Editing documents on the bishops, priests, religious and the lay

Looking at the Roman Catholic hierarchy of bishops, clergy and religious 60 years after the end of the Second Vatican Council is not a very thrilling experience. The end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the reform Council was followed by a counter-reform that lasted 50 years. Then, since March 2013, Pope Francis has unsuccessfully tried to overcome the stalemate between conservatives and moderates in his government. In a time suffering from Roman Catholic counter-reform hope gets inspired by remembering the vivid discussions at the Council of reform, that the historians have documented. Celibacy was questioned and debated, structural reform of the Church’s centralized government was reflected, structures for participation of bishops in the pope’s absolute powers were proposed, the participation of the lay faithful in the government of the Church and in the election of bishops was discussed and even questions of faith were asked. Most important, several bishops wanted to express the confession of faith in Jesus Christ and the whole Creed in understandable ordinary language and turn away from the abstract translations of academic Latin texts that are thousand years old and more.

From December 1962 to September 1963: First intersession

Historians call the first intersession of the Second Vatican Council that is the period between December 8, 1962, and September 29, 1963, the second preparation of the Council. This is because at the beginning of the first plenary session of the Council in the fall of 1962 in Rome, an overwhelming majority of the Council fathers had successfully claimed that the texts that had been prepared since 1960 by the Roman Curia needed a complete and fundamental revision. (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. 391. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). This second preparation of the Council realizes the final emancipation from the suffocating grip of the Roman Curia that controlled the first preparation and did not cede its centralized power on the Church (ibid.). (See my Posting “Historians, Preparation and Beginning of the Second Vatican Council”. For biographical notes on the involved persons see my Postings “Cardinals at the center and in the periphery” and “Theologians at the center and in the periphery”).

The text on the bishops

The document on the Church De Ecclesia, the later Lumen Gentium, had to clear the function of the bishop for the local Church. The text on the bishops had to spell out the juridical and pastoral guidelines for the government of the dioceses (ibid.: 483). It is interesting that during the whole first intersession the commission for the bishops never met for a full meeting (ibid. 487). Cardinal Marella, the president of the commission for the bishops at that time, preferred to work with a small sub-commission that consisted of some bishops from the commission that were present in Rome and of some of the experts of the commission (ibid.). It was the bishop of Segni, Carli, who directed the work of the sub-commission or rather blocked the work on a new text. In the commission on the Church, Carli opposed the concept of collegiality of the bishops, and he did not want any reform ecclesiology (ibid. 488). The French Bishops` Conference was furious that the commission for the bishops was not meeting for a full assembly and archbishops Pierre Veuillot (1913–1968) from Paris and Emile Guerry (1891–1969) from Cambrai, protested in Rome (ibid. 489). Veuillot was serving as parochial priest until 1942. He continued working in Rome at the Secretariat of State and got to know the ways of the Roman Curia. In 1959, he was appointed bishop of Angers and in 1961 he was appointed coadjutor archbishop of Paris, in 1966 he became Archbishop and in 1967 was created Cardinal. It will take until January 1964 for the passionate canonist priest Willy Onclin from Leuven to be able to present a completely new text for the commission for the bishops (ibid.). On October 30, 1963, the orientation vote on the collegiality of the bishops concerning the document on the Church had passed with an unexpectedly high consensus and thus paved the way for the second preparation for the text on the bishops. The bishops of the commission for the bishops had heavily protested after Carli spoke in the aula of the Council on November 13, 1963, in the name of the commission without having consulted their members (ibid.).

The consequences of the fact that 30% of the bishops at the Council were members of religious orders are often underestimated. The proud self-understanding of the religious got confused by the discussions of the communion of the people of Go’d. The ecclesiology of the communion of the people of Go’d, that are all called to perfection does not match with a religious elite understanding itself as the perfect Christians being morally and spiritually superior to the lay. The bishops from religious orders observed with suspicion the growing importance of the local churches at the Council, the Council’s growing esteem of the lay women and men in the Church and the opening of the Church to the world. Therefore, the religious showed a tendency to support the centralizing efforts of the Roman Curia to minimize the growing importance of the local bishops and to secure their privileges of exemption from episcopal powers (ibid. 515). It was a long and painful way from the prepared text on the religious to the final decree on the up-to-date renewal of religious life.

The text on the religious

In March 1963, the cardinal from Munich, Döpfner, member of the coordinating commission and reporter of the scheme on the religious vehemently opposes to speak of different degrees of perfection concerning religious and lay (ibid. 518). He affirms that the world is not completely contaminated by sin, God’s creation is good and has been redeemed in Christ (ibid.). A revised text on the religious was sent to the bishops of the Council, still received a lot of critique, and never was discussed in the second session of the Council. Jesuit father Wulf observes in Munich that the reform of religious life and the rethinking of the balance of an active life and a life of contemplation had failed so far (ibid. 519). The reform of the Jesuit Order in the sense of John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council came about only during the 32nd General Congregation of the Society of Jesus that took place in Rome from the 2nd of December of 1974 to the 7th of March of 1975. This reform of the Jesuit order functioned as a second foundation and was made possible by Pedro Arrupe who was elected General Superior in the 31st General Congregation in 1965. It took him almost ten years to prepare the Order for reform. Pope John Paul II did not like him, refused his resignation and after having suffered a severe stroke on the 7th of August of 1981 appointed a conservative Jesuit as papal delegate to lead the Jesuits bypassing Arrupe’s elected vicar. Only two years later, the Jesuits were allowed to elect a successor to Father Arrupe in their 33rd General Congregation, but as many other religious orders, they never regained their inspiring, innovative and effective charisma for their apostolic work and preferential option for the poor.

Texts on the priests and Christian education

Due to Döpfner’s plan of the spring of 1964 to end the Council by the end of the year, many prepared texts and schemes had to get shortened. This concerns especially the later Decree on the Ministry and life of priests, the Decree on the training of priests and the Declaration on Christian education (ibid. 520). These texts reemerged late on the Council’s agenda because the bishops were occupied with ecclesiology and the apostolate of the lay and forgot to assess the identity of the priests in depth. The bishops discovered very late that the priests were essential for getting the teachings of the Council to the people and that they would need a theological preparation for their pastoral work (ibid. 524). The reform of the formation of the priests in the seminaries always was a top priority in the speeches of important cardinals like Döpfner, Suenens and Lercaro and bishops like Charue, Garonne, Hurley and Weber in the aula of the Council; these speakers had large personal experience in the formation of priests as educators, instructors and confessors (ibid. 525). Nevertheless, the three above mentioned texts were discussed and edited very late in the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 526).

The text on the lay

The commission for the apostolate of the lay was presided by Cardinal Ceto. The Secretariat for the Unity with Cardinal Bea as president, and the commission for the apostolate of the lay had no institutional counterparts in the Roman Curia and therefore enjoyed relative independence (ibid. 399). Both organisms emerged from strong pre-conciliar movements, especially the ecumenical movement and the World congresses for the apostolate of the lay (ibid.). Cardinal Ceto cultured excellent diplomatic relations with Ottaviani and his dogmatic commission, but the envy of many commission members prevented Ceto from being able to effectively cooperate on the chapter on the lay in the document on the Church (ibid. 473). In February 1963, representatives from the international congress of the apostolate of the lay met in Rome and were consulted by the assembly of the commission for the apostolate of the lay. This was a decisive moment for lay participation at the Council (ibid. 477). From April 24 to 26, 1963, a group of experts lay men and women was officially consulted by the commission that prepared the scheme on the Church in the modern world, the later Gaudium et Spes (ibid. 478).

The first intersession of the Second Vatican Council was a very important moment for the lay women and men around the whole world (ibid. 574). Millions of laywomen and laymen took conscience of their lay apostolate in the Church and started participating in the liturgical and theological renovation that arrived from Rome (ibid.). A first generation of Catholics overcame silent obedience and submission to Church authorities (ibid.). The young clerics felt the same but were not free to express their claims to liberty and freedom of speech within the Church (ibid.). In Italy and the United States, this new lay elite was encouraged by John XXIII to study the new theology that was spreading all over Western Europe (ibid.). Conflicts of the lay in Western Europe and the United States with the Catholic hierarchy followed (ibid.). In the end the “sensus fidelium” that is the expressions of the faith convictions and beliefs of every single Catholic woman and man was not respected by the Church authorities on an equal and emancipated basis (ibid. 575). The legitimate interests as lay in the Catholic Church and their spiritual potential was not recognized or taken into consideration by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 579). The Second Vatican Council missed the historic opportunity for starting and structuring the dialogue with the spiritually and intellectually emancipated lay Catholics in Western Europe and North America.

