Chapter 1
VATICAN II: THE FIRST SESSION
FIRST INTERVENTION
(OCT. 20, 1962)
On the Subject of the First Message Ad Universes Homines
On October 20,4 at the beginning of the day’s session, we were handed a draft message Ad Universes Homines [Message to Humanity]—a rather lengthy message which occupied four pages of the Vatican edition of the authentic Acts of the Council.
We were given a quarter of an hour to familiarize ourselves with this. Those of us who wished to introduce any modifications had to inform the Secretariat of the Council by telephone, draft our intervention and present ourselves at the microphone when called by the Secretariat.
It was evident to me that this message was inspired by a concept of religion wholly orientated towards man and, in man, towards temporal advantages in particular, in the search for a theme to unite all men, atheists and religious men—a theme of necessity utopian and Liberal in spirit.
Here are some extracts from this message:
1. “...we as pastors devote all our energies and thoughts to the renewal of ourselves and the flocks committed to us, so that there may radiate before all men the lovable features of Jesus Christ...‘that God’s splendor may be revealed’ (II Cor.4:6).” (p.4)
2. “...the Church too was not born to dominate but to serve.” (p.5)
3. “...while we hope that the light of faith will shine more vigorously as a result of this Council’s efforts, we look forward to a spiritual renewal from which will also flow a happy impulse on behalf of human values such as scientific discoveries, technological advances, and a wider diffusion of knowledge.” (p.5)
4. “...we carry in our hearts...of those who still lack the opportune help to achieve a way of life worthy of human beings.” (p.5)
5. As we undertake our work...we would emphasize whatever concerns the dignity of man, whatever contributes to a genuine community of people.” (p.5)
6. Two important points: peace and social justice.“This very conciliar congress of ours, so impressive in the diversity of the races, nations and languages it represents, does it not bear witness to a community of brotherly love, and shine as a visible sign of it? We are giving witness that all men are brothers, whatever their race or nation.” (p.6)
“...Hence, we humbly and ardently call for all men to work along with us in building up a more just and brotherly city in this world. We call not only upon our brothers whom we serve as shepherds, but also upon all our brother christians, and the rest of men of good will...” (pp.6-7)
After this there were only a few rare interventions, one of which, from Bishop Ancel,was accepted, it was a modification of a minor detail. When I attacked the spirit of this message, I came up against those who had drafted it, and after the session, bitter remarks were addressed to me by His Eminence Cardinal Lefebvre, who had supervised the message, no doubt drawn up by French experts such as Fr. Congar.
Text of the Intervention
(read publicly)
Venerable Brethren,
In the first place it seems to me that the time allowed for the study and approval of this message was not sufficiently long; in effect it is a message of the greatest importance.
In the second place, and in my humble opinion, it considers primarily human and temporal benefits and does not pay sufficient attention to the spiritual and eternal values; it concentrates on the welfare of the earthly city and takes too little account of the Heavenly city towards which we are journeying and for which we are upon this earth. Even though men expect an improvement in their temporal condition through the exercise of our Christian virtues, how much more do they desire, here and now upon this earth, spiritual and supernatural well being.
Much more could be said about these spiritual values, since they are the true advantages, essential and eternal, which we can and should enjoy even in this earthly life.In such advantages are peace and blessedness essentially to be found.
SECOND INTERVENTION
(NOV. 27, 1962)
On the Purpose of the Council
The ambiguity of this Council was apparent from the very first sessions. What was the purpose of our meeting together? It was true that the discourse of Pope John XXIII had mentioned the way in which he intended to direct the Council, towards a pastoral statement of doctrine (discourse of Oct. 11, 1962).
The ambiguity, however, remained, and through the interventions and discussions the difficulty of knowing what the Council was really aiming at could be perceived. This was the reason for my proposal of November 27, which I had already submitted to the pre-conciliar Central Committee5 and which had collected a large majority of the votes of the 120 members.
We were, however, already far removed from the days of preparation for the Council. My proposal won over a certain number of votes, among them that of Cardinal Ruffini and of Archbishop (now Cardinal) Roy. This could have been the opportunity to provide a clearer definition of the pastoral character of the Council. The proposal met, however, with violent opposition:
Liberals and Progressives like to live in a climate of ambiguity. The idea of clarifying the purpose of the Council annoyed them exceedingly. My proposal was thus rejected.
Text of the Intervention
(read publicly)
Venerable Brethren,
Allow me to speak, not only of the schemas but of our method of working.
