion of the good of souls. (5)
Thus “all members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and
should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life,
and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic
improvement.” The Council insists that all the faithful should be properly instructed in
“knowledge and veneration” of the “rites, discipline, doctrine, history and character of the
members of the Eastern rites”, and it even recommends that religious and associations of
the Latin Rite working among Eastern faithful should found houses or provinces of the
Eastern Rite “as far as this can be done” (6).
Next, the Council emphasizes that the patriarchate (the jurisdiction of one bishop
over all the bishops, clergy and people of his own territory or rite) “has existed in the
Church from the earliest times and was recognized by the first ecumenical councils” (7).
Addressing the possibility of dissension among the patriarchates, the Council affirms
that “all are equal in respect of patriarchal dignity, without however prejudice to the
legitimately established precedence of honor” (8), and the Council decrees that “their
rights and privileges should be re-established in accordance with the ancient tradition of
each of the Churches and the decrees of the ecumenical councils,” that is, the rights and
privileges “that obtained in the time of union between East and West” (9). This also
applies to major archbishops who rule some individual Churches or rites (10).
Along with the restoration of the dignity of the patriarchate, the Council “confirms
and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches”
and wishes them to be re-established as circumstances may warrant (12), including the
Eastern practice of the priest being the ordinary minister of Confirmation, using chrism
blessed by a patriarch or bishop (13). The Council upholds the validity of the sacrament
of confirmation performed by ministers of any rite for members of another rite (14), and
it also decrees that faculties for hearing confession generally apply to all of the faithful
within the entire territory of a Rite, and not just to members of the Rite in question (16).
Finally, the Council wishes that the permanent diaconate should be restored in the
Eastern Churches, wherever it has fallen into disuse, “in order that the ancient
established practice of the Sacrament of Orders in the Eastern Churches may flourish
again”, though it leaves the subdiaconate and minor orders to the legislative authority of
www.catholicculture.org
each individual Church (17).
The Council also discusses the authority required to alter the feast days common to
all Eastern Churches or of an individual Church, the importance of coming to an
agreement on the date of Easter within each particular region, the right of the faithful to
follow the established custom of a region with respect to the law of the sacred seasons,
the importance of the Divine Office for both priests and faithful in the Eastern Rites, and
the authority to regulate the use of languages in the liturgy (19-23).
The last section deals with relations with the separated Churches (i.e., Eastern
Churches not in communion with Rome), stressing the requirement to promote unity (24)
and to recognize the validity of the priesthood of those who may wish to come into
union with Rome (25). For these reasons, the Council wishes to adopt a “rather mild
policy” which permits the use of each others’ sacraments “where the needs of the
salvation of souls and their spiritual good are impelling motives” (26), including
common participation in sacred functions “for a just cause” (28). Thus separated Eastern
Catholics with the right disposition may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the
Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick; and Catholics may ask these sacraments of
separated Churches “as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such
a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible” (27). But the
Council warns:
Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity
of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in
the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law. (26)
Orientalium Ecclesiarum concludes by asking all Catholics, whether Eastern or Western,
“to pray to God fervently and assiduously, nay, indeed daily, that, with the aid of the
most holy Mother of God, all may become one” (30).
www.catholicculture.org
On Ecumenism: Principles
Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) was issued on November 21,
1964, the same day as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Decree on the
Catholic Eastern Churches, for the three documents are closely connected. Unitatis
Redintegratio is divided into three chapters covering the principles and practice of
ecumenism, and the Churches and ecclesial communities separated from Rome.
Although it is not a long document, I will devote this entry exclusively to Chapter I,
“Catholic Principles on Ecumenism”, and will cover the rest of the document more
briefly later.
The concept of ecumenism refers to Our Lord’s wish that all His followers should be
one, and ecumenism properly applies only to Christians. Even so, the Decree on
Ecumenism has been rendered controversial by the experience of many that subsequent
ecumenical practice has weakened the Catholic understanding of the importance of the
Church. To the contrary, however, the whole motive for ecumenism from the Council’s
point of view is the vital importance of bringing all Christians into unity in the one
Church of Christ, which it clearly identifies as the Catholic Church.
In keeping with the importance of the unity Christ desired, the first chapter on
principles begins with a clear statement of the work of Christ who, through the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, “has called and gathered together the people of the New
Covenant, who are the Church, into a unity of faith, hope, and charity” (2). Further:
In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of
time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and
sanctifying. Among their number he selected Peter, and after his confession of faith
determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and after His profession of love, entrusted all His
sheep to him to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in perfect unity. (2)
Unfortunately, divisions quickly occurred in the body of Christ, causing it to split into
rival communities, and the Council notes that “the children who are born into these
Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved
in the separation.” To the contrary, the Council here establishes the key theological
principle which governs the document: “All who believe in Christ and have been
baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is
www.catholicculture.org
baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is
imperfect” (3). This is the principle of one faith, one baptism: If you’re baptized, you’re
baptized Catholic.
Nonetheless, this communion intrinsic to baptism and faith in Christ is seriously
incomplete for those who are separated in any way from the Church:
The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic
Church—whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the
structure of the Church—do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones,
to full ecclesiastical communion. (3)
It is the point of the ecumenical movement to strive to overcome these obstacles.
Next, the Council enunciates again one of the principles of the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church, namely that “many of the significant elements and
endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist
outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church” (such as Scripture, grace, faith,
hope, charity, other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and some visible elements as well,
such as certain aspects of sacramental life and liturgy). “All of these, which come from
Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ” (3). For this
reason, the separated communities “most certainly can truly engender a life of grace” and
“must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (3).
Balanced against this salvific reality is the inescapably sad fact that “our separated
brethren…are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all
those who through Him were born again into one body.” It is only through “Christ’s
Catholic Church” that “they can benefit fully from the means of salvation”, for “Our Lord
entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which
Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should
be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (3).
Thus the Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful “to take an active and intelligent
part in the work of ecumenism”, that is, “the initiatives and activities planned and
undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to
promote Christian unity” (4).
These activities are enumerated as follows:
Avoidance by all of the failure to represent the condition of the separated
brethren with truth and fairness;
1.
www.catholicculture.org
Dialogue between competent experts from the different Churches and
communities;
2.
Cooperation among the Churches and communities in duties for “the common
good of humanity”;
3.
Where allowed, prayer in common;4.
Examination by each person of his own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the
Church, and the consequent need to “undertake with vigor the task of renewal
and reform”.
5.
The Council also notes the distinction between ecumenical action, which concerns the
differences among religious bodies, and the “preparation and reconciliation” of those
who “wish for full Catholic communion” (4)—that is, individual converts. Unitatis
Redintegratio firmly insists that “there is no opposition between the two, since both
proceed from the marvelous ways of God” (4).
To me the most interesting section in this first chapter is the Council’s explanation of
the primary ecumenical task of each Catholic:
Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their
separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church,
making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a
careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the
Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and
faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ
through the Apostles. (4)
The Council is painfully aware that even though the Church “has been endowed with all
divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace”, its members “fail to live by them
with all the fervor that they should” so that “the radiance of the Church’s image is less
clear” and “the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed” (4). Thus all Catholics should see to
their own renewal first, “preserve unity in essentials”, show charity in all things, and
exercise the diversity of gifts they have received to give “ever better expression to the
authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church”. They should likewise “gladly
acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage
which are to be found among our separated brethren” (4).
In closing, this chapter of Unitatis Redintegratio makes again the important point
www.catholicculture.org
which provides the motive for ecumenism in the first place: While the unity of the
Church “subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose”, it is also true
that “the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of
catholicity proper to her” (4). Thus the Council expresses the hope that the unity proper
to the Church “will continue to increase until the end of time” (4).
www.catholicculture.org
On Ecumenism: Practice
The remainder of the Decree on Ecumenism can be summarized more briefly. It consists
of a chapter on “The Practice of Ecumenism” and a chapter on “Churches and Ecclesial
Communities Separated from the Roman Apostolic See”.
The second chapter covers ecumenical practice. The Council stresses that “every
renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own
calling” and that “undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity” (6).
Among the areas which ought to contribute in a special way to the ecumenical enterprise
are Biblical and liturgical movements, preaching and catechetics, the apostolate of the
laity, new forms of religious life, the spirituality of married life, and the Church’s social
teaching and social activity. Yet again, amid all these potential activities, the Council
insists that “there can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart”
(6). The soul of the ecumenical movement is “this change of heart and holiness of life,
along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians” (8).
Throughout the discussion of ecumenical practice, the Council strives for a delicate
balance. For example, the Council notes that while prayer should be undertaken in
common, this does not mean indiscriminate worship in common (communicatio in
sacris). Worship in common is to be guided by the authority of the local bishop. It is
certainly to be desired as a sharing in the means of grace, but as a witness to the unity of
the Church, worship in common is generally forbidden where that unity does not exist
(8) . Rather, in order to work toward the necessary unity, we must study the situation and
attitudes of our separated brethren, and the theological problems which have led to this
separation (9).
Similarly, the Council insists that the theological and historical forms of training of
future bishops and priests be carefully worked out “with due regard for the ecumenical
point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts” rather than
“polemically” (10). But at the same time, “nothing is so foreign to the spirit of
ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and
its genuine and certain meaning is clouded” (11).
The Council also envisions that whereever ecumenical cooperation proceeds
properly, there should be positive social results which can lead to greater theological
unity. Thus ecumenical effort ought to contribute to:
www.catholicculture.org
a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the
blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the
advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of
varioius remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural
disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of
wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a
better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian
unity. (12)
The third chapter highlights the nature of the separation between the Catholic
Church and the Eastern Churches on the one hand and the Western ecclesial
communities on the other. In the East, the chief reason for separation is the failure to
properly understand and accept the Petrine authority. Nonetheless, the Eastern Churches
possess special gifts which should be prized by Catholics: A great love for the sacred
liturgy, devotion to Mary, attachment to Tradition, the apostolic succession, true
sacraments, and monastic life. Even certain forms of theological expression in the East
may “come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation”. The
Churches of the East are churches in their own right, with great spiritual riches, and
reunion with the Apostolic See should not detract from their own governance and
traditions. Therefore, the Council “solemnly repeats the declaration of previous Councils
and Roman Pontiffs, that for the restoration or the maintenance of unity and communion
it is necessary ‘to impose no burden beyond what is essential’” on the Churches of the
East (14 – 16).
In the West, however, the condition of the separated brethren is far more
complicated: “There exist important differences from the Catholic Church, not only of an
historical, sociological, psychological and cultural character, but especially in the
interpretation of revealed truth” (19). Even the positive gifts of these communities are
occasions for division. For example, the Council acknowledges “a love and reverence of
Sacred Scripture” in the separated Western ecclesial communities, but notes that they
differ “regarding the relationship between Scripture and the Church” (20). The Council
also notes that most of these communities preserve an authentic sacrament of Baptism,
explaining that “whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord
instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated
into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life” (22).
And yet:
www.catholicculture.org
Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of
life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith,
complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and
finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion. (22)
In the midst of these difficulties, these separated brethren are nourished by their faith in
Christ and strengthened by both baptismal grace and the Word of God, as witness their
private prayer, Christian family life and community worship, as well as their
thanksgiving for blessings and their sense of justice and charity. For this reason, the
Council suggests, “ecumenical dialogue might start with discussion of the application of
the Gospel to moral conduct” (23).
Unitatis Redintegratio concludes by recognizing that we must place our hope in
Christ’s prayer that we may all be one, and not in mere human effort, which can so often
be misplaced. Thus the Council issues a stern commandment in the final section, a
commandment which has too often been observed only in the breach, providing yet
another reason for returning at last to what Vatican II actually taught:
This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent
zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be
fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have
received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith
which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed
toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of
time. (24)
www.catholicculture.org
On Bishops: The Bishops Themselves
The sixth document issued by Vatican II—the first coming out of its 1965 sessions—was
the Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus Dominus),
promulgated on October 28th. I’ll cover this in two parts. Since the most
highly-developed section of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church dealt with the
episcopate, Christus Dominus is based on the same dogmatic principles, enabling us to
move directly into its primarily pastoral purpose.
After a brief first chapter on the place of bishops in the universal church, the second
and central chapter, “Bishops and their Particular Churches or Dioceses”, is primarily
devoted to explaining how this ordinary power is to be exercised. The first sub-section of
this chapter focuses on the bishops themselves. One of the most important concepts
developed at Vatican II was the ordinary power of bishops who, while operating under
the authority of the pope, are nonetheless vicars of Christ in their own dioceses:
“Individual bishops who have been entrusted with the care of a particular church—under
the authority of the supreme pontiff—feed their sheep in the name of the Lord as their
own, ordinary, and immediate pastors, performing for them the office of teaching,
sanctifying, and governing” (11).
With respect to their teaching office, bishops should first announce the Gospel,
expound the whole mystery of Christ, and explain how to give glory to God and attain
eternal happiness. They are also to show “that earthly goods and human institutions…are
also disposed for man’s salvation.” To this end, they are to teach “according to the
doctrine of the Church” the value of the human person (his freedom and bodily life), the
family (its unity and stability), the procreation and education of children, civil society
(laws, professions, labor and leisure, the arts, technical innovations, poverty and
affluence), and they should “set forth the ways by which are to be answered” the most
serious questions concerning “the ownership, increase, and just distribution of material
goods, peace and war, and brotherly relations among all countries” (12).
As a practical matter, the bishops should teach in a manner “adapted to the needs of
the times, that is to say, in a manner that will respond to the difficulties and questions by
which people are especially burdened and troubled.” They must guard Catholic doctrine,
“teaching the faithful to defend and propagate it”. They should show solicitude for all
people, whether believers or not, and a special concern for the poor. They should lead the
way in “dialogue” (“conversations on salvation”) with non-believers. They should make
www.catholicculture.org
use of all forms of media. And they must provide for sound catechetics through schools,
institutes and CCD programs, and for the proper training of catechists. (13)
With respect to their office of sanctifying, the bishops must be supremely confident
that, since they possess the fullness of Orders, they are the “principal dispensers of the
mysteries of God, as well as being the governors, promoters, and guardians of the entire
liturgical life in the church committed to them” (15). They must be “diligent in fostering
holiness among their clerics, religious, and laity” and mindful of their obligation to give
“an example of holiness in charity, humility, and simplicity of life” (15).
