From PEWSITTER.com
March 27, 2012 - As a priest and canon lawyer, I'd like in canonical terms, to revisit the controversial events surrounding the denial of Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson by Father Marcel Guarnizo. First of all, while I agree with many of the points by the very well-respected canonist Dr. Ed Peters, I believe that even with the rather limited information currently available, Father Guarnizo very possibly and correctly satisfied the conditions of canon 915 in denying Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson. Secondly, I would like to comment on Father Guarnizo's unjust "administrative leave" in light of the Code of Canon Law. More >

Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. 

More > 

This past September, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the USCCB, sent President Obama a letter that was long overdue. “I write with a growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage,” the archbishop wrote. “The Justice Department’s [attack on the Defense of Marriage Act], in addition to other troubling federal decisions occurring recently, prompts me yet again to register my grave concerns.” More >

It is a new twist on a venerable tradition, but it received a very favorable review from the first group of U.S. bishops to make an ad limina visit to the Vatican in seven years.

Pope Benedict XVI, instead of meeting individually with visiting bishops, has recently favored meeting with prelates in small groups during their visits, a process he has found to be a more efficient way of learning about how the Church is operating around the world.    More >

Good Shepherd Sunday Homily

On this Vocations Sunday, we are encouraged to pray for vocations to priesthood, diaconate and religious life. Today we meditate on the Good Shepherd … which reveals to us a beautiful truth about how intimately and lovingly our Lord wishes to relate to us, and provides us a model for vocations.

Jesus says, “a GOOD Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” The Good Shepherd relates to his own as a lover to his beloved, as he says “I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.”

Jesus compares our relationship with him as sheep to Shepherd … to his relationship to His Father. Obviously there is no equivalence there but there is the same aspect of a union of love. Jesus is, after all… the “lamb of God”… the perfect Paschal Lamb who knew His Father’s Shepherding voice and followed His commands perfectly!

When we consider this beautiful, gentle image of our Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd, many things about the Good Shepherd come to mind:

·      the Shepherd leading the flock is God Himself – Jesus Christ

·      the protective walls around the verdant pastures,

·      the wolves who seek to devour the sheep,

·      the gate,

·      the Shepherd’s staff,

·      the voice of the Shepherd calling,

·      and even the Shepherd strongly hoisting the lost, wandering sheep on his shoulders… carrying it safely back to the fold again.

The Shepherd Leading the flock: Jesus’ imagery is chosen with a view to fulfilling the prophesy given through Ezekiel.

Ezekiel prophesies the coming of the Good Shepherd: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves!Should not shepherds pasture the flock? … because my sheep became plunder, because my sheep became food for wild beasts, for lack of a shepherd, Look! I myself will search for my sheep and examine them. I will deliver them from every place where they were scattered on the day of dark clouds. In good pastures I will pasture them… I myself will pasture my sheep; I myself will give them rest…”

 

The Pope continues the role of chief shepherd, the successor to Peter … leading, teaching and loving the flock, which is the entire Church… always pointing to the truth and love of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, who is not the “hired man” but one who shepherds out of love for the sheep.

Protective walls: the Church; we are intended to be one fold, one Church as Jesus says today, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock, one shepherd.” There is one God, one truth, one Church of Him by whose name we are saved, as St. Peter said in our first reading: “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.” So the walls surrounding and protecting the sheepfold represent the Catholic Church, providing for all the needs of the sheep.

The verdant pastures and streams: are the sacramental life of grace won for us by the Shepherd laying down his life; Eucharistic nourishment, healing of absolution, God’s providing for temporal needs.

The wolves: What comes to mind here is Satan – the devil, whom Peter tells us: “Stay sober and alert. Your opponent the devil is prowling like a roaring lion (wolf!) looking for someone to devour. Resist him, solid in your faith.” (1 Pet 5) We must also recall the devil works through false teachings and views prevalent in our culture today –

The pastors of the Church, which is Christ’s bride, shepherded by his vicar, provides protection from the wolves… we have a good shepherd in Benedict, our bishops, priests, religious. We need to continue to encourage vocations in our families. The family is the environment where vocations are best fostered. Talk about it…

The gate: Jesus describes HIMSELF as the GATE to eternal life, which is gained only through the Church. The Good Shepherd teaches us: “Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the path to perdition, few there are who find it”, Jesus entrusted the keys to the gate of the kingdom to Peter … thus making him His first Vicar, His first Shepherd and pope as he asked Peter after his resurrection three times to “Feed his sheep”.

The Shepherd’s staff: The staff or rod of the Shepherd is used to guide the sheep, not beat them into submission. So too the teachings of the Good Shepherd and his gentle vicar of Rome! The Shepherd’s staff represents the truth, which guides the sheep through the gate safely and quickly.

The Shepherd’s voice: The voice of the Shepherd is the Word of God. As the CCC teaches, “the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".

How will this Word be proclaimed without vocations? How will vocations be given if we do not pray for them? We need to hear the Shepherd’s voice through priests, deacons and religious more than ever!

The Shepherd carrying the lost sheep home: our Lord is so loving that he seeks out the lost sheep who have strayed outside the fold. God’s grace is always showering down on all, calling with the Shepherd’s voice and prompting them back to him and the fold. As the Lord foretold through Ezekiel again: “The lost I will search out, the strays I will bring back, the injured I will bind up, and the sick I will heal; but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd them in judgment.”

The Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep: Our Lord tells us: “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep… this is why my Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again.” This reveals the LOVE (agape) of the Good Shepherd.

