Barack Obama and Vatican II
The president's persona and the spirit of the council
W e have a Vatican II president. Barack Obama, I am sure, does not think of himself in those terms, but when I heard his speech at Grant Park in Chicago the night he was elected, and more recently his commencement address at Notre Dame, that is what immediately struck me. On those occasions he embodied and professed in his public persona the spirit of the council. In making that statement I know that I am entering a minefield. Catholics who denounce the president for his stance on abortion are of course responsible for many of the mines in the field, but their mines have been so thoroughly discussed lately that for the sake of brevity I will bypass them here.
The other set of mines in the field comes from the expression “the spirit of Vatican II.” The expression, used widely at the time of the council and given a certain official standing at the Synod of Bishops in 1985, has lately in Roman circles been quietly downgraded, if not dismissed as meaningless. No doubt, the expression has been abused to justify interpretations far removed from what the bishops intended, and it has seemed all too prone to ideological manipulation. Your “spirit of the council” is not my “spirit of the council.”
From Grant Park to South Bend, the president's conciliatory tone calls to mind the spirit of Vatican II.
Yet the expression has a legitimate place in our vocabulary and is in fact almost indispensable for grasping the big message the council wanted to deliver. By “the spirit of the council” I mean simply general orientations that transcended particular issues. In my book, What Happened at Vatican II, I argue that beneath the particular issues the council dealt with—episcopal collegiality, for instance, and religious liberty—more profound and far-reaching issues lurked. I call these the issues-under-the-issues. I ground them in the texts of the council and in that way ground “the spirit of the council” and give it verifiable substance.
Among the issues-under-the issues was style, the issue especially pertinent for grounding “the spirit of the council.” The council spoke in a new style, a style different from all previous councils. It eschewed words implying punishment, surveillance, hostility, distrust and coerced behavior-modification that characterized previous councils. It employed words that espoused a new model for Christian behavior—not new, of course, to the Christian tradition as such, but new to council vocabulary. I am referring to words like brothers and sisters, cooperation, partnership, human family, conscience, collegiality and especially dialogue. The new words cannot be dismissed as casual asides or mere window dressing. The council used them too insistently, intentionally and characteristically for them to be that. This new vocabulary made the council a major language-event in the history of the church.
The shift in vocabulary had profound ramifications. It meant a shift in values and priorities. Critical among these new values was civility in dealing with persons of different faiths or convictions and a willingness to listen to them with docile heart and mind. This civility was not a superficial tactic but a manifestation of an inner conversion. It of course did not mean surrendering one’s beliefs, but it did mean a willingness to learn from others and a refusal to condemn them without a hearing. Such openness of mind and heart is the essence of genuine dialogue.
The council hoped that this new style of being, which brings with it a new way of proceeding, would lead to cooperation among all persons of good will—Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers—on the new, massive, and sometimes terrifying problems that face humanity today. This new way of proceeding in large part constituted “the spirit of the council.” It was one of the big messages the council delivered to the church and to the world at large.
That is why when I heard Obama’s two speeches I was struck by how much he spoke in accord with the spirit of Vatican II. In those two addresses, as well as in his other speeches, he called for civility, for the end of name-calling, and for a willingness to work together to deal with our common problems, including abortion, rather than a stand-off determination to impose one’s principles without reckoning what the cost to the common good might be.
President Jenkins of Notre Dame called attention to Obama’s oratorical gifts. Such gifts are consonant with the rhetorical tradition that produced the spirit of Vatican II. The council deliberately chose to speak as much as possible “in the pastoral style of the Fathers,” who were schooled from their earliest days in the rhetorical tradition. That tradition is what made them such effective preachers and leaders of their communities.
Classical theorists about rhetoric like Cicero and Quintilian described it as the art of winning consensus, the art of bringing people together for a common cause. It is an art, please note, closely related to ethics, for those same theorists described the truly successful orator as vir bonus dicendi peritus--a good man, skilled in public speaking. It is an art in which Obama excels and which, certainly unwittingly, puts him in touch with the spirit of Vatican II.
I often hear laments that the spirit of Vatican II is dead in the church. Is it not ironic that not a bishop but the President of the United States should today be the most effective spokesperson for that spirit? To judge from the enthusiastic response he received from the graduates at Notre Dame, his message captured their minds and hearts. Maybe through young Catholics like those at Notre Dame who are responding to Obama’s message the spirit of Vatican II will, almost through the back door, reenter the church. The history of the church has, after all, taken stranger turns than that.