From September 1963 to December 1963: Second Session

Text on the bishops

On November 8, 1963, Cardinal Frings from Cologne protested at the general session in the aula against the efforts of the Roman Curia to submit the commissions of the Council to the authority of the Curia. Cardinal Ruffini spoke in this sense the day before (Famerée, Joseph. 1998. “Vescovi e diocese (5–15 novembre 1963).” In Il concilio adulto settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 133–209. 143. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Cardinal Frings assessed the independence of the Council from the Roman Curia and insisted that the Council established the norms for the Curia and the world episcopate concerning their cooperation. Cardinal Frings insisted on a separation of the administrative procedures of the Roman Curia, the government, and the jurisdiction. He claimed the right for everybody who is accused by the Roman Curia to personally respond to the accusations. Theologians in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States had claimed this separation of powers and the right to due process at the Roman Curia before the Council. Everybody had the right to be heard and given possibility to defend himself, to correct himself before being condemned Frings said in the direction of Ottaviani’s congregation of the inquisition (ibid. 144). Until our days, the elementary civil right to a fair process is not constitutional for the Roman Catholic Church.

The aula applauded Frings. He continued claiming a reduction of the bishops and priests working at the Roman Curia and wanted instead lay women and men working in the Curia. E. D’Souza, the archbishop from Bhopal, in his speech also questions the centralized powers of the Roman Curia and demands freedom for the government of the local bishop (ibid.). The propositions of Frings constituted for Cardinal Ottaviani an impertinent provocation (ibid.). Ottaviani accused Frings in his reply of ignorance, doubted that the principle of collegiality was founded in the Scripture, claimed obedience to the primate of Peter and condemned the efforts to put limits on the primatial powers of the pope (ibid. 145). The choleric force of this uncontrolled outburst of Ottaviani’s rage discredited his and the Curia’s stance in a substantive way (ibid.).

Bishops, abbots, and theologians qualified the power practices of Ottaviani’s institution as being against natural law (ibid. 147). Neglecting natural law signifies in modern terms that the Curia does not observe Human Rights law and persecutes those who claim effective rule of Human Rights law within the Roman Catholic Church. Concerning the structure of collegiality within the Church there was apparently a deep and unbridgeable gap and rift between a majority and a minority at the Council. At this decisive moment of extreme tension in the aula, Cardinal Lercaro from Bologna, the highest moral and religious authority of the Council, took the word as moderator to assess the supreme jurisdiction of the pope, the roman pontifex (ibid. 150). The term ‘pontifex’ literally means ‘builder of a bridge’ and was the title of the supreme priest of the Roman Empire. Eventually the Christian popes usurped the pagan title. It is strange and sad for me to hear Lercaro use the title ‘pontifex’ for what should be the bishop of Rome. On November 11, 1963, the discussion on the text on the bishops continued in the aula. The retirement age of seventy-five years for bishops passed the vote of that day. In addition, the possibility of auxiliary bishops is considered positively. Bishop Caillot from Evreux and bishop Zak from Sankt Pölten in Lower Austria asked to stop naming bishops after dioceses that do not exist anymore. They claim that the ministry of a bishop is to preach to living people (ibid. 157).

In September of 1965, Paul VI institutionalized the synod of the bishops. This was quite a different institution from the one proposed by Cardinal Lercaro on November 8, 1963. Lercaro wanted a group of bishops who helped the pope to govern. The Episcopal conferences were not given jurisdiction either. The French bishops want some jurisdiction for the Episcopal conferences; the German bishops did not like this idea. Their experience of the national bishops’ conference that worked since 1947 was good, Frings told the Council. The American bishops are split on the matter (ibid. 162–64). In November 1963, the climate between a minority of the Council and the majority that tried to reign in the centralized power of the Roman Curia in the Roman Catholic Church is very tense, and therefore the question of how bishops would get chosen was not any more discussed. Nobody wanted another conflict with the Curia that with the help of the nuncios prepared the nomination of bishops without active participation of the people that are concerned (ibid. 174).

There are many informal but regular meetings during this second session of the council; non-Catholic observers meet on Tuesdays with bishops and experts (ibid.: 178–80). There is also the group called ‘Jesus, the poor and the Church’, that wanted to make the Council work for the poor of this world. Cardinal Lercaro and Cardinal Gerlier from Lyon and the Melchite patriarch of Antiochia, Maximos IV and other bishops met with experts to address the social problems of the world at the Council (ibid.: 182–83). Another group calls itself ‘the international group of fathers’ (Latin: Coetus internationalis Patrum) (ibid. 187). This group at times is able to organize as many as 450 sympathizers in the aula. The group adheres to a global ideology of the truth of faith that does not recognize the historic development of the claims of faith. The group indulges in a Roman triumphalism and a general mistrust of any change. Ecumenical movements are suspected of heresy. The only churches they accept beside the Catholic Church are the Orthodox Churches. According to their claim of representing the one and only church of Christ, the Protestants are forming only communities. The Jews are excluded by them from ecumenism and collectively held responsible for killing Jesus, the son of Go’d. Bishops like Sigaud from Brasil hate any Christian socialists or Christian democrats. Their fight at the Council is counterrevolutionary. Bishop Carli and bishop Lefebvre are part of this minority group. The Lateran University, the Roman Seminary, the French journal La cité catholique, the Divine World news service and conservative political groups made up of Latin American big landowners and Spanish fascists make up the sympathizers of this group of fathers at the Council (ibid. 188–92).

From December 1963 to September 1964: Second intersession

Text on the bishops

Cardinal Marella continued to be president of the commission on the bishops and the government of the dioceses. On November 29, 1963, Paul VI had enlarged the commission with bishops from Australia, Germany, Uruguay, South Africa and on January 8, 1964, the pope named archbishops Venedictos Printesis from Athens for the commissions (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L´intersessione (1963–1964).” In Il concilio adulto.settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 367–512. 403. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

The secretaries of the five sub commissions decided on January 27, 1964, to go on with the draft text that W. Onclin had prepared (ibid. 404). Willy Onclin (1905–1989), a Belgian priest and distinguished canonist professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, was called to Rome in 1959 for the preparation of the Second Vatican Council (De Fleurquin, Luc. 1990. “Monsieur Willy Onclin. Doctor Honoris Causa de la Universidad de Navarra (1905-1989).” Ius Canonicum XXX (59): 15–18. 16.  https://dadun.unav.edu/bitstream/10171/16219/1/ICXXX5901.pdf). He collaborated in the commission for the office of bishops and the government of dioceses, in the commission for the training of the priests and in the commission on Christian education. On November 17, 1965, Paul VI appointed him assistant-secretary of the commission responsible for the revision of the law and the redaction of the new Code (ibid. 17). In the Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges that promulgated in 1983 the new Code of Canon Law, John Paul II expressed his sincere appreciations and gratitude for the excellent work of Monsieur Onclin (ibid.). This appreciation by John Paul II cannot mask the fact that Onclin had lost much of his influence on the redaction of the new Code since the beginning of the pontificate of John Paul II in 1978 (Quisinsky, Michael. 2013. “Onclin.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 203. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The coordinating commission had suggested integrating the prepared text on the pastoral work of the bishops for the spiritual welfare of the souls into the scheme on the bishops. The president of the coordinating commission, Cardinal Cicognani wrote a letter to Marella insisting on treating pastoral questions with priority. The juridical questions will be treated later that is in the elaboration of the new Codex of Canon Law. The novelty of Onclin’s text consisted in the first chapter of his text, where he adopted the concept of collegiality form the scheme on the Church (Vilanova 1998, 404). Onclin’s first chapter treated the service of the bishop for the universal Church in general and not only at the rare occasions of synods. The text included the proposal of a council of bishops that would help the pope in the government of the universal Church. Many bishops had brought up this claim during the discussions in the aula. Onclin argued that the ordinary, proper, and immediate power (Latin: potestas) of the bishop sufficiently constitutes the necessary legitimacy of this universal service in a counsel for the pope (ibid.). The second chapter deals with the triple function of the bishop in his diocese that is teaching, sanctifying, and governing. The third chapter deals of the tradition of the Church that bishops would cooperate with the help of provincial councils and the Episcopal conferences. The Episcopal conferences should receive juridical powers (ibid.). The text got some minor modifications, and the final redaction passed the general assembly of the commission on the bishops on March 13, 1964. On April 16, 1964, the general assembly of the coordinating commission approved of the text that was presented by Cardinal Döpfner despite the wishes for amendments that were expressed by Carli and Cardinal Marella (ibid.). On May 22, 1964, Felici sent the printed text to the fathers for their advice (ibid. 405). It was clear that many juridical questions concerning the bishops had to be left to the new Codex of Canon Law to be cleared. This codex was promulgated only twenty years later in 1983.

