ALMOST 50 YEARS LATER: WHERE ARE WE WITH VATICAN II?

This is a talk that I gave at a ceremony honouring Archbishop Emeritus James Hayes of Halifax. He is one of the few remaining bishops who was in attendance at Vatican II, and was renowned for his implementation of Vatican II in his archdiocese.
Jean-Marc Laporte S.J.

For many of you, evoking Vatican II brings back vivid memories of the Church as it was before that council, the unexpected readiness of John XXIII to convene it, the heady years of its sessions from ‘62 to ‘65, and the subsequent years of implementation, with their achievements and struggles. For those of a younger generation a reminder of Vatican II does not have the same impact, though they too have their concerns about the life of the Church as it continues to deal with the legacy of this unexpected council.

We are honouring Archbishop Hayes at our luncheon today, one of the few bishops still alive who participated in Vatican II. He made it come alive in his archdiocese, that of Halifax. Far from abstract and theoretical, today’s topic today touches us deeply. What are we to make of the aftermath of Vatican II as we experience it here and now?

This aftermath has been marked by conflict and struggle. Some Catholics of a more traditional cast interpret Vatican II in a minimal way; they think the Church has gone too far in implementing it; they are nostalgic for the good old days with their regime of law and order, and want to bring them back. And this desire is not limited to those who experienced the pre-Vatican II Church. Many of a younger generation have entered into this movement of restoration. Today all these traditionals are making their voice heard, at times positively, but in more extreme cases a few of them use accusations and threats, hoping to bring members of the Church, including priests and bishops whom they consider lukewarm, back to order.

But many Catholics still look back to the exciting times of Vatican II and its implementation; their interpretation is maximal; they think the Church has not gone far enough in implementing it. So they lament “Where have all the flowers of Vatican II gone?” Its achievements seem to be coming unstuck, and some of the forward movement it promised has not come to pass. While the more traditional group has voice and energy in today’s Church, these devotees of Vatican II are tempted today by listlessness, withdrawal, and discouragement because of what they see as the caution and disinterest of Church authorities.

The above is a picture in broad strokes which fails to do justice to the complexities and subtleties of the many currents of opinion swirling around in the Church today. If you follow Church news, this picture emerges much more clearly in the US, whose culture is more prone to strident opposition and conflict, than in Canada. We find a small and noisy minority at both extremes. There is also a larger minority on both sides whose members have a clear position in favour of either Vatican II-inspired change or of greater order and stability, but who are more moderate and ready for dialogue. There is the large middle, made up for the most part of the faithful who do not think much about these conflicts, but also of some others who, scandalized by them, seek to be agents of dialogue and reconciliation, helping those on opposite sides to talk to one another, to discover the interdependence of their positions, to become complementary and lifegiving for one another and for the Church. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago before dying in 1996 gave us an excellent model to follow with his common ground initiative between deep-set factions in the US Church. There was vocal opposition among some of his US episcopal colleagues, more given to imposition than to dialogue, but Bernardin’s initiative continues today.

To rejoice in our complementarities rather than to be locked in conflict is our goal. The more liberal among us need to recognize that the more conservative have real concerns and a real contribution to make, and vice versa. Vatican II needs to be implemented, yes, but implemented in a way that leads to deep and long-lasting change that all will recognize and treasure. It is worth taking time to do this right. Let us begin by exploring fresh images to bring this complementarity alive.

Let us imagine for an instant a car with an accelerator pedal that works very well, but no brake pedal. Let us imagine the opposite, a car with a good solid brake but with no accelerator. With neither would we get to our intended destination. No acceleration, no forward movement. No brakes, the forward movement will inevitably lead to a crash. Good drivers know when and how to accelerate and when to brake. To accelerate and to brake are complementary and interdependent functions.

Another image is that of two forces, one of them pushing us away from the centre towards the frontiers, the other pulling us in towards the centre, and keeping us there. We can be frontier-people – drawn to move out of the safe centre towards the frontiers where there is dialogue, risk, challenge, opportunity for renewal and change; or we can be centre-people – drawn to cling to the centre where we find a clear identity, firm boundaries, consistency, and security. Both tendencies are essential. Of this Pope Benedict reminded us Jesuits in our General Congregation of 2008. He called us to continue our work on the frontiers, exploring new territory, opening up new conversations with people who either do not know the Church or are alienated from it, but asked us to always remain connected to the centre of the Church in fidelity and loyalty. We responded to his request with enthusiasm.

Indeed frontier-oriented people and centre-oriented people need to work together for health of the Church:

We need centre-oriented people. They will prevent us from ignoring our perennial tradition, from scattering in many directions, and diluting our identity as Church. They will make sure that the Church’s moral ideals are presented unambiguously and without compromise; that there are clear boundaries between those who belong and those who don’t. But if unchecked, people of this tendency could easily become intransigent. The Church would become rigid and lifeless, a museum piece, a small minority without impact, its hierarchical structures brittle and inflexible, its teachings seen as irrelevant, nothing more than another take it or leave it item in the endless cafeteria line which our culture has become.