John W. O'Malley, S.J., is university professor, theology department, at Georgetown University and author of What Happened at Vatican II.
| Reader's Comments (51) | |
| 1. | It's unfortunate that it's very difficult to find anything suggesting this "spirit of Vatican II" in any of Vatican II's documents. Many point to Gaudium et Spes, which Fr. Jenkins himself cited in his opening address, as to where this "spirit of Vatican II" is outlined. Many were concerned about Notre Dame's dialogue with President Obama due to the President's stance on abortion. Gaudium et Spes itself identifies abortion as an "unspeakable crime" (51), listing it along with murder and genocide as being "opposed to life itself" (27). This makes we question whether President Obama may be qualified as a "Vatican II President". That being said, Guadium et Spes does aim to settle how dialogue is to take place. And it does so by distinguishing the individual from what notions that individual holds. Charity is always to motivate dialogue, but charity is to be directed toward the individual, never to be confused with complicit acceptance or condoning of whatever erroneous positions the individual holds. Gaudium et Spes speaks of this charity in article no. 28: "This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions." |
| By Richard on May 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM | |
| 2. | Vatican II and Obama did both encourage civility in dialogue, but that's pretty much as far as the comparison goes. The type of dialogue which Obama encouraged with "open minds" toward opposing issues bespoke dialogue which indefinitely respects others' ideas, even those with which we disagree. Vatican II, however, more articulately distinguishes respect toward people and that shown toward their ideas. Gaudium et Spes no. 28 states, "It is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions." The President asserted that "presumption of good faith" meant to "open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do", and that when we do so, "we discover at least the possibility of common ground." If we were to say here that Vatican II and the President were saying the same thing, we could only go so far as to say that "common ground" means showing respect and charity toward the individual, not toward finding common ground on "views of the two camps" which "irreconcilable", as the President put it. If such common ground does not yet exist, it would definitely be worth establishing. However, one questions from what the President says if opening "our minds and hearts to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do" would leave such room for pointing out others' "error, which always merits repudiation". The President speaks of agreeing to disagree, which is for the most part a passive action, but says nothing of what it means to actively repudiate others with civility. Rather, he jumps to using disingenuous language when it comes to moving beyond simply agreeing to disagree. One takes from the President's remarks that if one were to have the gall so as to repudiate others' error whether one would be "demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side" or "reducing those with differing views to caricature". Could the President be demonizing those who go so far as to make a concerted effort to establish policies in opposition to the views of others? To call President Obama a "Vatican II President" (a term loaded with as much suggestion as "spirit of Vatican II") is wishful thinking. |
| By Richard on May 22, 2009 at 3:05 PM | |
| 3. | A few popes might have just turned in their graves because of your article. Are heroes such in short supply that you have to put up a compromised individual on the pedestal? Surely, there must be others who embody the ideals of the Ecumenical Council and does not tolerate infanticide. The intrinsic evil of abortion negates whatever good this man has done - IMHO. So, why don't we dig further and deeper and find a better poster boy for Vatican 2. And if there is no one for now, then let us not offend the community - conservatives included. |
| By Ricky Vines on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 PM | |
| 4. | Thank you for an important article. I think what we saw in those speeches was grounded Barak Obama's modern Protestant Christianity. The "Sprit of Vatican II" spread widely and deeply throughout the Protestant churches as well - especially Obama's United Church of Christ. |
| By Jack Raymer on May 23, 2009 at 12:01 AM | |
| 5. | Most of the comments on here far surpass the actual article itself.The main flaw of the argument is to see ,in a somewhat obtuse way,the Council as a forum for common ground.It was not.It had as its intention the updating of the means by which the Truth that the Holy Catholic Church reached Man.It was not the intention of the Pope to split the difference.To consider the Presidents position on the validity of human life and how we should treat in legal terms the most vulnerable and then to place him above the Bishops of America is insulting to both the Council and the spirit of truth.The Council was about Truth and the new President who is a very good and intelligent politician is not.To see a President in terms beyond his own Socio-political or Socio-economic goals is dangerous and to equate the need to pacify some troubled consciences with soothing words is a far cry from the rallying cry of the Council.The Council stressed the Universal call to holiness and not the Universal need to agree to disagree especially when faced with an agreeable person. |