Jesus transforms completely – how we know and love God, not as an abstraction or energy force out there … but as a loving Father, a Good Shepherd gently caring for us and giving HIS LIFE for our salvation.

St. John tells us in our second reading: “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet that is what we are.” What dignity we have as beloved of God!

Let us enter more deeply into the fold, into the life of the Church through prayer, study of the Good Shepherd’s teachings and ways, loving family life where husbands and wives shepherd our families and foster vocations … through encountering the Good Shepherd in the Eucharist and confessional, and by calling out the wolves in sheeps clothing, by serving those in need around us and in the missions.

We are safe in the Church, surrounded and protected. We need to see the Church in this way, as LG described it as a “cultivated field” a “sheepfold” … Jesus description of himself as the Good Shepherd provides us the best possible image of our loving relationship with him but also of how we should view the Church and our lives within the walls of the sheepfold… much richer imagery and intimacy.

Do we really comprehend how much we are loved by God? I think is the real obstacle to growth in holiness and happiness… not so much sin (radical!) … but our sluggishness of heart, our lack of belief and recognition of the depth and breadth of the infinite God’s tender love for us!! This is why Jesus gives us these images to teach us an important reality – God’s love for us manifested in the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for his sheep.

If we realized this … sin and heaviness of heart, boredom and viewing the Church and Christ as a burden or obligations would disappear quickly!  Love motivates us as human beings … not obligations or “avoidance of sin” –  Jesus as the Good Shepherd conveys to us the proper, scriptural and Christological perspective on life in Christ and the Church.

 

Homily - 5th Sun Lent
(Passiontide)

Jesus says: “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified”. Jesus speaks of his “hour” frequently in his ministry … and this is always with reference to his passion and death. Now the dark clouds are gathering this Passiontide … as our Lord is very close to His hour of agony and crucifixion.

God has his day, the powers of hell have their hour of darkness.

Why does our Blessed Lord refer to the hour then … as his being “glorified”? Its significance is affirmed when those with Jesus hear the voice of the Father booming mysteriously as thunder or as the voice of an angel by the people, confirming our Lord’s hour will indeed glorify Him.

Jesus immediately goes on to explain how he will be glorified and in what it consists: “Amen, amen I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.”

Jesus chooses this image of a grain of wheat to illustrate what will soon happen to Him … and what must happen to us to be saved!

What happens to the grain of wheat in the ground? It is transformed into fruit, but it must cease to be what it is … in a real sense … it must forsake or deny itself to become what it is not, but what it is supposed to be! 

Glorification is tied to and dependent upon, TRANSFORMATION...

St. John of the Cross puts it this way:

To come to enjoy what you have not – you must go by a way in which you enjoy not.

To come to the knowledge you have not – you must go by a way in which you know not.

To come to the possession you have not – you must go by a way in which you possess not.

To come to be what you are not – you must go by a way in which you are not.

So Jesus moves from the image of the grain of wheat even more clearly to our human experience when he then says: “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life”

In saying this, Jesus is preparing his disciples and the Greeks and Jews surrounding him … to understand the way of the Cross… the only gateway to transformation so that we might become our TRUE SELVES! Remade in love through sacrificial self-giving to God and one another.

Like the grain in the soil, we must become what we are not, renouncing (losing... “hating”) the OLD, unreal self, clinging and bound to created things … so we may be transformed into the freedom, love and image of Christ. At judgment, God will look for the image of His only Son in us.

So, we “hate” our life in the sense that we put God’s will and love above… not only our enjoyment of pleasures, but even above our very lives. This means living our lives and making decisions about how we spend our time and effort in light of our eternal destiny and judgment before God!

An example for us today is the Church’s stand on religious liberty against immoral government mandates – we will close down an important apostolate of Catholic health care (as hard as that is) before violating God’s will, given us through the Church. More and more, living our Catholic faith will require greater individual sacrifice and be increasingly counter-culture. What do you and I need to renounce and what (who) do we need to embrace in our life “to preserve it for eternal life?”

Jesus is preaching this self-emptying today – not only his own … but ours also: to follow him… as he then says “Whoever serves me must follow me…”

Jesus is saying – I am not journeying to Golgotha alone … you must also do as I do… if you are to be my follower.

So, how do we do this? We cannot – but as St. Paul says, “I can do all things in Christ, who strengthens me”. Jesus tells us “For man it is impossible, but not for God. For all things are possible with God.” Jesus’ passion and death won for us God’s life – grace, which is the power and strength of God the Holy Spirit given to us, if we are willing to empty ourselves to receive Him.

Jesus said it today – “Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” The “ruler of this world” is Satan and judgment has been made on the slavery of sin and death. Sin and death are driven out of our souls through Christ's sovereignty over us. Christ has conquered the world and sent the Holy Spirit among us as our protection and advocate, giving us freedom of supernatural life of grace. How?

“When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself”. Jesus’ reference to being “lifted up” is understood by those of his time as being lifted up on the cross of crucifixion. This hearkens to Moses being commanded to lift up the bronze serpent on a wooden cross in the desert, so the people stricken by the seraph serpents would be healed when they looked upon it, foreshadowing our healing through Christ's crucifixion and death.

Jesus, willingly BOUND on the cross, (appearing anything but divine to the worldly) DRAWS everyone as a free invitation to FOLLOW Him to where he is … on that cross! So we may bind ourselves to him. There is no coercion with God ... he waits for us, bound to the Cross.

