1969-2009: Our diocese at 40 years of age

Part two: Impact of Vatican II

By Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted | January 15, 2009 | The Catholic Sun

Editor’s note: This series picks up from the Dec. 18, 2008, edition of The Catholic Sun.

Fifty years ago, on Jan. 25, 1959, Blessed Pope John XXIII surprised the Church and the world by announcing his plan to convoke the Church’s 21st Ecumenical Council. After nearly four years of laborious preparation, Vatican II officially began on Oct. 11, 1962, and it concluded more than three years later on Dec. 8, 1965. Four years after that, the Diocese of Phoenix would be created.

While many events in the Church and the world have had an impact on our diocese over the past 40 years, none has brought more blessings or created more turmoil than this council and the difficult challenges faced in implementing it in the past four decades. To understand our own diocesan history, and to prepare ourselves to carry forward our mission from Christ in the years ahead, it is worthwhile to consider briefly some key points of Vatican II and to assess its implementation.

To assist in this endeavor, it is worthwhile to enlist the help of Pope Benedict XVI, himself a participant in the Council as a theological consultant (peritus in Latin) and one of the key figures in its implementation. The Holy Father has published many articles and books on this topic in a variety of languages, notably his books: “Principles of Catholic Theology” and the “Ratzinger Report” (referred to hereafter as “Principles” and “Report,” respectively).

Opening the windows of the Church — Why?

During the exhilarating days of the Council, it was often reported that John XXIII threw open the windows of the Church so that the fresh air of modernity could be let in. The Church was being brought up to date, it was said, with the help of the great progress and many advances of the modern world. But was this actually what Blessed Pope John XXIII intended when he called Vatican II?

It is true that John XXIII used the image of opening the windows of the Church, and of doing so without hesitation or fear. But the purpose was not to let the air of modernity enter the Church; on the contrary, it was to let the radiant light of Christ shine forth and scatter the darkness of the world and bring reconciliation and hope in a century that already had suffered two World Wars, the horrible Holocaust of the Jews and a myriad of other atrocities.

John XXIII wrote on Dec. 25, 1961, “Today the Church is witnessing a crisis under way within society. While humanity is on the edge of a new era, tasks of immense gravity and amplitude await the Church, as in the most tragic periods of its history. It is a question in fact of bringing the modern world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the Gospel… In the face of this twofold spectacle — a world which reveals a grave state of spiritual poverty and the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality — we, from the time we ascended to the supreme pontificate… have felt immediately the urgency of the duty to call our sons together, to give the Church the possibility to contribute more efficaciously to the solution of the problems of the modern age.”

This false notion of the Church’s relationship with the world, so frequently trumpeted in the years after the Council, led to confusion about the true nature of the Church and sowed doubts about her mission in the world. This confusion and these doubts soon spilled over into the daily life of the Church, bringing turmoil into catechetical programs, dissent to some of her key teachings, and polarization; especially among the clergy and religious. As a result, the true meaning of Vatican II and its authentic implementation, while not totally lost, was significantly obfuscated. The repercussions were felt in countries around the world. This local Church, our Diocese of Phoenix, in its first 40 years, has not been immune from these difficulties.

Implementation has never been easy

This turmoil through which the Church passed in the early decades after Vatican II was not unlike what happened after previous ecumenical councils, centuries ago. In 1982, Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in “Principles” (p 368), “it cannot be denied that, from close by, nearly all councils have seemed to destroy equilibrium, to create crisis. The Council of Nicaea, which formulated the definitive statement of the divine Sonship of Jesus, was followed by a crushing dispute that brought about the first great heresy in the Church, that of Arianism, and, for a decade, rent the Church to her very core. The same thing happened after the Council of Chalcedon, which defined not only the true divinity but also the true humanity of Christ… Thus the critical development that followed Vatican Council II is part of a long history; it is surprising only because, in the enthusiasm generated by the beginning of the Council, these historical experiences were largely forgotten.”

The high expectations Catholics felt at the end of Vatican II were not realistic. As Pope Benedict has said on various occasions, we doubtless expected too much, with too little consciousness of the real teaching of this Council and also of the difficulties that dogged implementation efforts after previous ones.

Pope Benedict, 30 years after Vatican II, said in “Salt of the Earth” (pp 74-75), “…there was quite a significant difference between what the Fathers [of the Council] wanted and what was conveyed to the public and then became fixed in the general consciousness. The Fathers wanted to update the faith — but this was precisely in order to present it with its full impact. Instead, the impression increasingly gained hold that reform consisted in simply jettisoning ballast, in making it easier for ourselves. Reform thus seemed really to consist, not in a radicalization of the faith, but in any kind of dilution of the faith.”

Of course, no pastoral program in the Church will bear fruit if its aim is to make things more comfortable. Even though some people erroneously believed this to be the case, making the practice of the faith less arduous was not the aim of Vatican II.

Liberal, conservative or something greater?

Distorted interpretations of the Council’s teachings were due in part to the tendency by far too many to read the documents of Vatican II through a politicized perspective, characterizing the inner dynamic of the Council Fathers’ discussions as one of constant fighting between liberal and conservative camps. Reporters covering the Council proceedings frequently reported the deliberations along these polarizing lines: left against right, optimism versus pessimism, liberals versus conservatives.

Cardinal Ratzinger observed that the Council did indeed bring new dynamism within the Church, which gave the faithful a deeper sense of responsibility for moving beyond an overly privatized notion of Catholicism, too common in the 1950s, to an apostolic engagement in the real problems of the contemporary world. “The Council wanted to mark the transition from a protective to a missionary attitude. Many forget that for the Council the counter-concept to ‘conservative’ is not ‘progressive’ but ‘missionary’” (“Report,” p 13).

Vatican II, in its authentic implementation, prepared the Church for the New Evangelization. How did it do that? First of all, it gave us a deeper understanding of the mystery of the Church as a communion of persons, as the mystical Body of Christ, as the People of God marching through history with a mission in Christ’s name. This deeper understanding of the Church helped to overcome prejudices and misunderstandings towards baptized non-Catholics (now called separated brethren) giving fresh impetus to the ecumenical movement and prayerful longing for complete unity in Christ.

As a result of Vatican II, the Sacred Scriptures were given greater prominence in catechesis and preaching, in personal prayer and the Sacred Liturgy. The Sacred Liturgy was made more accessible to the faithful, with encouragement of active participation of all the baptized, the use of the vernacular and a revision of the liturgical rites of all the sacraments. All these positive accomplishments were not achieved without mistakes being made along the way of implementation, but the fundamental orientation of Vatican II on these matters has endured and begun to bear fruit.

In part three of this series, next time, we shall continue our analysis of Vatican II, various aspects of its implementation, and the impact of these on our diocese over the past forty years. This may help us to build more effectively on rich heritage of the Council.