Development of the texts of Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio and Orientalium Ecclesiarum

Since 1959, John XIII insisted that the upcoming Council would work for the unity of all Christian Churches (Soetens, Claude. 1998. “L`impegno ecumenico della chiesa cattolica.” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 277–366. 277. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Paul VI continued the ecumenical efforts of the Roman Catholic Church. At the end of June 1963, he asked Cardinal Bea to communicate to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople S. B. Athenagoras on his papal election and invited the patriarch to send observers to the Second Vatican Council (ibid). The Metropolitan Maximos of Sardi congratulated in the name of the patriarch. On September 20, 1963, Paul VI writes a personal letter to Athenagoras. It is the first letter of a Roman pope to the patriarch of Constantinople in centuries. Paul VI expressed his wish and determination to do whatever to unite the Christians (ibid). In his opening speech for the second session of the Council, Paul VI asked God and all Christians for forgiveness for all responsibility on the side of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the split and separation of other Churches (ibid. 278). It was clear for all that Paul VI charged himself with the ecumenical heritage of John XXIII (ibid).

In 1960, Cardinal Cicognani was president of the pre-preparatory commission of the Second Vatican Council on the Oriental Churches. His secretary was Father Atanasio Welykyj and the experts came from the Oriental Churches that recognized the Roman pope and from the Oriental institute of the Papal Gregorian University in Rome (Komonchak, Joseph. 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. 212. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Without communicating with the Theological Commission and with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of Cardinal Bea the pre-preparatory commission on the Oriental Churches produced a document that insisted on the juridical recognition of the Roman Pontiff as necessary condition for unity (ibid. 216). Since 1961, Cardinal Cicognani had been Vatican Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State decided to present the prepared document on the Oriental Churches at the first session of the Council without integrating relevant points from the other prepared documents on ecumenism. Cicognani also became president of the Secretariat of the Council, and nobody wanted to offend this powerful person without necessity (ibid. 217–18).

First Session of the Second Vatican Council, Oct 11, 1962 - Dec 8, 1962

On October 26, 1962, the discussion on the prepared document on the Oriental Churches united with Rome began in the aula (Ruggieri, Giuseppe. 1996. “Il difficile abbandono dell’ecclesiologia controversista.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 309–384. 345. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The energy of the Council Fathers is consumed by discussions on the document on revelation and on the Church and there is not much interest for the small document on the Oriental Churches (ibid). The Melkite bishops from the Middle East had developed a strategy to protest in the aula of Saint Peter’s against the prepared document. They complained about the ignorant discrimination of the Church of Rome in their regards. In Rome their patriarchs are treated inferior to Roman Latin cardinals and bishops. Further, they pointed at the hostile distrust and legitimate jealousy of the Orthodox Churches concerning Rome. The Melkite bishops claimed solidarity with the Orthodox Churches (ibid. 346). On November 27, 1962, the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, and the Melkite archbishop from Beirut and Jbei, Philippe Nabaa, and archbishop from Aleppo Néophytos Edelby, spoke in the aula of their identity, history and self-consciousness (ibid. 350). The Churches of the Orient were the firstborn of Christ and the Apostles. Exclusively Greek and Oriental Fathers organised and developed these Churches and the bishop of Rome came later and was one of the bishops. They asked Rome to remember this history and to respect collegiality between the different Churches and demanded from Rome to stop her insistence on primacy. The Council Fathers ignored these claims of the Melkite patriarch and bishops. The Melkite Church also remained isolated within the other Oriental Churches who did not want to offend Rome (ibid. 351). On November 30, 1962, there was an overwhelming vote in favor of the prepared document and a proposition was accepted the next day to include the text on the Oriental Churches and the text on ecumenism into the dogmatic constitution De Ecclesia (ibid 354). The claims of the Melkite Church were ignored, and the historian Ruggieri sadly observes that they suffered the price of Roman Realpolitik that throughout the 20th century abandoned the Christians of the Near East to their destiny (ibid).

The discussion on the Oriental Churches was overshadowed by the conflicts on the scheme De Ecclesia. A prepared text on the Virgin Mary was also discussed. The discussions were far less dramatic than the discussions on revelation. The discussions on De Ecclesia of the first week of December 1962 included many aspects that concerned the ecumenical debate. Cardinal Frings relented on his theologian Ratzinger and insisted in the debate on the old Greek definition of Catholicity that origins in the Eucharist and the practice of collegiality of all with Rome (ibid. 361). Referring to Saint Augustine, Frings spoke of the inseparability of unity and peace realized in the Eucharist with the intercommunion of the Churches with the Pontifex in Rome by celebrating the Eucharist (ibid). I very much enjoy the intervention of Ghattas, the Coptic-catholic bishop of Sohay in Upper Egypt (ibid. 362). He spoke in French, and it is a pleasure to read a comment to the modern world in a living language of this world and not in the dead language Latin. Ghattas reminded the Council Fathers of the Eucharist as the foundation of the mystical body of Christ celebrated in the old tradition of the Greek Orthodoxy. He made a strong point of the fact that the tradition of the Churches of the Orient always spoke of Churches, such as the Church of Rome, the Church of Constantinople, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Antioquia and the Church of the mother Jerusalem. Collegiality was the way to relate from one Church to the other. He reported that today they continue to use the expressions “the Churches of the Orient”, “the Churches of Africa, Japan, China etc.” (ibid. 363). Ghattas suggests considering Church unity from the point of the mystical body of Christ. He proposed treating the definition of membership or affiliation to this mystical body of Christ with care and according to the respect that is due to the Church as a mystical gift. He concluded that collegiality is the way to deal with each other and that the Churches grouping around Rome should institutionalize collegiality (ibid).

On December 4, 1963, the second session was closed with the psychologically important promulgation of the documents on liturgy and the mass media.

The first intersession of the Second Vatican Council, December 1962-September 1963

From January to May of 1963 the scheme De oecumenismo, had to overcome many obstacles. Cardinal Bea and his secretary of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity Johannes Willebrands, a Dutch theologian with a highly active interest promoting ecumenism, did not want to join the scheme on ecumenism with the scheme on the Oriental Churches. The Vatican Secretariat of State and the Roman Curia in general did not like ecumenical considerations very much and preferred Roman primacy (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 464-65. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). On February 5, 1963, Father Welykyi ended any cooperation with Cardinal Bea on a joint text on ecumenism and the Oriental Churches (ibid. 466). Bea was not incredibly sad about this decision. Concerning his ecumenical efforts, he still had to fight the resistance of Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Doctrinal Commission (ibid. 469). In April 1963, Willebrands sent the text of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity on ecumenism to the Secretariat of the State and on April 22, 1963, got the authorization of John XXIII for the text. Cardinal Ottaviani had to accept this papal decision and abandoned his claim of controlling Willebrands (ibid). Nevertheless, the text was not yet ready. The first chapter of the text dealt with the catholic principles of ecumenism; the second chapter was about the praxis of ecumenism (ibid.). The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity wanted two sections in the third chapter, one treating the Churches of the Orient united with Rome, the other treating the separated Churches of the Reform of the 16th century CE. This scheme differed considerably from the scheme that had been presented in the aula by the Commission for the Oriental Churches in November 1962 (ibid 470).

The text on unity and ecumenism depends on the theology of the text of the document De Ecclesia on the church. So far the scheme on ecumenism stuck with the juridical aspect of the Roman Catholic Church, the hierarchy was first and the people of Go’d second. The text does not yet consider collegiality (Soetens 1998, 279). Therefore, at the beginning of November 1963, Congar and Dupuy worked with seven bishops on the text and other informal groups worked on the modifications which the bishops had demanded. Reformist theologians of the group of observers claimed the ecclesial character of the communities of the Reformation; union is something different from simply going back to the Roman Catholic Church and catholic fullness cannot simply get restored with a Roman Catholic excuse for Roman involvement in the separation (ibid. 280). The text on unity was ready for presentation and debate in the aula on November 18, 1963 (ibid. 281). A fourth chapter of the text spoke about the relations with the Non-Christians and with the Hebrews and a fifth chapter was on religious freedom (ibid. 286). The Council debates the first three chapters. The Belgian theologian Charles Moeller observed there are two models of ecumenism: one prudent, abstract and juridical for fear of relativism; the other evangelical, concrete, open. The first will end in ruins (ibid. 283). The bishops from the US claimed that religious freedom was a possibility condition for relations with other Churches (ibid. 290).

