OPINION:IN THE first volume of my memoirs, My Struggle for Freedom, I recalled the difficult debates at the Second Vatican Council but was ultimately able to make a positive assessment – that must also, of course, take account of unfulfilled demands. I report on both here.
It seems to me to be important that, in a backward-looking postmortem, one doesn’t only condemn as deficiencies of the past the undeniable darknesses, compromises, omissions, biases, setbacks and mistakes. That instead, one views them in forward-looking hope as challenges for the future and attempts to overcome them in the spirit of the council, which did not want to close any doors. In a way, the council – the actual realisation of the events of the council – only began on December 8th, 1965.
Vatican II marked for the Catholic Church the end of the era of the counter-reformation that restored the Middle Ages, an age of defensiveness, polemics and conquest – despite all the resistance that remains still in the Roman centre. A new, more hopeful era began, an era of constructive renewal in all areas of the life of the church, of intelligent engagement and co-operation with other Christians, the Jews and other religions – with the modern world itself.
What that means in concrete terms can be seen in an analysis of the 16 decrees which the council agreed in its four years of work. They were to become the pillars of the post-conciliar church. In this spirit, I published in the journal Epoca a richly illustrated cover story that gives a closing report on the council under the title “The 16 New Pillars of Saint Peter”. Clearly, I say, these pillars have different levels of strength. Still, they represent altogether the documents of a transition in church history in which, despite everything, the new and the better clearly come to light. Nobody can dispute that the post-conciliar church will be a different one from the pre-conciliar!
I have written in my memoirs about most of the results of the decrees and made clear that, for example, through the decree about ecumenism, an ecumenical era has irrevocably begun for the Catholic church. It is also clear that the council took on a whole series of central, reforming matters. The main demands in my 1960 book, The Council and Reunion, have been broadly met:
* Taking the Reformation seriously as a religious event.
* The high valuation of the Bible in worship, in theology and in the entire life of the church.
* The realisation of a true, people’s service of worship in preaching and communion.
* An enhanced status for the laity in services and the parish life.
* The adaptation of the church to different cultures and dialogue with them.
* The reform of popular piety.
* The “reform” of the Roman curia.
The well-known British writer and observer of the council, Peter Hebblethwaite, confirmed this impression in his 1984 biography of Pope John XXIII: the author of The Council and Reunion has proved to be “an accurate and far-sighted prophet”. “All of his seven demands were embodied, even if in modified form, in the final documents of the council.”
Does this assessment mean that everything has been fulfilled? In truth, I was never naïve where the council was concerned. I was never in the grip of conciliar euphoria, either before, during or after the council. And I have always drawn attention to the fundamental tension between a reform-driven church and a reform-hindering curia, something that has made me unpopular in some sections of the church.
That is why I write in my assessment of the council on December 17th/18th, 1965, quite unmistakably: “The tension between a church that embraces reform and an unwilling curia can only produce – as in the council – a serious crisis. If, at least over time, the few forces of renewal in Rome do not gain the upper hand (not least through the filling of high positions in the curia) and if, as they have to some extent suggested, the others seek to restore the pre-conciliar situation, it can only lead to a great crisis of trust.
“Only the reform of the curia, in personnel and structures, can help to avert such a crisis. Here too, the renewal of the spirit and the conversion of the heart is most decisive.”
Then I clearly outline the questions that were not discussed at the council or simply could not be discussed at all. So what are the questions not resolved by the council?
* Birth control and personal responsibility.
* The regulation of mixed marriages (the validity of the marriage, raising of children).
* Priestly celibacy in the Latin church.
* Structural and personnel reform of the Roman curia.
* Reform of penance: Confession, abstinence, fasting.
* Reform of ecclesiastical dress and titles.
Effective engagement of the affected levels of the church in the appointment of bishops. Transfer of the election of the pope from the College of Cardinals to a synod of bishops representative of the church.
Listing out these suggestions, I think not least of Pope Paul VI, to whom I also sent my assessment in Epoca. But when I think back again after the end of the council on the recommendations in Council and Reunion, which were viewed five years earlier as extreme demands, I can say now: the council was, despite all the disappointments, worth it. Where would we be without this council – in liturgy, theology, pastoral care, ecumenism, in relations with Judaism, the other world religions, with the secular world itself? Vatican II certainly did not, by a long way, do all it could have done. But it achieved far more than most expected. At that time, I wrote the sentence: “The council will be the fulfilment of a great hope or a great disappointment. The fulfillment of a small hope will be – given the seriousness of the state of the world and the urgent need for Christianity – a great disappointment.”
Today too, looking back after 50 years, I can say: the council did, despite all its not inconsiderable disappointments, fulfil a great hope. One hoped the pope and the bishops would make further strides along the path of the council – through the renewal of the church, ecumenical understanding, opening to the modern world. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened and so more and more voices are raised, calling for a third Vatican council.
Swiss theologian Fr Hans Küng is a long-time critic and former colleague of Pope Benedict XVI. Fr Küng and the then Joseph Ratzinger were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965.