EXCERPT:
Forty-Five years ago last week, 2000 Catholic bishops arrived in Rome, one more time, for the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council. Autumn 1965 saw “Vatican II” conclude after four successive autumns (1962-1965) in which this massive gathering of bishops from every continent, along with their periti (theological experts) and several hundred non-Catholic observers, spent nearly 50 weeks of debate and decision-making to produce 16 major documents that transformed both the Catholic Church and the Christian world.
It was the biggest meeting in human history, held by the world’s largest organization. Historians call it “the most important religious event of the 20th century,” and the two presiding popes called it “a second Pentecost.” Since Catholics celebrate Pentecost as the “birthday of the Church,” this makes Vatican II the “rebirth of the Church.”
To undertake the rebirth of any organization twenty centuries after its founding is a huge milestone. Yet 45 years later, this milestone is in danger of disappearing from view – and I think I know why.
In my parish work I observe a widespread generation gap between two groups of people: “Vatican II” Catholics and “post-Vatican II” Catholics. In secular terms, this breakdown roughly resembles the line between Baby Boomers and their grown children. The more I observe the interaction of these two groups, the more obvious the generation gap appears – and the more important it becomes to find a solution.
Simply put, here is the problem: “Vatican II” Catholics lived through the Council and its aftermath. The Council experience began during the Cuban Missile Crisis, straddled Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech, JFK’s assassination, and the Civil Rights triumphs, and ended as troops arrived en masse in Vietnam. Where many high schools held model United Nations, mine held a model Vatican II every year. For them, Vatican II was among the major events of the “sixties.”
Most “Vatican II” Catholics remember Catholic life before Vatican II (that is, before 1962), and they remember too the surprise and turmoil during the Council itself, (‘62-‘65 ) and finally the euphoric and polarizing aftermath (1965-1978). For them, Vatican II didn’t “merely” change the Church (however historic and momentous that change once) – it also changed their lives. For many, it was the equivalent of an identity transplant. They became changed people forever.
But Vatican II was not a life-changing event for the Post-Vatican II Catholics. Vatican II changed the Church they grew up in, but it did not change them. For them, Catholic life has been a relatively stable phenomenon (at least, until the eruption of scandal). In that sense, their Catholic identity has been more like their grandparents, or even great-grandparents, who died in a Catholic Church very similar to the Church of their birth.
Vatican II was like an earthquake – a sudden seismic shift. Those born afterward grow up in an altered landscape, but they do not share the outlook of those who lived through the jolting event itself.
The bottom line: the older generation shares an emotional bond rooted in the experience of Vatican II, and they grieve that their children do not also share that bond. As the V-IIs age, the challenge becomes: how to keep the memory, the flame, the legacy of Vatican II alive across this gap?
Greetings, old fellow, it’s been a while.
ReplyDeleteAs usual you’re viewing things through those Conciliar spectacles of yours – I understand they’re available in lavender as well – so I’d remind you that not everyone who lived through THE COUNCIL (and the 60’s) is a willing participant in Bernie’s Technicolour Dreamworld.
You’ve skated right past the folks who were either so inebriated with – or smothered by - the “Spirit of THE COUNCIL” that they left the Church altogether. Then there are those of us who, after a decade- (or so) long dalliance with the novelties of the” Conciliar Church”, have struggled back to the sources and begun to discover how the “real” Council fits into the Eternal Church. The Holy Father has been of great help to the Church in this regard.
THE COUNCIL was practically yesterday, but long after you and I are gone there will finally be sufficient perspective to clearly show that the “Vatican II Catholic” was nothing more than a short-term deviation.
Deep down you know this too, old bean. Any brand of religion which depends upon a particular experience or an “emotional bond” is incapable of transmitting itself by transcending cultural or generational boundaries, ergo the barrenness of the “Conciliar Church”. You may as well lament the fact that your children can’t properly appreciate Woodstock or the “Summer of Love”. An eternal God must have a timeless Church and any notion that we need to cling to the memories of one era or another is simply nostalgia masquerading as fidelity.
The above comment tosses many labels without content, mostly unrelated to my point. I will say this: Vatican II's stated "rebirth" aimed PRECISELY at a timeless (and global) Church, not one tethered to European culture or the Roman Empire. The two relevant questions are: (1) was this a good idea, or merely a "short-term deviation"? (2) Has it happened?
