Vatican II

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

By the time Pope Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the bishops had endorsed a total of sixteen documents: four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations. While they are not of equal weight, all reveal a common willingness to address certain key themes, foremost among which was an interest in rediscovering the forms of early Christian worship and practice prevailing before the traditions of the High Middle Ages became the universal standard for post-Reformation Western Catholicism. Many bishops also embraced the notion of aggiornamento—a phrase of John XXIII’s describing the Church’s ability to appropriate certain aspects of contemporary culture—intended not to alter the Church’s doctrine but to render it more comprehensible to human society of the twentieth century. Since the volume of Vatican II material makes it impossible to address every aspect, this discussion examines how four specific conciliar documents reflect these concerns.

Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)

The liturgical forms employed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1959 were, with a few exceptions, those codified at the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Based upon a Latin liturgy—except in parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East—Roman Catholic worship emphasized a form of religious practice in which laypeople had acquired the status of observers of a rite centered on the priestly celebrant. Pressure for the rediscovery of premedieval liturgies and greater congregational participation arose in France in the eighteenth century, spread to parts of Germany in the nineteenth century, and was encouraged by Pope Pius XII during the 1940s and 1950s.

The Vatican II debate over the document promulgated in 1963 as the Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, approved on December 4, 1963) also set the tone for later sessions of the council. Pressure from within the papal bureaucracy had led to the elimination of many changes proposed by the preparatory commission on the liturgy and the insistence that the process of liturgical reform be vested in the hands of the Holy See. At the opening session of the council, however, the bishops demanded restoration of the original text, and a preliminary draft was approved by 2,162 votes to 46 in November 1962. The final draft passed almost unanimously only a month later.

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

Given later complaints about radical liturgical experimentation, it is illuminating that the governing instruments of the third section of chapter 1 of the Sacrosanctum Concilium, “The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy,” emphasized a hierarchical approach to reform extending from the pope in Rome to the diocesan bishop (22). Furthermore, the principle of change for change’s sake was emphatically rejected in favor of a deliberate process grounded in theological and historical inquiry and incorporating the experience of liturgical experimentation (23). Arguably the most radical innovation was the call for a renewed engagement with scripture as the basis for liturgical action, something neglected in the post-Reformation period (24).

A central aspect of the renewed liturgy was that it was to be corporate in nature and required to display a “public and social nature,” which emphasized that the priest alone did not “make” the sacrament but rather that it was a communal event celebrated in conjunction with the body of the faithful (26–27). Lay participation (hitherto confined largely to altar boys assisting the priest and professional choirs) was expanded to include a variety of functions, including such offices as lector and prayer leader that had existed in the early Church, though critics would later argue that such participants sometimes failed to “perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner” (28–29). Even those laypeople without an assigned role were urged actively to demonstrate the corporate nature of the Eucharistic celebration through “acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs” as well as “reverent silence.” No longer was the Catholic layman to be in any sense a spectator (30–32).

The new Eucharistic rite was to be both simplified and comprehensible (33–34). It also revived something familiar to most Protestants, namely, the liturgy of the Word. Readings from the scriptures—particularly the Old Testament—had been greatly curtailed in Catholic liturgy, and Sacrosanctum Concilium sought to restore a liturgical calendar that exposed worshippers to a greater variety of Bible texts. Furthermore, priests were instructed to introduce more scriptural material into their preaching, providing their congregations with a greater appreciation of how the promises of the Old Testament prefigured the coming of the Messiah authenticated in the New Testament. Bible services—something few would have considered Catholic in the early twentieth century—were also recommended, particularly for communities where priests were in short supply (35).

The most revolutionary aspect of liturgical renewal, however, concerned the language of worship, hitherto Latin except in the Greek Catholic churches of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Pressure for an entirely vernacular liturgy (that is, worship conducted in the native tongue of the participants) came in the first instance from the Greek Catholic archbishop Maximos IV Saigh of Antioch, although the initial focus of translation was applied to Bible readings, prayers, and chants rather than the central aspects of the liturgy (36).

Equally striking was a growing readiness to substitute cultural adaptation in liturgical practice for the “rigid uniformity” of the past, provided that “substantial unity of the Roman rite” was maintained (37–38). During the late 1960s, the papacy permitted the incorporation of certain local ritual elements, including the Thai gesture of peace and the Chinese celebration of rites in honor of the dead, and introduced Japanese and Ugandan martyrs into the calendar of saints. Even more noteworthy was the granting of permission to both bishops and episcopal conferences to authorize liturgical experimentation and make the final determination of liturgical norms (39–40).

