In a June post at the website Where Peter Is, author Steven Millies, having ritually denounced the “senseless [Catholic] culture war quarrel” and taken another tiresome sideswipe at Bishop Robert Barron’s criticism of “beige Catholicism,” informed us that we must recover Vatican II vision of “a Church determined to meet the modern world.”
Yet as I thought I had demonstrated in two books (The Irony of Modern Catholic History and To Sanctify The World), Vatican II did not call the Church to just “meet the modern world.” The Council called the Church to convert the modern world. How? By offering Jesus Christ as the icon of a genuine humanism and the sacramental Church as the icon of authentic human community.
That this was Pope John XXIII’s intention in summoning Vatican II is quite clear from the radio address he delivered on September 11, 1962, a month before the Council opened.
Preparatory work for Vatican II had been underway for years. The bishops had submitted agenda items for conciliar discussion. Draft documents for the council fathers to consider had been prepared. St. Peter’s had been transformed into a giant conference hall, with fifteen rows of upholstered bleachers occupying the basilica’s vast nave, from the red porphyry disk on which Pope Leo III had crowned Charlemagne “Holy Roman Emperor” in 800 to Bernini’s massive bronze baldacchino over the papal high altar. (There were even coffee bars built so that the successors of the apostles could refresh themselves; they were quickly dubbed “Bar-Jonah” and “Bar-Abbas.”)
John XXIII had read the draft conciliar documents that would be debated and saw that they were largely written in an abstract vocabulary, devoid of much grounding in Scripture or the Fathers of the Church. A patient man, he was content to let the Council find its own “voice.” But as the Council found that voice, he wanted to lay down a marker: Vatican II would not repeat settled Catholic truths for the sake of repeating them; the Council would link settled truths to evangelical mission.
To drive that point home, the elderly pope, who knew that he had terminal cancer, spent considerable time crafting an address in which he would underscore just why 2,500 bishops were coming to Rome — and he may well have hoped to offer a critical interpretive lens through which to read those pre-prepared documents the bishops would consider.
John XXIII’s September 1962 radio address was the most explicitly evangelical and Christocentric pre-conciliar statement of his intentions for Vatican II, laying down themes he would develop in his epic opening address to the Council. Yes, the Church must “meet” the “modern world,” as it had once “met” the medieval world and the classical world. But with what would the Church “meet” modernity?
The Church would meet the modern world with the proclamation made by Christ himself: “The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:21). And that, John XXIII said in his radio address, must be the message of the Council: “This phrase, ‘Kingdom of God,’ expresses fully and precisely the work of the Council. ‘Kingdom of God’ means and is in reality the Church of Christ, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the one which Jesus, the Word of God made man, founded and which for twenty centuries he has preserved, just as still today he gives her life by his presence and grace.”
To foster that encounter with the incarnate Word of God had been the purpose of every previous ecumenical council: “What in fact has an ecumenical council ever been but the renewing of this encounter with the face of the risen Jesus, glorious and immortal king, shining upon the whole Church for the salvation, joy, and splendor of the human race?”
Then John XXIII defined with precision the reason for Vatican II: “Of fundamental importance is what is said about the very reason for the Council’s being held: at issue is the response of the whole world to the testament of the Lord which he left us when he said, ‘Go, teach all nations…’ The purpose of the Council is, therefore, evangelization” [emphasis added].
In proclaiming Jesus Christ as the answer to the question that is every human life, and in witnessing through the sacraments and the works of charity that the Kingdom of God is among us, Catholicism is, was, and always will be a culture-reforming counterculture, challenging every culture in which it finds itself to realize its noblest aspirations through friendship with the incarnate Son of God.
That inevitably causes friction, which is sometimes severe. To live in that friction is not, pace Dr. Millies, “senseless.” It’s inevitable. Recognizing that is what Lutheran pastor and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the “cost of discipleship.”
(George Weigel’s column ‘The Catholic Difference’ is syndicated by the Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
This article reminds me of the now seldom-mentioned Jimmy Lai. He refused to run from the “friction” he caused. If only, in our sphere of influence, there were more of us like him.
One of the Council’s four constitutions dealt with the nature of the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium) and how to clearly word the collegial relationship between the papacy (as the successor of St. Peter) and the other bishops (as successors of the other apostles).
About which, this episode:
“Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of these ambiguous passages, and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals and superiors general, whose representative took it to the pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived [!], broke down and wept.
“What was the remedy? Since the text of the schema did not positively make any false assertion, but merely used ambiguous terms, the ambiguity could be clarified by joining to the text a carefully phrased explanation. This was the origin of the Preliminary Explanatory Note appended to the schema [but published unnoticed at the very end of the final constitution, rather than as intended at the front of the affected Chapter 3].”
(Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, SVD, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II,” 1967, p. 232; during the Council this well-connected historian published a daily news service, in six different languages, circulated to 3,000 subscribers in 108 countries. He received documentation from many groups and interviewed two Council Fathers each day during the 281 days that the Council was in session.)