| By David Power on May 23, 2009 at 6:37 AM | |
| 6. | Well written. I think your perspective gets at the larger picture of our work at Christians in the world, or the "spirit of our work" so to speak. The political debate on abortion is pathetic and President Obama is the first politician who is courageous enough to say that we NEED to have a sincere dialogue on the issue. The best way to BEGIN this dialogue is to recognize common ground and move forward from there. I would think that anyone who sincerely desires change on the issue of abortion would welcome this opportunity. |
| By Andrew T. on May 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM | |
| 7. | You forgot to mention that Vatican II said that abortion was an intrinsic evil. Was this deliberately left out? |
| By Milbo on May 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM | |
| 8. | Good to read this kind of inclusive interpretation of president Obama speech. Abortion is not the only issue which has to paralize our immagination. It is a hope for the Catholic Church, since she has propetic voices such as John O'Malley. |
| By Stan on May 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM | |
| 9. | Right on target John O'Malley, S.J.!! I simply can't understand how Zenit keeps publishing negative reactions when my own heart swells with pride and awe when I listen to our president Barack Obama! Thanks for your article. |
| By Helen Graham on May 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM | |
| 10. | Is the "spirit of Vatican II" art in the sense of form but devoid of substance. When we get carried away with "words", we risk the greater meaning,i.e., actions. President Obama is a gifted orator and mesmerizes his audiences. He even gets applause from the ND audience when he says that "Faith" is subject to "doubt". We should look beyond the "words" and should analyze the actions, particularly President Obama's "actions" in the abortion arena. Otherwise, we are truly elevating form over substance. In other words, who cares what he says? It's what he does that counts. |
| By William E. McCormick on May 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM | |
| 11. | u would applaud any effort of the bishops to respond constructively to the president's invitation to dialogue. fine article, John. |
| By Charles J. Beirne, S.J. on June 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM | |
| 12. | When does "style" become the priority before substance"? As time passes I think I am witnessing a Jesuit schism with a drift from theological substance to stylized emotive passion under the guise of intellectual discourse. It overwhelms patience to read - and read - to discover it's only rationalized 'fluff'. I rather not pay good money to read stuff that agravates logic. |
| By John McShane on June 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM | |
| 13. | Amen to Fr. Beirne. I was about to write the exact same thing as him, and then realized he had said it better than I ever could. Also, kudos to Richard for being only one (including O'Malley) to REALLY look at the document and make sense of it - seems to reinforce the idea that O'Malley is only trying to find a spirit that corresponds with his own interpretation. |
| By Paul on June 2, 2009 at 8:50 AM | |
| 14. | There was a time, not so long ago really, when we held the virtue of Tolerance in high esteem in the Catholic Church. Tolerance is a virtue grounded in the divinely amplified realization that each and every human being possesses within his or her life story a glimmer of Truth that each of us needs to hear and understand. Somewhere along the way, our leaders either began to equate Tolerance with Relativism themselves or allowed those who cannot make the distinction to gain undue influence in the institutional Church. This development is a sad irony, as Relativism is based on the completely opposite principle - that everything should be allowed because nothing is sacred and no real Truth exists. Thank you Fr. O'Malley for reminding us how far we've strayed from the Spirit. |
| By Jim Philipps on June 2, 2009 at 9:09 AM | |
| 15. | When I listened to the speeches by Fr. Jenkins and President Obama at the Notre Dame commencement I cried. I cried because my heart was touched by the words of hope given by these two men. I cried because of the tone of civility and respect within these speeches, and because YES, it did speak to my heart of the "spirit of Vatican II'". I cried because I was so proud of the great compassion and intellect of Fr. Jenkins. He made me grateful to be Catholic. I am not a theologian but I am a lay Catholic, one of many who are tired, so tired of the vilification in the theological discourse among Catholics in disagreement with one another. Is it wrong for us to long for the "spirit of Vatican II" to be renewed. Can even those who disagree with this article and author, and me for liking it, feel that our Church is better off today going in the direction that the Church is now taking. Churches are