In exercising his office of “father and pastor” (which is the rubric under which the
Council addresses the concept of “governing” in this document), bishops should
especially “be solicitous for the spiritual, intellectual and material welfare of the priests
so that the latter can live holy and pious lives and fulfill their ministry faithfully and
fruitfully” (16). They should encourage institutes and meetings for priestly renewal and
deeper study. In addition, bishops should encourage various forms of the apostolate,
urging the laity to “assume their duty of carrying on the apostolate”, promoting and
supporting associations which “either directly or indirectly pursue a supernatural
objective”, that is, associations devoted to the Gospel, Christian doctrine, public worship,
social goods, works of piety and charity—all properly coordinated under episcopal
authority so they may be brought into harmonious action. (17)
The Council recommends that all these apostolic activities “should be properly
adapted to the needs of the present day with regard not only for man’s spiritual and moral
circumstances but also for his social, demographic, and economic conditions”, and so the
Fathers recommend “religious and social research, through offices of pastoral sociology”
(17). In addition, both individual bishops and episcopal conferences are urged to show
“special concern” for those who “on account of their way of life cannot sufficiently make
use of the common and ordinary pastoral care of parish priests”, such as migrants, exiles,
refugees, seafarers, air-travelers, gypsies, and so on. (18)
This first sub-section of this central chapter closes by insisting that bishops are to be
completely independent of and unhindered by civil authority in the discharge of their
duties, including their communication with the Holy See, each other, and the faithful
(19). Accordingly, the Council states that rights or privileges of election, nomination,
presentation or designation for the office of bishop should no longer be granted to civil
authorities, and that civil authorities which have in the past negotiated such rights should
give them up freely after discussion with the Apostolic See. (20)
www.catholicculture.org
On Bishops: Episcopal Collaborators
After a very brief sub-section in which the Council comments on the need to revise the
boundaries of dioceses to take into account current population patterns and pastoral
needs, The Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church proceeds to
the third section of its central chapter, “Assistants in the Pastoral Office of the Diocesan
Bishops”. Under the heading of “Coadjutor and Auxiliary Bishops”, the Council
indicates that bishops should not hesitate to request auxiliaries to better fulfill the needs
of their dioceses, and that both coadjutors and auxiliary bishops should be given the
faculties they need to perform their roles and manifest their episcopal dignity, while
making a point of operating together with the ordinary in single-minded agreement.
Under the heading of “The Diocesan Curia and Commissions”, stress is placed on the
importance of the diocesan curia and, in particular, the office of vicar general, to the
administration of a diocese. In addition, the Fathers recommend the establishment of a
pastoral council in each diocese, consisting of priests, religious and laity, to foster more
fruitful examination of pastoral conditions and more effective solutions to pastoral
problems (27).
Under the heading of “The Diocesan Clergy”, the Council emphasizes the importance
of pastors as direct collaborators with the local bishop in his office of teaching,
sanctifying and governing. Community life for priests is recommended wherever
possible. Pastors are to be imbued with a missionary zeal to reach out to all within the
parish boundaries. Preaching and catechetical instruction are to be used to “bring the
faithful to a full knowledge of the mystery of salvation” (30). Pastors should make the
“Eucharistic Sacrifice” central to the community, labor to ensure frequent reception of
the sacraments by the faithful, and stress especially the sacrament of Penance (30). To
facilitate effective governance by the bishop, all local rights of presentation, nomination,
and reservation of pastors are to be suppressed, and the distinction between removable
and irremovable pastors is to be abrogated. (31)
Under the heading of “Religious”, the Council makes the point that, with respect to
the care of souls within a diocese, all religious must collaborate with the local bishop,
and are “obliged to discharge their duties as active and obedient helpers of the bishops”,
whom they should revere as successors of the Apostles. Indeed, all religious “are subject
to the authority of the local Ordinaries” in public worship, the care of souls, preaching to
the faithful, religious and moral education of the faithful, catechectical instruction,
www.catholicculture.org
liturgical formation, and clerical decorum—and insofar as they run schools, they are
subject to the Ordinaries for overall school policy. (35)
The third and final chapter is entitled “Concerning Bishops Cooperating for the
Common Good of Many Churches”. This is very brief, but it is here that the Council
recommends both the more frequent use of synods of bishops (36) and the establishment
of episcopal conferences, where they do not yet exist, for each nation or region (37). In
the specific guidelines for such conferences, permanent bureaucracies are not mentioned.
An episcopal conference is “a council in which the bishops of a given nation or territory
jointly exercise their pastoral office”. It consists of all local Ordinaries. Its decisions are
to be reached by a two-thirds majority vote and “are to have juridically binding force
only in those cases prescribed by the common law or determined by a special mandate of
the Apostolic See” (37).
Christus Dominus closes by mandating that its provisions be taken into account in the
revision of the Code of Canon Law, and that directories should be drawn up for the care
of souls generally, for individual groups in special circumstances, and for general
catechetical instruction to assist bishops and pastors in the discharge of their duties. (44)
In conclusion, it may be worth pointing out that a number of provisions of this
document have become key battlegrounds in Church governance. Thus the emphasis on
pastoral councils, clearly designed to increase the bishop’s ability to make sound
judgments regarding the needs of his diocese, has led at times to reimagining the Church
as a democratic institution, while undermining the willingness of some bishops to
provide firm leadership. Institutes and programs for priestly renewal and study have
often been used to inculcate Modernism, which is still shamefully dominant in Catholic
university and religious life. The use of sociological studies has been exploited by many
commentators to argue that the Church should change her teachings to match the
shortcomings common to particular cultures, rather than to show where more work must
be done to transform the lives of the faithful according to eternal principles. “Dialogue”
has often served as an excuse for a lack of clarity, rather than becoming a true
“conversation on salvation”, which is how the Council defined it. To rediscover the
intentions of the Council, these errors in pastoral conception and administration must be
corrected.
www.catholicculture.org
On Religious Life
The seventh document issued by the Second Vatican Council, on October 28, 1965, was
the Decree on Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life (Perfectae Caritatis). It is one
of the shorter documents, chiefly because it deals only with the broadest guidelines. This
has led many to consider the document too vague. Before focusing on the document’s
strengths, therefore, a word is in order about what specific problems in religious life the
Council Fathers might have hoped to address.
In general, we receive only very broad hints. Thus:
The manner of living, praying and working should be suitably adapted everywhere,
but especially in mission territories, to the modern physical and psychological
circumstances of the members and also, as required by the nature of each institute,
to the necessities of the apostolate, the demands of culture, and social and
economic circumstances. According to the same criteria let the manner of
governing the institutes also be examined. (3)
Similarly, religious communities “should continue to maintain and fulfill the ministries
proper to them” but “should adapt them to the requirements of time and place, employing
appropriate and even new programs and abandoning those works which today are less
relevant to the spirit and authentic nature of the community” (20). These two
passages reflect the lack of specificity in the text when it comes to enumerating attitudes
and practices which require adaptation and renewal.
Nonetheless, a few particular issues are addressed. For example, “care should be
taken that there be only one class of Sisters in communities of women. Only that
distinction of persons should be retained which corresponds to the diversity of works for
which the Sisters are destined” (15). Also, “monasteries of men and communities which
are not exclusively lay can…admit clerics and lay persons on an equal footing and with
equal rights and obligations, excepting those which flow from sacred orders” (15). These
prescriptions clearly hint at unwarranted concern about rank and precedence in some
communities.
Other specific concerns include:
Papal Cloister: “Papal cloister should be maintained in the case of nuns engaged
exclusively in the contemplative life.” But “obsolete practices” must
www.catholicculture.org
exclusively in the contemplative life.” But “obsolete practices” must
be “suppressed” (16).
Religious Habit: The habit should be simple, modest, poor yet becoming; it
must meet the requirements of health and “be suited to circumstances of time and
place and to the needs of the ministry.” Inadequate habits “must be changed”
(17).
Union of Institutes: Independent institutes should “form federations”,
particularly if they have highly similar spirits, constitutions and apostolates, and
especially when they have “too few members” . The purpose is clearly to reduce
debilitating fragmentation. (22)
Councils of Major Superiors: “This synod favors conferences or councils of
major superiors, established by the Holy See” as well as similar conferences for
secular institutes, to help each institute achieve its purpose, encourage
cooperation for the welfare of the Church, ensure a just distribution of ministers,
and handle common concerns. (23)
If Perfectae Caritatis offers relatively little in terms of concrete proposals, it nonetheless
excels at its primary purpose, which is to articulate the wellsprings of authentic renewal
for religious. This is clear right from the opening sentence, which roots all religious life
in “the pursuit of perfect charity through the evangelical counsels” (1). The whole point
of the document is to set down the prescriptions required “in order that the great value of
a life consecrated by the profession of the counsels and its necessary mission today may
yield greater good to the Church” (1). We note in this purpose an essentially ecclesial
focus which permeates the entire document.
Authentic renewal “includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian
life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to the changed
conditions of our time” (2). This renewal must proceed “under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit and the guidance of the Church” (2). In this context, the authentic principles of
renewal are summarized in section 2:
The “ultimate norm of the religious life is the following of Christ set forth in the
Gospels.”
The spirit and aims of the founders, as well as the institute’s “sound traditions”,
must be “faithfully held in honor.”
www.catholicculture.org
All institutes must “share in the life of the Church, adopting as their own and
implementing in accordance with their own characteristics the Church’s
undertakings and aims in matters biblical, liturgical, dogmatic, pastoral,
ecumenical, missionary and social.”
Institutes should promote among their members “an adequate knowledge of the
social conditions of the times…and of the needs of the Church.”
The purpose of religious life is to help the members “follow Christ and be united
to God” through the profession of the evangelical counsels. This point is
emphasized: “Even the best adjustments made in accordance with the needs of
our age will be ineffectual unless they are animated by a renewal of spirit. This
must take precedence over even the active ministry.”
In order to achieve true renewal, therefore, Perfectae Caritatis insists that religious must
“strive to foster in all circumstances a life hidden with Christ in God;” they must
“resolutely cultivate both the spirit and practice of prayer;” and they must “love Christ’s
members as brothers, honor and love their pastors as sons…and, living and thinking ever
more in union with the Church, dedicate themselves wholly to its mission”(6). The
document goes on to explain the special importance of each kind of religious life:
communities devoted to contemplation (7) and to apostolic and charitable activity (8),
monastic communities (9), and secular institutes (11).
Perfectae Caritatis also provides an extended reflection on the evangelical counsels.
Chastity requires the “practice of mortification and custody of the senses” so that
religious “will not be influenced by those false doctrines which scorn perfect continence
as being impossible or harmful to human development.” Chastity also demands that
candidates possess “the required psychological and emotional maturity” (12). Poverty
includes not only personal poverty but the need for communities to “avoid every
appearance of luxury, excessive wealth and the accumulation of goods” (13). Obedience
is the means by which “religious offer the full surrender of their own will as a sacrifice
of themselves to God and so are united permanently and securely to God’s salvific will”
(14).
The great value of this document, intentionally lacking in particulars, consists in its
spiritual depth. In our historical situation, its principles move one to tears over what has
been squandered in their abandonment. It is true that institutes both new and old have
born rich fruit wherever these principles have been observed. But it has been
predominately otherwise, and how deep and widespread the destruction has been!
www.catholicculture.org
On Priestly Training
The eighth document issued by the Second Vatican Council, on October 28, 1965, was
the Decree on Priestly Training (Optatam Totius). This simply sets forth basic principles
to guide the establishment of more specific programs for priestly formation in the
different countries and rites throughout the world (1). The reason for the document, as
stated in the opening sentence, is that “the desired renewal of the whole Church depends
to a great extent on the ministry of its priests.”
After indicating in the second section the need for everyone in the Church to show
forth “the need, the nature and the importance of the priestly vocation”, the Fathers begin
their exposition of priestly training. Minor seminaries, however, are treated as incidental.
Where they exist, their programs are to be age-appropriate; open to family, social and
cultural contacts; and focused on studies which can be easily continued should the
students choose a different state of life (3). In contrast, “major seminaries are necessary
for priestly formation” (4) and are the subject of the third section.
At the major seminary, students are to be prepared for the ministry of the word, the
ministry of worship and sanctification, and the ministry of the parish. Seminary
administrators and teachers must be carefully prepared in “sound doctrine, suitable
pastoral experience and special spiritual and pedagogical training” (5). These men are “to
form a very closely knit community both in spirit and in activity”, forming a kind of
family with the students. In discernment, they must consider each student’s progress,
intention, and freedom; his spiritual, moral and intellectual qualifications; and his
physical and psychic health (6).
The fourth section covers spiritual formation, which must be imparted such that
students “might learn to live in an intimate and unceasing union with the Father through
His Son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit” (8)—and with love and filial trust in Mary.
Traditional practices of piety are to be encouraged, but the essence of spiritual formation
is neither pious practices nor affectation but learning to live “according to the Gospel
ideal” imbued with faith, hope and charity.
The students are to be “made clearly aware of the burdens they will be undertaking”,
and they are to “deeply realize how gratefully” they should receive “the venerable
tradition of celibacy”, as “a precious gift of God for which they should humbly pray”
(10). They are to be “warned of the dangers that threaten their chastity especially in
present-day society”, and they must integrate their renunciation of marriage in a way
www.catholicculture.org
that, far from experiencing harm, they will “rather acquire a deeper mastery of soul and
body and a fuller maturity, and more perfectly receive the blessedness spoken of in the
Gospel” (10).