If we had to leave the Eternal City today to return to our own ministry, would it not be with a certain regret? In fact, even though we may not doubt the existence of a real unanimity among us, such unanimity has so far not been clearly demonstrated.
Does this failure not come chiefly from our method? Up to now, we have been trying to achieve, in one and the same text, ends which, if not contrary to one another, have been at least very different: notably, to throw light on our doctrine and uproot its errors, to favor ecumenism, to make the truth manifest to all men. We are pastors and, as we are quite well aware, we do not speak the same language to theologians and to the uninitiated; nor do we speak in the same way to priests as to lay people.
How then can we define our doctrine in such a way that it will no longer give rise to present-day errors and, in a single text, make this truth intelligible to men not versed in the science of theology? Either our doctrine is not presented to be intelligible to everybody or else it is perfectly well stated, but its formula is no longer intelligible to the uninitiated.
This difficulty has cropped up now in our Council because, with present circumstances and the explicit desire of the Sovereign Pontiff, the necessity of addressing ourselves directly to everybody is more apparent in this than in previous Councils. Perhaps that will be the particular character of Vatican II.
Day by day the means of social communication increase our zeal for preaching the truth and our desire for unity. Moreover, it is clear from the very nature of our subject, as from the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, that:
And may I be allowed to state, as a Superior General—and I am certain that the other Superiors General are in agreement with me—that ours is a very grave responsibility: that of inculcating in our future priests the love for sound and unerring Christian doctrine. Did not the majority of the pastors here present receive their priestly formation from religious or from members of some clerical institute? For us, then it is of the highest importance in accord with the very words of the Sovereign Pontiff that:
So for very important reasons, it is absolutely essential to maintain these two objectives: to express doctrine in a dogmatic and scholastic form for the training of the learned; and to present the truth in a more pastoral way, for the instruction of other men.
How, then, are these two excellent desires to be satisfied? I humbly suggest to you, dear Brethren, the following solution already pointed out by several Fathers. If I venture to submit this proposal to your judgment, it is for this reason: in the Central Committee we have already experienced the same difficulties, above all in connection with the dogmatic schemas. In order to arrive at a united viewpoint, therefore, I submitted this same proposal to the Fathers of the Central Commission, where it won virtually unanimous approval.
It would seem that this solution, so far proposed only to the Central Commission, should now be extended to all the Commissions. The results would surely be excellent.
The suggestion is this: that each Commission should put forward two documents, one more dogmatic, for the use of theologians; the other more pastoral in tone, for the use of others, whether Catholic, non-Catholic or non-Christian.
Thus many of the present difficulties may find an excellent and really effective solution.
1. There would no longer be any reason to bring forward as objections either doctrinal weakness or pastoral weakness, objections which cause such serious difficulties. By this means, the dogmatic documents which are thought out and drawn up so carefully and which are so useful for putting the truth before our beloved clergy and for professors and theologians in particular, would still remain as the golden rule of the Faith.
There is no doubt that the Fathers of the Council would willingly accept these documents, this holy teaching so expressed. In the same way the pastoral documents,which lend themselves much more easily to translation into the various national languages, could present the truth in a way that is more intelligible to all men, some of whom may be versed in non-religious branches of learning, but not in theology. With what gratitude would all men receive the light of truth from the Council!
2. The objection to the multiplicity of schemas for the same subject would thus be automatically removed. For instance: the dogmatic schema The Church’s Obligation to Preach the Gospel would be merged with the principles set forth in the schemas on the missions and would become a doctrinal statement for the Commission on the Missions.
The schema on The Missions, then, would be a pastoral document, a kind of pastoral guide for all interested in the missions.
The dogmatic schema, The Laity, and that entitled Chastity, Marriage, the Family, and Virginity would be combined and two documents would result: the one dogmatic and doctrinal, intended more for pastors and theologians, the other pastoral, for the instruction of the laity.
The procedure would be the same for all the Commissions.In my humble opinion, if this suggestion were admitted, unanimity would be more easily realized, everyone would receive the best fruits from the Council, and we, ourselves, would return to our proper ministry a spirit of peace in both heart and soul.
I submit this humble suggestion to the wise judgment of the presidency of the Council.
[Emphasis mine.]
Footnotes for this chapter
4. Pope John XXIII opened the Council on October 11, 1962.
5. The pre-Conciliar Central Committee was created by John XXIII on June 5, 1960, two years prior to the Council, to prepare the draft schemas.