closing, priest shortages abound, many Catholics are leaving for other Christian denominations. I love the Catholic faith and its traditions. I am heartsick that we tear each other down. Our Church is in need of real renewal and reform. I can only state what it looks like and feels like from the perspective of an ordinary lay person sitting in the pews praying for all of us. Abortion is a real issue and I get that but let it not be the issue that destroys a Church. Obviously, many Catholics in good faith, and in good conscience voted for President Obama. Are they all to be excommunicated? Are they all to be banished from the Eucharist? What are we doing here? What are we called here to do? The Church Christ envisioned is not the Church that exists in 2009. We need real shepherds in charge of our dioceses - we need real leadership. I applaud Fr. O'Malley for this article. |
| By Adele Lewis on June 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM | |
| 16. | From the beginning, The Spirit of Vatican II was not about compromising The Truth, it was about Proclaiming The Truth. |
| By Nancy on June 2, 2009 at 7:34 PM | |
| 17. | It is true that Obama has a gift-the ability to speak and leave the impression that he is on both sides of a discussion. He is aware of this gift and uses it well, but it is easy for us to miss where truth lies. |
| By Kay Halliwell on June 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM | |
| 18. | I fail to understand how a Catholic publication such as this can continue to publish article after article praising President Obama while I have yet to see one article criticizing the President's. We have seen the eversal of the Mexico City Policy and the return of federal funding for the sake of destroying embryos, but I have yet to see one critical commentary. Yes I know life issues are not the only issues, but does that mean we ignore them. Is there any pro-life Obama supporters that are going to challenge him on any of this. Is this a Catholic magazine or a liberal magazine? |
| By Jerry McGrane on June 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM | |
| 19. | It makes me laugh how easily people these days practically bend over backwards to canonize President Obama - as for him encapsulating the the spirit of Vatican II? As other commentors have noted, it may pay to look at what the Council actually said rather than try and interpret it from a rather narrow Western, and particularly American point of view... dialogue is fantastic if it leads to the Truth. If not, it's just a politician making nice noises to a significant swing-voting block. |
| By Bernard on June 2, 2009 at 10:31 PM | |
| 20. | When Simon bar Jonah transferred his focus from Jesus to the turbid waters of the sea of Galilee he began to sink as he walked on water toward Jesus. I listen to this confusing intellectual discussion and then remind myself "But what does the Master say?" He says:- "There shall rise up false Christs and also prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, in so much as to deceive (if possible) even the elect" (Matt 24.24) Lets keep our eyes on Him Who is the Way the Truth and the Life. For Catholics, this is a spiritual matter not intellectual. |
| By Nial Murray on June 2, 2009 at 10:41 PM | |
| 21. | I applaud Fr. O'Malley for this article too. To Adele, Please go and see our lady of roses end time prophecies in baysides and you'll know the many enemies of the Catholic Church from outside and within and help expose it. http://www.tldm.org/directives/d127.htm STARTED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS "Bishops in My Son's House, Church, you have gone astray. You have scattered Our sheep. You have joined with all manner of heretics and false teachers. You started with good intentions in your Council, but you became deluded in your search for peace and brotherhood. You allowed all manner of error to creep slowly into My Son's House, Church. You must understand that you are setting in motion the formation of a World Council of Churches, but it will not be the Church of My Son. It will be a church of man, a church without the true foundation." - Our Lady of roses, June 5, 1976 DISCORD AND DISUNITY "The great Council, the Council that has brought forth discord, disunity, and the loss of souls, the major fact behind this destruction was because of the lack of prayer. Satan sat in within this Council, and he watched his advantage. He is now playing a game of chess with the Red Hats and the Purple Hats, moving them with great glee as he watches the evil accelerate, and all manners of people are flowing fast through the doors of the Holy City and all ecumenical bodies." - St. Michael, March 18, 1976 |
| By lome on June 3, 2009 at 12:18 AM | |
| 22. | The idea that Vatican 11 was about listening to and respecting people from other religions is a lttle strange. Surely just being Christian - a follower of Christ - demands such attitudes. As for President Obama being an exemplar of the "Spirit of Vatican 11", and more so than any of the US bishops - that is pretty hard to swallow. Every fair dinkum Catholic knows that Obama is in serious error over abortion as well as other life and family issues. We can show him respect; we can listen to him - but as for dialogue, that is only possible if he is willing to change his views -and he has already stated that the opposing views on abortion are "irreconcilable". The Church won't change so where is the possibility of dialogue? We can only agree to disagree - respectfully of course! |