The norms of Christian education are to be “religiously observed” but also “properly
complemented by the newer findings of sound psychology and pedagogy” (11). Thus, an
effective formation will become evident “in stability of mind, in an ability to make
weighty decisions, and in a sound evaluation of men and events”, with resulting virtues
such as “sincerity of mind, a constant concern for justice, fidelity to one’s promises,
refinement in manners, modesty in speech coupled with charity.” (11) It is left to the
bishops to provide for suitable interruptions in seminary training for a more intense
introduction to the spiritual life or an introduction to pastoral work, so that the fitness of
candidates can be more effectively discerned. (12)
In the fifth section on the revision of ecclesiastical studies, the Council indicates that
students should have the humanistic and scientific education common to their culture
before they begin, plus good knowledge of Latin, the language of their rite, and the
languages of Scripture and Tradition. (13) But the first priority in revising ecclesiastical
studies themselves should be “that the philosophical and theological disciplines be more
suitably aligned and that they harmoniously work toward opening more and more the
minds of the students to the mystery of Christ” (13).
Students should attain a knowledge of man, the world and God, “relying on a
philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid”, but also taking into account later
philosophical investigations, so that they can correctly understand the “characteristics of
the contemporary mind” and will be “prepared for dialogue with men of their time” (15).
Theological studies should be “so taught that the students will correctly draw out
Catholic doctrine from divine revelation, profoundly penetrate it, make it the food of
their own spiritual lives, and be enabled to proclaim, explain and protect it in their
priestly ministry” (16). These studies should include Scripture, exegesis, and the themes
of divine revelation, leading to a study of the Fathers and of dogmatic theology as
properly rooted in these themes.
A deeper theological penetration is to be fostered “with the help of speculation, under
the guidance of St. Thomas” (16). Moreover, students must be taught to recognize the
same themes and mysteries in the liturgy and, indeed, in the entire life of the Church, and
should “learn to seek the solutions to human problems under the light of revelation” (16).
Given the upheaval in the Church since this Decree was written, one point presents itself
now with particular force:
www.catholicculture.org
Special care must be given to the perfecting of moral theology. Its scientific
exposition, nourished more on the teaching of the Bible, should shed light on the
loftiness of the calling of the faithful in Christ and the obligation that is theirs of
bearing fruit in charity for the life of the world. (16)
The sixth section, on pastoral training, emphasizes preparation for catechesis, preaching,
liturgical worship, and administration of the sacraments; works of charity and assistance
to “the erring and the unbelieving” (19); fostering and inspiring the apostolic activity of
the laity; and promoting the various forms of the apostolate (20). Students are to be
initiated into pastoral work not only during their studies but also during their vacations.
The final section charges episcopal conferences with the responsibility to establish
various programs of training to be pursued after ordination, through which young priests
can be “gradually introduced into the priestly life and apostolic activity” (21). The
Council concludes by noting that “the Fathers of this holy synod have pursued the work
begun by the Council of Trent”, which first established seminaries as a key to proper
priestly formation.
www.catholicculture.org
On Christian Education
The Second Vatican Council’s ninth document was the Declaration on Christian
Education (Gravissimum Educationis), issued on October 25, 1965. It is one of the
shorter documents of the Council, but even though it attempts to comment briefly on
each aspect of education of interest to the Church, a few central principles stand out.
The first principle, established in section 1, is that all men have “an inalienable right
to an education that is in keeping with their ultimate goal, their ability, their sex, and the
culture and tradition of their country, and also in harmony with their fraternal association
with other peoples in the fostering of true unity and peace on earth.” The purposes of this
education includes the following:
Harmonious development of the students’ physical, moral and intellectual
endowments, leading to mature responsibility, including a “positive and prudent”
sexual education;
Instruction in the knowledge and skills necessary to discourse with others and
promote the common good;
Motivation to appraise moral values with a right conscience and to embrace them
with personal adherence, together with a deeper knowledge and love of God.
In the second section, the Council states the additional right, for all Christians, to a truly
Christian education, which encompasses the following purposes:
That the baptized become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have
received, learn how to worship God in spirit and truth, and be conformed “to the
new man created in justice and holiness of truth”;
That they develop ever more perfectly into “the mature measure of the fullness
of Christ” and strive for the growth of the Mystical Body;
That they learn to bear witness to the hope that is in them and to assist in the
Christian formation of the world, contributing to the good of society through
natural powers redeemed by Christ.
From these outlines, it is clear that the right to an education arises from the duty, which
www.catholicculture.org
is part of human dignity, to strive for responsible maturity, the common good, and the
love of God; and that the right to the particular purposes of Christian education derives
from the responsibilities of each Christian person with respect to both God and man.
This linking of rights to duties is even more obvious in the third section, “The
Authors of Education”. Thus “since parents have given children their life, they are bound
by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be
recognized as the primary and principal educators” (emphasis added). The Council
points out that the parental role is so important that “only with difficulty can it be
supplied where it is lacking,” as the family is the “first school of the social virtues that
every society needs” and the Christian family is not only the first experience of
wholesome human society but also of the Church.
Civil society, for its part, has certain rights deriving from its duty “to direct what is
required for the common temporal good”. Thus there is a civil responsibility to “protect
the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid”
and, “according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other
societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of
parents” and, moreover, “as the common good demands, to build schools and
institutions.”
Finally, the Church “has the responsibility of announcing the way of salvation to all
men, of communicating the life of Christ to those who believe, and in her unfailing
solicitude, of assisting men to be able to come to the fullness of this life.” Hence the
Church’s right to educate must be recognized.
The Council goes on in Section 5 to describe the importance of schools, but it sets
out a further key principle in Section 6 on the duties and rights of parents, namely:
Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their
children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools. Consequently, the public
power, which has the obligation to protect and defend the rights of citizens, must
see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in
such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the
schools they want for their children…. It must always keep in mind the principle of
subsidiarity so that there is no kind of school monopoly, for this is opposed to the
native rights of the human person….
The introductory paragraphs of Gravissimum Educationis had already acknowledged the
particular and growing concern for education which is characteristic of modern culture.
www.catholicculture.org
In the statement quoted here, the Council boldly proclaims that any system of public
education which tends to create a State monopoly is a grave violation of human freedom.
Having already seen this sort of education at full strength in the Communist world, the
Council Fathers apparently anticipated what is now a nearly universal problem with
public education throughout the West as well.
It would render this summary incomplete to pass over the Council’s reminder to
parents “of the duty that is theirs to arrange and even demand that their children be able
to…advance in their Christian formation to a degree that is abreast of their development
in secular subjects” (7) and the admonition, in consequence, that they have “the duty of
entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever possible and of
supporting these schools to the best of their ability” (8). Forty-five years after the
promulgation of the Declaration on Christian Education it remains astonishing how
few Catholic parents take their faith seriously enough to both demand and make
provision for such formation for their children.
The remainder of the document touches on the need for the Church to make moral
and religious education available in all schools, and on the critical importance of
Catholic schools at every level and for every type of study, from general education of the
young to faculties of Sacred Sciences. Perhaps the most important point made in this
survey of the whole field of education is that the Church and her schools depend upon
teachers “almost entirely” for the accomplishment of their goals. Thus teachers must “by
their life as much as by their instruction bear witness to Christ, the unique Teacher”, and
“the work of these teachers, this sacred synod declares, is in the real sense of the word an
apostolate most suited to and necessary for our times and at once a true service offered to
society” (8).
www.catholicculture.org
On Non-Christian Religions
By far the shortest document issued by the Second Vatican Council was the Declaration
on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate). The text runs
to only about 1,600 words in English, or less than twice the length of this summary.
Clearly, then, the Council Fathers did not have in mind a theological treatise, but simply
an exhortation on what all men have in common in seeking to answer the questions of
life through religion, and how Christians ought to act toward their brothers and sisters
who do not share the fullness of Christ. Nostra Aetate was the tenth document issued by
the Council, on October 25, 1965. It consists of just five numbered paragraph groups.
First, the Council affirms that “all men form but one community”. This is so because
they “all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth” and they
“all share a common destiny, namely God”, whose “providence, evident goodness, and
saving designs extend to all men”. The Fathers then set the stage for the rest of the
document by noting that men look to different religions for an answer to the “riddles of
human existence”—the nature of man, the purpose of life, moral concerns, the problem
of suffering, the meaning of death, and questions of judgment, reward and punishment.
Second, the Fathers note that one finds in every people “a certain awareness of a
hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life”, and
sometimes one even finds recognition of “a supreme being or still more of a Father.”
This awareness and recognition “results in a way of life imbued with a deep religious
sense.” Two examples of this basic sort of religiosity are given: Hinduism, with its
exploration of divine mystery in both myth and philosophy; and Buddhism, which
“testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.” Both religions propose
means of escape from the trials of life into some sort of superior illumination. The
Council then makes the point that the Church “rejects nothing of what is true and holy”
in these religions; she has a high regard for anything which may “reflect a ray of that
truth which enlightens all men.” Yet the Church remains duty-bound to “proclaim
without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life.” As God has reconciled all
things to himself in Christ, it is only in Him that “men find the fullness of their religious
life.”
Though the text does not say so, it contains a clear progression (also used in some
other documents) from religions which have not benefitted from revelation to those that
have, among which Islam has benefited by borrowing elements of Judaism and
www.catholicculture.org
Christianity. Thus, in the third place, the Council states the Church’s high regard for
Muslims, because they worship “God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and
almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth” and they strive to do His will. Muslims also
have some recognition of Jesus and His mother. Moreover, because they await the day of
judgment following the resurrection of the dead, they value an upright life in worship,
alms-giving and fasting. Therefore, the Fathers ask all to forget past quarrels and to make
a sincere effort at mutual understanding: “For the benefit of all men, let them together
preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”
Fourth, the Council acknowledges the special ties which link “the people of the New
Covenant to the stock of Abraham”, and so explores briefly the relationship of the
Church to Judaism. The Church understands that “the beginning of her faith and election
is to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets” and that the salvation of the
Church is mystically prefigured in the exodus. She realizes she received the revelation of
the Old testament through the Jews, and that the “she draws nourishment from that good
olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted” (cf.
Rom. 11:17-24), because Christ has reconciled Jews and Gentiles through His cross. She
also knows that the apostles and Mary were Jews, as were many pillars of the early
Church.
Although the Church holds “as holy Scripture testifies” that “Jerusalem did not
recognize God’s moment when it came” (cf. Lk 19:42), she recognizes with St. Paul that
the “Jews remain very dear to God” and that God “does not take back the gifts He
bestowed or the choice he made.” Therefore, “the Church awaits the day, known to God
alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice.” Since all this is so, the
“Council wishes to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation”. In
particular the Fathers note that “neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews
today, can be charged with the crimes committed during the passion.” Moreover,
although “it is true that the Church is the new people of God”, yet “the Jews should not
be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.” Thus the
Church opposes every form of persecution, and deplores all anti-Semitism. To the
contrary, “it is the duty of the Church…to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of
God’s universal love and the source of all grace.”
Fifth—and bringing the discussion full circle—the Council declares that it is
impossible to “truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than
brotherly fashion, for all men are created in God’s image”. Citing 1 John 4:8, the Fathers
affirm that “he who does not love does not know God”. The text closes with this
statement:
www.catholicculture.org
Therefore, the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination
against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition
in life or religion. Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy apostles Peter
and Paul, the sacred Council earnestly begs the Christian faithful to “conduct
themselves well among the Gentiles” (1 Pet 2:12) and if possible, as far as depends
on them, to be at peace with all men (cf. Rom 12:18) and in that way to be true sons
of the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt. 5:45).
www.catholicculture.org
On Divine Revelation
What is the purpose and nature of Divine Revelation? That is the question which the
Second Vatican Council set out to answer in its eleventh document on November 18,
1965, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum). As the Council’s
second dogmatic constitution, Dei Verbum emphasizes perennial doctrine and deals very
little with pastoral analysis and advice. Nonetheless, the text manifests once again the
Council’s desire to set forth a comprehensive view of its chosen subjects, in the hope of
stimulating genuine renewal, rather than to address only disputed questions.
Though fairly short, the Constitution is divided into six chapters, and it is interesting
that while Tradition is clearly explained and upheld as one of the twin sources of
Revelation, there is no separate section on it. The first two chapters are especially
important in that they explain the overall nature of Revelation and its mode of
transmission. The final four, all on Scripture, follow easily from this.
In the first chapter (“Revelation Itself”), the Council teaches that God “chose to
reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will by which
through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the
Father and come to share in the divine nature” (2). God realized His plan “by deeds and
words having an inner unity” and also a clear historical pattern. First He revealed
Himself through created realities (3); second He undertook the formation of a special
people to acknowledge Him as “the one living and true God, provident father and just
judge” and to wait for “the Savior promised by Him”; third, He sent His Son:
To see Jesus is to see His Father. For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by
fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting
Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially
through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the
Spirit of truth. (4)
In consequence, “we now await no further new public revelation” and “the obedience of
faith is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole
self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals”
(5).
In the second chapter (“Handing on Divine Revelation”), the Council teaches that
God has chosen to convey His revelation through Scripture and Tradition under the
www.catholicculture.org
God has chosen to convey His revelation through Scripture and Tradition under the
authentic interpretive authority of the Magisterium of the Church. The Gospel had been
promised before Christ and, when Christ came, He brought it to fulfillment and entrusted
it to the Apostles who “handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from
living with Him, and from what He did or what they had learned through the prompting
of the Holy Spirit”. Then:
[T]o keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left
bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their
own place.” This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old
and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at
God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see
Him as He is, face to face. (7)
Furthermore, “this tradition…develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.
For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been
handed down” (8). The Fathers “witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose
wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church” (8), and
“through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and
the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made
active in her” (8). Finally:
[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed
on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,
whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not
above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on,
listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully…. (10)
Thus it is clear that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the
Church “are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others” (10).