Religious freedom and the relations with the Jews constituted two major problems for the Catholic Church. John XXIII had asked Cardinal Bea to prepare a decree on the Jews. Bea produced a text of seven pages. In June 1962, this text was sacked because of the protests of the Arabs and because of fear of the Secretariat of the State of further protests (ibid. 296). In February 1963, the Coordinating Commission included one page of Bea’s old text into the scheme on ecumenism. Since the Theological Commission of Ottaviani had no control over the Coordinating Commission, Bea’s text was safe (ibid). Bea insisted on memorizing the Holocaust, he claimed the recognition of Christian anti-Semitism and the necessity of changing Catholic mentality concerning the Jews. Bea insisted also on finally doing away with Catholic theology collectively holding the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus (ibid. 296–97).

There were bigger problems concerning a text on religious freedom. In March 1962, Ottaviani’s Theological Commission had approved a text on the relations between the Church and the state for the scheme De Ecclesia (ibid. 297).  Cardinal Bea had prepared a text for a scheme on religious freedom and in June 1962, Ottaviani and Bea clashed on the two texts.

In March 1963, Cardinal Suenens proposed to include the scheme on religious freedom into the scheme on the Church in the world (ibid. 298). On April 4, 1963, the North American Jesuit John Courtney Murray was named theological expert for the Council (ibid). Since 1955, he had not been allowed by Rome to write on religious freedom. Now he began working on the amelioration of the text on religious freedom. He worked using the encyclical Pacem in Terris and continued throughout the year of 1963 making important contributions to the future declaration on human dignity Dignitatis Humanae (ibid).

Second session of the Council: September 29, 1963 – December 4, 1963

There was much discussion on religious freedom in the Doctrinal Commission from the beginning of the second session of the Council. The US American bishops claimed integrating religious freedom and the text on the Jews into the scheme on ecumenism (ibid. 303). Bea’s text on the Hebrews was distributed as chapter four of the scheme on ecumenism on November 8, 1963. On November 19, 1963, the text on religious freedom was distributed in the aula as chapter five of the scheme on ecumenism (ibid). Bea presented the text on the relations of the Catholic Church with the Jews and De Smedt the text on religious freedom (ibid. 304). Bea’s relation received applause. The reactions to the relation of De Smedt were also positive, some were critical and some were negative. Spanish bishops spoke negatively on religious freedom (ibid. 306–7). Francisco Franco (1892-1975), the Spanish Catholic dictator general, still was oppressing Lutherans and other Christians, Jews and Muslims. Some Italian bishops feared that the Democratic Christian Party would turn socialist if religious freedom was granted to the Catholic politicians. There was not enough time to carefully discuss the two chapters till the vote planned for December 2, 1963 (ibid. 307). The four moderators of the Council did not even get a short discussion in the aula organized. There was no possibility of an orientation vote on religious freedom and the Jews, the orientation vote on the first three chapters of the scheme on ecumenism was positive (ibid). The distribution of powers between the presidency of the council, the Coordinating Commission, the moderators and the General Secretariat of the Council was not clear. Therefore, the lack of coordination of the Council’s working schedule (ibid. 316).

On December 4, 1963, Paul VI closed the second session of the Council. He began his speech thanking all organisms of the Council, the theological experts and the Council Fathers for the good performance of the Council (ibid. 350). Lauding the performance, Paul VI actually silenced the critical voices of the Council Fathers that the work of the Council is still not very well organized. The pope praised the adoption of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium and the adoption of the decree on the Social means of Communication Inter Mirifica (ibid. 351). Paul VI intended to end the Council with the third session. He did not say this openly but encouraged the commissions to prepare condensed and short texts that express the opinions and amendments of the Council Fathers in order to permit debates that are more effective (ibid). The priorities for Paul VI were the scheme on revelation, the scheme on the functions of the bishops and strengthening of the hierarchy, and the scheme on the Virgin Mary (ibid. 352). Paul VI stays silent on the central theme of October 1963 that is collegiality of the bishops with the pope. There was no word on ecumenism and on the reform of his curia. Concerning a possible council of the bishops the pope expressed but vague allusions (ibid. 353). He bypassed confronting the relations of the Church with the modern world and religious freedom by simply appealing to the actions of charity. Congar observes in his diary that Paul VI looked tired and demonstrated far less energy and will to engage with the Council than in September 1963 (ibid). Paul VI announced his upcoming pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in order to pray for peace and for a good conclusion of the Council. Most of the commentators of the speech concentrated their comments on the voyage to Palestine. The international press is rather friendly, judging the second session as a personal success of Paul VI. The press has not yet discovered the terms majority and Minority of the Council to describe what is already going on behind the council’s aula (ibid. 354).

The second intercession of the Second Vatican Council: December 1963 – September 1963

What is the situation of the Council at the end of the second session? The conscience of the Council had found a majority on the fundamental questions of collegiality, of the necessity of a permanent counsel of bishops that helps in governing the Church and had succeeded in rejecting the controlling influence of the Roman Curia on the commissions of the Council. Ecumenism now was a theme of the Council’s agenda (ibid. 355). Nevertheless, since October 1963, a minority of Council Fathers had begun to organize their resistance to the ongoing reforms. Concerning the future of the Council there were quite different views (ibid. 356).

Some commentators assumed that Paul VI’s decision to visit Palestine at this time of some uncertainty and disappointment concerning the Council intended to bring back stability and continuity to the Council (ibid. 358). In reality the decision for this pilgrimage seems to date back to the letter of Paul VI to Athenagoras at the end of September 1963 (ibid. 359). Paul VI’s intention for the pilgrimage was spiritual and he wanted to seize ecumenical possibilities (ibid. 360). There were no political intentions. The Vatican had not recognized the existence of the state of Israel. The Arabs feared that Paul VI’s visit could lead to something like this recognition. Paul VI travelled from January 4 to January 6, 1964. The encounters with Athenagoras were cordial and polite. The fact that the pope was ready to meet the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople in the Holy City of Peace was a decisive step in the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches (ibid). Paul VI remained deeply impressed by the heartily reception he received from the Muslim crowds that greeted him in Jerusalem and Nazareth as well as from the population and press of Israel. Concerning the future work of the Second Vatican Council, this pilgrimage of Paul VI did not produce the necessary institutional or orientating impulses that the Council would have needed (ibid. 365).

In Israel Paul VI was little sensitive to the cause of the Holocaust. Before the head of the State of Israel, Paul VI defended Pius XII from the accusations that Rolf Hochhut had brought forward. In his play, the Vicar of Christ, Hochhut accused Pius XII of not having protested the Holocaust and thus having contributed to the genocide (ibid. 363). Hubert Wolf, Historian of the Roman Catholic Church at the University of Münster, Westfalia, Germany, sees March 2, 2020, a milestone in the history of the Vatican Archives (Wolf, Hubert. 2024. Die Geheimen Archive des Vatikan und was sie über die Kirche verraten. 14. C. H. Beck: München). On this day the documents on the pontificate of Pope Pius XII from 1939 to 1958 were made accessible to historic investigation and research (ibid.). There are so many questions to be answered, ranging from the pope’s role during the Shoah, to the question if the Vatican provided passports to Adolf Eichmann or Josef Mengele to enable their flight to South America, or to the reasons that made the Vatican speak out against the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 (ibid.). Wolf cautions that the many thousands of documents do not allow fast answers (ibid.).