And, yet, today from the land of the Rhine, the fluid der Synodal Weg… plus the ambiguous “time is greater than space.”
I thought Steven Millies article was very good. It was this article here that I find a bit problematic–why do some people feel they have to write articles when they really have nothing to say? The first line of the second paragraph was rather funny: “Yet as I thought I had demonstrated in two books…” Yes, how could we have overlooked that? For we all read George Weigel’s books, everyone of us–or so we are expected to, so shame on you Millies for falling short on this.
The problem with the “culture war” mentality is that it confuses apologetics with evangelization. The latter is far more demanding. We proclaim the good news by our life, by witnessing to the risen life of Christ. That’s not primarily about winning an argument. I don’t think anyone can deny that Catholicism became quite beige at a certain point after the Council, at least in certain parts of the world, but speaking of “tired”, culture warrior Catholicism is extremely so. What this article does not capture well is the mind of John XXIII. Weigel writes: “Yes, the Church must “meet” the “modern world,” as it had once “met” the medieval world and the classical world”. Well, yes and no. The Church must meet the modern world differently, very differently, than the Church in the past, that is, without the air of a Roman Senate delivering anathemas, for one. Yes, proclaim the kingdom of God, but let’s not turn John XXIII into a culture warrior, with all the “answers”, as though he believed the Church could learn nothing from the modern world (he understood the importance of dialogue, unlike some of the Cardinals of the Council). Of course the Church in the world will always be a “culture-reforming counterculture”. No one is denying that. It’s the means employed to achieve that end is the issue. Culture warrior apologetics only goes so far. Catholicism is not about “being right”, having all the answers to everyone’s questions. It is about the Person of Christ who is always larger than us. More often than not, our efforts to “convert” others do more to drive others from the Church than draw them in. We should probably be paying more attention to our own deficiencies, that we may decrease so that Christ may increase. Such people are far more effective than culture warriors who obsess over LGBTQ and exhibit what Millies refers to as an inconsistent life ethic.
Poster embed this comment “why do some people feel they have to write articles when they really have nothing to say?” in meandering 410 word response.
Let’s all file this under irony.
Not a culture battle, it is a spiritual battle.
“The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family. Don’t be afraid, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Sister Lucia
Well, despite your insult of Weigel quite properly repeating arguments he’s made before at length, with a great deal to say, you clearly miss the point of not taking refuge in empty claims of loyalty to Christ while slandering Christians active in dedicated, sacrificing Christian witness with your strawman caricatures.
Demeaning obvious “cultural” battles over matters where many millions of lives have been slaughtered, due in part to the indifference of “Christians,” who with actual obsession, search for sophistries to disassociate the depravity of the sex revolution with the inevitable disposal of the unborn, merely reaffirms Niebuhr’s famous observation, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
In my first paragraph sacrificing should read self-sacrificing, a mistake I made with holding my delete key too long. My original post makes it appear that the heroic virtue I meant to emphasize was sacrificing Christian witness itself, the opposite of my intent.
Yes: “counterculture “ is the key word!
Thomas James, to spread blasphemous images of the BVM as an LGBTQ over Internet, is to exhibit an inconsistant life ethic for a Catholic prelate. That prelate was rewarded bh Bergoglio with a job in Vatican Communications. Pure evil.
If you want to live in Christ you MUST live in the truth. Not the truth that the world contrives, not the truth we attempt to concoct. But the TRUTH as Christ Himself has revealed. Not the partial TRUTH but the FULLNESS of TRUTH. And once we are convicted of the fullness of the Truth, then we live it and proclaim it unabashedly. So, the question all of us Catholics should be asking ourselves is: “Am I living the fullness of the Truth?” We either are or we are not.
A refreshing validation of Roman pontiff John XXIII, incessantly pilloried by the tunnel visioned hard right, whose primary purpose in calling the Council was to present the Kingdom of God to a world in need of redemption.
Providential was containment of the pending avalanche of equally tunnel visioned Leftist clergy and laity who came out in the open. That deception and mischief occurred, it nevertheless remained within the Church and eventually corrected, rather than a worse than Protestant Reformation from outside of Ecclesial jurisdiction. Today we’re at a crossroad of direction toward Apostolic continuity or a nouveau protestantism.
A summary of pre-conciliar and preliminary Vatican II statements.
How does Weigel think that it all worked out – in measurable terms?