So, we have our answer to how Jesus hour is actually His glorification. Jesus’ being “lifted up” gives glory to God and glorifies the Son – in His obedience out of love unto death, which is the greatest love. In turn, we are the beneficiaries of this greatest love and are too glorified if we “follow Him”, being transformed by dying like the seed in the ground, renouncing our selfish clinging to life for God’s supernatural, eternal life of glory.

In our second reading, St. Paul tells us “Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”

Paul teaches that Christ’s suffering and ours … is not without purpose/meaning … beatitude is found in obedience to God’s will, manifest in the Gospel and Church teaching, especially in the Beatitudes – happy are the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, those hungry for righteousness, the merciful, the peacemakers, the pure of heart and the persecuted.

This is the paradox of the cross Jesus is preaching today - these beatitudes betoken one who is happy, but not because of this life's pleasures and events but only in their meaning in light of God's will and eternal life.

This New Law of love and beatitude in Christ is what Jeremiah prophesies in our first reading today: “I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts … All from least to greatest shall know me … for I will forgive their evildoing…”

Jesus’ way of the cross: self-sacrifice is not just the physical suffering – it was the evidence of Jesus’ obedience out of love, even unto death that was the acceptable sacrifice... which causes our forgiveness and justification!

Jesus glorifies the Father because he reveals that God is love. Hence, as God's creation, we are made for love and will be unhappy unless we live our lives and give our whole being to “THE” Love. 

"Our hearts are restless until they rest in you" - St. Augustine

“No greater love does anyone have than to lay down his life for his friends” Jesus taught and lived this every moment unto the Cross as God and Man.

There is a movie out now called “Act of Valor”. It is a moving tribute to our military and features active Navy SEALs as film leads as they re-enact real life examples of their excellence with abilities only they possess. At one point, there’s a team of SEALs moving through an abandoned building, and a live grenade flies into the room. Their team leader immediately drops his chest on the grenade, just before it explodes… saving the lives of his friends, laying down his own life.

This scene is not fiction … perhaps this scene was recalling the heroism of SEAL officer Michael A. Monsoor, 25, who on Sept 29, 2006 sacrificed his life to save his friends by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout. The grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.

“He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,” said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. “He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs’ lives, and we owe him.”

Michael Monsoor’s act of valor and love emulates in the ultimate way, what it means to live and give one’s life, learning obedience through suffering, self-discipline, and subjecting his very instinct of self-preservation … to a higher love, which no doubt carries with it the promise of eternal life for those who love God. He saved his friends' lives as well as his own on that grenade.

Our Lord has fallen on the grenade for us on the cross – we too can say “he undoubtedly saved my life, and we owe him”. 

In courage and love, Jesus is quickening his pace and resolve to Golgotha, to His glory and the glory of God the Father ... and we are left standing with Jesus' words ringing in our ears: 

“Whoever serves me must follow me.”

Peace+ Dcn Dan G

President Obama suggested that insurance companies can afford to pay for contraception coverage because fewer children means lower health costs. This is the language of the future we need to take to heart as a warning not only regarding our religious liberty but also the protection of innocent human life. This dangerous philosophy, embodied and rooted in Marxist socialism and Communism (and so relativism and utilitarianism) foreshadows the truism that universal, government run health care will always push towards minimizing the dignity of the human person at the beginning and the end of life in order to "cut costs" and ration health care in (vain) attempt to make it "affordable" as a government service.

This is not to say that all people should not have access to health care. They should... because of their dignity as human persons. However, there are more than one means to this end, and the best means is articulated in the Church's teaching regarding subsidiarity - that intermediate associations and private entities should be the main provider of goods/services, not necessarily government. Hence, I can be Catholic and support the notion that all persons deserve basic medical care, but this is OUR responsibility as Christians and not something we should delegate to government, except in very limited ways to fill the gaps of what private entities miss. 

By observing the principle of subsidiarity (which I have covered more extensively in previous dicta), we are able to control and preserve the ways and means by which we provide health care to fellow citizens ... for example NOT working with insurance companies who provide contraception and abortion related coverage... for example providing health care which respects the dignity of the human person and will not cut life short at the end as a means to "cost cutting" and preserving a perverted notion of the "common good". This is why the privatization of health care, linked to the importance of private property rights in our laws ... is so critical to preserve. If we let these basic Constitutionally protected rights slip away ... it won't be long (as I've said before) until our RELIGIOUS liberties and the very right to life are next on the selling block… well … I guess we are already there.  

I fear that the general popularity of universal health care among Catholics, provided by a sprawling, increasingly hostile government to religious liberty… puts us in a position of perhaps winning the present battle regarding constitutionality of the HHS mandate, but still losing the war on the attack of the Church … because we remain in an ongoing orbit or striking distance with government on whatever the next overreach will be into religious liberty. Arguing that the government should be delegated the power and resources to care for the poor, the sick, those in need … is to argue for a society that revolves around the State as the provider of everything we need. But this is not the Christian calling of the Gospel. Christ calls each of us to care for each other as a personal obligation. As a result, using reason and ingenuity, ordinary people with livelihoods set up organizations and apostolates to address the dire needs of the human person today. While government can and should have some kind of role, it should not be the solution and certainly not push out the major impact of the Church and the private sector charities … becoming a competitor of sorts for our resources and replacing our mission with a dependence on the state. Coerced charity is not charity and is not something a Christian can take credit for as fulfilling their obligations to the poor. 