The third chapter (“Sacred Scripture, its Inspiration and Divine Interpretation”)
explains that the books of the Old and New Testaments are sacred and canonical
because, “written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author
and have been handed on as such to the Church herself” (11). The Council then provides
a succinct summary of Scriptural inspiration:
In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they
www.catholicculture.org
made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through
them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things
which He wanted. (11)
But the Council fathers also stress that, because “God speaks in Sacred Scripture through
men in human fashion”, care in interpretation is needed in order “to see clearly what God
wanted to communicate”, and they mention especially the need for attention to literary
forms and to “the content and unity of the whole of Scripture” if the meaning of the
sacred texts it to be correctly worked out (12).
In the fourth chapter (“The Old Testament”), the Council outlines the purpose of the
books of the Old Testament which, “in accordance with the state of mankind before the
time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of
man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men” (15). But the Old
Testament is also completed in the New. Its books, “caught up into the proclamation of
the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning” (16).
The fifth chapter (“The New Testament”) explains that the four Gospels “faithfully
hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their
eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven” (19), while in the remaining
New Testament books “His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving
power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the
Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold” (20).
In the sixth and last chapter (“Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church”), the
Council emphasizes that the preaching of the Church must be nourished by Sacred
Scripture (21), easy access to Scripture should be provided for all the faithful (22), the
Eastern and Western Fathers as well as the early liturgies should be studied along with
Scripture (23), and “sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with
sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation” (24).
Finally, the Council insists on the need for frequent reading of Scripture on the part
of clergy, religious and “all the Christian faithful”, offering this exhortation:
Let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture,
so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we
hear Him when we read the divine saying” [St. Ambrose] (25).
www.catholicculture.org
On the Lay Apostolate: Mission
What role do the laity play in the Church’s apostolic activity? Are they simply to follow
the detailed instructions of those set over them in the Church hierarchy? Do they have an
apostolic mission in their own right? These are the questions answered by the Second
Vatican Council’s twelfth document, the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity
(Apostolicam Actuositatem). While the document seems almost ordinary to those who
have since become thoroughly accustomed to the lay apostolate, it appeared almost
revolutionary in the more clericalist Catholic atmosphere of the mid-20th century.
Issued on November 18, 1965, Apostolicam Actuositatem begins immediately with
the assertion that “the apostolate of the laity derives from their Christian vocation and the
Church can never be without it.” Moreover, “modern conditions demand that their
apostolate be broadened and intensified” because of increasing population, progress in
science and technology, and the “serious danger to Christian life” occasioned by an
increasing autonomy in many areas of life which has unfortunately involved “a degree of
departure from ethical and religious order” (1).
For summary purposes, I will divide the document into two parts. In the first of two
installments, I’ll cover the mission of the laity outlined in the first three chapters; and in
the second and final installment, I’ll discuss the implementation of that mission as
covered in the remaining chapters.
Chapter I, “The Vocation of the Laity to the Apostolate”, first defines “apostolate” as
all activity of the Mystical Body directed to the goal for which the Church was founded,
namely “the spreading of the kingdom of Christ throughout the earth for the glory of
God the Father, to enable all men to share in His saving redemption, and that through
them the whole world might enter into a relationship with Christ.” Thus the “Christian
vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate”, so much so that “the
member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church
must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to himself” (2).
The Council teaches that for the laity, this mission or apostolate grows from their
share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ, and it must be “directed to the
evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the
temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel” (2). Each one engages in the apostolate
through “the faith, hope, and charity which the Holy Spirit diffuses in the hearts of all
members of the Church.” The exercise of this apostolate is also rooted in whatever
www.catholicculture.org
special gifts the Holy Spirit confers on each (3), and it is further shaped according to
each one’s state of life, state of health, and professional and social activity. Above all,
“the success of the lay apostolate depends upon the laity’s living union with Christ” (4).
In the second chapter, entitled “Objectives”, the Council Fathers note that Christ’s
redemptive work, while essentially concerned with salvation, “includes also the renewal
of the whole temporal order,” which Christ intends to raise up and make into a new
creation (5). For this reason, lay persons are both to offer the witness of their way of life
and to look for specific opportunities to announce the gospel to unbelievers and to
instruct and strengthen believers. In a passage which balances the Council’s frequently
positive outlook on many human developments, the Fathers also emphasize a harsh
necessity:
Since, in our own times, new problems are arising and very serious errors are
circulating which tend to undermine the foundations of religion, the moral order,
and human society itself, this sacred synod earnestly exhorts laymen—each
according to his own gifts of intelligence and learning—to be more diligent in
doing what they can to explain, defend, and properly apply Christian principles to
the problems of our era in accordance with the mind of the Church. (6)
“All those things which make up the temporal order” are to be touched and transformed
by this apostolic activity: the family, culture, economics, the arts, the professions, laws,
international relations, every human good and all legitimate human development, for
these “not only aid in the attainment of man’s ultimate goal but also possess their own
intrinsic value.” Moreover, these values must be recovered in our technocratic era, in
which many “have fallen into an idolatry of temporal things and have become their slaves
rather than their masters” (7).
Thus the whole Church must work to make people “capable of rectifying the
distortion of the temporal order and directing it to God through Christ.” And here we
come to a critical distinction and perhaps the critical point the Council wishes to make
about the lay apostolate: While pastors must teach the principles and offer the spiritual
aids by which the temporal order may be renewed, “the laity must take up the renewal of
the temporal order as their own special obligation” [emphasis added]. And they must
take up this obligation with true and obvious charity, which is one of the signal marks of
the Kingdom of God (7).
Chapter III, “The Various Fields of the Apostolate”, briefly identifies the spheres of
potential action for the lay apostolate, such as church communities, the family, youth,
www.catholicculture.org
and the social order at the local, national and international levels (9). It discusses the
need for the laity to work harmoniously with their priests in the building up of the parish
(10). It goes on to discuss the importance of cultivating a sense of apostolic mission in
youth (12), and the need to “infuse a Christian spirit into the mentality, customs, laws,
and the structure of the community”(13), always attempting to serve the true common
good through participation in public affairs by those “adequately enlightened in faith and
Christian doctrine” (14).
In a prophetic central paragraph in this chapter, the Fathers take special notice of the
importance of apostolic activity undertaken by married couples and entire families
together, to manifest “the indissolubility and sacredness of the marriage bond”, to affirm
“the right and duty of parents and guardians to educate children in a Christian manner”,
and to defend “the dignity and lawful autonomy of the family.” In addition, the
apostolate of the family can include adoption, hospitality, education, work with
adolescents, formation of engaged couples, catechetical work, and support for families in
need (11).
Thus is the mission of the laity given not only a universal definition but a particular
emphasis for our times. In the remaining chapters, Apostolicam Actuositatem covers the
forms of the apostolate, relations between the hierarchy and the laity, and proper
apostolic formation. These will be considered in the second part of this summary.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Lay Apostolate:
Implementation
The first part of my summary of the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity
(Apostolicam Actuositatem)covered the special mission of the laity, as discussed in the
document’s first three chapters. The document continues in its final chapters to consider
the various forms, relations, and preparations that are necessary for the success of this
mission. This second and final installment will summarize these reflections on the
implementation of the lay apostolate.
In the fourth chapter, “The Various Forms of the Apostolate”, the Council
emphasizes that “the individual apostolate, flowing generously from its source in a truly
Christian life, is the origin and condition of the whole lay apostolate, even of the
organized type, and it admits of no substitute” (16). For this reason, lay persons must
remember that they “can reach all men and contribute to the salvation of the whole world
by public worship and prayer as well as by penance and voluntary acceptance of the
labors and hardships of life whereby they become like the suffering Christ” (16).
The Fathers also emphasize the special need for a strong and active laity in all those
places where the freedom of the Church’s ordained ministers is restricted by hostile
authorities (17), and they stress the need in all instances for united effort (18) and the
formation of effective associations (19). Wherever possible, the formation of formal
apostolic associations working in cooperation with the hierarchy (often called “Catholic
Action”) is highly recommended. Thus lay persons can take charge of their own
organizations to facilitate the organic action of the laity to fulfill the Church’s apostolic
aims (20).
Chapter V, “External Relationships”, briefly discusses the need for proper relations
between laity and the hierarchy, such that “the hierarchy should promote the apostolate
of the laity, provide it with spiritual principles and support, direct the conduct of this
apostolate to the common good of the Church, and attend to the preservation of doctrine
and order.” While many associational relationships are possible, no project may claim
the name “Catholic” unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority
(24).
While the laity has as its special province the renewal of the temporal order, the
hierarchy nonetheless plays an important role. Thus with respect to temporal works and
www.catholicculture.org
institutions, the bishops are to “teach and authentically interpret the moral principles to
be followed in temporal affairs”, and they have the right to judge “whether or not such
works and institutions conform to moral principles” and to decide “what is required for
the protection and promotion of values of the supernatural order” (24). At the same time,
however, “bishops, pastors of parishes, and other priests of both branches of the clergy
should keep in mind that the right and duty to exercise this apostolate is common to all
the faithful, both clergy and laity, and that the laity have their own roles in building up
the Church” (25).
As is typical throughout the Council documents, the Fathers call for the
establishment of councils to assist the apostolic work of each diocese, as well as a
secretariat for this purpose at the Holy See (26).
The final chapter, “Formation for the Apostolate”, emphasizes the need for a flexible
formation characterized “by the distinctive secular and particular quality of the lay state”
which nonetheless teaches the layman to “perform the mission of Christ and the Church
by basing his life on belief in the divine mystery of creation and redemption and by
being sensitive to the movement of the Holy Spirit”. Such formation must include “a
solid doctrinal instruction in theology, ethics, and philosophy adjusted to differences of
age, status, and natural talents” (28). In this way
the lay person engages himself wholly and actively in the reality of the temporal
order and effectively assumes his role in conducting the affairs of this order. At the
same time, as a living member and witness of the Church, he renders the Church
present and active in the midst of temporal affairs. (29)
In addition, ApostolicamActuositatem stresses the important role of parents in raising
children in such a way that the “whole family in its common life…should be a sort of
apprenticeship for the apostolate” (30). In the final section of this chapter, the document
recognizes that a special formation is required in a materialistic age, in which the laity
should “not only learn doctrine more diligently, especially those main points which are
the subjects of controversy, but should also exhibit the witness of an evangelical life in
contrast to all forms of materialism” (31). It also recommends training the laity “in the
right use of things and the organization of institutions, attentive always to the common
good in line with the principles of the moral and social teachings of the Church”, so that
by learning Catholic social doctrine, they may be more capable of applying it properly to
specific cases.
The concluding “Exhortation” reaffirms that “through this holy synod, the Lord
www.catholicculture.org
renews His invitation to all the laity to come closer to Him every day, recognizing that
what is His is also their own, to associate themselves with Him in His saving mission”
(33). It is a tribute to the growth of the lay apostolate since 1965—both because of the
teaching of the Council and as a result of the unfortunate vacuum created by widespread
failures among members of the hierarchy—that this invitation no longer sounds strange
or even revolutionary, as it did to many in the ecclesiastical context in which the Council
met.
www.catholicculture.org
On Religious Freedom
One of Vatican II’s more controversial teachings is found in the thirteenth document, the
Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), issued on December 7, 1965.
Some Traditionalist groups hold that this document contradicts earlier Magisterial
teachings on the responsibility of government to recognize the true religion and suppress
error. So that it need not detain us, I have already addressed this issue in Doctrinal
Development on Religious Liberty. Here I simply wish to continue our series by
summarizing, without unnecessary controversy, what the Council itself taught on the
subject.
Dignitatis Humanae actually begins by setting forth five principles which place its
own purposes in the context of the Catholic Tradition (1):
The one true religion subsists in the Catholic Church, to which Our Lord
committed the duty of teaching all nations.
1.
All are bound to seek truth, to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold
fast to it.
2.
“It is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their
binding force.”
3.
Religious freedom relates to immunity from coercion in civil society, and so it
“leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and
societies toward the true religion.”
4.
The Council, then, “intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the
inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.”
5.
Then the Council declares its essential teaching:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious
freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the
part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that
no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether
privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
(2)
www.catholicculture.org
There are two important things to note here: First, that men and women are not to be
forced to act contrary to their beliefs but, second, that this freedom from coercion is
operative only within due limits.
This principle of liberty is advanced simply because duties always entail
corresponding rights, and persons cannot discharge their obligation to seek the truth
“unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”
This freedom has its foundation “not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his
very nature”. Hence it applies even to those who do not live up to their obligation of
seeking the truth and adhering to it. But again, there is a limitation: The exercise of this
right “is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed” (2). In other
words, “within due limits” includes the observance of “just public order”.
The Council teaches that the reason for religious liberty “is that the exercise of
religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free
acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human
power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.” These acts “transcend by their
very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs”. Therefore, government ought to
“take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor” but “it would clearly
transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that
are religious” (3).
Among the particular freedoms which the Council enumerates within the general
heading of religious liberty are the following (again “provided the just demands of public
order are observed”) (4-5):
Religious communities may govern themselves, worship publicly, assist and
instruct their members, and promote institutions for ordering their lives in
accordance with religious principles.
Religious communities are not to be hindered in selecting, training, appointing,
transferring, or communicating with their ministers, or in acquiring funds,
purchasing properties or erecting buildings for religious purposes.
Religious communities “also have the right not to be hindered in their public
teaching and witness to their faith”, providing that they themselves refrain from
acting in ways that are either coercive or dishonorably persuasive.
Religious communities “should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to
show the special value of their doctrine” to society as a whole, and so are free to
www.catholicculture.org
hold meetings and establish charitable and social organizations “under the
impulse of their own religious sense.”
The family in particular has the “right freely to live its own domestic religious
life under the guidance of parents,” who have the right to determine “the kind of
religious education that their children are to receive.” Government must
guarantee and protect this freedom.
Since protection of rights is an essential duty of government, “government is to assume
the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens in an effective manner,” and to
“help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life”. However, if special
civil recognition is given to one religious community, the right of all citizens and
religious communities to religious freedom must still be recognized and made effective.