ReplyDeleteI'll answer yours if you'll answer mine:
ReplyDeleteQ1.) "was this a good idea?" - when has it ever been a good idea to introduce wholesale changes in the absence of certain necessity? To the extent that (as you postulate) the dreaded Eurocentrism was in fact a problem it could have addressed in a manner far less disruptive to the entire Church; at this remove I have rather serious doubts that a Council was the slightest bit necessary. Same thing's happening right now in the U.S. (politically) and people aren't buying "comprehensive reform" here either! There was no precedent in the history of the Church for such disruption being intentionally introduced into the Mystical Body, and Pius XII warned against it. Has it really been worth it, old chap? Ought we to judge by intentions or results? Souls are at stake, and at some point we have to look beyond the enthusiasm and examine the fruits objectively.
Q2.) "Has it happened?" - has what happened? A "rebirth", or a "timeless (and global) Church"? "Rebirth" has a positive connotation that seems out of place for something that's been so polarizing and destructive. And we already HAD a timeless and global Church. It was terribly imprudent to suddenly expunge so many of the signs and sources of unity, and illogical not to expect the subsequent balkanisation. Given the collateral damage, I'd ask again: was it really worth it?
In light of the foregoing my question to you, dear fellow: WHY exactly should we want to "keep the memory, the flame, the legacy of Vatican II alive across this gap?" If not nostalgia, what? Narcissism? The Church has reoriented Herself from the detour of the 60's and 70's but the ordeal has taken a tremendous toll on us individually and as Church. Whatever bits are worth keeping alive are worthy on their own merits, not because they bear the 'Good Council Seal of Approval'. For too many, THE COUNCIL has become their god, and the sooner we demythologize the whole thing, the better.
The above comment betrays its author's central position: the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church, a Council held under the leadership of a the pope--in fact, two popes--undertook a rebirth that was unnecessary and destructive.
ReplyDeleteWhereas for me, the reason to keep the Council alive is simple: I believe the supreme authority of the Church is always guided by the Holy Spirit, who will not deceive us. I believe that Spirit guided John XXII, Paul VI, and the Council Fathers toward a "Second Pentecost" out of a divine wisdom we may not understand but nonetheless support as the price of Catholic fidelity.
The irreducible issue is that, under that wisdom, the Church by 1959 had reached the point where a Second Pentecost was, not merely worth it, but divinely mandated. To argue that the Church was "already" all it needed to be is a flat denial of the Spirit's wisdom as the ultimate authority behind Vatican II--or any ecumenical council. Which begs the question: if popes and councils are not the arbiter of the Church's good, what is?
Ah, dear Swain, now you're sounding more like a member of Opus Dei than an admirer of the Dutch Catechism; perhaps there is hope!
ReplyDeleteAlas you know I'm not a crypto-protestant bogeyman or even a "cafeteria Catholic” so you needn't imply such things lest your followers get the wrong idea. Are you suggesting that infallibility extends to the prudential decision to convene an ecumenical council?
And are we to reduce this to "my Holy Spirit is better than yours"? Pius XII reconsidered the question of reconvening the Vatican Council because he foresaw - correctly, it would seem - the revolution that it could unleash; but Blessed John XXIII rushed in where Pius feared to tread. Paul VI continued THE COUNCIL in 1963-4-5... and also promulgated Humanae Vitae in '68. Do you assume the absolute guidance of the Holy Spirit in ALL of those instances, or only the ones you like?
Which reminds me: I'm so glad to hear you confess your fidelity to the divine wisdom and supreme authority of the Church! But back to the larger question here: "what's a council and what's it for?" I could care less about the "big event" aspect of it or how it made you feel; what was its purpose, what did it define, decide, or decree? And how faithfully were its definitions, decisions, and decrees observed and implemented? The Holy Spirit is of course an unerring compass when we prayerfully accept His guidance, but what happens when original sin and free will get into the mix - not to mention pride, zeal, and euphoria? Considering intentions AND results, in my imperfect human judgment the calling of THE COUNCIL was not a prudent act of church governance. I credit the Divine Assistance with forestalling the teaching of outright error and thwarting the worst excesses of the liturgical reformers.
Really, old bean, I'm not trying to win an argument here; I'm trying to get at the truth! The present Holy Father has had to spend his whole papacy patiently explaining the correct interpretation of THE COUNCIL, a situation which is utterly astounding given that it defined no new doctrine and decided no great issues. I can only presume that he has done so, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and as sole “arbiter of the Church's good”. It would be interesting to ask Pope Benedict XVI if he thinks THE COUNCIL was worth it...