The problem the U.S. bishops need to wrestle with… is a bigger picture perspective on what scope and kind of government entities actually nurture and preserve a healthy independence and private sector. Only the latter will inherently protect religious liberty in a lasting mannner and provide incentives for better quality care on a more local level. The growth of government in areas of private property and education has whittled away our sense of responsibility and obligation to our neighbor, as well as our sense of liberty … over the last several decades. Now the overreaching of government has become shocking with this administration’s attacks on life and religious and civil liberties all in the name of “fairness”. The larger government grows, especially in the areas of health care services, education, energy and the like … the less power and control "We The People" have over our religion, our schools, our businesses, our family life and our communities. This is a very Catholic, natural law perspective on how the Church and State can co-exist in a complementary way.
 
Peace+ DD

A Missed Opportunity and Challenge for Rediscovery

   The turbulent aftermath of the Council – the false spirit and outright dissent which has occurred, was exacerbated by the complete lack of effort on the part of the Council Fathers to educate the faithful and implement the goals of the Council in a systematic way.[i] It is ironic that a major theme of Vatican II was to communicate to contemporary man in language he could understand, but failed to use the tools (e.g. media, programs, initiatives) or means to actually follow through, which takes courage and resolve.[ii] Drafting and even publishing the Council documents did not communicate the message, it only made the teaching available to whomever had the good will to read and thoughtfully implement its direction.[iii]

   Although this essay has focused primarily on the negative influences behind changes made in a false ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, much good has already come from the Council. One sees many signs of broader acceptance and authentic implementation of the council’s goals. The Church has truly reached out to the world in authentic ecumenism,  and challenged the entire People of God to answer the call of discipleship and active participation in the life of the Church to become the salt of the earth. (cf. Matt. 5:13) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, explosion of authentic catechetical media, the new evangelization, and  strong lay participation and leadership in union with the Pope and clergy – also indicate important progress in the acceptance and realization of the goals of Vatican II. “It must not be forgotten”, says Cardinal Ratzinger, “that every council is first of all a reform of the summit which then must spread to the base of the faithful. This means that every council … must be followed by a wave of holiness.”[iv]  Such holiness is the only answer to an authentic spirit of Vatican II, so that the Catholic faithful may strike that challenging mean of being in, but not of the world:

I have given them your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should  keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you did send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. (Jn. 17: 14-19)


[i] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lesson 6 Notes, p. 5.

[ii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The Church loses credibility not because it insists on teaching ‘outmoded’ doctrines but because it lacks the courage to continue teaching what it knows to be true.”

[iii] Ibid., p. 21: Much of the loss of tradition after the Council came about stumblingly and inadvertently, because insufficient thought was given to how renewal might be achieved, insufficient attention paid to exactly what the Council had said, people (even in high places) were caught up in a euphoria which tended to make them careless… they suffered from an error common to first-generation reformers – since the traditions were deeply internalized in themselves, they took them for granted and concentrated most of their energies on innovation.” ; Cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 36: The Council Fathers, “harbored an optimism that from our present-day perspective we would judge as not critical or realistic enough.” ; Cf. Most Rev. Aloysius Wycislo, Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There, (Alba House: New York, 1987), p. 174, While Bishop Wycislo agrees most of the Council documents have had “little or no follow up”, I cannot agree with his view that, “The ‘heresy’ of the traditionalists who confuse restoration with renewal perdures.” This could be said of the Lefebvre movement, but it seems to be an overstatement outside that context, which he does not give. It seems clear that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI have emphasized resistance to the influence of worldly influence and a return to the authentic liturgy and moral teachings of the Church. In a real way, “We are summoned to reconstruct the Church, not despite, but thanks to the true Council” (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 34).

[iv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 42. He further stated, “There is a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings, nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” ; Cf. Ibid., p. 35: “There is no pre or post conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord…”

 Bibliography

Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Declaration On Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Decree On Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Dogmatic Constitution On the Church (Lumen Gentium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Flannery O.P., Austin. (ed.) The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975.

Hitchcock, James. Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.

Hitchcock, James. The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism. Herder and Herder: New York, 1971.

Hitchcock, James. The History of Vatican II. OnlineLecture Notes. Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]. Available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm

Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1965.

McInerny, Ralph. What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988.

Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.

Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press, 1966.

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. The Ratzinger Report. Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985.

Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html

Wiltgen, Ralph. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967.

Wycislo, Most Rev. Aloysius. Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There. Alba House: New York, 1987.

Modernism and Cultural Upheaval

   The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[i] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:

I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[ii]

Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[iii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[iv] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [v] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[vi]

   The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[vii] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[viii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[ix]  These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[x]    