Government must never violate the freedom and equality of citizens before the law for
religious reasons. Finally, it is “a violation of the will of God” when force is brought to
bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion. (6)
Having fleshed out its principle of religious liberty, the Council turns to an
explication of the limitations it has already mentioned: “The right to religious freedom is
exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms.”
First, all “are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for
their own duties toward others and for the common welfare.” Second, “society has the
right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of
religion.” Government should follow norms for this purpose which, far from being
arbitrary, are drawn from the need to “safeguard the rights of all” and for “peaceful
settlement of conflicts of rights”, for “adequate care of genuine public peace”, and from
the need “for a proper guardianship of public morality.” (7)
The remaining paragraphs of the Declaration on Religious Freedom constitute a
brief reflection on the Church’s insistence that man’s response to God be truly free, and
on what we can learn from Revelation and Christ himself about God’s patience, His
willingness to allow both the cockle and the wheat to grow until the harvest, His
sacrifice as a ransom for us, and His refusal to impose the truth by force. These themes
are further developed from the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul’s letters. (8-12)
Finally, noting that “the freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what
concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order”
(13), the Council insists on the necessary harmony between this freedom of the Church
and that religious freedom which is the right of all. Enjoining the Christian faithful, “in
www.catholicculture.org
the formation of their consciences”, to “carefully attend to the sacred and certain doctrine
of the Church” (14), the Council concludes by stating the necessity that “religious
freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that
respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in
society.” (15)
www.catholicculture.org
On Missionary Activity: Principles
“The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the
Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the
decree of God the Father” (2). So begins the first chapter of the Second Vatican
Council’s fourteenth document, issued on December 7, 1965, the Decree on the Mission
Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes). This is one of the Council’s longer documents
(though not nearly as long as the two constitutions on the Church herself); its length
suggests that it covers a topic very dear to the Council fathers’ hearts.
Ad Gentes reflects in many ways that positive outlook of the Council which some
later commentators have unfortunately dismissed as mere optimism. The sense of the
fathers that the Church was on the verge of a great opportunity, if only she could renew
herself to take advantage of it, is expressed nicely in the second introductory paragraph
of this text:
In the present state of affairs, out of which there is arising a new situation for
mankind, the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, is more
urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be
restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of
God. (1)
The document is divided into six chapters, the first of which (“Principles of Doctrine”)
thoroughly articulates the Church’s missionary nature, which arises from God’s plan to
“call men to share His life, not just singly, apart from any mutual bond, but rather to mold
them into a people in which His sons, once scattered abroad, might be gathered together”
(2). I’ll devote this entry to these principles, reserving the remainder of the document to
part two.
Ad Gentes teaches that what “the Lord preached that one time, or what was wrought
in Him for the saving of the human race, must be spread abroad and published to the
ends of the earth” (3). For this purpose Christ ordered the ministry of the apostles and
promised to send the Holy Spirit. Finally Our Lord, “having now received all power in
heaven and on earth, before He was taken up into heaven, founded His Church as the
sacrament of salvation and sent His Apostles into all the world just as He Himself had
been sent by His Father” (5). (The word “mission”, of course, comes from the Latin verb
“mitto”, which means “to send”.)
www.catholicculture.org
“mitto”, which means “to send”.)
The Council sees in this mission not a mere proclamation but a process of
enlightenment and healing for diverse peoples in the diverse cultures of the world. God’s
universal plan of salvation is carried out not only “secretly in the soul of a man, or by the
attempts (even religious ones) by which in diverse ways it seeks after God,” for “these
attempts need to be enlightened and healed” even though “they may sometimes serve as
leading strings toward God, or as a preparation for the Gospel.” Therefore, God
intervened “in human history in a way both new and final by sending His Son, clothed in
our flesh, in order that through Him He might snatch men from the power of darkness
and Satan and reconcile the world to Himself” (3).
Because this reconciliation must be initiated and nurtured under many different
circumstances, the exact pattern of the Church’s missionary activity will vary according
to all the factors and opportunities: “The differences recognizable in this, the Church’s
activity, are not due to the inner nature of the mission itself [which is unchanging], but
rather to the circumstances in which this mission is exercised” (6). These differences
depend partly on the situation in the Church and partly on the peoples or groups to whom
the mission is directed. But in every case, the term “mission” applies to evangelization,
to the spreading of the Faith to those who are not yet Christian. Thus missionary activity
“differs from pastoral activity exercised among the faithful as well as from undertakings
aimed at restoring unity among Christians” (6).
The Council stresses the importance of the Church for salvation, and reaffirms that
“those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ, founded
the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it”
(7). At the same time, missionary activity is not something foreign or alien to man, but is
“bound up even with human nature itself and its aspirations”, and it transforms not only
persons but all the goods of the world, “which bear the mark both of man’s sin and of
God’s blessing,” and so must be transformed in Christ for the glory of God. (8)
The need for missionary work “extends between the first coming of the Lord and the
second.” Thus, the Council concludes its chapter on first principles by describing the
Church’s missionary activity as “nothing else and nothing less than an epiphany, or a
manifesting of God’s decree, and its fulfillment in the world and in world history, in the
course of which God, by means of mission, manifestly works out the history of
salvation.” Therefore, of its very nature, “missionary activity tends toward eschatological
fullness” and through it “the mystical body grows to the mature measure of the fullness
of Christ” (9).
In the next installment, I’ll summarize the details of how missionary work is to
www.catholicculture.org
On Missionary Activity: Mission
Work
Following its exploration of principles in the first chapter (see the previous entry), the
remainder of the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes) covers
missionary work itself, both in its character and stages and in the means necessary to
ensure its progress.
The second chapter (“Mission Work Itself”) contains three parts. In Article 1 on
“Christian Witness”, the Council picks up the theme of enlightenment and healing
mentioned earlier. In order to offer salvation to all the various groups and cultures of
mankind, the Church “must implant herself into these groups for the same motive which
led Christ to bind Himself, in virtue of His Incarnation, to certain social and cultural
conditions of those human beings among whom He dwelt” (10). Thus the missionary is
to become one with the culture to which he is sent (insofar as this is possible for a
Christian), living as those people do and speaking their language, but for a higher
purpose:
Even as Christ Himself searched the hearts of men, and led them to divine light, so
also His disciples, profoundly penetrated by the Spirit of Christ, should know the
people among whom they live, and should converse with them, that they
themselves may learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a generous
God has distributed among the nations of the earth. But at the same time, let them
try to furbish these treasures, set them free, and bring them under the dominion of
God their Savior. (11)
In Article 2, the fathers describe the first phase of missionary activity, the “preaching of
the Gospel and gathering together of the People of God,” and in Article 3 they describe
the second phase, the “forming of the Christian community” so that over time it comes to
possess the “priestly, prophetic and royal” offices within itself, including its own clergy,
in communion with the universal Church. The Council recommends the restoration of the
permanent diaconate (16) for service in mission territory and stresses the importance of
lay catechists, who typically play a critical role in new Catholic communities (17). It also
insists on the fostering of religious communities, including those pursuing the
contemplative life (18).
www.catholicculture.org
The third chapter (“Particular Churches”) covers the next phase, when the Church in
a mission territory comes to a realization of its full stature, under its own bishops, and
marked by an active, self-aware Catholic laity who are beginning to transform the larger
culture. “In such new churches, the life of the People of God must mature in all those
fields of Christian life which are to be reformed by the norms of this council.” Such
churches are likely still to be quite poor and in need of assistance and support from more
established churches throughout the world, yet they too must begin to play their role in
the universal Church, and the first duty of the bishop is to be “a herald of the Faith who
leads new disciples to Christ” (19).
The Council fathers emphasize that “the church has not been really founded, and is
not yet fully alive, nor is it a perfect sign of Christ among men, unless there is a laity
worthy of the name working along with the hierarchy” (21). The main duty of the laity
“is the witness which they are bound to bear to Christ by their life and works in the
home, in their social milieu, and in their own professional circle” (21)—a point which
applies to the fully mature Church everywhere and in all times. Once again, these young
churches are to “borrow from the customs and traditions of their people, from their
wisdom and their learning, from their arts and disciplines, all those things which can
contribute to the glory of their Creator, or enhance the grace of their Savior, or dispose
Christian life the way it should be” (22).
The final three chapters deal primarily with pragmatic issues. Chapter 4
(“Missionaries”) covers the preparation and formation of missionaries. They must be
“sent by legitimate authority” and “set apart for the work” (23) and ready to stay at their
vocations “for an entire lifetime”, renouncing themselves and all that they once
considered their own, for the missionary must “’make himself all things to all men’ (1
Cor 9:22)” (24).
Chapter 5 (“Planning Missionary Activity”) outlines the duties of bishops, the role of
special institutes, the need for study of the mission territories, the importance of accurate
reports, the assignment of mission territories to various groups, lines of authority, and the
role of the episcopal conferences and the Holy See (28-34).
Chapter 6 (“Cooperation”) stresses that “all the faithful are duty-bound to cooperate
in the expansion and spreading out of [Christ’s] Body, to bring it to fullness as soon as
may be.” But it also issues this caution: “Let everyone know that their first and most
important obligation for the spread of the Faith is this: to lead a profoundly Christian
life” (36). The fathers emphasize too that “all bishops, as member of the body of bishops
succeeding to the College of Apostles, are consecrated not just for some one diocese, but
for the salvation of the entire world.” (38) Therefore, they should designate some of their
www.catholicculture.org
best priests for mission work. All Catholic priests and teachers should “stir up and
preserve amid the faithful a zeal for the evangelization of the world” (39); religious
institutes should also participate in or pray for the success of the missions (40); and the
laity are likewise called to be involved, through their direct work in mission lands and
through their economic cooperation with missionary work (41).
Ad Gentes closes with a prayer that “the nations may soon be led to the knowledge of
the truth (1 Tim 2:4) and the glory of God which shines on the face of Jesus Christ may
shine upon all men through the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 4:6)” (42).
www.catholicculture.org
On Priests: Priestly Ministry
Oddly enough, since the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church focused on bishops and
the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity tended to overshadow everything else at the
time, the Second Vatican Council has often been said to have ignored priests. But priests
are the only group to which two documents are devoted. We have already surveyed the Decree on Priestly Training
Decree on Priestly Training which Vatican II issued in October 1965. On December 7th,
the Council returned to this subject so dear to its heart and issued its fifteenth document,
the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis). The text is of
medium length, and I’ll cover it in two entries.
Presbyterorum Ordinis begins with this statement: “Priests by sacred ordination and
mission which they receive from the bishops are promoted to the service of Christ the
Teacher, Priest and King. They share in His ministry, a ministry whereby the Church
here on earth is unceasingly built up into the People of God, the Body of Christ and the
Temple of the Holy Spirit” (1). This sets the tone for the entire document, which is
divided into three chapters.
The first chapter covers “The Priesthood in the Ministry of the Church”, and
it explains that the ministry of the priest derives from what is completely unique to
priests, namely the “sacred power of orders to offer sacrifice and to forgive sins.” Thus
priests “are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such
a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.” They receive a “special grace
to be ministers of Christ among the people” so that “the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful
is made perfect in union with the sacrifice of Christ.” Indeed, “the ministry of priests is
directed toward this goal and is perfected in it.” Properly understood, then, the purpose of
priestly ministry and life “is to procure the glory of God the Father in Christ” and “that
glory consists in this—that men working keenly and with a grateful spirit receive the
work of God made perfect in Christ and then manifest it in their whole lives” (2).
The second chapter covers “The Ministry of Priests”. In section 1, the Council
enumerates and explains “Priests’ Functions” as follows:
The primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel: “To all men, therefore, priests
are debtors that the truth of the Gospel which they have may be given to others.”
They are not to rely on their own wisdom but on the “word of Christ”, and they
are to apply “the lasting truth of the Gospel to the particular circumstances of
1.
www.catholicculture.org
life” (4).
Performing sacred functions: By their special title in the priesthood of Christ,
priests are to act as His ministers. “Especially by the celebration of Mass they
offer sacramentally the Sacrifice of Christ” to which all the other sacraments and
all apostolic work are directed. Priests are to lead their people to pray, confess
their sins, live the evangelical counsels, and offer their own lives with the
Eucharist. (5)
2.
Gathering the family of God together: Priests are given a spiritual power for
the building up of the Church. “They should act towards men, not as seeking to
please them, but in accord with the demands of Christian doctrine and life.” They
also have a special obligation to the poor and, in seeking to minister to every
person and group they must foster a spirit of community which embraces “not
only the local church but also the universal Church.” (6)
3.
The second section covers “Priests’ Relationships with Others.” Priests are “necessary
helpers and counselors” to bishops, who must “regard them as their brothers and friends
and be concerned as far as they are able for their material and especially for their spiritual
well-being” (above all, the Council states, “upon the bishops rests the heavy
responsibility for the sanctity of their priests”). Priests in turn must respect in their
bishops “the authority of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd” and must stand by them “in
sincere charity and obedience” (7). Priests are also united with each other in “an intimate
sacramental brotherhood”, and must “help one another always to be fellow workers in the
truth” (8). The Council calls for a priest senate in each diocese to advise the bishop (7)
and expresses the desire that “some kind of common life or some sharing of common life
be encouraged among priests” (8).
With respect to the laity, the priest stands in the role of “father and teacher”, leading
them in the discipleship of the Lord that they share in common. Thus priests are to
“acknowledge and promote the dignity of the laity,” listen carefully to their concerns,
and allow them “freedom and room for action”. Priests “have been placed in the midst of
the laity to lead them to the unity of charity”, and they must be “defenders of the
common good, with which they are charged in the name of the bishop.” They are to be
“strenuous assertors of the truth, lest the faithful be carried about by every wind of
doctrine” (9).