In Catholic tradition, there is a story that tells of St. Peter fleeing Rome, during the evil persecution of Nero. St. Peter encountered Jesus Christ, and asked Him, “Quo vadis, Domine?” Christ replied, “I am going to Rome to be crucified again.” St. Peter then turned around, returned to Rome, and accepted his martyrdom, for love of his Lord. Christ had predicted that all of his 11 remaining disciples, after the betrayal and suicide of Judas– would eventually be martyred for His sake. You have to be very sincere, very dedicated, steadfast and courageous, to commit yourself to being a true follower of Jesus Christ. All around you, here and there, both in the Church and in society, very destructive and sinful influences are lurking. You cannot be worldly, amd be a true follower of Christ. Long before Vatican II, we were taught to lead a good life as devout, practicing Catholics, always act mature, and remain close to Christ in a life of prayer, the Mass, Sacraments, and religious devotions, as well as regular little acts of penance. Avoid bad company, avoid occasions of sin, be mature, and be content with Our Lord– even if He was your only true Friend. And you must be prepared to bravely fight sin in your community, especially to protect your children– and all children, all families– always. Good examples of Catholic role models might win some people to Christ, and might win lapsed Catholics back to practice of the Faith. You cannot worry about what others will do– but you should try to talk to them, and always pray for them. And keep right on practicing the Faith, and try to draw closer to Christ, throughout your life. To be a good Catholic or Christian is not an easy thing. You may experience many small and painful “martyrdoms.” But you have to be strong in Christ, and keep going. It is actually a matter of becoming more and more mature in your Faith. That is the way it has always been, and will always be. Salvation is no easy thing. And at the moment of Death, you must be prepared, as best you can– to meet your God, all alone– all by yourself. I don’t think that the post-Conciliar Church is very realistic– or honest– about following Christ, accepting His crosses with our love for Him, avoiding– and seeking to eradicate– destructive sin in the world, seeking purification, sanctification, preparing our souls for Heaven, hoping for Salvation. In the post-Conciliar era, I have always felt so badly, watching very young Catholics bravely endure painful martyrdoms of many types, strongly fighting abortion and sexual sins. Yet, since the end of the Council– we have seen very few Catholic clerics engaged in teaching and preaching Christian Morality, strongly fighting evil sins, forming the young in true Catholic teaching, for Christ– and carrying Christ’s holy banner, leading the young kids– and leading everyone– in a terrible fight against sin, to vanquish Satan and his Death Culture, save millions of hurting souls, ravaged by sin– and help Christ build His holy Kingdom on earth.
The religion which Christ gave us is very challenging, and many clergy and laymen struggled with it in the pre-Conciliar era. There was also too much unhelpful guilt, fear and intimidation at times. But Vatican II was not very helpful, in my opinion. No leadership. Much confusion. The Catholic Faith and Morals tossed aside. The Catechism and Canon Law viewed as trivial, for clerics to pick and choose to follow and obey at their whim. No more objectivity, honesty and discipline. A poor liturgy. No more Catholic religious (and moral!) training for children. Everything falling to pieces. Nothing to rely on anymore. Too many over-educated intellectual clerics in powerful positions of Church leadership, with little wisdom and practicality– and little honesty and understanding of the holy Faith given to us by Jesus Christ– and what is honestly required of us, to faithfully practice it– and hope for Christ’s promised Salvation. Many of them even scandalously believe in, and promote, immoral beliefs and ways of living– with no Church to discipline them anymore! Plus, the extremely scandalous, horrific situation of clerical sex abuse cases, and cowardly cover-ups! Is this situation going to end up in the same manner, as the infamous Fall of Rome, someday? How can Vatican II– and all of this post-Conciliar “mess” — possibly be attributed to the workings of the Holy Spirit?
We read: “How can Vatican II–and all this post-Conciliar “mess”–possibly be attributed to the workings of the Holy Spirit?”
Note to Carl Olson:
With Benedict XVI, we still can differentiate between the “real” Council of the Documents and the “virtual” Council of the media under which all this “mess” has followed…And, yet, in my judgment, the testimony Quo Vadis Domine offers the bell-like “ring of truth” in less than 750 words (the Council Documents total over 100,000 words), AND should be recognized as an unsolicited “Feature” article at CWR. But who am I to judge?
I think Weigel misses the mark here, and his article is a good example of what happens when perception and reality diverge. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the presented purpose of Vatican II was or what the official documents of the council say. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Speaking in practical terms, Vatican II did not bring the church to the world; it made the church irrelevant. Whether it was intended or not, the progressives won the day, and the church has been paying the price of that for decades. People left their vocations and people left the church in large numbers that have not recovered. Like it or not, that is the true legacy of Vatican II.
Speaking to commenters. No.
What you are outlining is not an examination of VATICAN II and its results.
I think what you are outlining makes for good Examination of Conscience; and that the rebellion going that makes everything look glum and uses everything including Vatican II for bad, is proving what rebellion does and how much mind-sway it can have even on good people like yourselves – who can construct an examination of conscience but the mistake it and get lost offering it for an examination of VATICAN II.
Weigel didn’t undertake here to “chart a middle course”. He most clearly made a sound and accurate report. Breath of clean air.
But I take heart as I believe you commenters are true to VATICAN II in other things you already do. I suggest an exam on those as well.