Resourcement vs. Modernism

   A better understanding of the mischaracterization of the spirit of Vatican II can be gained by recognizing the distinction between two approaches to renewal: resourcement vs. modernism.[xi] The resourcement approach represents the true spirit of Vatican II, which is going back to the scripture, to the tradition of the early Church Fathers; prune in such a way as to make the Church healthier and encourage further growth. The text of the Council documents themselves clearly set out the balanced approach of adhering to traditional doctrine and the legitimacy of earlier Councils, while desiring to witness to and be active in, the modern world – the way, the truth and life, which is Christ, through His visible, one Catholic Church. Modernism or conformism looks to modern culture for direction, not tradition; renew the Church by conforming with present day culture; Vatican II is a beginning of a ‘process’, as those at the Council were too conservative.[xii] The modernist, liberal, conformism view of many ‘elite’ in the Church and media has led to much of the crisis and confusion, which has plagued the Church since the Council.[xiii] The conformists tended to make vague reference to Council document out of context, such as, “The Church acknowledges the good to be found in the social dynamism of today…”[xiv] and extrapolate from this that ‘this is what the spirit of the Council was all about.’[xv] By the end of the Council, many liberals/modernists realized their views were not surviving on the Council floor, but decided it doesn’t matter so much what the Council said as what people think it said. They will gain victories in the media and parishes, that they failed to gain at the Council.[xvi] The truth is that Gaudium et Spes gave much more emphasis to what the world can learn from the Church than vice-versa, and Lumen Gentium clearly elucidates the obligation of the faithful to assent to the Magisterium.[xvii] Cardinal Ratzinger provides good advice against the modernist/conformist misrepresentation: “The reading of the letter of the documents will enable us to discover their true spirit.”[xviii] The choice facing Catholics was, and continues to be, “between opposing modern society and opposing the Magisterium.”[xix] In fairness to the faithful who went along with the false directives of the conformists, they usually trusted priests, religious and those working in the Church to represent magisterial teaching accurately. Unfortunately, this was too often, not the case.

   The mainstream media also played a significant role with the conformists in the Church, in order to shape the perception of the Council according to so-called enlightened, modern perspectives.[xx] Figures like Xavier Rynne, an American priest, and Blair Kaiser, a former Jesuit, wrote for the New Yorker and Time magazine, respectively, and succeeded in propagandizing the American public with a liberal, even dishonest account of the Council activities and decisions.[xxi] Tragically, the faithful received most of their information about Vatican II through such media communications than the Church itself. This further elucidates how a ‘false spirit’ of Vatican II gained a life of its own, apart from the reality of the Council and the intentions of the Fathers.

   Ironically, obedience was a key theme for the conformists. Those faithful who did not go along with the changes claimed to be mandated by the Council (which, in fact, were usually opposite of what was decreed) or the ‘spirit’ of the Council … were told they were being disobedient by clergy and church officials pushing their own agenda.[xxii] People in religious orders were told to be more democratic. The American notion of political freedom and democracy was applied by the liberals to everything in the Church, whether the Council said it or not. Of course, the Council clearly does not characterize the Church as a democracy.[xxiii] Many Catholics were erroneously advised they were liberated from their previous obligations. For example – if the Church has lifted the abstinence requirement on Friday, then other obligations must also be lifted, at least by implication – such as obligations relating to contraception, divorce, liturgical rules, etc. This is to misunderstand God’s laws, (e.g. divorce, contraception) which is not changeable, even by the Pope, compared to Church laws, (e.g. disciplines such as priestly celibacy, fasting).[xxiv]  In the aftermath of Vatican II, the dissent occurring in response to Humanae Vitae represents how the pretense of obedience on other matters was abandoned as unnecessary cover – for outright dissent from Church authority regarding contraception.[xxv]

   Such misrepresentation by those unwilling to follow the direction given by the Council documents, whether priest, religious, or worldly opinion represented in the media – resulted in a questioning and undermining of the authority of the Council.[xxvi] This was modernism or conformism in action. The influence of  relativism, rationalism, and even hedonism of the cultural revolution is evident here. Cardinal Ratzinger sets out the distinction clearly: “It is impossible to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church.”[xxvii] As a faithful Catholic, one either accepts Vatican II and its decrees, or one does not. The elusiveness of the false spirit of the Council is that it purports to represent the Council’s spirit or intentions, while actually representing the standards of modern culture, which is itself quite unhealthy in many respects.

[i] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.

[ii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.

[iii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”

[iv] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”

[v] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”

[vi] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”

[vii] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.

LITURGY:

The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.

   However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.

CONTRACEPTION

This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on  the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.

ECUMENISM

Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.

[viii] Ibid., p. 6.

[ix] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”

[x] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.

[xi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.

[xii] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. Modernism claims all religious belief is simply the product of historical culture from which it originates; there is no such thing as the transcendent, eternal truth. There may be a search for truth but the virtue consists in searching, not getting there.

[xiii] Cf. Ibid., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 9. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism, (Herder and Herder: New York, 1971), p. 152-3: “Many radicals seem not to have realized until very late that the crisis of the Church is merely part of a larger crisis of civilization… the problems which plague Christians are in large measure the problems which plague modern Western man and they are not solved by abandoning the Church for ‘the world.’” Hitchcock’s observation pegs the error of the modernists, to the extent the liberal conformists expected secular perspectives to offer something fresh, healthy or new … is at best, naïve and at worst, dubious.

[xiv] GS, n. 42.

[xv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 1.

[xvi] Cf. Ibid., p. 5. Council Fathers, “soon discovered that what was supposed to govern the post-conciliar Church was a certain ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which could not be found in the Council’s documents but had emerged from the endless commentaries on them.”

[xvii] Cf. GS, n. 10: “The Church believes that Christ… can show man the way and strengthen him through the Spirit  in order to be worthy of his destiny: nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved.”; Cf. LG., Ch. III, n. 25: The People of God, “are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision … on faith and morals … loyal submission must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra…”; Cf. Ibid., Ch. II, n. 12, p. 363: “The People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men but truly the word of God … and applies it more fully in daily life.”

[xviii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 40. He continues: “The Catholic who clearly and, consequently, painfully perceives the damage that has been wrought in his Church by the misinterpretations of Vatican II must find the possibility of revival in Vatican II itself. The Council is his, it does not belong to those who want to continue along a road whose results have been catastrophic.” ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 28: “Programs for the ‘renewal’ of the Church have frequently been forced to ignore the conciliar decrees altogether, since they are replete with restatements of traditional doctrine, in favor of an amorphous ‘spirit of Vatican II’ which can be made to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.”