| By Robert Leach on June 3, 2009 at 1:34 AM | |
| 23. | Thank you for your article. Unfortunately, the Catholics who remember the breath of fresh air admitted to the church in the early 1960s are fading. A new generation of "rigorists" is taking their place, and for all their moral piety, I see absolutely no signs of an underlying wisdom. Our church has a long and complex history. It would do well to study it and realize that we need more modesty and civility rather than fundamentalist rancor. |
| By Michael Gick on June 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM | |
| 24. | When you consider how Mr. Barack Obama was raised within his "non-family", having to please everybody, as he grew up with such a "dysfunctional family", we all feel compassion for his predicament. His growing up demonstrates how a dysfunctional and broken family can, nevertheless, create a brilliant person. As an intelligent and street-smart human being, he learned how to please everyone around him. At every moment, he is focused on using all the skills that he learned so well to survive to the next moment leaving a glow behind. Yet, as Psalm 36 continues to demonstrate, human nature has not improved very much since the Psalm was written over 2,000 years ago. This Psalm describes how "Man so flatters himself in his mind that he knows not his guilt. In his mouth are mischief and deceit. All wisdom is gone. He plots the defeat of goodness as he lies in his bed. He set his foot on evil ways, he clings to what is evil." We must continuously pray for God to remove the "delusions" and "fog" that cloud the clarity of thinking about "truth" and "goodness". Support of the violent death of unborn human beings and the catering to an industry that makes a profit from it, are, and will continue to be, intrinsically evil. Life was designed for an eternity of joy with our Creator or the pain of His absence. |
| By Br.Macedo on June 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM | |
| 25. | Jerry that's a rhetorical question, right? Obama's skill with rhetoric is praised, yet no mention of the fact that he is not open to the dialogue he insists we need to have, as evidenced by the fact that everything the man does is in opposition to the views of those of us 'on the other side'. Wasn't it just a few months ago that he was saying "Words...just words..." That is what he is about, but we (and Fr. O'Malley and his fellow priests) should be examining his actions, not his skill with rhetoric. When Obama speaks of keeping an open mind and heart, he obviously means we who are faithful to the teaching of Christ should be 'open minded'. He has proven his disdain for us and the teaching of Christ's Church, yet again, by announcing June as the celebration of homosexuality. So, happy GLBT month to all the 'open minded' Catholic readers. From all indications in this piece, Fr. O'Malley, S.J. appears to support Obama, since he offers only praise. He gives me one more reason to never send my Catholic children to Georgetown, as did Notre Dame, for the indoctrination into Catholic dissent. Thank you for the heads up, Fr., and may God have mercy. One can only cringe in wonder at the number of 'little ones' who have been and are now being led astray in the name of 'the spirit of Vatican II'. |
| By Pamela W on June 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM | |
| 26. | I thought the Jesuits existed before Vatican II and therefore acknowledged the whole of Catholicism. What ill-advised policy will the Society of Jesus be supporting under the Vactican II president? |
| By Tim Palmer on June 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM | |
| 27. | finally,some-one is speaking the truth about president Oboma, in stead of all this name calling. I would think people that have been demonizing him for,speaking at Notre-Dame,would be ashamed of them selves. |
| By Darrel Matz on June 3, 2009 at 12:43 PM | |
| 28. | I think Fr. O'Malley needs to re-read the documents that came out of Vatican II. When we begin to interpret them on our own based on our opinion of what the words contained within mean, we can see whatever we want in any body of work. We need to pray for so many Catholics who have forgotten that our Church is not a democracy and it's teachings are clear and haven't changed in 2000 years. We are not to "change with the times" and compromise the Church's teachings in order to get along with those who disagree with us. I pray for the souls of so many of our clergy who are causing scandal and deep division in our beloved Church based on their "opinions". May God have mercy on them all. God bless our faithful bishops and clergy and may God specially bless our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. We are living in very special times! |
| By Karla on June 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM | |