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

For much of the twentieth century the Roman Catholic Church stood apart from the ecumenical movement, insisting that Christian reunion could come only from the submission of non-Catholics to the authority of the See of Rome. When John XXIII first summoned the council, however, he laid particular stress on reconciliation with the “separated brethren,” and he suited actions to words by establishing the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1960, which urged the bishops to acknowledge the elements of divine grace that persisted among both the Eastern Orthodox churches and the heirs of the Protestant Reformation. Four years later, his successor, Paul VI, would hold a hitherto unprecedented meeting with the Ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople.

Despite the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity’s interest in Protestantism, the earliest version of the Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism, approved November 20, 1964) dealt only with the Orthodox churches and still called on them to submit to Rome. Such wording was rejected during the 1962 session of the council, the bishops agreeing that the emphasis on Rome’s authority and jurisdiction must be lessened and its pastoral role emphasized. They also argued that the text must be expanded to address not merely the Orthodox churches but also the Protestant ones. On November 20, 1964, after intervention by the pope, the Decree on Ecumenism was approved by 2,054 votes to 64.

Chapter I: Catholic Principles on Ecumenism

The final version of the Decree on Ecumenism offered a hitherto unprecedented admission that “men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” No longer were non-Catholics viewed as outside the bonds of Christian community, nor was the ecumenical movement treated as meritless. Furthermore, the decree conceded that “significant elements and endowments” existed within both Orthodoxy and Protestantism and offered the basis for the pursuit of unity, thus acknowledging the corporate identity of the non-Catholic churches for the first time (3–4).

Chapter II: The Practice of Ecumenism

For the first time, Catholics were encouraged to participate in the work of the ecumenical movement, albeit within defined limits. Prayers for unity both among Catholics and in common with other ecumenically minded Christians were welcomed as affirming the goal of the ecumenical movement, but on common (shared) worship the bishops were more cautious, emphasizing the Catholic position that unity generally preceded common worship and requiring episcopal permission for any such activity (8). Far more important for them was the development of a better understanding of other Christian traditions, not only their doctrine but also their history, spirituality, and cultural background, for only through mutual understanding would the cause of Christian unity be advanced (9).

Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)

Of all the conciliar documents, the Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, approved on December 7, 1965) represents the council’s most sustained effort to explore and renew the relationship between the Catholic Church and the twentieth-century state. It is all the more noteworthy, then, that such a topic did not figure among the documents introduced by the preparatory commissions in 1962, an absence that provoked a sharp response from many bishops, most notably Dom Helder Camara of Rio de Janeiro and Cardinals Leo Suenens and Giovanni Montini (the future Pope Paul VI).

A coordinating commission headed by Suenens, which included fourteen lay participants, subsequently produced a document that maintained that Christians should seek to make the Church present to the world through service and witness. Acknowledging that the Church need not reject rational solutions to social problems, the commission nevertheless warned of the importance of understanding that the Church should not be of the world but in and for the world. First presented at the 1964 session, the constitution was ultimately approved in December 1965 by 2,111 votes to 251.

Gaudium et Spes sought to demonstrate how the Christian message should be presented in secular environments and in non-European cultural contexts. “The Church is not the petrification of what once was,” wrote Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI), “but its living presence in every age. The Church’s dimension is therefore the present and the future no less than the past.” For the bishops, however, the social order was never an end in itself. Accepting that the Church no longer exercised formal political power, they nevertheless rejected the notion that it should be confined to a purely “religious” domain, while acknowledging the present need for a degree of autonomy for the secular sphere.

Preface

Gaudium et Spes exemplified the depth of Vatican II’s commitment to the renewal of the social order. Humanity, particularly in the wake of the horrors of World Wars I and II, had entered a period of doubt about the inevitability of progress and the “ultimate destiny of reality and of humanity.” The pastoral constitution affirmed the Church’s willingness to foster the “brotherhood of all men,” in a spirit of reconciliation rather than judgment (3).

Part I: Chapter IV—The Role of the Church in the Modern World

Part I of Gaudium et Spes sought to articulate a theology of the Church in the world, noting that a commitment to unity was the essence of the Church and that this was a unity realized not by “external dominion exercised by merely human means” but rather by “faith and charity put into vital practice.” The Church, the constitution argued, offered the prospect of a human unity that transcended cultural, political, and economic distinctions, but it was also capable of discerning the positive aspects of human institutions and willing to assist those institutions in developing their capacities where they did not conflict with the Church’s own mission. (42)

Part II: Chapter III—Economic and Social Life

In the economic arena, Gaudium et Spes criticized concentrations of power, whether among nations or individuals. Objecting to both inadequate and excessive economic regulation, the constitution encouraged individuals to contribute to their nation’s economic life to the full extent of their ability (65). The document’s greatest concern was over economic inequality, which it viewed as destructive of human dignity. Discrimination in matters of wages or working conditions was condemned, and the need for migrant workers to be incorporated into the communities in which they resided was emphasized. This recurring emphasis on the preservation of human dignity would be a feature of this and other conciliar documents (66).