Text on the lay

In the first months of 1964, the commission on the apostolate of the lay and the experts worked on a new text. There was much discussion. What should be taken as granted theological base for the lay from the document on the Church and what should be left to a document on the Church in the modern world? The proposed text was in fact rather a practical guide for the lay and not a theological reflection of the function and power of the lay in the life of the Church (ibid. 409). The proposed text worked on matters of discipline and responsibility of the lay. Therefore, the text was characterized by the ambiguity to limit the activities of the lay according to the pre conciliar theology of the lay and at the same time to invite the lay to collaborate and take responsibility in the Church. The text really tried to assure the control of this empowerment of the lay to collaborate and take responsibility. The hierarchy of the Church was preoccupied keeping its juridical and theological status as a “superior cast” in the Church (ibid. 410). On April 17, 1964, the coordinating commission approved the text. Ten days later the pope approved of sending the text to the fathers. During the summer of 1964, there was critique on the text coming back from the fathers and the fathers vividly expressed this critique in the aula during the discussions of the text from October 7 to 13 in the third session of the Council (ibid.).

Text on the priests

On January 23, 1964, the coordinating commission asked that the scheme on the priests should concentrate on essential points of the priesthood (ibid. 414). A text was prepared but heavily criticized in the general assembly of the commission for the priests on April 27, 1964. There was no mentioning of the people of Go’d in the proposed text and the priest was seen as an isolated individual (ibid. 415). The priest was seen something like a priest-monk who opted for a life and a state of life of perfection. The corrected text started to consider the life of the priest in essential relation to the apostolate and to pastoral work (ibid.).

In January 1964, the coordinating commission also asked the commission for the seminaries for one short and reduced scheme on the formation of priests (ibid. 415). The resulting text was sent to the fathers in May 1964 (ibid.: 416). The Cardinals Döpfner, Léger and Suenens had asked in the aula of the second session for a radical reform of the priestly formation in the seminaries. Saint Thomas was not any more to be privileged as teacher of the theology. The proposed text did not enter the necessary discussion on the formation of the priests as equilibrated and mature persons (ibid.). There was reference to the mystery of Christ in the text that was at work in history and in the world. Theological studies should therefore start with a course on salvation and philosophy has to be integrated into the theological formation that has to be based on the study of the Sacred Scriptures (ibid.). The final text met a lot of critique because the already visible crisis of priestly vocations in the West was not at all addressed. The experiences of the worker priests in France were not taken into consideration and their model of a Church that is close to the people of Go’d and not any more a clerical Church was not apprehended (ibid. 417). The commission on the priest was split over tensions and different views. The question of the Catholic schools and universities that was also given to that commission on the priests, was answered by some members of the commission in the traditional way seeing Catholic schools and universities as instruments of assuring Church privileges and power (ibid. 418). Others spoke of the important role of the schools and universities for evangelizing the world that is for preaching and realizing the Gospel (ibid.).

Text on the religious

The commission on religious life produced a text of four pages that was sent to the fathers and received heavy critique. Are the religious orders capable of contributing to the reform of the Church, asked a skeptical Döpfner reading the proposed text (ibid. 421).

From September 1964 to December of 1964: Third session

Text on the bishops

On September 18, 1964, the discussion of the scheme on the bishops started in the aula. The three chapters of the scheme are in continuity with the text of Onclin and correspond to the three chapters of the final Decree concerning the Pastoral office of bishops in the Church Christus Dominus (Paul VI. 1965a. “Christus Dominus. Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church.” The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html). The first chapter deals with the relationships of bishops to the universal church, the second deals with bishops and their particular churches or dioceses, and the third chapter concerns bishops operating for the common good of many churches (ibid.). The text of the scheme was discussed for four days. There were controversies over the first chapter and the concept of collegiality. There was much discussion and controversy going on concerning the third chapter of the scheme on the Church that concerns the hierarchy of the church. The text on the bishops proposed that the order of the bishops with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head exists as the subject of supreme power over the universal Church. The majority missed the complete phrase “supreme and plenary power” in the text and claimed not only supreme but also plenary power (Komonchak, Joseph A. 1999. “L’ecclesiologia di communione.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–118. 115. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The critical point in chapter two concerns the jurisdictional exemption of the religious orders within the dioceses. The text was given back to the commission of the bishops for including the requested corrections and on October 30, 1964, the final text returned to the bishops. The vote was set for November 4, 1964. The enemies of collegiality failed in postponing the vote till the final votes on De Ecclesia (ibid. 116). It was a surprise that the chapter that delegated some power to the bishops for episcopal conferences, synods and councils passed the vote without problems. It was also a surprise that chapter one and two did not pass because over 30% of the votes were against the text or demanded major modifications (ibid. 117). There were growing tensions within the commission on the bishops. Felici announced on November 20, 1964, that the text on the bishops would be worked over and presented again at the fourth session of the Council in 1965 (ibid.).

Text on the Church

The aula started voting on the hierarchy of the Church that is chapter three of the scheme on the Church on September 21, 1964. The first vote was on number 18 (collegiality of the Twelve with Peter as one of them but being their head) and passed with 2,166 placet and fifty-three non placet. The second vote was on number 19 (on the collegial character of the group of the Twelve) and passed with 2,012 placet and 191 non placet, the third vote was on number 19 concerning the origin of the ministry of the bishops and passed with 2,013 placet and 106 non placet. The vote on number 20 (transmission of the apostolic mission to the bishops) passed with 2,091 against 115. The minority was not very happy with the result of the votes and protested; Cardinal Larraona, a Spanish cardinal and prefect of the Roman Curia protested with Felici. On September 22, 1964, the most controversial issues came to the vote: The sacramental character of the episcopate. The sacramental origin of the three functions of the bishops, the analogy of the college of the Twelve Apostles and the college of the bishops, the recognition that collegiality was exercised by the primitive Church, and the assessment that a bishop becomes a member of the college of bishops by ordination and communion with the college of bishops. All issues passed and received an overall average of only 300 no votes that is about 30% of the bishops. Paul VI was relieved by the outcome (ibid. 100–102). The final vote on the whole of Lumen Gentium passed on November 11, 1964, with only five no votes.

Text on the lay

Hanjo Sauer writes the history on the emergence of the Council’s conscience for the lay women and men during the third session (Sauer, Hanjo. 1999. “Il concilio all scoperta dei laici.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 259–292. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The scheme on the lay that was presented to the fathers of the council for the third session had five chapters. The final decree on the apostolate of the laity Apostolicam Actuositatem that was promulgate November 18, 1965, shows the same number of chapters, some of their titles are changed and chapter two of the scheme becomes chapter three, chapter three becomes chapter two. The first chapter of the scheme was about the vocation of the laity to the apostolate and dealt with the participation of the lay at the mission of the church, of the apostolate of the single and the apostolate of lay groups, and of the formation and training for the apostolate. The second chapter was about the fields of the apostolate that is the communities and the society, the family, the local church communities, and the environment and conditions of life that are open for the apostolate. The third chapter treats the end of the apostolate that is the sanctification of women and men, the Christian structuring of the worldly affairs, and charity. The fourth chapter was about the various forms of the apostolate that is associations, multiple organizations like the Catholic Action, associations of the faithful according to Canon Law, and the esteem of the Council for these associations. The fifth chapter dealt with the norms that determine the order of the cooperation of the laity with the bishops and the hierarchy, with other Christians and with non-Christians (ibid. 259).

In August 1964, bishop Stefan Lászlo from Eisenstadt in Austria sent a summary of the development and the significance of the scheme to the German speaking bishops at the Councils. Lászlo remembered that many bishops asked John XXIII to treat the questions of the apostolate of the laity at the council. The bishops were disappointed that the texts of the ante-preparatory commission for the upcoming Council did not recognize the important movement of the laity that had developed during the last decennia and that asked for an assessment of their apostolate in the Church. The pope heard the concerns and instituted a preparatory commission for the apostolate of the lay. This preparatory commission was one of the richest concerning the cultural background of their members, bishops, and theologians from all parts of the word and representatives of national and international organizations of the laity. President of the commission was cardinal Cento; secretary was the assistant of the permanent committee for the world congresses of the apostolate of the laity monsignor Glorieux. This preparatory commission alone was not confronted with a corresponding congregation in the Roman Curia of the Vatican (ibid.).