On September 27, 1942, Pius XII received from the American envoy Myron Taylor a document, that the pope read the same day, as a memo documents (ibid. 36). The shocking information in the document came from the Geneva bureau of the Jewish Agency for Palestine (ibid.). The pope thus got informed on the systematic extinction of the Jews in Poland and in Ukraine, and on the deportation of Jews from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Slovakia to the East, where they got “slaughtered” by the Nazi (ibid. 36-37). At the end of the document Taylor asked if the Vatican has any information that confirms the information from the Geneva document, and if that was the case, what suggests the Vatican to influence public opinion to make the civilized forces of the world ready to end these barbaric massacres (ibid. 37). Cardinal State Secretary Luigi Maglione negated any knowledge of the Vatican concerning the information from the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Luigi Maglione’s negation of knowledge about the systematic extinction of the Jews by the Nazis is contradicted by one of his substitutes in the Secretariat of the State, Giovanni Battista Montini, the later Pope Paul VI (ibid. 38). On September 30, Montini notes that he had got information on the massacres of Jews in Poland, that were “damnable and of terrible extent”, so that within a few weeks the Jewish ghettos in Poland had all been extinguished (ibid.). The Italian Conte Giovanni Malvezzi communicated in a very private encounter with Montini his impressions after his return from a voyage to Poland (ibid.). The historians were successful to discover another document that confirms the information from the Jewish Agency for Palestine, although the Archive of the State Secretariat had tried to bury the document in the depths of the archive (ibid. 39).  Andrej Schetyzkyi (1865-1944), the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Metropolitan of Galicia and Archbishop of Lviv, reported extensively on the immense atrocities against the Jews in his district (ibid. 38). The archbishop spoke of the “diabolic” German occupation, 200.000 Jews had already been massacred, women and children (ibid.39).

Montini documented the instruction of Pius XII how to answer the Americans. The pope followed the suggestion of a document from Angelo Dell’Acqua dating from October 2, 1942 (ibid.40). Angelo Dell’Acqua (1903-1972) worked at that time in the Secretariat of State as assistant to Montini and Tardini. In 1958 he was nominated titular archbishop. Paul VI trusted him, and in 1968 created Dell’Acqua cardinal, after he had organized Paul VI’s reform of the Curia. The document wherein Dell’Acqua had suggested to reply to the Americans that the Vatican had notice of “severe actions of the Nazis against non-Arians” but cannot verify the information from the Jewish Agency for Palestine, at that time had been made disappear from the archives. Organizing silence and secrecy is not difficult for a Vatican institution. Inter-congregational and inter-dicasterial communication and coordination is traditionally poor, drafts of documents usually do not circulate. Talking to anyone outside the office is normally restricted to the prefect, secretary, and undersecretary. A lower official would usually check with his superiors before sharing information with an official from another office (Reese, Thomas J. 1996. Inside the Vatican. The politics and organization of the Catholic Church. 132. Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

We know of the document of Dell’Acqua from a copy that Montini had at his disposition (Wolf, 2024. 40). On October 10, 1942, Maglione officially answered the Americans according to the suggestion of Dell’Acqua (ibid. 41). The historian reads in the document of Dell’Acqua that he mistrusts the Jews and Catholics from the East and completely ignores the testimony of Conte Malvezzi. The judgement of Wolf on the document and Dell’Acqua is clear: The document is inhumane, derogatory and antisemitic; it constituted the decisive argument for the Vatican to stay silent on the Shoah (ibid. 43).

Working the archives at the Vatican provided testimony to and exemplifies the mind-set of those working in the Vatican. “Loyalty to the pope and to church teaching is a sine qua non of working in the Vatican” (Reese 1996. 165). Most of the secretaries, undersecretaries and lower ranks of the congregations and councils are careerists. Promotion depends on loyalty and years of service. To survive in the Roman Curia, one has to live by the five “don’ts”: “Don’t think. If you think, don’t speak. If you think, and if you speak, don’t write. If you think, and if you speak, and if you write, don’t sign your name. If you think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, don’t be surprised” (Reese 1996. 164). (See my Posting “The Vatican”).

Montini had evidence that contradicted the claims of his boss at the Secretariat of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione. Montini’s assistant Dell’Acqua knew that pope Pius XII was informed by Maglione and prepared a document that would reflect all political reasons of the Vatican not to give the persecuted Jews much of public attention. The Vatican must not be instrumentalized by any other nation in order to stay autonomous, and the fate of the Jewish people was of secondary order (Wolf 2024. 42). We do not know if Montini had been thinking about making public the ongoing Shoah in order to raise international protest and resistance. We do not know, because Montini did not speak, nor did he write on the question. He was loyal to his boss Pope Pius XII, as he had been loyal to him when he was still Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli. Pius XII rewarded this loyalty of Montini in his service at the State Secretariat and in 1954 ordained Montini archbishop of Milan. This ordination was important for Martini’s chances to become pope one day.

The organization and procedures of the Roman Curia centralize power in the hands of the prefects and presidents (Reese. 1996. 136) The impact of no curial prelates and lay people in the government of the church is very limited and efforts of change and reform are also very limited. Dell’Acqua had reformed the Curia, but he did not really change anything. Every pope since Paul VI had tried a reform of the Curia, in the end, there was no or very little change.  From Wolf’s work in the archives of the Vatican we learn also, that decades of submissive service and silent loyalty in the bureaucracies and institutions of the Vatican condition the prelates and Cardinals to resist any reform, even when they eventually become head of the Roman Catholic Church, supreme pontifex, absolutist monarch, pope without checks and balances of power. When the Cardinals by mistake elect a pope like John XXIII, the mind-set of the prelates and cardinals does not change. Pope John XXIII, experienced diplomat of the Roman Curia, knew he had to overcome the resistance for change of his own Curia, if he wanted his pastoral Council for reform to succeed.

To successfully prepare his Council John XXIII stayed in contact with the Curia, that is the Secretariat of State, the congregations and dicasteries – that is the bureaucratic departments watching over doctrine, discipline, missions, bishops, priests, seminaries, universities, liturgy, creation of saints, etc. - and the tribunals. He wanted the bureaucrats to be involved and engaged in the process of preparation (Alberigo, Giuseppe. 1995. “L’ annuncio del concilio. Dalle sicurezze dell’arroccamento al fascino della ricerca.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–70. 64. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Apparently, he calculated the price he had to pay for this collaboration (ibid.). To minimize the damage, he made his loyal Cardinal Secretary of State of the Roman Catholic Church, Domenico Tardini, (1888-1961) president of the pre-preparatory commission of the Council and the unknown Pericle Felici (1911-1982) secretary for the preparation of the Council (ibid. 62). To give Felici some authority, he was ordained a titular archbishop in 1960. Tardini was the right choice, he stayed loyal to John XXIII and at the same time insisted on taking seriously the threat from the Curia to sabotage an upcoming Council. In the end one could say that the choice of Felici was not so happy. Since 1947 Felici had been an auditor of the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Roman Catholic Church, before that he was rector of the Roman Pontifical seminary (ibid.). Felici became secretary of the Second Vatican Council and tried over and over again to block any attempts of the Council Fathers for a serious reform of Church institutions and government. We will see another example of the intriguing character of Felici in the part he plays in the edition of the scheme on ecumenism in the second intersession of the Council.

During the second intersession - December 1963 to September of 1964 - there were commissions working on many schemes and texts. De Ecclesia, De Beata, on revelation, on ecumenism, on religious freedom, on the bishops, on the apostolate of the laity, on the missions, on the seminaries, on religious life, on the sacraments, and on scheme XVII that treats the relations of the Church with the modern world.