| 29. | I wish you could read some of the stories of women who have had abortions, and are struggling to accept themselves after realising they put to death their own child. It's all very well to talk about the "spirit of Vatican II" and other lofty concepts; they end up not having much meaning when you are trying to persuade a young woman that her life DOES have hope and she IS forgiven, after the cruel fact of abortion. Many of the women I talk to have a five-year plus journey towards healing that is never complete and shadows the rest of their young lives. Let's not even discuss the "mines" of the aborted children. Fact is, their mothers are permanently scarred from the experience. I have read dozens of times "Why didn't someone tell me how I would feel? Why didn't someone tell me that I would yearn after my murdered baby for the rest of my life.?" Their agony is the reason that I am committed to crying out the truth: that abortion is wrong and evil and hurts women and children viciously. So if I don't seem tolerant and in the spirit of Vatican II, it's because I'm trying to get the TRUTH out so that no more women have to go through the anguish of being post-abortive and realising they did something terribly, terribly wrong. |
| By Lucy on June 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM | |
| 30. | There is nothing Catholic or inspiring in the moral relativity espoused by the Author, Fr. Jenkins or Pres. Obama. As Catholics, we are compelled by our faith to speak and act as Catholics. The Holy Spirit can only work through us when we are in accordance with the will of God. No person who is in accoord with the Spirit can condone abortion. If you are looking for a true "Vatican II" representative, look no further than Mother Teresa. She said; "I choose the poverty of our people. But I am grateful to receive (the Nobel) in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." Lets stop the foolishness. We are compelled to follow the Magisterium of the Church. If we choose not to, we do it a our own peril. |
| By Paul on June 3, 2009 at 2:14 PM | |
| 31. | It is too bad we do not have a bishop in the USA, who can articulate common values as well as the President. Mr Obama acts more Catholic than our own negative Bishops. |
| By Pete on June 3, 2009 at 2:14 PM | |
| 32. | This should be required reading for all those right wing or single issue Catholics whose rhetoric condemning those of different viewpoint alienates and makes progress impossible. We need not relativize our principles to evangelize but respect our hearers like Jesus did. In particular the bishops and clergy need to publicly enter into the spirit of Vatican II that you describe. I would love to have a statement on dialogue and civility come out of the next bishops' meeting, even though that would doubtless annoy the Vatican. |
| By Peggy on June 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM | |
| 33. | Tolerance has never been a virtue and will never be a virtue. A virtue is always associated with a "good." Tolerance however is not always associated with a good. For example: We should never tolerate the abuse of children. The virtues are: fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance, faith, hope, and charity. Carolyn Erb |
| By Carolyn on June 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM | |
| 34. | I've learned to roll my eyes whenever I see the phrase "spirit of Vatican II," which I've come to see is code for "all the stuff we on the left wanted the council to say and mean but couldn't get included in the documents." Sorry America, there is no "spirit of Vatican II." And I somehow doubt that the bishops of the council would have approved of Notre Dame's hosting and honoring a politician who publicly supports (to use Senator Moynihan's term) infanticide. |
| By Ed on June 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM | |
| 35. | While I enjoy hearing good rhetoric, and sometimes employ it myself, I am at the same time suspicious of it. Florishing rhetoric is expected during a political campaign (at least in the U.S.) but one quickly tires of it. I agreed with very little that the former President did, but at least, without any rhetoric, he was conservatively consistent. I am not at all sure about President Obama. Cardinal George after his interview with the President on ethical matters commented that it was difficult to converse with him because he kept agreeing with everything the Cardinal said, even though this contradicted what he had said during his campaign and had done since becoming president. I would humbly suggest to Fr O'Malley that he wait for some time and judge the President not just on his fine rhetoric but on his actions. To say that he best articulates 'the spirit of Vatican II' is just too silly to consider. One expects more from an academic, Jesuit or otherwise. |
| By Fr Ronan Kilgannon Erem. Dio. on June 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM | |
| 36. | Pres. Obama sure has the dicendi peritus part down. |
| By Ioannes Andreades on June 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM | |
| 37. | I fully agree with your remarks on Obama and Vatican II. |
| By M. L. on June 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM | |
| 38. | I, too, have thought Barack, like John XXIII, was one to throw the windows and doors wide open! |
| By David Q on June 3, 2009 at 11:54 PM | |