Since the beginning of the Council the now commission for the apostolate of the laity had worked tirelessly in five sub-commissions for almost four years before presenting the text for a decree in the aula of the council; the whole commission was conscious of the importance of this moment for the Council’s relations with the laity (ibid. 260).

On October 6, 1964, Cardinal Cento, the president of the commission on the laity took the word in the aula introducing into the matter of the apostolate of the laity and announcing that the bishop Hengsbach would take the word after him relating the text of the scheme to the aula (ibid.). Cento thanked the collaborators on the text, the fathers and the laywomen and laymen. He effectively gendered a little, speaking of two sexes (ibid. 261). Cento reminded the aula of the pastoral importance of the laity. Women and men participate in the vocation of the apostolate from the moment of their baptism. This vocation is of greatest importance for the Church, the laity are active and not passive Christians, animated by Christ who loves all women and men, Christians, and non-Christians alike (ibid.). Cento insisted on the difference between the laity and the clergy. The general priesthood of the laity was not sacramental as that of the priests and this difference originates in the will of Christ. Nevertheless, the laity together with the hierarchy constitutes the Church (ibid.). Sauer does not comment on the ambiguity of esteeming the laity and at the same time ensuring the submission of the laity to the priests and hierarchy concerning the concrete apostolic activities of the Church. The historian and theologian Grootaers is aware of this ambiguity and presents a clearer picture of what was going on than Sauer does. When Cardinal Ceto introduced the presentation of the scheme on the apostolate of the laity in the aula in the fall of 1964, he affirmed that every Christian vocation is by nature a vocation for the apostolate and for the mission of the Church and both have their source in baptism (Grootaers 1996. 481). This dogmatic affirmation sounds comforting to the new self-understanding of the lay women and men in the Catholic Church; but what is the effective part of the lay in the apostolate and mission of the Church? The final judgement of the historian Jan Grootaers on the possibilities of the lay reflects disappointment; he speaks of the major failure of the Council (ibid. 579).

Hengsbach reported the text of the scheme to the council. At the end of September 1964, the commission for the apostolate of the laity had approved of his report (Sauer 1999, 260). Hengsbach assessed that the proposed scheme was in complete accordance with chapter four of the constitution on the Church De Ecclesia that is on the laity (ibid. 261). Hengsbach spoke of the difficulties of his commission to find together with the theological commission of Cardinal Ottaviani a definition of the lay woman and man that would not repeat the negative definition of Code of Canon Law and could transcend the simple predicate “the faithful” as synonym for the laity (ibid.).

Hengsbach related also that much of the text that the preparatory commission for the apostolate of the laity had prepared had been integrated into the text of the pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world and many other schemes concerning the laity. Many juridical questions of the scheme on the apostolate of the laity were to get resolved in the commission for the revision of the Code of Canon Law and the episcopal conferences were encouraged to specify in a post-conciliar directory the apostolic activities of the laity (ibid. 263). After these two preliminary remarks Hengsbach introduced the five chapters of the prepared scheme insisting on the great importance of the apostolate of the laity in and for our times (ibid. 264). Hengsbach concluded his report informing of the creation of a small sub-commission that would examine and study the references to the Scripture in the text and the necessary coordination with the text on the Church in the modern world that has not yet been completed. He also wanted to integrate elements of a spirituality of the laity in the texts of the Council (ibid.).

On October 7, 1964, Cardinal Ritter from Saint Louis started the general discussion on the scheme. He was critical of the juridical character of the scheme, its clericalism and preferential treatment of the priests and the hierarchy. He claimed to change the order of the chapters. It is true, Cardinal Ceto, in his introduction, used phrases like: “The lay have to recognize in the priest the face of Jesus Christ” (ibid. 261). Ritter insisted on the same nature of the apostolate of all, laity and clerics and he wanted to recognize the sacredness of the laity in the scheme just as the scheme De Ecclesia already does. The former Master General of the Dominicans, the Irish Cardinal Brown spoke of the duty of the laity to obey to the parish priest citing the phrase of Ignatius from Antiochia: “Nothing without the bishop” (ibid. 267). Antonio Fernandes, auxiliary bishop of Delhi spoke in the name of the Indian bishops. He said that the apostolate of the laity is related to the worldwide fight against hunger and poverty and for social justice; the scheme on the laity therefore must be read together with the encyclicals of John XXIII and the scheme of the Church in the modern world (ibid.: 268). Some bishops asked for a description of the life of the lay men and women in today’s world. The bishops were angry about the stress imposed on them in this discussion. The Roman Curia wanted to end the Council as soon as possible and therefore limited the time for the speakers, wrote the German Jesuit theologian expert Semmelroth in his diary on that day (ibid.).

On October 8, 1964, bishop D’Souza from Bhopal severely criticized the text of the scheme. The scheme was treating the laymen and women not as adults and was restricting the spirit by the letter. He denounced the clericalism of the text, called Brown’s use of the phrase “nothing without the bishops” from Ignatius from Antioch abusive, and protested that nothing could happen in Church if not having been expressively approved and ordered by the bishop (ibid. 270). He said that the Church is not an authoritarian state and identified clericalism as the main obstacle for Church reform. The lay are brothers and sisters of Christ, and he criticized that only priests presented the Church at international organizations (ibid.). D’Souza assessed the necessity for structural reform of the Church and wanted that laypersons substitute the clerics in the Roman Curia. He concluded that the scheme could have opened a new era in the Church for a new generation of young Christians (ibid.). Bishop De Smedt from Bruges invited to take seriously the youth and instated that dialogue was necessary to find and assess the truths of the faith and not dictates ex cathedra (bidi. 271). He insisted on religious liberty within the Church, on the powers of personal motivation and conviction that would empower authenticity and catholicity in the search of Go’d. When his speaking time was exhausted, De Smedt distributed his written argumentation for a common effort of all women and men of good will, Catholics, Christians and non-Christians alike, for peace and justice. Sauer reminds us that these thoughts were already present in the texts of the association of Catholic youth and workers for the apostolate of the laity in the German dioceses of Essen. This text had already spoken of the common vocation of all women and men workers to a life in dignity and asked that the priestly formation integrated the social pastoral of the working and the empowerment for collaboration with the laity (ibid. 271). After De Smedt, the Italian bishop D’Agostino spoke and warned the Council to follow the wrong ways of preferential treatment of the laity and of the danger of laicism (ibid.). The Polish bishops defended the scheme on the apostolate of the laity as it was (ibid.: 272). The discussion on this day and the following October 9, 1964, showed many positive reactions on the scheme, many claims for further attention to the life of the laity and some critiques of the scheme (ibid. 274–81).

On October 11, the observer from the World Council of Churches, Lukas Vischer, writes a detailed report on the discussion on the scheme to Geneva. He comments that the text is not very interesting, that the expression apostolate is not sufficiently described, that the clerics are still dominating the text, that there is no ecumenical interest visible in the text, and that the discussion in the aula heavily criticized the proposed scheme (ibid. 282).

Lukas Vischer had been participating at the meeting of Catholics with members of the World Council of Churches from Geneva held in Glion, France, in January of 1964, where the Council’s theological expert from Louvain, C. Moeller presented his studies on the term lay and laity (ibid.). The term lay emerges in the second century and is not biblical, insists Moeller, and it is not possible to speak of the people of Go’d and the laity without the hierarchy. Nobody becomes a priest by baptism, and nobody becomes a bishop by the pope, argues Moeller and talking of the people of Go’d and the lay without the hierarchy is theologically not possible. The chapter on the laity precedes the chapter on the hierarchy in the scheme on the Church because nobody becomes a priest without baptism. As the office of bishop does not derive from the office of the pope — on the contrary, the office of the pope derives from the bishop’s office —, the effective priesthood of the whole people of Go’d does not derive from the hierarchy. The use of the concept “hierarchy” in connection with the laity is problematic and unfortunate because the Areopagite Pseudo-Dionysus (6th century CE), who presumably used the term hierarchy for the first time, was speaking of a celestial order and not of an order of the Church (ibid.).

On Monday, October 12, the aula continued discussing the scheme with the intervention of Cardinal Liénart from Lille. The Cardinal insisted that apostolate is a term that concerns priests and lay because of baptism and confirmation (ibid. 283). The lay therefore are adult members of the Church, who actively take part in the diffusion of the reign of God. This work of the laity does not consist in simple help for the clergy but realizes the testimony for Jesus Christ in the world, in the family, and in society, on a national and international level. The lay actively open the ways of Go’d’s grace that moves all women and men (ibid.).