The third section (“The Distribution of Priests, and Vocations to the Priesthood”)
emphasizes that priests are ordained “for the widest possible and universal mission of
www.catholicculture.org
salvation ‘even to the ends of the earth’.” The Council stipulates that the norms of
incardination and excardination should be revised to bring about a better distribution of
priests throughout the world. However, priests should not be sent out alone to new fields
of labor, but by twos and threes, making sure they have learned the language and studied
the psychological and social milieu of the people they go to serve (10). All the faithful
are to “cooperate in one way or another, by constant prayer and other means at their
disposal, that the Church will always have a sufficient number of priests to carry out her
divine mission” (11).
After these two chapters on the ministry of priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis turns to
the life of priests in chapter three, which I’ll explore in the second entry on this
document.
www.catholicculture.org
On Priests: Priestly Life
While the first two chapters of the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests
(Presbyterorum Ordinis) dealt primarily with the ministry of priests (see previous entry),
the third and final chapter covers “The Life of Priests” in three sections. The first section,
“The Vocation of Priests to the Life of Perfection” discusses in some depth the special
grace of the priesthood, the need for priests to “mortify the works of the flesh in
themselves and give themselves entirely to the service of men”, and the need for priests
to strive for holiness (12)—which will be best achieved by indefatigably performing their
duties in the Spirit of Christ, including offering themselves entirely to God in the Sacred
Liturgy and joining the voice of the Church in the recitation of the Divine Office (13).
There is in this section an interesting discussion of the problem of “burn out”, in that
priests can feel “constrained by so many obligations of their office” that they “have
reason to wonder how they can coordinate and balance their interior life with feverish
outward activity.” The document notes that “neither the mere external performance of
the works of the ministry, nor the exclusive engagement in pious devotion, although very
helpful, can bring about this necessary coordination.” Rather, the Council teaches that
the way priests can solve the problem is to imitate Christ, seeking the will of the Father
in a complete gift of self to the flock, in complete fidelity to the Church, not in a vacuum,
but with strong bonds of union with their bishop and brother priests. “Fidelity to Christ,”
Presbyterorum Ordinis categorically states, “cannot be separated from faithfulness to
His Church” (14).
The second section touches on “Special Spiritual Requirements in the Life of a
Priest”. The first requirement is obedience to the Church, to the Holy Father and their
own bishop or superior: “By this humility and by willing responsible obedience, priests
conform themselves to Christ. They make their own the sentiments of Jesus Christ who
‘emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant,’ becoming obedient even to death”
(15).
The second requirement (expressed without prejudice to the different custom in the
Eastern Church) is celibacy, which is “held by the Church to be a great value in a special
manner for the priestly life” and is “a sign and stimulus for pastoral charity and a special
source of spiritual fecundity in the world” (16). Priests are exhorted to “magnanimously
and wholeheartedly adhere” to celibacy, acknowledging it as an “outstanding gift of the
Father which is so praised and extolled by the Lord” (16).
www.catholicculture.org
The third requirement is detachment from temporal goods. Priests should achieve
freedom “from every inordinate concern and become docile to the voice of God in their
daily life,” for priests “have the Lord as their ‘portion and heritage’ (Num 18:20).” Excess
income provided to the priest for the exercise of his ecclesiastical office should be “set
aside for the good of the Church or for works of charity”. Ecclesiastical goods
themselves should be “administered by priests with the help of capable laymen” and
should as far as possible “always be employed for those purposes in the pursuit of which
it is licit for the Church to possess temporal goods”: divine worship, “honest sustenance”
for the clergy, and apostolic and charitable works. Finally, priests “are invited to embrace
voluntary poverty by which they are more manifestly conformed to Christ and become
eager in the sacred ministry” (17).
The third section considers “Aids to the Life of Priests”, which include: (1) The
Eucharist and fruitful reception of the sacraments (especially Penance), daily
examination of conscience, spiritual reading, devotion to Mary, and “the spirit of true
adoration” (18); (2) Ongoing meditation on and study of Sacred Scripture, as well as
pastoral studies, with the aid of such centers as ought to be erected in each territory (19);
and (3) Suitable remuneration for priests (20), including the establishment of social
assistance funds and health insurance programs as needed (21).
In its Conclusion, Presbyterorum Ordinis notes that a common problem today is that
faithful priests “and sometimes the faithful themselves” can “feel like strangers in this
world.” There are, the Fathers note, “new obstacles which have arisen to the faith: the
seeming unproductivity of work done, and also the bitter loneliness which men
experience can lead them to the danger of becoming spiritually depressed” (22). The
depressing character of this lack of visible success can be overcome only by a sure Faith
and confidence in Christ, which the Fathers express clearly in this final exhortation:
All priests cooperate in carrying out the saving plan of God, that is, the Mystery of
Christ, the sacrament hidden from the ages in God, which is only brought to
fulfillment little by little through the collaboration of many ministries in building up
the Body of Christ until it grows to the fullness of time. All this, hidden with Christ
in God, can be uniquely perceived by faith. For the leaders of the People of God
must walk by faith, following the example of faithful Abraham, who in faith
“obeyed by going out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he
went out not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11:8). Indeed, the dispenser of
the mysteries of God can see himself in the man who sowed his field, of whom the
Lord said: “then sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should sprout without
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church and the World: Man’s
Calling
The final document of the Second Vatican Council addresses the relationship of the
Church to the modern world, and what the Church has to offer men as they struggle to
develop and solve problems old and new. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), promulgated on December 7, 1965, is also the
Council’s longest document. However, as the Council wishes in this case to address
modern problems in fairly broad terms, the document is not doctrinally dense. We can
cover it in three parts.
The English title indicates that Gaudium et Spes has a pastoral purpose—the purpose
of enabling the Church to speak more effectively to mankind. Therefore it should be
distinguished from the earlier Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which was devoted
primarily to doctrine on the nature and constitution of the Church. By way of
introduction to the current Pastoral Constitution, the Council Fathers note that the
Church shares all human joys, hopes, anxieties and griefs, and so the Church wishes to
propose the wisdom of Christ to the whole of redeemed humanity. “The human person
deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed,” the Council notes.
“Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire,
body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will” (3).
A special “Introductory Statement” calls attention to the paradox of modern society
in that “while man extends his power in every direction, he does not always succeed in
subjecting it to his own welfare.” He has never had such a wealth of resources yet “a
huge proportion of the world’s citizens are still tormented” by hunger, poverty and
illiteracy. He has a keen interest in freedom, yet “at the same time new forms of social
and psychological slavery make their appearance.” He has an intense vision of unity and
solidarity, and yet the world is divided into opposing camps and conflicting forces, and
“political, social, economic, racial and ideological disputes still continue bitterly.” And
finally, “man painstakingly searches for a better world, without a corresponding spiritual
advancement”(4).
In the midst of all this, certain specific problems arise. The modern world has moved
from a “rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one”, and the rate
of change is very rapid (5). This has a deleterious impact on the wisdom of
www.catholicculture.org
well-established traditions (6). The scientific worldview has enabled us to distinguish
religion from magic or superstition, but as a result “growing numbers of people are
abandoning religion” (7). There is a growing “imbalance between specialized human
activity and a comprehensive view of reality” (8). Rapid communications have bred
widespread discontent among those who “judge themselves to be deprived either through
injustice or unequal distribution” of the benefits of our material culture (9). And, all in
all:
Many look forward to a genuine and total emancipation of humanity wrought solely
by human effort; they are convinced that the future rule of man over the earth will
satisfy every desire of his heart. Nor are there lacking men who despair of any
meaning to life and praise the boldness of those who think that human existence is
devoid of any inherent significance and strive to confer a total meaning on it by
their own ingenuity alone. (10)
But “the Church firmly believes that Christ, who died and was raised up for all, can
through His Spirit offer man the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme
destiny” (10). And so the Council offers this document.
The first part of Gaudium et Spes consists of four chapters covering “The Church and
Man’s Calling”. The first chapter, entitled “The Dignity of the Human Person”,
emphasizes that man was created in the image of God, can know and love his Creator,
“and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them
and use them to God’s glory” (12). But because man abused his liberty and finds he has
“inclinations toward evil”, “therefore man is split within himself” (13). Against this
promising but difficult background, the Church explains that man is a unity of body and
soul and, while he “is not allowed to despise his bodily life”, nonetheless “by his interior
qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things.” Thus he “discerns his proper destiny
beneath the eyes of God” and “recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul” (14).
Finally, it is “through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the
contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan” (15).
The Fathers note that the “more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and
groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of
morality” (16). But man can pursue the good only in freedom, and so he achieves full
dignity only when, “emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, be pursues his
goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective
and skillful action, apt helps to that end” (17). Moreover, though “the riddle of human
www.catholicculture.org
existence grows most acute” in the face of death, the Church firmly teaches that “man has
been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery”, and that
he “is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful savior” (18).
Consequently, “atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this
age” (19). The Council goes on to review atheism in its various forms, and considers
some of its causes. The Fathers sadly observe that Christians themselves contribute to the
rise of atheism “to the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach
erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life” (20).
Nonetheless the Church proposes that “recognition of God is in no way hostile to man’s
dignity” and that the remedy for atheism is “to make God the Father and His Incarnate
Son present and in a sense visible” through “the witness of a living and mature faith,
namely, one trained to see difficulties clearly and to master them” (21). This is critical
because, in the end, “the truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the
mystery of man take on light” (22).
In the remaining three chapters in Part I, the Council considers the nature of mankind
as a community, the nature of human activity, and the role of the Church. Part II takes up
the special problems of marriage and family, the development of culture, economic and
social life, the political order, and the fostering of peace. I’ll cover all these sections in
the next two installments.
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church and the World:
Community and Activity
The remaining three chapters of the first part of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World continue sketching the contemporary human situation and the role
of the Church. Having examined “The Dignity of the Human Person” in the first chapter,
the Council focuses on “The Community of Mankind” in the second, describing the
social nature of the human person, which is even more obvious in the modern world with
its increasing interdependence (23). Indeed, “God, Who has a fatherly concern for
everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a
spirit of brotherhood” (23). Jesus himself prayed to the Father “that all may be one…as
we are one” (Jn 17:21-22).
Consequently, the Council first lays particular “stress on reverence for man” and
declares the following:
Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion,
euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human
person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce
the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions,
arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and
children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere
tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and
others of their like are infamies indeed. (27)
The Council warns against contenting ourselves “with a merely individualistic morality”,
for “the obligations of justice and love are fulfilled only if each person, contributing to
the common good, according to his own abilities and the needs of others, also promotes
and assists the public and private institutions dedicated to bettering the conditions of
human life” (30). The Council teaches that “this communitarian character is developed
and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ” who formed “a new brotherly community
composed of all those who receive Him in faith and in love”, namely the Church (32).
The third chapter, “Man’s Activity throughout the World”, takes note of the
prodigious output of human activity and asks “what is the meaning and value of this
feverish activity” (33)? The answer is that man was “created to God’s image” and
www.catholicculture.org
“received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all it contains, and to govern the
world with justice and holiness, a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to
Him Who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all” (34). Hence, the
Council argues, “it is clear that men are not deterred by the Christian message from
building up the world, or impelled to neglect the welfare of their fellows, but that they
are rather more stringently bound to do those very things” (34).
The Fathers also take up the claim that people make for autonomy in earthly affairs.
“If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things and societies
themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must be gradually deciphered, put to
use, and regulated by men, then it is entirely right to demand that autonomy.” Indeed,
“by the very circumstance of their having been created, all things are endowed with their
own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order.” But if the independence of
temporal affairs “is taken to mean that created things do not depend on God, and that
man can use them without any reference to their Creator, anyone who acknowledges
God will see how false such a meaning is” (36).
This falsehood leads to grave problems, “for a monumental struggle against the
powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man.” Therefore, “if anyone wants to
know how this unhappy situation can be overcome, Christians will tell him that all
human activity, constantly imperiled by man’s pride and deranged self-love, must be
purified and perfected by the power of Christ’s cross and resurrection” (37).
The fourth and final chapter in Part One covers “The Role of the Church in the
Modern World.” Entrusted with the mystery of God “who is the ultimate goal of man”,
the Church “opens up to man at the same time the meaning of his own existence, that is,
the innermost truth about himself” (41). Since “whoever follows after Christ, the perfect
man, becomes himself more of a man”, the Church “can anchor the dignity of human
nature against all tides of opinion.” She both “proclaims the rights of man” and ensures
that human movements are “penetrated by the spirit of the Gospel and protected against
any kind of false autonomy” (41). And since “she is bound to no particular form of
human culture…the Church by her very universality can be a very close bond between
diverse human communities and nations” (42).
The Council “exhorts Christians, as citizens of two cities, to strive to discharge their
earthly duties conscientiously and in response to the Gospel spirit.” Therefore, “let there
be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and
religious life on the other.” However, “secular duties and activities belong properly
although not exclusively to layman”, and the following passage was considered
remarkable by some in the 1960s:
www.catholicculture.org
Laymen should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed
Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly
city; from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment. Let the layman
not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which
arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even
that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving
close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his
own distinctive role. (43)
Part One concludes by stating the Church’s single intention: the salvation of all in the
coming Kingdom of God. “For God’s Word, by whom all things were made, was
Himself made flesh so that as perfect man He might save all men and sum up all things
in Himself.” Thus the Church and all people together “journey toward the consummation
of human history, one which fully accords with the counsel of God’s love: ‘To
reestablish all things in Christ, both those in the heavens and those on earth’ (Eph.
11:10)” (45).
www.catholicculture.org
On the Church and the World:
Special Problems
Part 2 of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World is devoted to
“some problems of special urgency.” Covered in five chapters, these problems are
marriage and the family; the development of culture; economic and social life; politics;
and peace.
