SELECTIONS BY PAULY FONGEMIE
The Prefabricators
It has already been shown that most bishops arrived at the Council without any clearly formulated views and policies and were thus ideally placed to be influenced by those who were quite definite about what they wanted. "If you had told me two years ago that I would be voting 'yes' for some of the things I have been voting for this session, I would have told you you were crazy," commented Bishop Joseph J. Mueller of Sioux City, Iowa. [The Open Church, M. Novak, 1964, p. 327] Fr. Wiltgen has expressed his regret that all episcopal conferences did not work with the same intensity and purpose as the Rhine bishops and their supporters. "Had they done so they would not have found it necessary to accept the positions of the European alliance with so little questioning. The Council would then have been less one-sided, and its achievements would truly have been the result of a world-wide theological effort." [Wiltgen, pp. 79/80] Fr. Wiltgen is somewhat unrealistic here. The strategy of the Rhine group was that of a definite party with a definite policy. The party expanded to become first the European and then the world alliance - but there was the nucleus of a party and a definite policy to begin with. Without such a nucleus and without such a policy there was no hope of a viable alternative to the Rhine group being formed. At a later stage the International Group of Fathers (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) of which Mgr. Lefebvre was a leading member, began to offer sufficient opposition to make the Rhine group anxious; but this did not happen until the Third Session when the control of the Rhine group was so absolute that it could not possibly be broken. [Wiltgen, p. 148] The fact is that most of the Fathers had come to the Council not as members of a party but simply as Catholic bishops. Why they had come to Rome and what they were supposed to do there was something they hoped to discover as the Council progressed. Fr. Raymond Dulac remarks that nine tenths of the Fathers had certainly not known "of the existence of Mgr. Huyghe, Bishop of Arra and that of Mgr. Vendargon, Bishop of Kuala Lumpur. Nontheless they voted for them." [Itineraires, July 1971, p. 39]
But it was not simply the direct lobbying of the Rhine group Fathers and periti which influenced the uncommitted Fathers. As subsequent chapters will make clear, the documents of the Second Vatican Council were influenced to varying degrees by the desire to conciliate Protestants and Communists. ...
There has never been a Council in which slogans played so important a role as during Vatican II. The progressive establishment has now codified these slogans into a complete system of belief which its members clearly find more satisfying than Scripture and Tradition as the basis of their faith. The prime tenets of this new creed are ... "to be open", "to dialogue", "to cater to the needs of contemporary man."
... Professor Hitchcock provides considerable documentation in The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism to show the contempt which progressives have for ordinary believers, who are described in a series of documented quotations as "a herd" which is "straying apathetically behind" and is difficult to love. The ordinary believer is "a superstitious religious caterpillar." Fr. Gerard Sloyan, a prominent member of the catechetical establishment, applies to the Catholic laity the Duke of Wellington's celebrated remark about his own troops: "They may not scare the enemy, but by God they scare me." [pp. 82/83]
Professor Hitchcock shows that the liberals' "formula for change has been entirely elitist, the imposing of reform from above by an enlightened few." He speaks of "their assumption that their own needs, their own sensibilities, their own insights have a priority and a superiority which the Church must recognize ... When progressives speak of the Church's insensitivity to human needs and rigidity, they mean exclusively its insensitivity to their own needs ..." [p. 83/85] Once again, this theory of the duty of the Church to adapt to contemporary needs was put forward by the early Modernists. St. Pius X draws particular "attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical." [Pascendi Gregis, p. 33] One of the most pressing of these alleged needs was, where the liturgy is concerned, that "of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples." [Ibid., p. 32] This "need" is given express recognition in the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II! [Liturgy Constitution, paras. 37-40, Abbott, pp. 151/152]
The elitist attitude which Professor Hitchcock rightly attributes to contemporary progressives is also remarked upon by St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Gregis:
It is pride which fills the Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, We are not as the rest of men, ... [Pascendi Gregis, p. 52]