On October 13, 1964, a few bishops got the word to speak on the scheme (ibid.: 286). At last, the lay man Patrick Keegan, president of the Catholic world association of the workers, was given the word. He started that he was speaking in the name of the laywomen and men audience that had been invited to listen in the aula. They were very much welcoming the chapter on the laity in the document on the Church, and also about the document on the liturgy that insisted on the active participation of the lay at the whole mission of the Church (ibid. 287). He hoped also for loyal cooperation in the document on ecumenism and hoped for future development on the collaboration of lay and hierarchy according to the scheme on the apostolate of the laity. Keegan insisted on the important task of working for consciousness for the Christian responsibility of the laity, of educating the laity to realize this apostolic responsibility in their communities. Bishop Hengsbach, the relator of the scheme, concluded the discussion of the scheme. He told the aula that the commission will work on the theological coherence of the scheme, talking of the responsibility of whole people of Go’d for the apostolate and not speaking to the laity from the point of view of the clergy (ibid. 289).

Text on the ministry of the priests

I am continuing with the discussions and the voting in the third session of the Council concerning the scheme on the ministry and formation of the priests (Tanner, Norman. 1999. “La chiesa nella società: ecclesia ad extra.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 293–416. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The schemes presented in the aula on the life and the ministry of the priests and on the formation of the priests had suffered a drastic shortening as other minor documents too. The scheme on the ministry and life of the priest was discussed from October 13 to October 15, 1964; four weeks later the discussion on the scheme on the formation of the priests started and took a whole week (ibid. 372). It was not possible to get the two schemes passed with a short discussion and a vote in the aula (ibid. 373). Especially the scheme on the life and ministry of the priests had to get worked over substantially in the upcoming intersession. The relator of the scheme on the life and ministry of the priests was Marty from the commission of the clergy (ibid. 375). He had justified the shortening of the text explaining that there is already so much talk on the clergy and the priests in other documents that there is no need for more text on that matter (ibid.). The discussion showed that the majority of the bishops wanted a longer document to present their traditional view on the priesthood and celibacy (ibid.: 378). Bishop Fares from the dioceses of Catanzaro and Squillace in Italy said that the celibacy of the priest was only a law. Cardinal Alfrink criticized weak theological argumentation of the celibacy in the text and reminded the council that the crisis of the clergy must not to be ignored. He suggested a profound study of celibacy on the ground of the Bible and tradition (ibid.). Bishops stressed the necessity to renew the spiritual life of the priests and favored associations of priests noticing their growing loneliness and social isolation in the parishes. Effective collaboration of the priests and the lay was claimed in the construction of the Body of Christ (ibid. 380). Many bishops spoke of the necessary pastoral care of the bishops for their priests. The unjust distribution of priests in the world was becoming a theme. Bishop Rodriguez Ballón from Arequipa in Peru lamented that in Latin America there were few priests and especially the countryside lacked priests and parishes (ibid. 381). The auxiliary from Regensburg, Hiltl, demanded just salaries and social security for the domestic workers in the parish houses.

The text on the formation of the priests

The scheme on the formation of the priests that was discussed in the aula counted seven chapters (ibid. 385). The episcopal conferences were held responsible for the formation of the priests, the vocational work for priests was underlined, a better spiritual formation was to be organized together with a reform of the theological studies that capacitates for the pastoral work (ibid.). The document had been worked out by the commission for theological studies and Carraro reported to the aula. Many bishops expressed their satisfaction with the scheme. The only point of controversy was the role of Thomas Aquinas in the theological curriculum. A minority of bishops defended the priority of Thomas’ teaching for formation. The final vote on the scheme was positive and the commission on the studies was satisfied that only minor corrections were necessary.

The text on the religious

From November 10 to 12, 1964, the scheme on the religious got discussed in the aula (ibid. 394). Much on the religious was already said while discussing the scheme on the church. The many Council fathers coming from religious orders or having received their formation in institutions of religious orders wanted a document on the religious to honor their contributions to the Church (ibid.). Also, bishop McShea, the relator of the scheme to the aula first had to defend that the scheme was very short. Many speakers cautioned to protect the religious and not to renew too much, because the active apostolate was not the charisma of contemplative monks and nuns (ibid. 395). The exemption of religious orders from the jurisdiction of the bishops again was a point of much controversy (ibid.). Cardinal Döpfner criticized that many superiors were not able to deal with mature and adult men and did not propose the kind of obedience that would correspond to their inferiors. Cardinal Suenens opposed the scheme because the nuns were treated as inferior to the monks and priests and Christ was not put at the center of the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience but pious phrases pretended serious calls for the religious’ renewal (ibid. 396). Bishop Charue form Namur protested that the commission of the religious had not been willing to cooperate with his commission when he was redacting the chapter on the religious in De Ecclesia (ibid.). Despite all the controversy and critique, the scheme passed all the necessary votes to be accepted under the condition that some modifications get included (ibid.).

From December 1964 to September of 1965: Third intersession

Text on the lay

Five days after the end of the discussion in the aula, the commission on the apostolate of the lay started to work on the modifications of the scheme that were requested by the bishops in five sub-commissions (Burigana, Riccardo, and Giovanni Turbanti. 1999. “L’intersessione prepare la conclusione del concilio.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 592. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The sub-commissions had to connect the scheme with the corresponding chapter in De Ecclesia. They had to describe in detail the “Azione sociale” that is the Catholic movement of lay women and men that work on the realization of the social doctrine of the Church in the world (ibid.). They had to write on the formation of the laity for the apostolate, and they had to elaborate a sixth chapter on the spirituality of the lay women and men (ibid.). Chapter two and three got inversed. There was much controversy on how to organize the lay apostolate, how to relate the individual apostolate with the organized apostolate of the family and the parishes and how to limit the range of the apostolate of the laity (ibid.: 593). All this and the theological development of the apostolic mission of the laity helped enlarge the text of the scheme considerably (ibid. 594). The renewed text was presented in plenary session of the commission at the end of January 1965. There was much controversy on the theological dimension of the lay apostolate and the commission never reached a conclusion on how to relate the lay women and men citizens to the lay women and man faithful (ibid. 595). A certain frustration was created because nothing was known about scheme XIII that was important for the apostolate of the lay. The text on the apostolate of the laity was not clear about the theological significance of the world and of the lay woman and man living in the world. There was much insecurity on the valuation of the world. Was the world to be considered a secular reality only? The German Jesuit expert in the commission Hirschmann asked for the meaning of “the Christian inspiration of the worldly order” that the lay would have to realize (ibid.). Hirschmann insisted that the laity has a proper function, a munus that is to sanctify the world (ibid.). On this fundamental question and on the question if charity is the end of the apostolate of the laity, the commission never gave an answer. The Council was about to close, and these fundamental questions will remain unanswered (ibid.: 596). The commission established a small redaction group and at the plenary session in April 1965, the new text was presented (597). There was not much new discussion and the text got approval. Ménager and Klostermann got their description of the apostolate of the laity included in the text: The apostolate of the laity works for the evangelization and sanctification of women and men; the laity disseminates the spirit of the Gospel of Christ for their salvation (ibid. 598). The coordinating commission and Paul VI approved of the text, and it was sent to the fathers (ibid.).

Text on the priests

The scheme on the clergy had been heavily criticized in the third session of the Council. Congar therefore spontaneously offered Marty his cooperation on the scheme and was welcomed by Marty with great joy and emotion (ibid.: 599). Congar worked on the theological part of the renewal of the text that is on the munera, the functions of the priests and on the evangelical aspect of the life of the priests (ibid.). The priests were described as ministers of the sacraments and the Eucharist, and as guides of the people of Go’d, as ministers of the word (ibid.). At the end of November 1964, the renewed text was sent to the fathers and the commission received many observations till the end of January 1965 (ibid. 600). Döpfner remained critical of the renewed text.

The nature of the sacerdotal office was not yet clearly described. There were those who related it to the Church and those who stressed the spiritual dimension. The relation of bishops and priests had to be cleared too. Celibacy was discussed again and in a very controversial way. The archbishop of Semarang, Darmojuwono, asked in the name of thirty Indonesian fathers that the bishop’s conferences would get authority to decide on the question according to the needs of their regions (ibid. 601).