Chapter 1 is entitled “Fostering the Nobility of Marriage and the Family”. Although
the Council did not foresee the problem of gay marriage, it was well aware of such
problems as “polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other
disfigurements,” as well as “excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit
practices against human generation” (47). Accordingly, the Council teaches that “the
intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and
qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal
consent.” Moreover, “authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is
governed and enriched by Christ’s redeeming power and the saving activity of the
Church” (48). Therefore, married love “far excels mere erotic inclination, which,
selfishly pursued, soon enough fades wretchedly away” (49).
By contrast, “marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the
begetting and educating of children” (50). There can be no contradiction “between the
divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic
conjugal love;” indeed, the Council condemns abortion and infanticide as “unspeakable
crimes” (51). Finally, and this is still several years before Humanae vitae, the Council
notes that the morality of procedures to regulate conception “does not depend solely on
sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective
standards” which “reserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in
the context of true love.” Couples “may not undertake methods of birth control which are
found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church” (51).
Chapter 2, “The Proper Development of Human Culture” addresses the problems that
have arisen because of rapid cultural change: the loss of tradition and heritage; the
inability to harmonize the “particular branches of study with the necessity of forming a
synthesis of them, and of preserving…the faculties of contemplation and observation
which lead to wisdom”; the lack of equality in sharing the advantages of cultural
www.catholicculture.org
development; and the growing emphasis on the autonomy of human culture which is too
often associated with a “humanism that is merely terrestrial, and even contrary to religion
itself” (56). The Fathers identify the following keys to authentic cultural development:
focus on the understanding of truth, goodness and beauty (57); the ability of the Gospel
to correct and remove “the errors and evils resulting from the permanent allurement of
sin” (58); and the necessary subordination of culture to “the integral perfection of the
human person, to the good of the community and of the whole society” (59).
The Council holds that “within the limits of morality and the common utility, man
can freely search for the truth, express his opinion and publish it; that he can practice any
art he chooses; that finally he can avail himself of true information concerning events of
a public nature.” And it emphasizes that it is not the function of the public authority “to
determine the character of the civilization, but rather to establish the conditions and to
use the means which are capable of fostering the life of culture” (59). This section closes
with a consideration of the imperatives to free humanity from the misery of ignorance
(60), to synthesize the various branches of knowledge (61), and to harmonize culture
with Christian teaching (62), including literature and the arts.
In Chapter 3, “Economic and Social Life”, Gaudium et Spes emphasizes that “man is
the source, the center, and the purpose of all economic and social life” (63). The Fathers
briefly explore the problems associated with uneven economic development. They stress
that human labor “is superior to the other elements of economic life” (67), and that in
economic enterprises “it is persons who are joined together, that is, free and independent
human beings created in the image of God” (68). Every person has a right to “a share of
earthy goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family” (69). Investments “must be directed
toward procuring employment and sufficient income for the people both now and in the
future” (70). Ownership should be fostered because ownership contributes “to the
expression of the personality” and furnishes “an occasion to exercise one’s function in
society and in the economy.” But “it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone
from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good” (71).
In Chapter 4, “The Life of the Political Community”, the Council condemns those
political systems “which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers
through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service
of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves”
(73). The political authority must operate “within the limits of the moral order…directed
toward the common good” (74). Rulers must not “hamper the development of family,
social or cultural groups, nor that of intermediate bodies or organizations”, and citizens
must “be careful not to attribute excessive power to public authority, nor to make
www.catholicculture.org
exaggerated and untimely demands upon it in their own interests, lessening in this way
the responsible role of persons, families and social groups” (75). Especially in pluralistic
societies, the Council insists that governments must understand the “clear distinction
between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own
responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the
activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church”
(76).
The fifth and final chapter covers “The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a
Community of Nations”. In this section, the Council emphasizes that peace is not an
absence of war but “an enterprise of justice” governed above all by the natural law
(78-79). The Fathers condemn both weapons designed to kill large populations
indiscriminately and guerilla warfare carried out by deceit and terrorism (79-80), and
they describe the arms race as “an utterly treacherous trap for humanity” (81). To further
peace, the Council recommends effective international bodies (83), greater international
economic cooperation (85), and efforts at development which do not emphasize material
conveniences in a way “contrary to man’s spiritual nature and advancement” (86).
Finally, population concerns must not be an excuse for solutions “which are contrary to
the moral law”; the decision concerning the number of children to have “depends on the
right judgment of the parents and it cannot in any way be left to the judgment of public
authority” (87).
Gaudium et Spes concludes by reminding everyone of two aphorisms of Jesus Christ,
one gentle and the other severe. It is perhaps fitting that these are also the final warnings
of the Second Vatican Council as a whole: First, “By this will all men know that you are
my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35); and second, “Not every one
who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the
will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21) (93).
www.catholicculture.org
Afterword: The Mythology and the
Reality of Vatican II
I began our survey of the documents of Vatican II (starting with A Funny Thing about
Vatican II) because it seemed to me that the Church was just now becoming capable of
responding to them as the Council Fathers would have wished. The period between the
closing of the Council in 1965 and 1985 was marked by a wholesale distortion of the
Council’s message by the Modernist intelligentsia, which had an overwhelming influence
over the Church in the West. The battle for the meaning of the Council commenced
during the pontificate of John Paul II and gathered critical mass at the Extraordinary
Synod of Bishops he called in Rome in 1985. Since that time, there has been a painfully
slow but more or less steady attempt to “reform the reform.” The current pope has
described this in terms of applying a hermeneutic of continuity to the Council instead of
a false hermeneutic of rupture.
The Modernists rightly saw from the first that the Council emphasized collegiality
among the pope and the bishops, that it called the laity to assume a more mature role in
the Church, that it encouraged Catholics to engage the modern world in a way that
demonstrates how Christ and the Church provide the deepest answers to all legitimate
human aspirations, and that it saw a great need for renewal of just about everything:
spirituality, culture, scholarship, socio-economic life, politics, liturgy.
Knowledgeable observers interpreted these things (rightly) as evidence that the
Council Fathers believed the Church was losing the battle for souls partly because of her
own contemporary weaknesses, specifically her own tendencies to be authoritarian,
isolated, condemnatory and self-satisfied—the all-too-human tendency to proceed by
formula and by rote. The Council called every rank—indeed every person—in the
Church to go deeper, and to respond proactively to the challenges of contemporary
culture with a keen personal sense of the power and wisdom of Christ.
But after a little experience in the conciliar sessions, it also became clear to the
Modernists that what they really wanted was not going to be enunciated in the
documents. The Council was calling for renewal; it was not attempting to remake the
Church in the Modernist image. The Fathers were not abandoning the sacred hierarchy
for democracy, jettisoning tradition in favor of modernity, exchanging doctrine for
fashionable cultural ideas, or substituting the signs of the times for the authority of
www.catholicculture.org
Christ and His vicar.
Faced with this (to them inexplicable) intransigence the Modernists developed a
mythology of the Council. Beginning with the earliest press reports, they misreported
what the Council was calling for and, when checked against the letter of the texts, they
proposed that their interpretation was either what the Fathers really wanted (but were
afraid to say) or that their interpretation was the undoubted goal of a process the Fathers
had set in motion. Thus they justified their own program not by the letter but by the
so-called “spirit of Vatican II.”
The Traditionalists (the term here refers to those who make an “ism” out of tradition,
applying their own version of it against the living authority of the Church) also saw the
real trajectory of the Council, but they seldom agreed that the flaws the Council saw in
the contemporary Church were really flaws at all. In general, they liked the authoritarian
tendencies of early 20th century churchmen, they were satisfied with the ecclesiastical
tendency to keep modern culture at a distance and to condemn its shortcomings from the
heights, they were comfortable with a certain degree of clericalism, and above all they
tended to view the Tridentine Mass as very close to perfect and irreformable. They also
thought the Council was taking the wrong tack in emphasizing ecumenism, the
possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, and the role of religious liberty in man’s effort
to know and follow God. The Traditionalists even believed (wrongly) that the Council
had contradicted earlier infallible teaching in some of these matters.
Imagine their horror, then, at what followed. The Western Catholic intelligentsia at
the time of the Council was already more or less secretly modernist, and the cultural shift
toward secularization in the 1960’s enabled them to garner enthusiastic support by
becoming openly so. It also turned out that the bishops in the West had been too much
formed by this intelligentsia, and were far too willing to put all of the committees,
commissions, consultative bodies, faculties, and programs—advocated by the Council to
assist in an authentic renewal–into their tendentious hands. At the same time, Western
culture generally denigrated any sort of discipline. Thus the vast majority of
ecclesiastical developments in the West took on a distinctively Modernist slant.
To explain this, the Traditionalists promulgated a mythology of their own. Vatican II,
they said, was directly responsible for this problem (the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy). Then, when faced like the Modernists with contrary evidence from the texts,
they modified the myth to suggest that at the very least Vatican II, in calling for a
positive and outreaching renewal when the Church was so weak, was really a colossal
exercise in naïveté.
Alas, even good seed often falls on stony ground or among thorns, as evidenced by
www.catholicculture.org
the fact that both sides are still saying that they are right. But both sides are also
shrinking as an increasing number of Western bishops, priests and theologians have been
inching forward over the past twenty-five years in accordance with the papal effort to
recover the meaning of the Council.
Meanwhile, it is only fair to say a word about an unfortunately large number of
Catholics who have not responded to Vatican II on any level. If left alone, they would
have no particular ideological axe to grind. Modernists are hell-bent for spiritual
destruction. Traditionalists have their own blind spots, but at least they try very hard to
take God seriously in a hostile universe. But what of all those who have failed to enter
into the renewal called for by the Council out of sheer spiritual laziness? They followed
the rules in the 50’s when living prescriptively was the norm, and they became hostile to
Magisterial authority in the 70’s when hostility was all the fashion—dull sheep who
always follow the most convenient voice without any serious reflection on its message.
So here we have an ecumenical council—a universal assembly of the bishops of the
entire world whose collective acts are promulgated by the successor of St. Peter
himself—and I am very much convinced that we need to stop arguing about it based on
the myths of the opposing camps and instead study and take to heart what the Council
actually said. The summaries of the sixteen documents in our series were designed to
make it easy to do just that, to see that the Council had a great many important things to
say about the Church, her need for renewal, and her action in the modern world.
It should surprise nobody that these summaries, relying heavily on the actual text, do
not much resemble what many others have said about the Council. But they will have
served an admirable purpose if they help readers to understand why Pope John Paul II
and Pope Benedict XVI have worked so hard to recover the authentic meaning of the
Second Vatican Council, and—at long last—to see it implemented in the Church of
Christ.
www.catholicculture.org
Doctrinal Development on Religious
Liberty
One of our generous supporters, Jonathan Liem, has asked me to examine the Second
Vatican Council’s teaching on religious liberty in order to resolve the questions some
have expressed about how the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae)
can be reconciled with certain preceding elements in Catholic Tradition. I had addressed
this question briefly in Conflicting Teachings of the Magisterium?, pointing out that a
number of scholars have shown different ways in which the various Magisterial
teachings can be reconciled, but the Church herself has not approved one explanation
over another. Therefore, in this essay, I can only indicate what I believe the best solution
to be.
Setting the Stage
This is a complex topic, and I will propose that anyone wishing to understand its
resolution completely must be willing to read two longer essays available in our library,
which I believe are the best things yet written on the subject. These essays demonstrate
conclusively, in my judgment, first that there is no conflict between past teaching and the
teaching of Vatican II once one carefully parses what each really requires Catholics to
believe; and second that the Council actually provided a legitimate doctrinal
development of the Church’s teaching on religious liberty, a development which makes
that teaching clearer and more complete. As an essential preliminary, however, it is
necessary to consider the proper method to be followed in cases of this kind, and to clear
away factors which, while possibly clouding our judgment, ought to have no real bearing
on the question.
Whenever we perceive a conflict or confusion between two Magisterial teachings,
the proper approach demands that we recognize that the deficiency is in our own lack of
perception, not in the truth of the Magisterial teachings. This lack of perception may
consist in a misunderstanding of one or the other teaching because we have jumped to a
conclusion about “what it must mean” without analyzing it with sufficient care to
determine what it specifically requires us to believe. Or it may consist in a confusion of
common theological opinion or even widespread Catholic practice with what the
Magisterium actually teaches. Or it may simply consist in our own personal inability to
www.catholicculture.org
perceive how two or more statements can be reconciled. For example, it took
theologians centuries to understand how the Scriptural statements which emphasize
Christ’s omniscience could be reconciled with His statements of apparent limitation,
such as not knowing the time of the end of the world. Yet none of the Church Fathers
held that some passages were true and others false.
In any case, the proper attitude is one of acceptance of the Church’s Magisterium in
all its manifestations, confident of their truth even when we do not wholly understand
them. It is not possible to prefer the authority of one statement to another, if both are
properly Magisterial, as if the Magisterium is protected from error in some eras but not in
others. In the right spirit, therefore, one must lay out all the relevant statements and
closely analyze what each says, striving to come to an understanding which admits the
truth of all.
Four Difficulties with this Particular Issue
The Second Vatican Council upheld the right of all persons to be free from coercion by
the State in religious matters, within due limits. Some have taken this to contradict an
earlier emphasis by the Church on the duties of the State to acknowledge the truth and to
suppress error in religious matters. In the continuing debate, it is possible to identify four
particular difficulties which have made the relevant questions more difficult for many
people to resolve.
Category Mistakes: The first difficulty is the tendency to get bogged down in
irrelevant matters. This has been the case, for example, with those commentators who
have applied principles appropriate to Canon Law to the elucidation of doctrine, which is
a category mistake. Thus we cannot resolve doctrinal problems by appealing to other
statements made at the time of the doctrinal formulation which shed light on what the
formulators (either pope or council) had in mind, or from the common practice of the
Church at the time. No, what they may have had in mind—or how most Churchmen
acted—is doctrinally irrelevant. It is only what the Magisterium succeeded in writing
down and promulgating that matters, for it is precisely at this stage that the Holy Spirit
ensures that mistaken aspects of the human understanding do not bleed through to the
final draft.