The first three chapters of the scheme on ecumenism had been approved but about 500 observations and comments of the Council Fathers concerning the approved text and chapters four and five had to be studied by the experts of Cardinal Bea (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L’intersessione (1963–1964).” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 376–513. 398. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). At the beginning of March 1964, the final text of De Oecumenismo was practically ready. But what would become of the texts on the Hebrews and on religious freedom (ibid. 399)? There was consensus on the necessity of a text on the Hebrews. This text should be published as an appendix to the scheme De Oecumenismo and should talk also of the Muslims and the relations with other religions. Cardinal Bea did not like the idea of separating the chapter on religious freedom from the scheme on ecumenism for fear that the Theological Commission and Cardinal Ottaviani would then be responsible for the text (ibid. 399–400). Bea communicated his considerations to Cardinal Confalonieri, member of the Secretariat of the Council and member of the mighty Coordinating Commission. On April 16, 1964, Confalonieri successfully proposed the Coordinating Commission to produce two declarations, one on religious freedom and the other on the Jews (ibid. 400). On April 18, 1964, Felici, secretary of the Council and always in loyal contact with Paul VI, communicated to Bea that the scheme on ecumenism will have three chapters, and two declarations will be joined. One would be on the Hebrews and non-Christian religions and one on religious freedom (ibid. 403). (See my Blogs “Commentary on the text of Nostra Aetate”, and “Commentary on the text of Dignitatis Humanae”).

Cicognani sent the text on religious freedom to the Council Fathers on April 27, 1964. The decree was ready for the aula and the debate started on September 23, 1964 (ibid. 454). In order to understand the theological development of the text on religious freedom during the second intersession, we have to understand the thinking of John Courtney Murray (1904-1967), Jesuit theologian and the Council’s expert on religious pluralism and religious freedom (ibid). Murray had the task of studying and evaluating the many observations of the bishops concerning religious freedom. In January 1964 these observations filled 280 pages (ibid. 455). Murray criticized that the discussions and debate in the aula of November 1963 on religious freedom neglected the juridical aspect of the question. He followed a political theory of the institutions of society, of legality and the constitutional right to religious freedom (ibid. 455). The constitution of the liberal democratic nation-state guarantees religious freedom with the rule of law. The constitutional liberty of the Church is the possibility of the Church to give religious freedom a theological dimension and at the same time to assume an active part as Church in the construction of society (ibid. 455–56). This practical conception of the American Constitution was quite different from the Catholic theory of tolerance that dominated the mind of the most Europeans at the Council. According to Roman Catholic teaching, the ideal state is the Catholic state that is a state – not necessarily liberal and democratic – with Roman Catholicism as official religion of the state. This Roman Catholic concept did not necessarily tolerate and grant religious freedom to other religions. Religious freedom became a theme, only when Catholics were living as minority in a nation-state and claimed tolerance for their religious practice (ibid. 456). 

Giovanni Miccoli from Trieste is a respected historian on the Second Vatican Council and on pope Pius XII dealing with the Shoah. For centuries, the Mediterranean harbor of Trieste connected the trade routes of continental Europe with the whole world, harboring the poets James Joyce and Robert Musil, but also the fascist hell that cruelly deported the Jews to the extinction camps of the Nazis in World War II. Miccoli studied in Pisa, Munich and London and writes on the development of the texts on religious freedom and on the relations of the Catholic Church with the Jews (Miccoli, Giovanni. 1999. “Due nodi: la libertà religiosa e le relazioni con gli ebrei.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il rezo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 119–220. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Third session of the Council: September 14, 1964 - November 21, 1964.

The third session of the Second Vatican Council opens on September 14, 1964. After the first days of the debate the scheme De Ecclesia effectively advanced. On September 23, 1964, the Council Fathers turned to the text on religious freedom and on September 25, 1964, they started the debate on the relations with the Jews (Miccoli 1999, 119–20).

During the 19th century CE, the popes developed the counterrevolutionary and antidemocratic theological argument that only the truth, that is the Roman Catholic faith, has a right to freedom. Absolute papal power would ensure the teaching and realization of this doctrine. Other faiths at best would be tolerated (ibid. 121). The Catholic Church received heavy critiques for this double strategy and many Catholics wanted to open the Church to a modern understanding of the religious freedoms of the individual. On August 27, 1964, the bishop of Bruges, De Smedt argued in the general assembly of the Secretariat for the Unity of the Christians in Rocca di Papa, in favor of the indisputable rights of the individual person (ibid. 123). The underlining theme of this recognition of the rights of the individual concerns the development of Roman Catholic doctrine and teaching. Is it possible that Catholic doctrine and teaching change during history? The answer to this question, affirmative or negative, constitutes the reason for the conflict of the majority and the Minority of the Council Fathers (ibid). Already in 1961, Cardinal Bea had been conscious that religious freedom and the liberty of the individual in general does not correspond with traditional Roman Catholic teaching. At the same time, Bea and his Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity defended the principle of religious freedom for ecumenical reasons. Without liberty there would be no dialogue with Protestants and the Churches of the Reform (ibid. 124). Cardinal Ottaviani from the Congregation of the faith and others fiercely defended the immutability of Catholic doctrine and accused Bea being heretic (ibid. 125).

In spring, 1964, theologians tried to justify religious freedom with arguments of faith. The moral theologian Josef Fuchs spoke of a divine vocation to liberty. In the end the argument of Murry prevailed, the constitution of the democratic state of the rule of law guarantees religious freedom (ibid. 125). On September 23, 1964, De Smedt presented the document in the aula and tried to convince the critics. He defended the use of the term religious freedom, because this use corresponds to the modern world of democratic governments, institutions, and the freedom of speech. He referred to Paul VI, who had used the term religious freedom in a seminar of the United Nations in the spring of 1964 (ibid. 130). De Smedt argued that the Catholic Church traditionally claims the liberty of the individual person to consciously accept the Catholic faith. Finally, De Smedt affirmed that not only the conscience of the individual operates with liberty and freedom, but that Go’d created the human person with a nature that empowers realizing social choices that is liberty (ibid. 131).

Ottaviani and Cardinal Ruffini, Italian bishops and the Spanish bishops defended the Spanish concordat of 1953 between Franco and the Vatican as a perfect realization of Catholic teaching where the Catholic State Spain was authorized to suppress the religious freedom of other Christian confessions (ibid). The Coetus Internationalis and its speaker Marcel Lefebvre aggressively fought against religious freedom (ibid. 137). The Polish bishops intervened protesting, because of fear that the Communist regime would crack down on Catholic religious freedom in Poland. The bishop of Lodz, Klepacz, spoke in the name of the Polish bishops, and Wojtyla from Cracovia and Cekada from Skoplej expressed the same preoccupations and claimed that state authority is bound to respect the natural right of religious freedom (ibid. 132).

On September 29, 1964, Spanish priests wrote a letter that was distributed at the Council protesting the repressive Franco regime and protesting also against the compromising complaisance of the bishops with the repressions of civil rights of this regime (ibid. 135). A young Catalan smuggled a letter from the abbot of the Benedictine Abbacy of Montserrat to De Smedt in Rome. The abbot denounced the police state of Franco and its tyrannical ideology that keeps the Spanish Roman Catholic Church in the situation of isolation. The Roman Catholic Church had been suffering for centuries and deserves a Church life searching for spiritual perfection. The separation of state and church must be the guiding principle, as it is the principle of liberal democracy that protects church life (ibid. 134). German and French cardinals kept silent in the ferocious debates and ignored the attacks on religious freedom by the Spanish and Italians. Suenens, Lercaro and Alfrink kept silent too (ibid. 143). König intervened in support of the suppressed people living under atheist-Marxist regimes and pleaded for religious freedom. All US American cardinals and many bishops from the US intervened to defend religious freedom. The American bishops had pressed for religious freedom already during the second session of the Council. They were interested in demonstrating pro-American behavior in face of their protestant compatriots. In 1962 Kennedy was elected as the first Catholic president of the United States of America, and this was the result of constitutional religious freedom (ibid. 144–47). After the debate in aula, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity tried to put together the puzzles for a text. Murray was the advocate of liberty of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution of a democratic state. He got support from Pietro Pavan (1903–1994). Pavan was the collaborator of John XXIII for Pacem in Terris. Pavan was priest, theologian, economist and an expert in social questions. He defended what is known as the Anglo-Italian point of view on religious freedom. This thinking starts with the juridical and political argument of a constitution that protects religious freedom, theological and moral arguments help to sustain the point (ibid. 159). The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity favored this position over the traditional doctrine of no tolerance for heretic faiths (ibid). On October 9, 1964, a grave incident severely shook and shattered the Council on the matter (ibid. 160). 