Nevertheless, the commission insisted on the celibacy of the priest despite the pressure of the public opinion and many dramatic letters from priests asking for reform of the celibacy. The commission did not question the legitimacy of married priests in some rites of the Catholic Church but stuck to the celibacy in the document. There was talk of the French priest-workers who insisted on evangelizing the poor (ibid. 602).

On April 1, 1965, the commission finished discussion on the text. To please some fathers, the reference to married apostles was canceled from the text, a negative valuation of sexuality was opposed. The text was sent to the bishops on June 12, 1965 (ibid. 605).

Text on the religious

The scheme on the religious had been treated favorably during the third session of the Council (ibid. 616). Nevertheless, the picture of the votes on the single propositions of the scheme was not so clear. This was the reason for tensions in the plenary meeting of the commission on the religious of November 19, 1964. A sub-commission should elaborate a new version of the scheme. Since July 1963, the Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, the Italian Cardinal Ildebrando Antoniutti was president of the Council’s Commission on the religious. In February 1965 the theological experts of the Commission on the religious met in Rome and the Secretary of the Congregation for religious archbishop Philippe directed their work (ibid.: 619). This meeting was the beginning of the successful joint effort to elaborate the text for the scheme. The religious vocation was to be described as distinct from the vocation of the baptized, the profession of the evangelical councils of poverty, chastity and obedience were reflected as the complete dedication to Go’d. Further topics were the service for the Church, and the praxis of the virtues (ibid. 620). Spiritual life was assessed together with the life of prayer and the liturgical prayers and the praxis of charity in the community (ibid.). All this theological reflection helped integrate the religious life into the life of the Church. It was more difficult to clear the distinctions of active life and contemplative life of the different religious orders (ibid.). On March 18, 1965, the text was sent to the commission for study. The plenary commission met at the end of April 1965. The prepared text was accepted and approved but not any more sent to the fathers. Since their vote in the third session had been positive, they would see the final text at the beginning of the fourth session of the Council (ibid. 623).

Text on the formation of the priests

The commission on the formation of the priests and on Christian education worked smoothly and without controversy integrating the modifications they received from the fathers. Saint Thomas was still instituted as an important reference for the theological formation of the priests. All fathers consented that the Christian education was the proper right and duty of the family and only then the duty of the Catholic schools (ibid.: 625). Some controversy arose on the duty of civil society for Christian education (ibid.: 626). Nevertheless, the final text was to be discussed again in the plenary meeting of the commission of September 22, 1965, that is a week after the fourth session of the Council had started (ibid. 630).

Text on the bishops

The commission for the bishops did not meet any more in the third intersession. The scheme was ready. The reason for postponing the final vote in the third session was that the fathers waited for the vote on De Ecclesia. The scheme on the bishops had many references to De Ecclesia. Felici was not happy that the scheme on the bishops referred on many points to De Ecclesia and Cardinal Marella and Felici wanted to ban some references to the collegiality of the bishops with the pope from the scheme (ibid.: 630). The scheme spoke in the first chapter of the participation of the bishops concerning the government of the Church and of the relations of the bishops with the Roman Curia (ibid. 631). The Coetus patrorum had unsuccessfully tried to block collegiality of the bishops in the third session; also unsuccessful was its attempt to maintain the exemption of the religious orders from the bishops’ jurisdiction in the scheme (ibid.). Onclin was warned by bishop Veuillot that there were efforts going on for changes in the scheme and Onclin feared the same for the third intersession. He therefore asked Cardinal Suenens to see to it, at his visit in Rome in December 1964, that the scheme was not touched by anybody (ibid.). There are no specific indications of interventions with Paul VI in the first months of 1965 (ibid. 632). But the fears of Onclin, Congar and Moeller that interventions and changes are secretly happening continued throughout the spring of 1965. The fears were not without reasons, because Schillebeeckx’s article strongly criticizing the Nota praevia on collegiality of Paul VI had caused strong reactions on the part of the Roman Curia (ibid.). The Coetus patrorum intervened against collegiality at the Roman Curia sending a letter from archbishop Lefebvre to the Congregation of the Holy Spirit in June 1965 (ibid.). At this point of the Council, the conservative fathers of the minority at the Council protested the Council’s stand on religious liberty, collegiality and the institution of episcopal conferences (ibid. 633). On November 20, 1964, Paul VI had asked the Cardinals of the Roman Curia on their opinion concerning reform of the Curia, a synod of the bishops at Rome and episcopal conferences. The scheme that Cardinal Marella sent bishop Veuillot at the beginning of June 1965 integrated some modifications but no changes of the text. The scheme was distributed to the fathers at the beginning of the fourth session (ibid. 634).

From September to December 1965: The fourth session of the Council

General picture of the state of the Council

In spring 1965 and in the summer of that year, the Catholic organizations of the laity discussed about the scheme on the laity with the bishops that returned from Rome for the intersession. The expectations of the laity for an active part in the apostolate of the Church were high. There were propositions that the laywomen and laymen of the dioceses take part in the election of a new bishop and that the status of the lay in the Church was strengthened (Turbanti, Giovanni. 2001. “Verso il quarto periodo.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 23–72. 32. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Hopes for dialogue in the Church were high. In April 1965, Paul VI instituted for the dialogue with non-believers at the Roman Curia the Secretariat for Non-Believers and appointed Cardinal König from Vienna as president (ibid. 33). Paul VI soon got insecure about the project of this dialogue with non-believers and for fear of assimilation and diffusion he started admonishing and restricting the range of this dialogue (ibid.). The public was discussing with a lot of expectations a positive declaration on birth control by the council (ibid.). In June 1965, the World Health Organization of the United Nations presented a report on the health aspects concerning the demographic development of the world population. The Holy See had been invited to collaborate on the report and Henri De Riedmatten, a Swiss Dominican father, participated in the preparation. Because of his diplomatic family background De Riedmatten energetically pursued his personal vocation to make the Vatican visible in international organizations. He was favorable concerning the methods of birth control insisting on the ethics of their use. The Catholic world heavily debated artificial birth control. In Great Britain prominent Catholics supported birth control.

The dramatic process of decolonization was under way in Africa and Asia. The two world powers, the Soviet Union and the United States were but interested in assuring their influence on the newborn states (ibid. 34). The Second Vatican Council did not discuss the problems of colonization and decolonization. Groups of bishops from Indonesia had spoken on celibacy, for example, but their interventions had no consequences. African bishops were present at the Council, but they were no players in the commissions that wrote the documents. The Council did not reflect on the sad collaboration of the Catholic Church in the cruel suppression, exploitation and extinction of native cultures and religions during colonialism. We must not forget that Markel Lefevbre, a leader of the Coetus, based the formation of African faithful and priests in Gabun, and as the later archbishop of Dakar strictly on the cultural norms of the French Catholics and clergy. Eurocentrism reigned at the Council. In the decades after the Council, an Italian and a Polish pope decided the ways in the Catholic Church. Even in 2019, Italian and European priests, bishops and Cardinals control the Roman Curia. All projects for reform of the Roman Curia in the last fifty years failed and did not change the dominance of Western clerics in the government of the Church.

In February 1965, the United States intensified their bombardments in Vietnam and Paul VI feared a nuclear escalation in South-East Asia. The United Nations faced another crisis of their authority because they were not capable of mediating peace. Paul VI wanted to get invited at the United Nations to contribute to world peace (ibid. 35). At the beginning of December 1964, Paul VI had participated in the World Eucharistic Congress in Mumbai, India, and spoke about constructing peace, encouraged disarmament and the fight against poverty that makes large parts of the world suffer. He cited Gandhi twice as an example of a man of peace. The Catholic press and media in the following months took up these efforts of constructing peace with persistence and great interest (ibid. 36). Catholics in the communist East were demanding religious liberty and the Catholics in the USA feared more discrimination by President Johnson and his legislation on the funding of Catholic schools. Rolf Hochhut’s play “The vicar” was prohibited in Italy at the intervention of the Holy See because it accused Pius XII of not protecting the Jews from the Holocaust (ibid.).

When the commissions of the Second Vatican Council met again in the first two weeks of September to prepare the fourth and last session, they were taking notice that the atmosphere in the Council had changed in a decisive way. The Coetus internationalis in June 1965 had intervened again with Paul VI claiming a better representation of the minority in the commissions of the Council. Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognagni heavily protested with the Coetus for bypassing him and influencing the Council in a very negative way (ibid. 61). Paul VI did not resist the Coetus, he wanted to satisfy all parties of the Council and in the end frustrated all. The members of the commission knew difficulties and troubles would invade the upcoming session of the Council (ibid.). Paul VI reacted to the mounting uncertainty that was created by the first reception of the council’s reforms and documents during the intersession. He had changed the tone of openness and dialogue with the modern world that characterized the first two years of the Council. His preoccupation with the government of the Church functioning as absolute monarchy of the pope was evident (ibid. 45). Paul VI was convinced that in the post-conciliar time he had to take charge again of the ordinary rule and government of the Church. He consented that the Council was a special moment for the Church, but it was time to think about what was coming now (ibid. 47).