[xix] Ibid., p. 86. To avoid taking the Cardinal out of context, we should note that he has also noted, “It is not Christians who oppose the world, but rather the world which opposes itself to them when the truth about God, about Christ and about man is proclaimed.” The “opposition” is not through lack of desire for communion and peace, but is more in the sense that Christ spoke of bringing not peace, but “a sword”. (cf. Matt. 10:34)

[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3.

[xxi] Ibid., p. 4. This type of media influence is still felt today more than ever.

[xxii] Ibid., p. 2. This is what Hitchcock rightly calls, the “Triumph of Bureaucracy” – “the use of authority to undermine authority, the last stage of authority’s decline…they have triumphed because they have been officially mandated, and numerous skeptical lay people have been cowed into submission by the implication that resistance is a form of disloyalty. Although proclaiming an end to blind obedience in the Church, the professionals have invoked obedience to enforce the necessity of change … yet … the new ideas whose acceptance has been enforced through obedience are themselves then used to further undermine the concept of obedience.”

[xxiii] Cf. LG, Ch III ; Cf. note 31, supra.

[xxiv] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 7. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 33: “Certain relatively minor changes of the conciliar era … were popularly understood as signaling that the theme of aggiornamento would be ‘freedom’, in the sense of a systematic loosening of whatever restraints Catholics found burdensome or irksome. The media, with scant ability to comprehend or express the deeper meanings of renewal, especially bore down on that point…”

[xxv] Cf. Ibid., p. 9. ; Cf. Ralph McInerny, What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained, (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1988), p. 75.

[xxvi] Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 6 Notes, p. 3. ; Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 13: “The revolution in belief, to the extent that it has occurred, was an emanation from an elite center, the use of authority to undermine authority.”

[xxvii] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 28.

Expectations Unrealized

   The Second Vatican Council closed 40 years ago, but ever since its closing in 1965, the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been invoked to justify a legion of changes in essentially every aspect of Church life. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, observed approximately twenty years ago that the last several years, “have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church,”[i] and “developments since the Council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. Christians are once again a minority, more than they have ever been since the end of antiquity.”[ii] The Bavarian Cardinal was integrally involved with the Council as a peritus, and he presents an accurate (albeit sobering) perspective on the state of the Church post-Vatican II. Instead of renewed Catholic unity and understanding,

…one has encountered a dissension which – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have passed from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure had been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it.[iii]

The intention of the Council, according to Pope John XXIII and carried on by Paul VI, was aggiornamento or updating the Church; a spiritual renewal, while holding fast to the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church handed on by her Fathers.[iv] He emphasized the need for, “renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness…”[v] The true spirit of the Council was thus, to communicate the timeless and eternal message of the Gospel, preserved in its fullness within the Catholic Church – to the modern world. “The Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another,” says John XXIII.[vi] The great optimism of Pope John, the Council Fathers and their desire to communicate with the modern world in a relevant manner -- greatly impacted the goals of the council. Highlights include: defining the Church in biblical terms as the body of Christ and People of God[vii]; dialogue with separated brethren[viii]; informing the liturgy with noble simplicity and active, intelligent participation of the faithful[ix]; recognizing religious liberty as pertaining to human dignity[x], and finally, witnessing to Christ the light as the only answer and standard for the emboldened, modern world.[xi]

   There is a striking non sequitur between the Council’s vision and Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment, above.[xii] Even Pope Paul VI noted, “We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council... [instead] it is as if the Church were destroying herself.”[xiii] He also stated,

We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God … Doubt, uncertainty ,questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.[xiv]

This leads to the question: ‘What went wrong? What changes occurred and which represent the true spirit of the Council? How has the true spirit been obscured and why?

Modernism and Cultural Upheaval

   The fundamental explanation for the disunity, conflict, disobedience, and crisis experienced in the Church is the entanglement of the implementation of the Council in the ‘cultural revolution’ of the milieu.[xv] Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this when he noted in 1985:

I am convinced the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the true Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.[xvi]

Relativism, rationalism, materialism, humanism, technology, industry, and economic well-being in the modern world have greatly contributed to the culture’s calling traditional cultural values into question, caused disruption of moral norms, and resulted in religious practice to decline.[xvii] Along with those values, the Church’s very foundations, traditions and teachings were also questioned, even opposed.[xviii] The expectation, optimism and overarching sentiment of “change” and questioning of authority and institutions in the 60’s helped lead the faithful, especially the clergy, theologians and media, [xix] to expect the Church to conform to the modern world, rather than renew or inform it with the leaven of Christ. Hence, while the milieu of the 60’s pumped up expectations and optimism in the culture, it seems the cultural upheaval since the council has occasioned many faithful to reject fundamental goals of Vatican II.[xx]

   The faithful were often misinformed about the meaning of the Council by those who would substitute their own, subjective views. For example, in the name of the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, many of the faithful were told the Council: forbids use of Latin in liturgy; mandated the altar be turned around; discouraged popular devotions; banned Gregorian Chant; allowed contraception; excused religious from wearing habits, etc.[xxi] While the brevity of this paper cannot delve into each of these changes in detail, it seems these observations are quite evident to a practicing Catholic living during those times. Many clergy renounced their vocations, and gave the impression the Council was liberating them from previous obligations.[xxii] In short, many sweeping changes, (some pertaining to Church discipline and some to grave moral doctrine), which have no basis in the Council, have caused a dramatic decline in almost every aspect of the Church’s life: decline in Mass attendance, exodus of clergy, declining Catholic school enrollment, dissent on fundamental moral teachings, to name a few.[xxiii]  These are some of the paradoxical effects of the post-conciliar period, according to Ratzinger.[xxiv]