In the afternoon of Friday October 9, 1964, the tempest on the document on religious freedom exploded. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had received a letter from the secretary of the Council, Felici. Bea communicated the letter at the plenary session of the Secretariat that same day. In the name of the pope, the letter asked for a new draft of the text on religious freedom because the actual text would not fulfill its aim. Bea was ordered to work with members of the Secretariat and members of the Doctrinal Commission on a new draft. Felici told Bea that Michael Brown, Marcel Lefebvre, Carlo Colombo and Aniceto Fernandez would be members of this mixed commission too. The new draft should be ready by October 20, 1964 (ibid. 192).

In a second letter dating from October 8, 1964, Felici informed Cardinal Bea of another decision taken. That decision fell in a joint meeting of a counsel of the presidency of the Council, of the Coordinating Commission and the moderators, and concerned the declaration on the people of Israel. A mixed commission with members of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Doctrinal Commission should work on a text on the Hebrews for the second chapter of De Ecclesia. The text had to be ready by October 25, 1964. There was no doubt; the anti-conciliar Cardinals of the Roman Curia together with the Minority of the Council had successfully attacked the declaration on religious freedom and the declaration on the relations with the Jews. The Council Fathers were alarmed and by indiscretion the press got the information (ibid. 193). Cardinal Bea and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity walked from the affair blessed in their dignity and significantly weakened in their influence on the Council (ibid. 194). Once again, an indecisive Paul VI gave in to the massive interventions by conservatives (ibid. 195).

The organizer of the attack at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was Felici. Paul VI never claimed a mixed commission on religious freedom. In an audience on October 1, 1964, he writes in an autograph that he was not yet happy with the actual text on religious freedom. In a second autograph, the pope suggested that more experts worked on the text. Felici waited a whole week before communicating a manipulated message of Paul VI to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (ibid. 197). Cardinal Bea turned to counterattack. He would not give away the texting of the two documents. Already on October 11, 1964, 13 cardinals signed a letter of protest for the pope. More signatures followed and three moderators and three members of the presidency of the Council signed too (ibid. 213). Henri Fresquet got the letter via indiscretion and published it in Le Monde on October 17, 1964 (ibid). The signatories expressed their great pain that the declaration on religious freedom, already voted in concordance with the Majority of the Council, is given to a mixed commission. The signatories asked that the rules and procedures of the Council be respected, and that the liberty of the Council was damaged. They claimed that the text on religious freedom will be treated according to the normal regulations of the Council (ibid. 214). Del Gallo, master of the pope’s chamber, tried to deescalate pretending the pope never read Felici’s two letters, but the situation was not yet cleared (ibid).

Something had changed. In a letter of October 16, 1964, the State Secretary Cicognani declared that there will be no new mixed commission, and that Bea was in charge of the examination of the scheme on religious freedom. This was a clear instruction for Felici, and from that moment he did not use the term “mixed commission” in the context of religious freedom anymore (ibid. 215). The question of who oversaw editing the document on religious freedom was therefore closed for the moment. Ottaviani did not want to work with Marcel Levebvre and Paul VI named Cardinal Browne, and his trusted theologian from Milan, Archbishop Colombo as additional experts for the text on religious freedom (ibid. 216). From 1955 to 1962 Michael Browne was Master General of the Dominicans and was ordained bishop and created Cardinal in 1962. In the central preparatory commission, he was together with Lefebvre, Ottaviani, Ruffini and Siri member of a group of cardinals, who did not want any reform of the Roman Catholic Church. Giovanni Umberto Colombo (1902-1992) was a priest and theologian in the dioceses of Milan. At the Catholic University of Milan, he was professor of Italian language and literature. In 1960 he was appointed auxiliary bishop of Milan and when Cardinal Martini was elected pope, Columbo followed Martini as archbishop. In 1965 Pope Paul VI created Columbo cardinal. The experts would meet with Bea at his Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to edit a text they could present to the Commission of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and to the Doctrinal Commission (ibid. 217). 

The problems with the declaration on the Jews were resolved in a calmer way but technically following much the same way as the text on religious freedom. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was assured that the prepared text will not be amputated nor diminished or shortened and will deal with the relations of the Roman Catholic Church with the non-Christian religions in a separate document (ibid. 218). For both texts new difficulties will arise in November 1964 (ibid. 219).

On November 11, 1964, Willebrands handed the new text on religious freedom over to Felici (Tagle, Luis Antonio G. 1999. “La tempesta di november: la settimana nera.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il rezo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 417–482. 427. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Already on November 15, 1964, Paul VI in a personal note expressed his wish for a directive vote on the scheme. Felici tried to block the vote arguing that the Council Fathers would need some time for the study of the new text. On November 18, 1964, a petition to review the text because of its novelty reached the presidency of the Council. A similar petition arrived the same day at the presidency signed by many Council Fathers. Finally, 20 Colombian bishops asked the pope to postpone the vote. The French Cardinal Tisserant from Strasbourg (1884–1972) and a member of the presidency of the Council proposed a vote for November 18, 1964 (ibid. 429). On November 19, 1964, Archbishop Luigi Maria Carli from Segni, Italy, a leader of the Coetus Internationalis, protested a vote. On the same day the Cardinals Meyer, Ritter and Léger wrote to the pope that they feared about the future of the text (ibid. 431). On November 20, 1964, Tisserant communicated the decision of the Presidency of the Council to postpone the vote because of the wish of the Council Fathers to have time for the study of the text. January 31, 1965, was fixed as the last day for sending observations and amendments on religious freedom (ibid).

In the first week of October 1964, there were positive indicative votes on the three chapters of the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio. The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity integrated the incoming amendments into the text and at the beginning of November there were further positive votes and the final vote on the whole document passed on November 20, 1964, without apparent difficulties (ibid. 436). Nevertheless, in the second half of November 1964, there were interventions of Paul VI on the text (ibid. 437). The pope wanted to postpone the vote on the declaration until the last session of the Council in 1965. Archbishop Dell’Acqua, a member of the Roman Curia, once again acted as a mediator between the Council Fathers and Paul VI. The pope got convinced that postponing the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism would badly damage the ecumenical efforts of the Council. Together with Willebrands, Dell’Acqua studied the red lines of Paul VI on the text (ibid. 439). Willebrands repeatedly insisted that the chapters had already received positive indicative votes but wisely accepted insignificant changes of the text (ibid. 440). The Council Fathers felt offended when they heard of the papal changes in their text. They did not protest because they wanted the promulgation of the decree. On the same November 20, 1964, the decree on the Oriental Churches passed the final vote, too (ibid. 441).

The third intersession of the Council: November 22, 1964 – September 15, 1965.

The intersession will have to prepare the fourth and last session of the Council. For some important questions, the commissions await theological groundwork. These questions concern the recognition of the Bible as sovereign authority of the Christians and the Roman Catholic Church, the place of the Roman Catholic Church within secular society, the way from tolerance to full religious freedom and the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church of her historic and theological indebtedness to the Hebrews (Burigana, Riccardo, and Giovanni Turbanti. 1999. “L’intersessione prepara la conclusion del concilio.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il terzo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 483. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The interventions of Paul VI during the third session and the black week are expressions of the growing distrust of the pope regarding the Council and of the Council with respect to the pope. Many theologians were pessimistic, skeptical and delusional in their analysis of what had happened to the Council due to Paul VI (ibid. 486). Especially the Nota Praevia ended much hope for a structural reform of the Catholic Church by an effective episcopal collegiality with the pope (ibid. 487) (See my Posting “History of editing the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium”).