There were important themes and problems that Paul VI took away from the Council. The decisions on the question of birth control, ecclesiastical celibacy, the reform of the Curia, the institution of the synods of the bishops and many other questions (like the mixed marriages, the forms of penitence, the indulgences and the diaconate) were to be taken by the pope alone (ibid. 48). In April 1965, Umberto Betti, the theologian expert of Cardinal Colombo from Milan wrote to his cardinal suggesting to introduce into the Creed expressions of the doctrine and the faith expressed in Lumen Gentium (ibid.). The whole of Vatican II should be confessed as part of a modern understanding of the Creed. Bishop Elchinger from Strasbourg addressed Paul VI in his audience of April 1965 asking for a modern and understandable creed (ibid. 49). Congar was asked by Paul VI to elaborate a text on this. After months the project got stuck and Paul VI wanted to decide without the council on the matter (ibid. 50). Concerning Church law there was an initiative to elaborate a basic set of laws, something like a constitution for both Churches, the Oriental and Occidental (ibid.). In February of 1964, Cardinal Döpfner had proposed this idea to Paul VI when he was working on a revision of the Code of Canon Law. In the spring of 1965, an overall informal commission was formed to study the question. Paul VI did not inform the fathers of the Council about this project (ibid. 51).

On September 15, 1965, one day after opening of the fourth session Paul VI institutionalized the synod of the bishops (ibid. 55). He did not consult the fathers of the Council for this decision. Paul VI’s strategy is clear: in fear of post-conciliar developments, he acted rapidly based on personal deliberations and ensured the authority of the pope over the Council (ibid.). However, he was not able to settle the problems. The question of the mixed marriages did not find a quick solution. The commission for the bishops discussed about a representation of the bishops at the side of the Pope concerning matters of Church government several times. The pope’s decision on the institution of the synod had ignored the discussion within the commission of the bishops (ibid.). Paul VI acted based on his papal authority because he feared splits and breakups in the Church. Many fathers of the Council were receptive to this kind of papal acting because they themselves feared too about how to manage the reception process of the Council (ibid. 56). The realization of their decisions at the council in their dioceses was a growing preoccupation for the bishops. Would they be capable of complying with the emerging task? On many questions Paul VI was hesitant, and the appearance of weakness was enforced by the growing frustration of the bishops over the lack of communication by the pope (ibid.).

During the summer of 1965, Paul VI repeatedly had spoken of a crisis of obedience in the Church (Routhier, Gilles. 2001. “Portre a termine l`opera iniziata: la faticosa esperienza del qurto periodo.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 73–196. 74. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). This harsh and bitter judgment was widely shared by the fathers of the Council. Conservative Jesuit Tromp spoke in that way and deplored the disobedience of the whole Jesuit order. The Jesuit De Lubac then wonders why the bishops had started the revolution in the first place when at the end of the council they vehemently opposed any changes within the Church (ibid.). This kind of atmosphere was not good for a good conclusion of the council’s work.

At the beginning of September 1965, Paul VI had published his Encyclical Mysterium fidei that did not reflect the theology of the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 75). Many Council fathers and non-Catholic observers were appalled. Paul VI ignored the reform of the liturgy and failed to open or address the modern world. The retardation of the reform of the Roman Curia was symptomatic for the situation of fatigue and disappointment. New organs, councils or congregations were not organically integrated into the Roman Cura; there was a simple juxtaposition of old and new institutions and the will and ability for the necessary cooperation and team spirit lacked. The fathers who lead the majority at the Council in the first two sessions now had gotten tired. There were twenty-seven new cardinals. They brought a new generation to Rome, but they lacked experience and security in dealing with the Curia that was about to restore power over the Church at all costs. The minority at the Council together with the Curia took advantage of the momentum and the equilibrium of the council changed (ibid. 76).

Paul VI had realized that groups of opposition to the reforms of the Council in the local churches were being organized. Especially the bishops of the East suffered from a supposed crisis of Church authority and by strengthening the center at Rome they wanted to introduce order again in Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and France (ibid.). At his opening speech, Paul VI assessed with reference to John XXIII that the fourth period of the council will stay faithful to the doctrine and meet hostility with love and goodness (ibid. 77). He implored the unity of the Council and the harmony within the church as he had done during the intersession. Paul VI insisted on caritas and unity, but also on obedience to the Holy Spirit and to the Church, to the reforms of the council and their consequent realization (ibid.). There were now twenty-three women and twenty-nine men and for the first time a couple, the Alvarez from Mexico, invited as auditors in the aula. This small presence of laity was nevertheless significant for the scheme XIII. The number of the non-Catholic observers augmented in October to 101 and they represented twenty-eight Churches. For the first time the ecumenical patriarch from Constantinople sent a bishop, Monsignor Emilianos to represent him at the Council (ibid. 79).

The text on the bishops

During the intersession the canonist Onclin had redacted the text on the bishops and the government of the dioceses for the commission of the bishops preserving the wishes of the majority of the Council (ibid: 190). It was clear that the scheme on the bishops had to put into practice the principles of Lumen Gentium. Otherwise, the document on the Church would remain pure theory (ibid.). Paul VI had instituted the synod and thereby realized the principle of collegiality of Lumen Gentium. But the document on the bishops still had to find a compromise on “the sacred power” (Latin: sacra potestas) that was given to the bishop. Episcopal ordination conferred the bishops all power and authority necessary for their mission except for those powers that were reserved to the pope for conferring on the bishop. Onclin had argued that the ordinary, proper, and immediate power of the bishop sufficiently constitutes the necessary legitimacy for his universal service in a counsel for the pope, but the position of the majority was different.

The document still had to describe the bishops’ conferences as instruments of collegiality and the relation of the bishops with the nuncio. The nuncio, who was the pope’s representative in the diplomatic choir of a nation, now becomes the Vatican’s watchdog for the national episcopal conferences. In the summer of 1965, there were observations that some nuncios had begun to control the local churches in pastoral, doctrinal and ecumenical matters (ibid.). The Roman Curia had elaborated a document for ensuring that the decisions of the episcopal conferences had to be controlled by the Curia. This limitation of the powers of the college of collegiality of the bishops demonstrated that the Curia wanted to stay in control of the Church. It was an open question if the theology of the importance of the local church assembling around the bishop would become a reality in the life of the Church (ibid.).

On September 28, 1965, there was a vote that accepted the text of the scheme in general. The voting on the individual articles of the scheme was suddenly interrupted. Pope Paul VI had requested modifications. Italian Archbishop Antonio Samoré, a senior member of the Secretariat of State and later Cardinal inspired the most important of the modifications and got support by the Cardinals Siri and Carli. Samoré proposed that the bishops become members of the college of bishops only when the pope confers them the power of jurisdiction (ibid. 191). Onclin was successfully convincing the commission in two meetings not to accept the content of the modifications. The pope accepted but the climate in the aula had been poisoned by this intervention against a document that had been voted by the fathers of the Council (ibid. 192). There were interventions with the pope concerning other documents too. Paul VI wanted to preserve unity and was inclined to compromise. On October 28, 1965, the decree on the bishops passed with an almost 100% consent. There were only two negative votes, and one vote was invalid.

Concerning the scheme on the bishops we have to observe that during the debate on the reform of the Code of Canon Law in the years after the Council many points of the scheme on the bishops were questioned again and decided by progressively limiting collegiality (ibid. 193). I do not know what happened to Onclin’s convictions concerning the powers of the bishop in the years after the Council. For eighteen years, he incessantly collaborated in the papal commission for the new Code, reinforcing again the legal status of the pope as absolute monarch of the Catholic Church who governs with absolute powers.

Text on the religious

According to Döpfner’s plan, in the spring of 1963 the scheme on the renewal of religious was downgraded as other minor schemes were too (Velati, Mauro. 2001. “Il completamento dell’ agenda conciliare.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 197–284. 198. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The discussions in the third session of the Council resulted in upgrading the text again. The bishops showed great interest in the scheme and sent fourteen thousand modes to the commission of the religious. The commission reduced them to five hundred observations of the fathers, and these had to be integrated into the scheme during the first half of 1965. On September 16, 1965, the fathers in the aula received the revised text (ibid.). The president of the commission, Cardinal Antoniutti, very often was absent and the German bishop Leiprecht took effective leadership of the revision and enabled a substantially new text (ibid. 201).