[i] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1985), p. 29, cf. Thesen zum Thema ‘Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, I,f.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid., p. 30; Cf. James Hitchcock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; printed pages Lecture I Notes, p. 1: Hitchcock notes the Church was “flourishing”, “Church attendance was very high”, “an abundance of religious vocations”, “spiritually healthy”, etc. He states later this perception would especially cause the Curia, many clergy and faithful throughout the world to question, “Why do we need a council?”, as many felt this was a rash act by John XXIII. Ecumenical Councils heretofore were essentially responses to attacks or crisis of various kinds through the centuries.

[iv] Cf. Rev. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, (Devon, England: Augustine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 40, citing John XXIII: “The Christian life is not a collection of ancient customs.”  Some have taken these sorts of comments out of context and transplanted their own notion that Pope John was allowing reconsideration of heretofore settled doctrines. Cf. Ibid., p. 14: To this erroneous view, we may note his qualification: “The greatest concern of this Ecumenical Council … is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” The Church must never depart, “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers.” The Church, “must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”

[v] Ibid., he continues: “… as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.”

[vi] Ibid. ; Cf. Today’s Catholic Reflections, online at, http://tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html:  Pope Benedict XVI, quoting Pope John XXIII: “It is necessary that this sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. One thing is in fact the deposit of faith, that is the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another thing is the way they are enounced, maintaining nevertheless their same meaning and scope” (S. Oec. Conc. Vat. II Constitutiones Decreta Declarationes, 1974, pp. 863-865).

[vii] Cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Dogmatic Constitution On the Church, (Lumen Gentium) Ch’s. I and II. The common priesthood and apostolate of the laity and their equality in membership with the clergy in the Church were of special note.

[viii] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Decree on Ecumenism, (Unitatis Redintegratio), Ch’s. I, II, and III. Dialogue in truth and charity, without compromising any essential doctrine were key components. Acknowledging the truth held by separated brethren and using that as a launch point to deeper understanding was encouraged. Also, spiritual ecumenism via inner conversion.

[ix] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: The Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Faithful to have an active and intelligent participation in the liturgy; Legitimate functions of laity in the liturgy should be fulfilled; Idea here was not to throw away the liturgy of Trent, but to remove the accretions and redundancies, making the liturgy more understandable via instruction and appropriate allowance of vernacular; desire to move faithful toward liturgy as the focus of their spirituality.

[x] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Declaration On Religious Liberty, (Dignitatis Humanae). Human person by nature has a right to religious freedom; religion should not be coerced, nor oppressed by any institution or person.

[xi] Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Editor: Austin Flannery, O.P., (Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 1975), Vol. I: Pastoral Constitution On the Church in the Modern World, (Gaudium et Spes). Pastoral document addressing the situation of modern man, his dignity, the role of the Church in the world and particularly urgent problems facing the modern world, especially the well being of marriage and family.

[xii] It should be noted there are several good and intended fruits of Vatican II which emerged, and continue to emerge ever more brilliantly. Our focus in this paper concerns especially the great crisis which has accompanied the aftermath of the Council and its root causes. We will also treat the wonderfully positive fruits being realized toward the conclusion of this paper.

[xiii] Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.

[xiv] Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.

[xv] Cf. James Hitchock, The History of Vatican II, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; [Web Mentor Online]; available from http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02200.htm; Lecture 6 Notes, p. 9. It is also evident that something more than mere human cultural impact is responsible, but also that of Satan, who always divides, brings conflict and deception … which is consistent with Pope Paul VI’s statement, supra.

[xvi] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 30.

[xvii] Cf. GS, op. cit., n. 7. “A change in attitudes and structures frequently calls accepted values into question… traditional institutions, laws and modes of thought and emotion do not always appear to be in harmony with today’s world. This has given rise to a serious disruption of patterns and even norms of behavior.” ; Cf. Ibid., n. 35: “It is what a man is, rather than what he has, that counts… technical progress may supply the material for human advance, but it is powerless to actualize it.”; Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), p. 159: “Christianity cannot mean a sacral transfiguration of the technological. Rather, it reveals a realm which the technological cannot redeem. It remains true in the end that the world is not redeemed by machinery but by love.”

[xviii] There is nothing new here, since Jesus’ time – indeed, since the fall of Adam, concupiscence of the flesh influences man to reject the good, in conjunction with the mystery of free will. The more man is comforted by economic well-being and control of his world via science and technology, the more he feels he does not need God and is himself ‘god’. Hence, we must be careful not to construe those who reject Vatican II in whole or in part – as necessarily engaging in some complex intellectual struggle … to comprehend the Council documents. The vast majority of people have never read the documents and were either told by clergy or ‘church professionals’ inaccurate information. ; Cf. James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or Capitulation? (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979): “The Church’s crisis is not primarily intellectual… it is personal and spiritual, a crisis of fundamental self-understanding and will. It proceeds from a failure of nerve, not the perplexities of the intellect.”

[xix] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 1: “It becomes necessary to dispose of one common myth, that the crisis was somehow a democratic uprising from the pew, forcing the hierarchy of the Church to reconsider its doctrines … instead, the crisis must be located among the elite of the Church, including some lay people of advanced educational attainments, but mainly with … the clergy.”