In 1962, John XXIII admonished the Council to respect the majority (ibid. 484). The attitude of Paul VI towards the majority of the Council was not that of his predecessor. The pope was fearful of the critique from the minority and his efforts to calm the anger of the minority changed the atmosphere and substance of the Council. The theologians of the group of Bologna around Cardinal Lercaro judged that the council had ended with November 1964. The Presbyterian J. N. Thomas observed that Paul VI had killed any move to introduce some elements of democracy to the government of the Roman Catholic Church. Thomas prophecies, that a possible development of the Roman Catholic Church would rise outside the Curia (ibid. 490). There was a lot of work going on by theologians to prepare the publication of Lumen Gentium (ibid. 493). All promulgated documents were in Latin and there was a need to translate them into modern languages, comment them, and communicate the theological developments of the Council (ibid. 494–95). Similarly, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had to work out an ecumenical manual just as the Congregation for the Sacred Rites had edited the new liturgical manuals. This was work was an important phase of the ecumenical process at the council. In the first months of 1965, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity organized ecumenical meetings with the Churches of the Reform (ibid. 563–64).

On December 2, 1964, Paul VI started his pilgrimage to Mumbai, India to assist the 38th International Eucharistic Congress (ibid. 507). Critical voices commented that Paul VI fled the sceptic reception and disillusionment with the development of the Council. Paul VI regularly spoke of the Second Vatican Council on his voyage, and he stressed the junction between the Council and his pilgrimage. The pope spoke of the importance of Lumen Gentium, he assessed the importance of the decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, and he stressed the importance of inter-religious dialogue and the search for universal peace (ibid. 509).  He spoke also of the hope to overcome world poverty. This social theme was important for a small group of Council Fathers who did not get the attention of the whole aula. The pope appealed for the pacific coexistence of the super-powers and claimed an end to the arms race. These themes so far were not treated in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Preparing the scheme on the modern world, many Council Fathers were eager not to be accused of following communist propaganda. The reaction to the journey to India was positive and helped to demonstrate the new way of the Catholic Church meeting with other religions and working for justice and peace. The pilgrimage did not change the overall skepticism of many Council Fathers and theologians concerning Church reform by the Council. Nevertheless, the pilgrimage to India inspired the work on the scheme on the world and on the relations with the Jews and other religions (ibid. 512).

On January 4, 1965, Paul VI fixed September 15, 1965, as the opening of the fourth session of the Council (ibid. 524). In the intersession, Paul VI continued to intervene in the work on the remaining schemes and texts. The theologians in the commissions started to impose a kind of auto-censorship on their work knowing about the doubts of the pope on some texts (ibid). Especially scheme XIII, the scheme on the relations of the Roman Catholic Church with the world, suffered interventions by members of the Doctrinal Commissions that were sent by Paul VI to the sub-commission working on the chapters of scheme XIII (ibid. 534). On May 11,1965, the Coordinating Commission was to receive all schemes that had been elaborated during the intersession (ibid. 542). Paul VI wanted to see all the documents before they were sent to the fathers. The commissions did not like this control by Paul VI. Also, the influence of the general secretary of the Council, Felici, continued to grow. The Coordinating Commission of the Council seems to have lost its autonomy, and Felici, who worked in accordance with the pope got in control of coordinating the editing of the texts (ibid. 543).

Until the midst of February 1965, observations on the text on religious freedom still reached the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity from the Council Fathers around the world (ibid. 565). From February 24 to 28, 1965, a first meeting of the sub-commission was scheduled in Rome in Monte Maria hosted by the Dominican Sisters of Bethania (ibid. 566).  Congar wanted to complement the juridical conception of religious freedom with biblical arguments. He spoke of liberty as a gift of God to men and women that developed throughout history (ibid. 569). Congar, Murray and Pavan were not fans of this kind of mixed argumentation. They insisted on the right of conscience to act freely realizing the commonwealth and respecting the rights of others.  Murray again seems to win over Congar.  The text was sent to Paul VI on March 20, 1965. Although Paul VI was in favor of the text in general, there was still fear of a negative intervention by the pope (ibid. 572). On May 10, 1965, Willebrands told the plenary session of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity that Paul VI approved of the text but disliked the biblical introduction. Bea will insist on the removal of Congar’s biblical introduction (ibid. 575).

Paul VI had written four pages affirming that the Roman Catholic Church must not force her religious truths on others and had the duty to tolerate the religious freedom of others. This was the position of Murray (ibid. 573). Congar was sad and felt abandoned by everybody; his theology of liberty and freedom developing throughout the history of salvation was not accepted (ibid. 574–75). The concept of equal liberty and freedom of all resulted from a development by trial and error within history. Paul VI probably was influenced by the memorandum that his philosopher friend Maritain had sent him. Maritain was convinced that civil liberties and the faith concept of liberty differ considerably. He did not use the terms civil liberty and religious freedom in a univocal manner. Civil liberty is a concept of liberal state, religious freedom is a faith concept of metaphysics, and Maritain prioritizes metaphysics over positive law.

For me it is clear: the call for liberty is the call for a new ecclesiology. Nobody at the Second Vatican Council claimed a ecclesiology that would respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the individual faithful and in the year 2025 the sovereign of the Roman Catholic Church is still the absolutist pope and not the society of the faithful women, men and queer who with the Holy Spirit believe in their Lord Jesus Christ an in Go’d the merciful.

Congar was taken by surprise when he realized the possible consequences of his point on the biblical foundation of civil liberty, but he did not dare speaking of the society of faithful as a society of equals and remained hesitant on the matter (ibid. 576). For Murray, the juridical foundation of liberty was essential. For Paul VI, the juridical foundation of liberty was a matter of prudence to stop liberty entering the life of the church (ibid). Willebrands sent the final text via Dell’Acqua to the pope. Felici wanted the Doctrinal Commission to see the text before it was sent to Paul VI. Ottaviani and his commission did not interfere any more with the text. The Doctrinal Commission was not an instrument any more for resisting the declaration on religious freedom. Paul VI would control the further steps of the declaration with the help of his trusted theologian Carlo Colombo (ibid. 577). 

The fourth session of the Council: September 15 – December 7, 1965.

On September 15, 1965, the discussion on religious freedom started in the aula. De Smedt, the relator of the document, presented the final text on religious freedom to the aula. There were three parts. The first part of the text stressed the Church’s insistence on religious freedom on the basis of the dignity of the person and of revelation. The second part gave rational arguments for religious freedom; the third spoke of revelation (Routhier, Gilles. 2001. “Portare a termine l’opera iniziata: la faticosa esperienza del quarto period.” In Concilio di transizione. Il quarto period e la conclusion del concilio (1965). Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 73–196. 88. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).  De Smedt clarified points that had preoccupied the bishops in 218 observations and amendments. The Gospel does not speak of religious freedom, but evangelical liberty is in line with religious freedom said the relator (ibid. 89). Murray had prepared the American Cardinals and bishops for taking the word in the aula with a well-staged set of interventions. Cardinal Spellman was talking freely on the matter. Cardinal Cushing spoke on freedom as a positive value, Cardinal Ritter explicated that freedom, and its protection is part of the common good. Cardinal Shehan prepared on development of doctrine, O’Boyle claimed religious freedom as different from indifferentism as the true image of Church, Primeau spoke of religious freedom and Christian freedom within the Church and Hallinan spoke on religious freedom and scheme XIII. The Canadian bishops and an important group of French bishops joined the Americans. Resistance still was hard from Spain and Italy, especially from the Cardinals Siri and Ruffini and the Coetus internationalis (ibid).

