Spread the Faith

Dr. Richard J. Rodeheffer’s article (2/3) is superb. The obvious influence of the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum is most refreshing. As significant is Dr. Rodeheffer’s faith rekindled in essence: don’t keep the faith, but spread it.

Hugh J. Mullin

From One Who Was There

As one who actually participated in the Second Vatican Councilas a private consultant during the first period and as an official of the council in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity for its three other periodsmay I add a few reflections of my own to the articles you published by Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., and John W. O’Malley, S.J.?

Both articles contain many positive observations and insights. Still, neither quite conveys the notion of the council as a process, an event in which there was a growth in understanding and a willingness to open up to new horizons while maintaining the great tradition and truths of the faith.

Cardinal Dulles speaks of efforts at harmonizing different opinions and points out thus there were, at times, compromises and even deliberate ambiguities. That was openly recognized by Pope Paul VI. In various addresses he gave during the council, as its head and leader, he indicated ideas for interpretation that are still valid. Often these are not even adverted to, much less used by commentators since then.

Twice in the final homily at the session for promulgating documents held on Dec. 7, 1965, the pope spoke of questions still seeking answers, which in the postconciliar period the church could address with generous and orderly energies. In his words: Since the council had not intended to resolve all the problems raised, some were reserved for future study by the church, some were presented in restricted and general terms, and therefore they remain open to further and deeper understanding and a variety of applications.

No one would deny that after the council, there were some radical interpretations of it and its documents that went beyond what the council said or wanted. In my years of working for the Holy See and in ecumenical dialogues of various types, I myself had to struggle with this extremism, which could cause confusion and misunderstanding and lead to the polarization that often followed. However, in his presentation of the situation, Cardinal Dulles does not clarify enough either the myth or the reality, and so the confusion continues.

First, he does not use, as one important element for proper interpretations, the speeches of Pope Paul VI that I have already mentioned nor the relationes of the various commissions to the plenary sessions of the council, all of which are published. Second, in expounding his 12 points, he generally opts for the most narrow interpretation of the ambiguous statements or legitimate differences found in the documents. The consideration of the role of the laity is also treated in a purely juridical way, without proper consideration of the moral obligations of those in authority in exercising that authorityan idea that permeates quite a few of the other documents (and, incidentally, is repeated incisively in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte [2001], No. 45). Nor is there any mention of the arrival of the lay auditors during the council’s third period and their contribution to developing a fresh understanding of both the doctrine and the reality of the lay apostolate.

One point I found particularly painful. The ecumenical problem is reduced to a word-battle about the meaning of subsists in the Catholic Church. No attention is given to be the excellent developments that have taken place over 35 years as Catholics and other Christians reflect together on the many treasures found in a wide array of the conciliar documents. In this we have the reality, not the myth.

With regard to subsists, the narrow interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Dulles adopts, was certainly not the view held by the theological commission or in the secretariat as we were drafting texts and responding to the bishops and as the bishops accepted its introduction into the text. We were influenced, for example, by the recognition of the fact that in many churches not in communion with the Holy See, by the celebration of the Holy Eucharist the Church of God is built up and grows in stature (Decree on Ecumenism, No. 15). Obviously we were not speaking of any second church of God.

This and other aspects of the mystery of communion, real even if imperfect between the Catholic Church and other Christians and their communities, indicate a deeper meaning than Cardinal Ratzinger will admit when discussing subsists. His view has been strongly contested by others, such as Cardinals Willebrands, Koenig and Kasper. Nor will these or others accept his restricted opinions on communion, even when these have been expressed in documents coming from his office.

As one who participated in many of the activities and debates of the council, I believe that there are clear signs of retrenchment from what the council said or left open for legitimate future developments, as Paul VI put it.

On the basis of my experience, I believe that many of the documents mentioned by Cardinal Dulles at the end of his article need further examination and even important rethinking as not corresponding well enough to the debates held in the council and the documents resulting from them.

Pope John Paul II, discussing his office and mission as successor of Peter in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, speaks of finding a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation, and proposes that pastors and theologians of our churchestogether of course[seek] the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned (No. 95). In his apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (January 2001), the same pope writes: To make the church the home and school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning (cf. Nos. 43-45). We are not involved in myths when we continue to engage the reality of that challenge 40 years after.

John F. Long, S.J.

Credit Where Due

The prodigious Father Andrew M. Greeley, who observed his 75th birthday this month, used to direct his ire at incompetent bishops, faulty practitioners of sociology and resigned priests who wrote about the psychosexual problems of the clergy. In The Times and Sexual Abuse by Priests (2/10), he finds The New York Times guilty of atavistic no-popery.

Thereby he resembles, perhaps more than he would like, the 76-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the diviner of one’s innermost thoughts, who recently apodictically attributed the media’s coverage of clergy abuse to an intentional desire to discredit the church.

E. Leo McMannus