[xx] Cf. Hitchcock, Ibid., p. 33: “Virtually every ecumenical council has been followed by a crisis, usually stemming from the refusal of a major segment of the Church to accept its decrees. The Second Vatican Council is perhaps the first council to be followed by a crisis in which its teachings have been distorted into meanings contrary to their original intention.”

[xxi] Hitchcock, op. cit., Lecture 5 Notes, p. 4. There is insufficient space allowed in the main body of this paper to adequately detail the numerous examples of the false spirit of Vatican II. Some of these have been treated in related papers and conference postings in this course and are summarized, below. Probably the most striking and concrete examples of the false spirit include unauthorized changes in the liturgy, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae – viz. the hostile response from modern cultural elites, and a false ecumenism, which twists dialogue and religious freedom into capitulating Church doctrine, the one Church and regarding religion as a subjective reality only.

LITURGY:

The laity had limited knowledge of the liturgy as of the time of the council. The faithful often found their emotional and personal expression in private devotions, while the liturgy tended to be an obligatory, yet objective and somewhat calm, dry and detached reality in the spiritual lives of the laity. The council fathers wanted the laity to understand the divine action and authentic nature of the liturgy. Vatican II declared active participation of the laity in the liturgy as essential. The council called for some noble simplifications in the liturgy, removing aspects that are non-essential or redundant, with new emphasis on Scripture, with suitable place made for vernacular to be allowed (e.g. Scripture readings, prayers of the faithful) and the participation of the faithful in the singing in Latin those parts of the mass pertaining to them. To promote active participation, the laity should take part in acclamations, response, psalms, antiphons, hymns, gestures and reverent silence at appropriate times. No person could add, remove or change anything in the mass … no ‘innovations’ were to be permitted.

   However, many who implemented the ‘reform’ of the liturgy did not do so in accordance with the true spirit, let alone the actual documents of Vatican II, summarized above. The laity experienced a devastating, almost overnight change in the liturgy, with the vernacular all but replacing Latin, suppression of personal devotions, ‘gutting’ of Church art and sanctuaries. There was strong movement away from the divine to the human in liturgy, with all sorts of deviations from the direction of the council, which we will not detail here except to mention substitution of readings, spontaneous prayers, alternative hymns. In a word, the liturgy became ‘expressive’ of personal, subjective feelings and opinions. Since subjective experience and preference are relative, we have seen a fragmentation of the liturgy with local preference being the guiding principle, rather than the universal, unified liturgy. This was the opposite of the council’s intentions and writings. The effects still reverberate today, with several interventions and exhortations by the Vatican to shepherd the flock into the corral again regarding liturgy. Many helpful clarifications and movements have countered this reaction in recent years.

CONTRACEPTION

This issue was not so much a false spirit as it was a rebellion against authority, based on  the authority of popular culture and relativism. While Pope John XXIII removed this topic from the council for special commission focus, Gaudium et Spes spoke clearly, as Humanae Vitae would soon after the council, affirming traditional teaching (among many others) that contraception is immoral and that life is precious from conception. Here, expectations of many laypersons were misplaced, due to a very strong expectation on the part of clergy and theologians that the ban on contraception would be lifted, given the spirit of the sexual ‘revolution’, which was in full swing and general cultural climate of questioning traditional institutions and morality. Clearly, the cultural decay occurring while technology and economic achievement accelerated as never before – contributed greatly to this false expectation on the part of the laity (and clergy, for that matter). Thus, many were told to “follow their conscience”, laying aside the truth that consciences must be rightly formed to be morally sound. The ‘consensus of the believers’ was promoted as the proper standard by theologians like Charles Curran. It was, at root – a question of authority … the laity were confused as to who they should listen to – their pastors, theologians, media… or the Pope and bishops? This crisis of authority reached far beyond the contraception issue to people’s views on the bond of marriage, celibate priesthood and religious life and the very nature of the Church itself. Several reiterations of this teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have helped guide the laity through these troubled waters since the council.

ECUMENISM

Spiritual ecumenism, set out in Unitatis Redintegratio, called for the laity especially to take an “active and intelligent part” in ecumenism. This was to be done especially via dialogue, interior conversion and repentance for our failings in being a witness to Christ, and becoming familiar with the outlook of separated brethren – not in order to capitulate any doctrine of the Catholic faith, but to see the truth that is found in the faith of the separated brethren. In a word, be open-minded. This then becomes the point of departure for deeper understanding of each other, paving the way to greater unity among Christians, in the hope one day we “shall all be one” (Jn. 17:21). It seems many faithful anticipated Vatican II might address the modern world much as previous councils had – with emphasis on condemnation and distancing oneself from the world. It was contrary to the expectations of the laity to see Vatican II address the modern world in a balanced manner, praising what is truly good, yet acknowledging where the world is misguided and how the Church has the answer – Jesus Christ. Some erroneously expected Vatican II to conform more to the world, casting off essential truths and disciplines, but instead, the council fathers reaffirmed this and held fast to the virtuous mean by challenging Her children to be in, but not of the world.

[xxii] Ibid., p. 6.

[xxiii] Cf. Hitchcock, Catholicism, op. cit., p. 5: “Various factors conspired to abort genuine renewal: its systematic misrepresentation in the popular media … the fact that certain of the ideas of conciliar theology are uncongenial and even incomprehensible to modern culture; sociological situations within clerical and religious life itself; and the influence of certain theologies … which falsified what the Council had intended.”

[xxiv] Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 59.