The American Cardinals and bishops all started their speeches insisting on the necessity for the credibility of the Church to open to the pastoral needs of the modern world of modern states. For the Americans the subjects of the law are the persons, and rights are for persons and not for things and concepts of truth (ibid. 90–91). Paul VI had given Urbani the presidency of the Italian bishops’ conference. Urbani spoke in favor of the text, the favor of the pope paid off. He spoke in the name of 32 Italian bishops. Thus, the pope had avoided an Italian block against the text on religious freedom. The Cardinals Alfrink and Frings were important on the first day. They supported the text while expressing criticism (ibid. 92). Their support helped advance the discussion in the aula. The aula feared that traditional catholic doctrine was abandoned for an evolutionary idea (ibid. 93).

There was a great limitation of the discussions in the aula during the whole Council in that there was not a debate of directly exchanging argument and counter argument. The statements were prepared in advance and there was no immediate answer to a statement (ibid). There was also skepticism on religious freedom coming from a group of Latin-American bishops and from the Oriental Churches. On the second day of the debate, the Maronite Patriarch of Antiochia protested that the council now accepts religious freedom against the traditional teaching of Pope Pius IX who had rejected the errors of false religions. These critics were not aware of the evolution of the doctrine under the Popes Leo XIII up to John XXIII. Change has been under way for a while (ibid. 94). The Archbishop of Paderborn, Germany, Cardinal Jaeger and the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile, Cardinal Silva Henríquez spoke of the responsibility of the text that does not lead to any relativisms (ibid. 95). There was no clear majority for the text in the aula. There was much confusion, lack of orientation, the Cardinals from the Curia were on both sides and even the conservative minority was split on the matter (ibid. 98). The bishops living under communist dictatorships defended the text. Baraniak from Poznan spoke in favor of religious freedom in the name of the polish bishops. The Archbishops of Zagreb, Croatia, Cardinal Seper insisted that religious freedom was a condition for religious life. The auxiliary bishop of Caracas, Henriquez, reminded that the Latin American Church did not follow the way the Spanish had set out for them by colonialism. The Argentine bishop Aramburu said that the Christians fighting for justice are always sympathetic of protest and the public contestation of a political order suppressing the Gospel. Racial discrimination must be contested in the name of social justice and order, even if this meant a disturbance of the public order (ibid. 98–99). The Archbishops from Boston, Cardinal Cushing concluded that religious freedom is fundamental in democratic states with a cultural and social pluralism and special pastoral needs. In totalitarian states and in states with Roman Catholic Catholic and Christian minorities like in India, in Muslim states and in the Orient religious freedom is fundamental for preaching the Gospel. Instead, in the Mediterranean Roman Catholic countries religious freedom seems not to be cherished very much (ibid. 100). The Cardinal expressed the dilemma of the Council at this moment of October 1965. The Majority of the Council Fathers was not capable of guiding a Council that was dealing with the whole world. Regional interests were prevailing (ibid. 101).

After a week’s discussion, no solution was in sight (ibid. 102). The opposition was better orchestrated and organized than the majority that lacked coordination and guidance (ibid. 103). Paul VI wanted a declaration on religious freedom but did not openly support the text. He was neither against the text but the many letters of critiques and the arguments of Siri and Ruffini impressed him (ibid. 104). He asked the moderators for a proposal to solve the issue, probably by a new commission that would work on the text with theological arguments. The moderators declined following this way for fear of never being able to finish the Council if a new commission got started. The archbishop coadjutor of Paris, Pierre Veuillot proposed a vote in the weekly meeting of the representatives of the 21 bishops’ conferences. He followed the suggestion of Suenens and argued a vote would show the actual situation in the aula and would also restore public confidence in the bishops (ibid). On September 15, 1965, Cardinal Bea the promotor of the scheme, in the name of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity officially demanded a vote of the aula. Döpfner also wanted a vote. Felici succeeded in preventing a vote (ibid. 105). The pope was already under pressure for his trip to the United Nations. He did not want to arrive with a couple of hundreds of negative votes in New York and proposed to involve the Presidency of the Council (ibid. 106). The many governing organs of the council were not helpful in guiding the council (ibid). The debate in the aula continued. On September 18, 1965, Bea wrote a letter to the pope demanding a general vote on the text. Bea wrote that he anticipated only a low number of negative votes (ibid. 107). Paul VI prepared for New York. The big bishops’ conferences were positive on a vote. The majority grew or was secure but split in its argumentation. Meanwhile the opposition suffered from fatigue of their arguments and changed strategy. On September 20, 1965, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was openly attacked in the aula. Anoveros Ataun, bishop of Cadiz and supporter of Francisco Franco asked to give the text on religious freedom to a new sub-commission. The text does not only concern Protestants and therefore the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity is not competent on it (ibid. 116).

In the interventions of the aula, the question of the vote was a taboo (ibid. 116). Only Shehan shortly alluded to the question (ibid). The press of the United States and the public showed growing preoccupations in this tense stalemate situation. Bea wrote another letter to Agagianian and to the pope. He asked the moderators to proceed with a vote and asked the pope to authorize a general vote on the text that could still be amended (ibid. 117). During the meeting of the moderators, the pope’s message arrived asking for at least an indicating vote on the text. Paul VI got nervous before going to New York. He also wrote a letter to Felici asking to give in on Bea (ibid. 117–18). On September 20, Felici united the directive organs of the Council, that is the moderators, the Counsel of the Presidency and the Coordinating Commission. After a long discussion, they agreed not to go on voting and refused the pope’s wish. Tissserant, Agagianian and Felici dominated this reunion. They ccordinated their interventions. Nine fathers were in favor of a vote: Döpfner, Shehan, Liénart, Spellman, Alfrink, Suenens, Krol, Le Cordien and Kempf. The opposed to a vote were Tisserant, Cicognani, Frings, Caggiano, Gilroy, Lercaro, Urbani, Agagianian, Ruffini, Siri, Wyszynski, Confalonieni, Roberti, Nabaa and Morcillo (ibid. 118). Immediately after that reunion, Bea and Willebrands went to press Paul VI. The pope wanted a vote anyways and now was ready to act. On September 21, 1965, Paul VI spoke to the cardinals telling them he favored a vote (ibid). Taking this decision, Paul VI took pressure from his visit to the United Nations. Many testimonies and analysis demonstrate that Paul VI in this period of the council was the decisive factor of reform. In front of an inert majority and a very energetic minority the leadership of Paul VI was decisive. John XIII intervened in the first period saving the scheme on revelation, now Paul VI had saved the Declaration on Religious Freedom (ibid. 121).

On September 21, 1965, there was the vote on the Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae (ibid. 122). 2,222 Council Fathers voted on the Declaration. There were 1,997 positive votes and only 224 negative votes (ibid. 126). The Council Fathers and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity were relieved. The next day, Bea thanked Paul VI in a letter for his decision demanding a vote. The pope had assured the unity of the Roman Catholic Church and now was free to travel to the United Nations (ibid). Meanwhile amendments were integrated into the text and members of the Doctrinal Commission joined the final redaction. At the end of September, the pope had to resist another initiative of a group of 125 bishops to stop the declaration again (ibid. 133). Until the distribution of the final Declaration to the Council Fathers on October 22, 1965, Paul VI had to fend off more of these interventions (ibid. 136). At the end of October, the votes on the individual chapters followed and modifications of the text were still made. On November 19, 1965, the final vote still counted 249 negative votes out of a totality of 2.216 votes (ibid. 141). Nevertheless, the Declaration had missed the intended promulgation in the public session of the Council of November 18, 1965. New modification demands from cardinals and bishops put pressure on De Smedt for further changes in the texting. On December 7, 1965, the final vote counted 2,308 positive votes and only 70 negative votes. On the same day, Paul VI promulgated the Declaration on Religious Freedom (ibid). 