We need frontier-oriented people. They will keep the Church’s perennial tradition alive, renewing itself, responding to new challenges. They want to keep the Church pastorally effective and open to the surprises of the Spirit, which can come from any direction. Their contribution is important because Church leaders, caught up in an administrative maelstrom, have often been and will be risk-averse. At times they need prodding and encouragement. But if unchecked, people of this tendency would lead us towards a wishy-washy Church without clear identity, which too readily responds to superficial and ephemeral trends currently active in our culture. It would have nothing of substance to offer, especially to young people, many of whom have become disaffected. (Cf. Note 1)

Both sides tend to pick and choose their favourite doctrines. Centre-people sometimes belittle newer and more innovative teachings of the Church, such as those on social justice, and advocate various litmus tests based especially on areas around sex and reproduction, to separate out those who they think really belong in our eucharistic assembly and those who don’t. Frontier-people stress advances made in the recent social teaching of the Church and collaboration with people who share similar social objectives, even if such collaborators fail to meet the litmus tests mentioned above. The quest for complementarity within the Church is a constant source of tension and suffering. We all hope that Christ and His Spirit will guide the Church and make this tension creative and healthy. But, as we know, Christ, who will be with the Church to the end, did not promise to shelter it from the struggles and ambiguities that have ever marked the human situation.

These struggles and ambiguities often come to the fore during and after ecumenical councils. As has become customary for him, Pope Benedict in his summer vacation of 2007 responded to the questions of local priests, and pointed out the even more bewildering conflicts that raged after the first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea in 325. It took over 50 years for its teaching to be generally received. By comparison with the aftermath of Nicaea, our present uncomfortable situation after Vatican II is quite tame. (Cf. Note 2)

The current world situation as we move into the third millennium makes our search for post Vatican II complementarity and pastoral impact even more urgent and challenging.

Why more urgent? Recent popes, most lately Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, have eloquently pointed out the deep disorders, ecological, economic, social, cultural, which could, if unchecked, make of our world a living hell, a hell of which we now have a foretaste.

Why more challenging? Our critical world-situation impinges on the inner life of the Church. Indeed Benedict pointed out that the period of usual turmoil after Vatican II has been heightened because of earth-shaking political events. The first event was the 1968 student revolution in Europe, which he saw as the beginning of the great cultural crisis of the West, brought on by a younger generation which had lost its hopes and its moorings. The second was the 1989 fall of the Communist regimes, which ushered in an unexpected spirit of secularism and radical scepticism.

To these I would add the 2001 9/11 tragedy. It showed us that our society, in spite of its vaunted strengths, is very fragile. Its faulty structures have spawned dangerous fundamentalisms and terrorists who have no concern for their own lives. And, to add a further dimension, we in the western Church are still in a deep crisis over the phenomenon of clerical abuse of children. Much healing has taken place, but because of very recent events we are still reeling and wondering who in the end we can trust.

So Vatican II is being received, interpreted, and implemented not in the hush of wellpadded ecclesiastical chambers but in the hurly burly of a world marked by crises and challenges of unprecedented magnitude. The aftermath of Vatican II is turbulent, but all the more reason to hope. Great things have already happened in the Church because of the Council. More great things are to come. God has only begun with his Church.

God’s work is not hasty and ill-conceived. For the Council to grow deep roots, we will need to allow ourselves to be tempered and shaped by our sufferings, patient with one another in our struggles and differences, and trusting in the God who has called us to be together.

In this year of the priest let us not forget the graces of faithful commitment to their people manifested by our priests, of whom Archbishop Hayes offers a most apt example. They are in less numerous than before, battered on all sides by complex administrative and pastoral issues, but they are persevering in their compassionate ministry and letting us know how in the midst of change the Church as founded by Christ ever perdures. Ultimately the Church is not our Church, it is that of Jesus Christ. The energy which enlivens it is not our energy but that of Christ’s Spirit. Our own plans for it, whether from the centre or from the frontiers, are of little moment. They will be subsumed, shaped, directed, molded, altered by God whose providence is beyond our comprehension. Our faith tells us that the final word will be resurrection and new life. May the example of Archbishop Hayes encourage us to be, each one in his or her own way, people of patience, reconciliation, and trust in the providence that has brought us together as God’s people, enlivened by the Spirit and helping Jesus Christ form the fulness of his Body. Thank you.

Note 1: Some drift into the ambient culture which ultimately will prove empty and make them even more disaffected. Others seek traditions and practices, which though helpful, lack the fulness and balance of the tradition we have received from Christ. Others may identify with certain Church traditions, human and peripheral, and need to grow in their appreciation of the solid and perennial core to which these traditions point.)

Note 2: Cf. MEETING OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI WITH THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESES OF BELLUNO-FELTRE AND TREVISO Church of St Justin Martyr, Auronzo di Cadore Tuesday, 24 July 2007. The transcript is found on the Vatican website: www.vatican.va. Go to the search window on the main page of that site and type in “Belluno-Feltre priests”.

©Jean-Marc Laporte, S.J.
Nov 14, 2009