The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World adopted a more radical tone in an article devoted solely to the rights of workers, contending that the autonomy of management should not be used as an excuse to limit worker participation in business decisions. Thus, the ability to belong to a trade union and to take part in its activities without fear of reprisal was deemed a “basic right,” and the bishops went so far as to define the right to strike as “a necessary, though ultimate, aid for defense of the workers’ own rights,” albeit only after negotiations had broken down (68).

While the bishops were generally careful to refrain from offering detailed economic prescriptions, they did not shrink from reminding even investors of their social obligations in establishing a proper balance between consumption and investment. Perhaps with the concerns of the representatives from newly independent and soon-to-be-independent countries in Africa in mind, they urged that particular care be devoted to the needs of “underdeveloped countries or regions” (70).

Having adopted (what seemed to some) a radical note, the bishops concluded their reflections on economic responsibility with an affirmation of private property as essential to individual and family autonomy, while recognizing that the nature of such property varied over time. Public property was accepted as compatible with a just society, but only when acquired by due process of law, for the common good, and with fair compensation for any individual or group who suffered loss (71).

Part II: Chapter IV—The Life of the Political Community

Departing from the nineteenth-century Church’s hostility to democracy, Gaudium et Spes also sought to promote the development of civil rights that enhanced human dignity and the greater involvement of ordinary citizens in the process of government, a theme that echoed John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical “Pacem in Terris.” The constitution accepted the need for greater state intervention in the modern world but warned against “dictatorial systems or totalitarian methods” and insisted upon the importance of tolerating a diversity of political viewpoints and the necessity of proper training in citizenship (75).

The Church’s willingness to concede the principle of pluralism was one of the most remarkable aspects of the fourth chapter. What individuals do as Christians is not necessarily identical to what they do as members of the Church, the constitution conceded. The Church and the political community were to be regarded as autonomous, with the Church identified with no political party and respecting the “political freedom and responsibility” of all citizens (76).

Part II: Chapter V—The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations

The bishops also broke new ground in the debate over world peace, by moving from a simple indictment of war to an emphasis on how more effectively to strive for peace. Unlikely support for the promotion of international cooperation between citizens and governments came from the otherwise conservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who recommended a worldwide federation of states and binding authority for a body like the United Nations. International organizations received praise in the constitution, particularly for their endeavors in the developing world and their role in helping Christians and non-Christians work positively together (84). The constitution also affirmed the role of economic cooperation and the benefits to the developing world of experts motivated more by genuine altruism than national considerations (85).

The constitution nevertheless warned against the dangers of governments pursuing solutions to such contemporary issues as the population explosion, which ran counter to the principle of human dignity. Acknowledging the occasional necessity of such imposed changes as land reform and improvement of the social order, it repudiated interventions that contravened the inalienable rights of individuals and families (forcible sterilization being a topic of considerable contemporary debate) (87–88).

Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom)

The Vatican II document titled Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom, approved on October 28, 1965) represented one of the most dramatic departures by the Roman Catholic Church from its earlier position that “error has no rights.” Although it was initially incorporated into the Decree on Ecumenism, the declaration received independent status following the 1963 and 1964 sessions of the council. So vigorous were those debates that Pope Paul VI postponed the vote on the declaration until the 1965 session, when it was approved by a margin of 1,954 to 249. The occasion of the debates of November 1964 came to be known to progressives as “Black Week” and was feared for a time to mark a retreat by the pope from the principles previously asserted by the council.

Conservative bishops argued that governments of nations in which Catholicism was a minority faith were obliged to respect the religious freedom of Catholics and the mission of the Church but that no Catholic state was obliged to accord such a status to non-Catholics within its jurisdiction. The new understanding of religious freedom that emerged from the council was that no state should compel persons of faith to act against their conscience or prevent them from acting in accord with it. The declaration reiterated the importance of personal human dignity and the fact that this extended to freedom of religious profession (2).

The freedom from coercion required by individuals applied equally to families and to religious communities, the declaration added, and should be recognized as a civil right. By the same token, while religious communities should enjoy freedom from state coercion, the former should not abuse that privilege by evangelizing individuals in ways that undermined the latter’s personal religious freedom. Governments had a duty to protect and foster religious freedom, the bishops agreed, and the sole justification for the state to limit religious freedom was a clear threat to the public order (4).