As an example, Fr. Brian Harrison, who has written many good things about the
issue of religious liberty, has sometimes fallen afoul of this methodological difficulty,
and his critics have done the same. Indeed, the long and still ongoing debate between Fr.
Harrison and Arnold Guminski (some of which is available in our library) is extremely
difficult to follow because it quickly gets lost in arguments over intention (irrelevant),
www.catholicculture.org
the “practical infallibility” of ecclesiastical practice in earlier times (an infallibility which
does not exist), and other similar confusions. These are highly relevant to the
interpretation of law, but they have no bearing on doctrinal questions whatsoever.
Preconceptions: A second difficulty has often afflicted both modernists and
traditionalists in their handling of the religious liberty issue. I refer to preconceptions and
predispositions. Modernists don’t accept the consistency and stability of Church
teaching, so they find no problem in what others may perceive as innovation. Their
understanding of religioius truth is risible and cannot possibly interest us in resolving the
concerns before us now. Traditionalists have an unfortunate tendency to assume that they
know what older Magisterial statements “must mean” without parsing them precisely and
in light of more recent and equally authoritative statements. There tends to be a
traditionalist animus against newer doctrinal developments in favor of older emphases,
and this apparent willingness to accord the Magisterium supreme authority in one era but
not in another too often leads to sloppiness of interpretation.
I will dwell on this particular predisposition for just a moment because it is, in fact,
the traditionalist inability (or refusal) to see how the older and more modern texts fit
together that continues to fuel a controversy which, for everybody else, was laid to rest
by scholarly work done within 20 years of the Council. Essentially, the traditionalist
view of the matter is lifted from the work of the late Michael Davies, an extremely
articulate scholar who was uniformly critical of the Council and the post-conciliar
Church, and who had the unfortunate habit of appearing to master extensive traditional
references while failing to understand their precise meaning, their authoritative weight,
or the irrelevance of his own inability to imagine a satisfactory reconciliation of what he
perceived as divergent statements.
It is one of the best services of Fr. Harrison on this subject that he has made these
problems of understanding eminently clear in the case of Davies’ treatment of the
religious liberty controversy, by his review of Davies’ book on the subject. It is worth
noting in this context that the one article referenced by Jonathan Liem in asking me to
address this issue was taken from a traditionalist newspaper, The Remnant, and written
by a guest columnist, John Salza, who apparently follows Davies in every respect. In
some circles, Michael Davies tends to be regarded as more authoritative than the pope,
but I honestly cannot over-emphasize the need to detach oneself from the shortcomings
of his traditionalist (not to say traditional) perspective as a precondition for fully
understanding the problem of religious liberty.
Rights: The third problem which afflicts this issue is a misunderstanding of human
rights. Human rights are never absolute in and of themselves, but always entail
www.catholicculture.org
corresponding duties, the failure of which nullifies the right. Even the most basic right,
the right to life, can be forfeited if we fail in our duty to refrain from attacking innocent
persons. So too with lesser rights, such as the right to freedom of speech (one may not
shout “Fire!” in a crowded room). This is also the case with the right of the State to
suppress error (it depends on how the error has been determined and what the
consequences of attempting to suppress it are). Finally, this also applies to religious
liberty, which carries a corresponding duty to engage in one’s quest for God in a manner
that neither subverts the common good nor does violence to the Catholic religion. Thus
Vatican II talked about religious liberty “within due limits”, and the nature of those limits
is highly relevant to our discussion.
Divine Brinkmanship: A fourth and final major difficulty which applies in a special
way to the problem of religious liberty is what Fr. William Most has called “divine
brinkmanship.” Freedom is built into God’s creation of man, because the decision to
love is inescapably a free decision. This means that God (from His own love) is
constrained to do everything He can to ensure man’s salvation without violating man’s
freedom. Therefore, in all matters touching human liberty, we see God’s “brinkmanship”
at work, that is, His perfect ability to give exactly what is due to His effort to bring man
to salvation (and no more) and to give exactly what is due to human freedom (and no
more)—two trajectories which are held, in ways often obscure to ourselves, in a precise
balance which compromises neither. We should not be surprised, then, to find that the
question of religious liberty with respect to the authority of the State participates in this
same delicate balance, and that God’s requirements as expressed in Catholic doctrine on
this subject are similarly characterized by a delicate balancing of the twin trajectories in
yet another instance of Divine brinkmanship.
Resolving the Issue
The first task in reconciling apparent contradictions among magisterial texts is, as we
have seen, to examine the texts and determine carefully what each one enjoins or
prohibits, and then to seek an understanding of the doctrinal question which satisfies the
requirements of each of the texts. We might refer to this exercise as “finding the
overlap”, for whenever a series of statements, all known to be true, appear to contradict
each other, a close examination will reveal that there is some confluence in their
requirements within which, by expressing the doctrine within this overlapping region, all
statements are understood to be true. It is in fact exactly this process which permits us to
clarify doctrine over time, understanding it more precisely as divergent aspects of the
issue it represents are considered under different circumstances and in the face of
www.catholicculture.org
different problems.
Back in 1983, when I was a professor at Christendom College and the editor of the
College’s academic journal, Faith & Reason, I requested several scholars of noteworthy
intelligence and unimpeachable orthodoxy to contribute articles reconciling the older
Magisterial pronouncements on religious liberty with the newer teachings in Dignitatis
Humanae at Vatican II. The two most successful treatments I have ever seen were
submitted and published in response to this request, and so you can see why I have not
been overly concerned about this topic since that time. These are the two articles
referred to above which I insist must be read for a complete understanding of the
problem of religious liberty at Vatican II.
The first, by the late Scripture scholar and theologian Rev. William G. Most, did a
superb job of setting forth the proper method to be used (some of which I have
summarized above), of marshalling the relevant Magisterial texts, of showing what each
formally enjoins or excludes, and of demonstrating the “overlap” within which we find
an understanding of religious liberty which recognizes all the Magisterial statements as
true. Not coincidentally, Fr. Most was the foremost scholar in the world on the question
of grace and free will, having made breakthroughs on this topic in the 1950’s when he
published his masterwork Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New
Answers to Old Questions. While his article is not overly long, and is exceedingly easy to
follow, it is certainly too much to repeat here. Instead I present it as required reading
number one: Religious Liberty: What the Texts Demand.
Clarifying the Statements
Exploring the texts of Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius
XII, Fr. Most first seeks to set forth their teachings according to the strict requirements of
what these texts enjoin or prohibit. He draws out seven definitive statements which
represent a precise and proper understanding of the Church’s full teaching on religious
liberty prior to Vatican II:
No one has a right to just any wrong belief or worship. (Gregory XVI)1.
It is wrong to say that one can be saved precisely by false beliefs. (Gregory XVI)2.
It is wrong to say that no authority at all, church or state, has any right to restrain
manifestation and publication of errors no matter how gross or immoral they are.
(Gregory XVI)
3.
It is wrong to say that those who do violence to the Catholic religion should not4.
www.catholicculture.org
be restrained unless public order demands it. (Pius IX)
The state has the obligation to worship God, and to do it in the way God wills.
(Leo XIII)
5.
But it is necessary, for the common good, to permit some errors, as God Himself
does. (Leo XIII)
6.
Moreover, God does not give a right to repress certain kinds of errors at all.
(Pius XII)
7.
Fr. Most then concludes by examining the teachings of the Council in order to find an
understanding which satisfies not only Vatican II but earlier teachings, in particular the
potential source of conflict in proposition number 4. He finds that a consideration of
what it means to “do violence” to the Catholic religion (Pius IX) and the exercise of
religious liberty “within due limits” (Vatican II) present plenty of room for an
accommodation of all teachings, as indicated by “the nicely balanced teaching of Pius
XII in Ci riesce: In some cases, God does not even give a right to repression, and the
good of the universal Church would exclude repression.”
Again, to get the full force of the examination, with all aspects of the problem duly
considered, it is necessary to read the article.
Doctrinal Development at Vatican II
In my own ideal solution to the questions we have been discussing, I wish to take the
matter one small step farther than did Fr. Most. I believe that the teaching of Vatican II
on religious liberty is not only something that can be understood to fit within the already
established tradition. Rather, in one particular way it extends that tradition through a
legitimate development of doctrine—that is, as Newman put it, a change which makes
Catholic doctrine more precise while corroborating, rather than obscuring, the teachings
from which it springs. We saw exactly this kind of development in the case of the
Church’s teaching on capital punishment during the pontificate of John Paul II, who
pointed out that the traditionally-acknowledged right of the State to execute for a grave
reason was legitimately exercised only when it was necessary to protect society.
The same thing, I believe, occurred with respect to religious liberty at the Second
Vatican Council, and it is very important to examine a compelling review of the
Church’s teaching which includes a formulation of exactly how the Council developed
it. This is the contribution made by the second critical essay in my arsenal, by Dr.
William H. Marshner, entitled Dignitatis humanae and Traditional Teaching on Church
www.catholicculture.org
and State, published in the same Fall 1983 issue of Faith & Reason. Dr. Marshner is one
of the founders of Christendom College, the first chair of its Theology Department, and
still a professor of Theology there. He is an acknowledged expert not only in theology
but in the intersection between theology and politics. For a full understanding, his article
is required reading number two.
Identifying the Development
There is one point on which I disagree with Dr. Marshner as he expresses himself in the
article in question, though I do not know whether his opinion has changed since that
time. He held then that the new ground broken at Vatican II “is non-infallible teaching”
but still part of the Church’s Magisterium, meaning that “the kind of religious assent
which Catholics owe to that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the
logical possibility that the teachings is wrong; rather, our assent excludes any
probability that the new teaching is wrong.” I have never been comfortable with this
distinction (not that it is a matter of personal comfort), but it makes no practical
difference to Marshner’s effort to understand the texts, and he concludes that “the new
ground can be given an adequate rationale within the framework of the old”.
Nonetheless, I wish to state again my own view that as an ecumenical council (i.e., a full
expression of the Church’s authority in the body of bishops confirmed and promulgated
by the pope), Vatican II actually is infallible in everything it intended to teach to the
whole Church on faith or morals.
Be that as it may, Dr. Marshner demonstrates the unfolding of the Church’s teaching
on religious liberty with unrivalled lucidity. Reading his analysis will reinforce, clarify,
and make even more coherent and memorable the lessons drawn from Fr. Most’s
preliminary textual analysis. Marshner enumerates first the principles which Vatican II
clearly teaches which are obviously compatible with previous doctrine:
No one ought to use force to change another’s beliefs (especially his religious
beliefs).
No human authority may set penalties for non-conversion to Catholicism or for
failure to elicit the first assent of supernatural faith.
God obligates all men to obey the natural Moral Law; and beyond that, God
obligates all men to seek and embrace the religious truth which He has revealed.
Since God obligates all men to seek and embrace the religious truth which He
has revealed, it follows that man has, over against any human government, a right
www.catholicculture.org
right to seek and hold that truth.
Dr. Marshner then seeks to properly express the special teaching about these matters
which Vatican II “projects into the social sphere, onto the terrain of exercise”—that is,
the “rights affirmed” in the preceding principles—and he does so as follows:
No one ought to interfere with anyone’s doing those acts which (a) he believes he
ought to do on religious grounds and which (b) cannot justly be treated as crimes
because they conform to Natural Law norms of intellectual probity and moral
innocence.
Conclusion
Like Fr. Most, Dr. Marshner concludes that Pius XII in Ci riesce had already provided
the key to understanding that the State’s duty to suppress moral and religious error is
limited. As Marshner puts it, Pius XII taught that “the duty to suppress moral and
religious error, though genuine, is not the Catholic State’s ultimate norm of action.” He
explains what he means by quoting Pius XII: “It must be subordinated to higher and
more general norms which, under certain circumstances, permit, and may even show that
the best choice for promoting greater good is, the toleration of error.” Thus, Pius XII
established what Marshner calls a “must-do” law of toleration—teaching, in effect, that
when the Church notifies the State of errors on the part of its citizens, then if repression
of such errors would harm the common good, the State “will have a genuine right to tell
the clergy to carry out their own evangelical mission to immunize the faithful, and stop
asking the police to solve their problems for them.”
Finally, Dr. Marshner concludes that “all Vatican II does” is add another “must-do”
law of toleration, which he expresses thus: “To the precise extent that those holding a
religious error nevertheless profess something rationally defensible and practice what is
morally inoffensive, they enjoy an immunity from civil penalties by virtue of which the
State has a second ground for telling the Church that it cannot justly use its force against
them.” He is quick to point out that this does not revoke the State’s obligation, authority
and power to protect supernatural truths. Rather, the right of religious liberty enjoyed by
every human person simply requires that the State’s actions be determined by reason of
injurious natural consequences rather than by reason of supernatural error itself.
This, I believe, is the development of doctrine on religious liberty which occurred at
the Second Vatican Council, and it is completely consistent with the Magisterial
www.catholicculture.org
statements on these issues which preceded the Council. I grant that it would be very
helpful to many if the Church would authoritatively clarify the matter, presumably along
these lines, in order to lay to rest needless worries. Until that happens, however, those
who wish to get the entire picture firmly in mind really should complete my “required
reading”. Or, you could simply rest assured that the Church does not contradict herself,
and so put your mind at rest. I am also happy to note that, when we come at length to the Declaration on Religious Liberty
Declaration on Religious Liberty in my ongoing series on the documents of Vatican II,
this exposition is going to save us all a great deal of time.
www.catholicculture.org
About CatholicCulture.org
The chapters of this book appeared first on the Trinity Communications website,
CatholicCulture.org.
Our website includes many more Catholic materials, including daily news, commentary,
liturgical year resources, Church documents, reviews, and collections of historic Catholic
writings and references. You can also sign up for daily and weekly email newsletters.
Trinity Communications is a non-profit corporation. If you would like to support our
work, please register and contribute on the website; or mail a check or money order
along with your email address to Trinity Communications, P.O. Box 582, Manassas, VA
20108, USA.
We look forward to seeing you at www.catholicculture.org.