In 1999, Komonchak published the text dealing with religious freedom that in 1950 Courtney Murray had sent to the Vatican Secretariat of State (Komonchak, Joseph A., John Courtney Murray, Samuel Cardinal Stritch, and Francis J. Connell. 1999. “The Crisis in Church-State Relationships in the U.S.A. A recently discovered Text by John Courtney Murray.” The Review of Politics 61 (4): 675–714).

John Courtney Murray (1904-1967) began his studies as young Jesuit at Boston College. His superiors sent him afterwards to the Philippines, where he taught Latin and English literature for three years. After his priestly ordination in 1933, he was sent to Rome to take a doctorate at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Four years in Rome taught him the ways the center of the Roman Catholic Church was functioning. Back in the United States he taught the young Jesuits theology in Woodstock-Georgetown University, Maryland. During World War II he endorsed for the sake of peace full cooperation with theists and other non-Catholics and advocated in his publications and conferences religious freedom and pluralism of faith. Murray became a public figure in the US (Murray Biography | Georgetown University Library).

The text on religious freedom of 1950 is important to understand Giovanni Battista Montini, who supported religious freedom as the later Pope Paul VI. Giovanni Battista Montini, in 1950 was substitute secretary of State, and apparently had requested the text from Murray (Komonchek et al. 1999. 675). Murray argued for empowering the American Roman Catholics to support the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that is to support religious freedom (ibid). The text summarizes the development of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on religious freedom and the changes that Murray claimed (ibid. 676). On September 22, 1950, Murray met in Rome with Montini, who expressed sympathy for Murray’s views and encouraged him to write the memorandum (ibid. 680–81). Murray writes that he wants to fight a feeling within the people of the United States “In the United States there is a widespread belief that the Roman Catholic Church does not fully and sincerely affirm the human and political values of a democratically organized political society” (ibid. 688). Murray observes that the 1944 Christmas radio-message of Pius XII showed a “more positive and affirmative attitude towards the development of democratic political society than was possible in the 19th century” (ibid. 693). Murray therefore presents his claim that the three basic political American principles “can be harmonized with the three corresponding essential principles of the Roman Catholic Church’s traditional doctrine with regard to her relations to the State” (ibid. 694).

Murray identifies the following three principles of the American Constitution: First, the State is lay in character, function and end. Second, the State has the duty of cooperation with the Church. Third, “the lay State is subject to the sovereignty of God” (ibid). The state recognizes that its acts and legislation ought to be in harmony with the law of God” (ibid). There is no word “God” in the American Constitution and the Constitution does not speak of “the sovereignty of God”. Murray constructed these expressions because they are key to the Vatican’s point of view. Murray argued for harmony between the American Constitution and the Vatican’s view on the State. Murray never cites the whole first Amendment and never indicates the inseparable link of religious freedom and freedom of expression in the first Amendment. According to the US Constitution, the harmony between the State and a religion is operated by the individuals of the democratic state who operate their right of freedom of expression and speech. The people themselves effect the harmony through the medium of democratic institutions; the people “bring the demands of their religious conscience to bear upon the acts and legislation of government” (ibid). Murray points at the fact that the American State is a lay state and not a laicizing state like the third French Republic (ibid). The American State is a power and not a person, “it was to establish and vindicate an order of justice and of human and civil rights and freedoms. It was to promote genuine human welfare” (ibid. 695). The American State was “declared incompetent in the order of religious belief and practice, since this order is not lay but ecclesiastical”, the order of civil society as such confines its function (ibid). In France, the State was separate from the Church, in the United States the State was “originally established as a lay power” and never separated, “because it had never been united to the Church, as in Europe” (ibid). This separation does not hinder cooperation between the State and the Church. It is interesting that Murray very carefully does not speak of Churches but of the Church (ibid). He does not want to offend the Roman Catholic authorities and at the same time, there is no ecumenical movement at his time in the United States as it already develops in Europe. In the U.S., the Constitution protects the Church in her freedom. The Constitution enabled her to exercise her own powers, to fulfill her own function, and to be what she is (ibid. 696). According to Murray, the sense of justice is not somehow resident in the people of a state as was assumed in the Medieval Age (ibid). The law of God reaches organized society “only through popular participation in these processes” that are democratic (ibid). If there is moral and spiritual direction of the lay State this direction is from below, “from all its citizens” (ibid).

In the following, Murray argues that the Catholic Church is able to comply with the three principles of the American Constitution because the Catholic Church also teaches freedom, harmony and cooperation. The functions of the Church are “to teach, to sanctify and to rule” (ibid. 697). The possibility condition to realize these functions is “the freedom of the Church” (ibid). This principle is called libertas ecclesiastica and in the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII - pope from 1878-1903 -, uses this principle to express the demand of the freedom of the Church from the State. The Catholic Church has a self-understanding of being a constituted society (ibid). The United States of America always had respected this freedom of the Church. Leo XIII further sustained that here is harmony between the two laws, the divine law – both natural and positive – and the human law made by the political power (ibid. 698). This harmony or concordia follows from the nature of man, not of the Church, insists Leo XIII. A human person is both, citizen and a Christian (ibid). In a lay democratic State of the American character this harmony “must be achieved from the bottom up by the layman acting under the guidance of his Christian conscience” (ibid). Murray is honest about the fact that the Church of Leo XIII did not teach this democratic realization of the social choices of the individual conscience. Only Pius XI starts teaching “that the layman bears the responsibility of seeing to it that the institutions and the laws of society are brought into harmony with the demands of Christian faith” (ibid).

It is necessary that the Church and the State cooperate (ibid). This necessity results from the nature of a political society that is organized as democratic state, “the government in the democratic state is not the external bishop (episcopus externus) of the early Christian empire” (ibid). Murray is clear about the historic fact that episcopus was a title for various government officials. The Church later used the term for officials with juridical powers and ordination. This use of the Church differs from the use of the term in the New Testament speaking simply of elders, presbyters, in the Christian communities. The individual woman, man or queer is a conscious agent of her or his personal autonomy (ibid). In democratically organized States, the single woman, man or queer citizen acts as “defender of the faith” and “protector of the unity of the Church”. In feudal times of monarchies, only “the Christian Prince” was empowered to govern. Murray was reluctant to claim a change of Church doctrine. Therefore, he insists that the principles of freedom, harmony and cooperation did not evolve as new principles and did not change doctrine. The change concerns the way of realizing these principles. There is the monarchic way or the democratic way to do so (ibid).

The liberal nation state with the democratic rule of law considers “judgement on the truth or error of religious beliefs as beyond the competence of the State” (ibid. 700). Murray speaks of a limitation of the State (ibid). Murray suggests that already Pius XII had taught that democracy was rooted in the human person. Murray therefore claims the human person as “the origin and end of social order” (ibid. 702). Pius XI developed the institutional theory of society, and Leo XIII advanced the idea of an ethical state (ibid). Murray points out with clarity that the persisting Catholic political practice of intolerance toward non-Catholics does not follow from the dogma of the Church but results from the post-Reformation constitutional concept of “the religion of the State” (ibid. 703).

Murray wanted from Pius XII a doctrine that meets “the legitimate demands of the democratic political conscience”, and “a Church-State doctrine that will not be an obstacle, but a help, in the Church’s apostolate in the contemporary world” (ibid. 704). In 1954, these ideas earned Murray and fellow theologians in the United States and in Europe a process by the Holy Office and formal condemnation by Cardinal Ottaviani. Murray was forbidden any further publication on religious freedom by his Church (ibid. 685). In 1963, John Courtney Murray was appointed a conciliar expert of the Second Vatican Council by Pope Paul VI. The Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae realized the claims of Murray’s memorandum from 1950 (Komonchak et al. 1999, 686).