| 39. | Sounds like the spirit of death not life. I don't care spirit. Anything goes spirit. Dissent spirit. Evil spirit. Me first spirit. disrespect for others spirit. I will not serve spirit. Not the Holy Spirit to be sure. |
| By Mrs. Randy Falcon on June 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM | |
| 40. | “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” Barack Obama in the spirit of Barack Obama. |
| By Peadar Roe on June 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM | |
| 41. | After reading the 39 previous comments, I am reassured that Fr. O'Malley is right on target. Sad to say, our leadership is impotent and has been for the last 30 years. John XXIII stirred enthusiasm, not pride,[in the deepest sense of those terms]in our Church. Neat and clean organizational efficiency might be supreme in most companies because the bottom line is profit, but the Church is more than that. Even Pope Benedict sees the downsizing ['smaller and purer']of our Church perhaps as the movement of the Spirit working when the 'efficient organizational men' aren't listening. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are not ends in themselves. They lead to idolatry. Rather, they are means to the God beyond. But let us not judge nor condemn those who have eyes but do not see, and ears that do not hear. The Spirit alone can accomplish that! |
| By Bill White on June 4, 2009 at 5:55 PM | |
| 42. | Thank you for the very positive article. You,and the President remind us of Jesus' example of listening in a compassionate and non-judgemental way to my neighbour. The article is 'prophetic' given President Obama's speech just now in Egypt. |
| By peter & carmel cowan on June 4, 2009 at 7:16 PM | |
| 43. | John O'Malley's comments are an excellent illustration of how the Church in America was hijacked from within, and how many Catholic institutions ceased to be an effective witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. An important part of the Catholic renewal in America will be reclaiming those Catholic colleges and universities that can still be saved, and abandoning those that can't be. That a politician whose agenda is so contrary to that of the Church in not only welcomed on a Catholic campus, but given high honors is obviously an enormous disgrace to Notre Dame. And unfortunately, Notre Dame has for some time been solidly within the ranks of those institutions actively undermining the Church in America. It should be treated accordingly by Catholic families making decisions over where to make donations and where to send their children for schooling. |
| By Dr. Cyril Ignatius Kendrick on June 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM | |
| 44. | In truth, knowing that this article was written by one of the foremost historians of the council in America, Fr. O'Malley SJ, I have to say that I am more than disappointed. At the conclusion of the article, I couldn't help but say to myself, "so what?" To draw the analogy between Conciliar dialogue and ressourcement to the overly post-modern, fetishistic sense of dialogue as-an-end-unto-itself within Obama's rhetoric requires a bit more than mere intellectual gymnastics - probably just a lot of extra time and a decent imagination to go with it. Relating the over idealized 'spirit of Vatican II' to much of anything at all is nothing more than reducing it's realities to a lowest common denominator with something else - which is never very meaningful anyway. Fr. O'Malley seemingly laments over the fact that the belief in the 'spirit of Vatican II' is dead among Church hierarchy and perhaps there is a reason for that. This 'idea' has developed into more or less of a 'content-less'concept as the "Spirit of Vatican II" has represented a set of generalized 'ideals' (open-ended dialogue, openness, egalitarianism, 'aggiornamento') on which the council is believed by many to be based upon. But this is an incredibly incomplete and fractured way of looking at the council and not a method that we can use with any amount of seriousness if we expect to have any sort of renewed study of this very important period in the contemporary life of the Church. To Fr. O'Malley's credit, his history of Vatican II (What Happened at Vatican II) is really a magnum opus in many senses of the word - this article is clearly not. |
| By Brett R. McCaw on June 16, 2009 at 7:38 AM | |
| 45. | @BillWhite: I concur that orthodoxy is not an end in itself. However, I think that orthodoxy is a *prerequisite* both to effective evangelization and the virtuous life. It is impossible for one who lacks orthodoxy to live a fully Christ-like life. Now, granted, as a result of original sin, the darkening of the intellect, and the inflaming of the passions, *nobody* lives a fully Christ-like life, including the most orthodox Catholics. All the same, as the sole institution on Earth competent to make authoritative judgements on orthodoxy, it is both logical and necessary for questions of orthodoxy to be one of the top priorities-perhaps *the* top priority-of the instutional Chruch. Since none of her other work (Catholic evangelization, Catholic charity, general holiness) can proceed or long survive outside the shelter of orthodoxy, the rampant heterodoxy she faces in the present-day American Catholic is (rightly) of prime concern. Because of the centrality of orthodoxy to Christian Catholic life, I not only consider the recent condemnations by the bishops appopriate, but think that stronger measures, such as excommunications, would be *more* pastoral, *more* healing, and ultimately *more* in accord with the spirit of Vatican II than the strongly-worded letters they have published so far. I *do* like to think that, at the very least, the spirit of Vatican II rests on something more than a mere rhetorical style that can be emptied of Christian content and refilled with any old workaday ideology of inhumanity. |