There was still discussion on the question of the religious status of the secular institutes of lay women and men (ibid. 202–3). The question was to overcome the traditional distinction of active life and contemplative life. The commission already had tried to do justice to the different existing forms of religious life in their real form. They speak of contemplative life, monastic life, apostolic life, religious lay and the secular institutes. Actually, the fathers were not willed to discuss any more, they wanted the Council to end, and their fatigue and apathy made the scheme pass the final vote on October 11, 1965, with only twelve negative votes. The following schemes that came up for discussion and voting received similar votes of approval. The high numbers of yes were not so much the expression of the unanimous consensus of the fathers but more of their determination to get it over (ibid. 204). On October 11, 1962, John XXIII had opened the Second Vatican Council. After exhausting four years the Council was about to end.

The text on the formation of the priests

The scheme on the formation of priests already in the third session found the consent of a large majority and only forty-one votes against. The pastoral reform of the priestly formation was passed and the reform of the philosophical and theological studies in the major seminaries progressed (ibid. 205).

At the end of September 1965, archbishop Darmojuwono, president of the Indonesian episcopal conference protested at the presidency of the Council that a new phrase was inserted in the scheme that had not been requested by the bishops in the session of 1964. He protested that a minority of the commission on the priests insisted on the formation of priests according to the system of seminaries as the Council of Trent had established (ibid.). Together with the fifty-two bishops from Indonesia, he claimed the possibility of other forms of formation such as formation houses attached to parishes in slum areas that enable a close pastoral contact with the poor. Already at the beginning of 1965, Archbishop Darmojuwono had brought up ecclesiastical celibacy and this time he insisted on discussing celibacy. The intervention of Paul VI on October 11, 1965, stopped him. The presidency and secretariat of the Council found a solution concerning alternative forms of seminaries. There was also a compromise on the necessity of Thomism for the theological studies. The Bible has to be the foundation of every teaching on the truths of faith and the history of the dogma was secondary. The mysteries of salvation have to get studied in connection with the culture of the future priests and Thomas Aquinas can help reflecting tradition and faith (ibid.: 209). The positive vote on October 13, 1965, on the scheme was not caused by a sudden consensus but was rather the effect of the general exhaustion of the fathers who were not willed to further discuss the matter (ibid. 210).

The question of celibacy had been a concern for many priests and bishops. The international committee Pro ecclesia was the most substantial voice in the chorus of priests that questioned the law of celibacy. 825 priests signed a document protesting against celibacy (ibid. 243). The Jesuit Robert Clément, prefect of the college Jamhour in Beirut, discretely approached cardinal Lercaro and other fathers in August of 1965 with the suggestion that the Latin Church followed the Oriental Church on the question (ibid.). Priests from Italy, the Netherlands, Strasbourg and Indonesia were part of the voices demanding changes of the law of celibacy in the first days of October of 1965. It is significant that there were no priests allowed to discuss in the aula. The decision on celibacy was taken above their heads. Paul VI was preoccupied by the voices against celibacy. Pietro Koop, titular bishop of Lina in Brazil wanted to read his statement in aula of the council, Maximos IV also wanted a debate on married priests (ibid. 244). Paul VI made Lercaro stop debating celibacy in his letter to Cardinal Tisserant on October 11, 1965. Many thought that Paul VI wanted to discuss celibacy later after the Council had ended. Prignon was clear, he had no doubt that the pope’s decision on the matter was definite. Despite the pope’s intervention, discussion on celibacy continued (ibid. 246). Eighty-one lay circulated a paper in the aula demanding changes of the law of celibacy. Other texts pointed at the penury of priests in the Third World and the contemporary cultural situation as arguments against the law of celibacy. Maximos IV in his intervention criticized that the Oriental tradition in the document on the priests was not taken seriously and that the Latin tradition of celibacy was unjustifiably exalted. He wrote a letter to Paul VI that the question must not be suppressed because suppression would only spread poison. He said celibacy was a question of monastic life but was not necessary for the office of a priest. Maximos IV suggested to establish a commission to study the question (ibid. 248).

Text on Christian education

There were many discussions on the scheme in the session of 1964. The North American bishops were not happy with the state’s monopoly of education (ibid. 212). South American bishops insisted that Christian education is not only intellectual but concerns the faith of the person in all dimensions. Bishop Pohlschneider from Aachen, Germany, demanded in the name of seventy Council fathers to connect the text on Christian education with the pastoral end of the Council. He claims a sound biblical and theological foundation of the text and argued for a good cooperation with the institutions of the state for the common good. He also stressed the important role of the teachers in the catholic schools who in the end determine the quality of the catholic education (ibid. 213). Cardinal Léger from Montreal, bishop Jaeger and van Waeyenbergh, the auxiliary from Malines-Bruxelles, demanded a reference to the liberty of scientific investigation in the sacred sciences. The cardinal wanted to encourage and empower the work of the theologians.

On October 6, 1965, Cardinal Lercaro from Bologna got a letter from Michel Duclerq, a Catholic intellectual, activist, and spiritual leader. The founder of the association of French Catholic teachers was very critical of the scheme on education that rejected pluralism in the name of the Catholic truth (ibid. 217). Archbishop Veuillot circulated the letter in the aula of the council (ibid. 218). Duclerq argued that catholic teachers in public schools would not be able to work with a scheme that mistrusts the non-Christian world that much. Duclerq questioned the necessity and utility of a scheme that ignores the scientific developments in education and pedagogy. Albert Prignon, rector of the Belgian College in Rome and close theological confident of Cardinal Suenens worked to get a compromise without rewriting the whole scheme (ibid. 220). The episcopal conferences of India and Africa intervened in favor of reopening the discussion, Brazilian bishops and the English Cardinal Heenan joined them. The moderators rejected a new discussion, they did not want another debate (ibid.). Cardinal Döpfner warned that reopening the debate on education would create the precedent for reopening the discussion on the important upcoming vote for the scheme on revelation. The scheme on education passed the preliminary vote on October 13, 1965, without difficulties (ibid. 221).

In the public session of October 28, 1965, the final votes on the schemes of the bishops, on the life of the priests and the renewal of religious life passed unanimously. On the same day the scheme on Christian education passed with thirty-five negative votes (ibid. 238).

Text on the lay

In June 1965, the revised text on the apostolate of the lay had been sent to the fathers (ibid.). The votes on the scheme would start September 23, 1965. In the plenary session of the commission emerged a discussion about the report that bishop Hengsbach had prepared for the aula. He had exaggerated the support that the lay women and men gave the scheme. The lay auditors De Habicht and Sugranyes helped to find a satisfying formulation for all (ibid.). Karol Wojtyla asked with three other bishops the moderators of the Council to present the scheme in aula chapter by chapter because there were many new points in the text (ibid. 277). A group of 32 Latin American fathers even wanted to reopen debate on the scheme. The scheme on the lay got caught in the middle of the ongoing fights on religious liberty and on the Church in the modern world (ibid.).

The German Jesuit theologian Hirschmann introduced a few sentences on women in the scheme on the lay and the commission authorized his suggestion. The lay auditor Rosemary Goldie had insisted that women’s roles in the apostolate of the Church were appreciated because women take more and more responsibility. Their roles in the life of the Church should be given more weight. There were some bishops supporting these claims. Women should take a more active role in the mission of the Church too, because the Christian vocation is identical with the vocation to the apostolate (ibid.: 280). Paul VI intervened on November 7, he had approved of the text in June but now he wanted to secure the authority of the hierarchy on any apostolic activities of women; any legitimate pastoral office that was given to women in the Church depends on the jurisdiction of the hierarchy (ibid.). On November 18, 1965, the final vote accepts the document. It is the first document of a council of the Catholic Church that explicitly talks of the lay men and women. Cardinal Dell’Acqua had suggested creating a pre-preparatory commission on the lay. John XXIII accepted (ibid. 284). The document Apostolicam Actuositatem was lacking a theological definition of the lay and there were incoherencies with chapter 4 of Lumen Gentium (ibid.). The exclusive right of the clergy for offices in the Church demonstrated the resistance of the male hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to realize the vocation and mission of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not discriminate anybody. All disciples and male and female followers are part of the one people of Go’d. The decree on the apostolate of the lay was promulgated on November 18, 1965.