| By James Heaney on June 18, 2009 at 3:27 AM | |
| 46. | In truth, knowing that this article was written by one of the foremost historians of the council, (as mentioned by blogger #44, Brett R. McCaw on 6/16/09) I have to say I expected no less. Fr. O'Malley's lament over the death of the 'spirit of Vatican II" among the Church hierarchy is far from inappropriate as the 'spirit of Vatican II' is far from meaningless. Like blogger McCaw, I have read Fr. O'Malley's book and was impressed at its prodigious scholarship and balanced, enlightening insights. It is indeed a masterful work for which I, for one, am deeply grateful. The value of "open-ended dialogue, openness, egalitarianism, and aggiornamento" far exceeds a mere set of generalized ideals. For example, the issues surrounding abortion are understood by each side. What is critical in the practice of genuine dialogue is the acknowledgment that the "Truth" is not a dead "thing" that must be protected by a static, self-appointed supreme authority, but is rather incarnate in the living Spirit of the Triune God who loves us and continues to reveal His love every day. (I sometimes think the siege mentality exhibited by certain pronouncements of the magisterium reveal their lack of faith in the living Spirit animating us.) Vatican II called on the whole church to increase in holiness and rejected the habit of former councils of promulgating lists of no-nos and condemnations of people. If we all increase in love for God and one another and increase in virtuous behavior, the need for abortion may decrease to the point of extinction. Enough for now. Thanks Fr. O'Malley |
| By Sue Carrington on June 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM | |
| 47. | Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! |
| By Patricia V. Russo on June 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM | |
| 48. | How refreshing to read this article! And how clear!I was just in Vermont visiting my family and experienced a wonderful homily on Sunday about us being the children of Vatican II! Perhaps the Spirit of God is stirring our jaded hearts to renew our own spirits and open up the windows of our minds and let some of that healthy Vermont air in! I mean air as pristine and without pollution of narrowmindedness and lack of respect for the thoughts of others. The homilist knew Karl Rahner personally, how exciting!! We must not forget the vocabulary of VATICAN II promoted by Yves Congar as well! That we are the PEOPLE of GOD and the Holy Spirit dwells in the People of God very strongly and not just in the upper echelon of hierarchy. |
| By Monique Martinique on July 9, 2009 at 10:28 PM | |
| 49. | So niceness and civility are what the Spirit of Vatican II was and is all about?! Great, another Jesuit defending bad doctrine and bad morality with precious moments sentiments about being nice. What utter nonsense. Avery Dulles' 2003 piece in the magazine is more on target. Style does no trump substance, and no matter what Obama says, he falls on the wrong side of key moral issues. His is the Spirit of the Age, plain and simple. |
| By Joe on August 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM | |
| 50. | Thank you Rev. O'Malley for the breath and the depth of your striving to reach readers with the "medicine of mercy" which ordered the life of John 23rd. This great Pope took a prophectic stance in responding to the call of the Holy Spirit for a new Council,. This Council would be urged to listen and act in loving ways. This would be a council spreading the "Good News" of love and forgiveness. The judgemental and intolerant ways of the past only served to brutalize and violate humans who saw things from other perspectives. Let us not forget the "blood filled pages of our Roman Catholic history which were papally supported, yes Papally supported! I have not heard the speeches in question but look forward to reading them soon. Your description of these and their positive impact is life giving. No sane person desires abortion! We are often victims of circumstance in the many walkways and byways we travel. Let's get the life offered in the Gospels and allow ourselves to be reborn of the mercy Christ Jesus exemplifeid on earth. |
| By Mary Anne on August 25, 2009 at 1:13 AM | |
| 51. | If the supreme court of the United States would outlaw abortion, would the Right To Life organizations go away? Or would they spend as much time and energy with an equal outcry against such issues as the death penalty or against any kind of life taking, such as war? And if they would, why are they not speaking out about that now? |
| By Gary J Crevier on September 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM | |
Post a Comment
You need to log in order to post a comment to this artcile.
Pleaese click here to log in.