... "No reporter knew more about the Council" than Robert Kaiser, according to Michael Novak. No one "had talked with more of its personalities, prominent or minor; had more sources of information to tap ... In the English-speaking world, at least, perhaps no source was to have quite the catalytic effect as Time on opinion outside the Council and even to an extent within it." [The Open Church, M. Novak, pp. 13/14] (Author's emphasis.) It is worth noting how here, as elsewhere in the chapter, the same conclusions are reached by those with different views - Novak and Fr. Bouyer are both agreed regarding the influence of the press but differ as to whether the influence was good or bad. Robert Kaiser is also in accord with Fr. Bouyer concerning the extent of press influence - but there is no doubt that he considers it to have been all to the good. "One wonders," he asks, "why there should be no 'outside influence' on a Council Father ... Is the authority of the Church meant to dominate or serve? If it is to dominate, then there is no need for the bearers of that authority to listen. But if it is to serve, then those bearers of authority have to be attentive to the expressed needs of the world." [Inside the Council, R. Kaiser, pp. 196/197] Kaiser assumes, of course, that the "expressed needs of the world" correspond with the esoteric preoccupations of his own elitist clique. He goes on to explain that some members of the Church are "very possibly full of the charismatic influence of the Holy Spirit," and that the only way in which the institutional Church - i.e. the bishops - can learn what the Spirit Who "breathes where it wills" wishes them to learn from the fortunate possessors of these charisms "is through the instrumentality of the modern press." [Ibid., pp. 197/198]
The theory that God teaches the bishops through the instrumentality of the liberal press is certainly novel; the depressing fact is that it was a theory which was accepted wholeheartedly by so many of the bishops who vied with each other in their "concern to please their new masters ." According to Cardinal Suenens: "Two thousand eight hundred bishops represented the faithful people at the Council, and it was the faithful people who dictated the 9,000 proposals." It was "the people again who, present at the Council with the Holy Spirit, breathed onto the prepared schemas in order to direct them. The current of public opinion was blowing at all levels. The schema on the Church, for example, began with the People of God with Baptism as the common bond, and not with the hierarchy. But in order to strengthen the awareness of the People of God and for the Christian to assume his adult responsibilities in the Church of today, he needs daily enlightenment on events which have to be seen in the light of faith: the Catholic journalist, then, is the theologian of the present day." [La Croix, April 6, 1965] Our Lord, of course, began His Church with the hierarchy who then built up the People of God by teaching and Baptizing them; He also stated that the faithful were to listen to the Apostles, and that in listening to them they were listening to Him. Now the bishops are reduced to the status of delegates of the faithful whose mind is to be made known through the oracle of the public press! However, Fr. Alting von Geusau, Secretary General of IDO-C until 1972, claimed during the final session of the Council that: "Christ came to communicate with the people: every attempt to impede communication is a sin. Vatican II has shown the Church that she was the people of God before becoming a hierarchy." [Le Journal du Concile, H. Fesquet (h. Morel, 1966), p. 1035]
... As is made clear elsewhere in this chapter, there were only too many Council Fathers willing to manifest uncritical acceptance of the elevated role which the press claimed for itself and to offer homage to their new mentors. "Public opinion has influenced the Council," explained Cardinal Konig, Archbishop of Vienna. "Public opinion has now taken over the role played by kings and princes in former times. The role of official representatives and ambassadors is now exercised by journalists ... When a Catholic journalist has something to say he need not always wait for the permission of a bishop or information from Rome. He must alert those who he considers need to be alerted; he must incite to action those who he considers need to be incited. He must inform the world about the Church and the Church about the world. He can and he must open the mouth and the ears of the Church; he must not allow her to remain either deaf or mute." [Ibid., p. 1036]
... Mgr. Stourm, Archbishop of Sens and a member of the French episcopal committee of the press for the Council, offered the following tribute: "I must thank you for your fidelity and your elevated standard of professional integrity. Your task is not easy. I know your difficulties. I congratulate you on your magnificent effort. Satisfaction with the quality of your work is expressed on every side. This is all most encouraging for Us." [Ibid., p. 697]
Once a Father was prepared to accept that public opinion, the voice of the people, was the voice of God, and that the journalists of the establishment press were the inspired and authentic interpreters of this infallible magisterium, then life was made very simple for him. "It was all good fun ..." wrote Archbishop R. J. Dwyer. "And when the vote came around, like wise Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., 'we always voted at our party's call; we never thought of thinking for ourselves at all.' That way you can save yourself a whole world of trouble." [Twin Circle, Oct. 26, 1963, p. 2]
Perhaps the most poignant moment of the Council occurred during the debate on the Liturgy Constitution. It was an incident which epitomizes the ethos of the Council; the true "Spirit of Vatican II"; the real nature of the new order which has taken effective control of the "renewed" Church. Respect for the aged and compassion for the infirm are two essential characteristics of any civilized - let alone Christian - society. Similarly, any civilized group of men looks with gratitude on those who have spent a lifetime of dedicated effort in its service. Common courtesy demands that any sincerely held and reasonably expressed view should be listened to with respect, no matter how unacceptable it might be. Cardinal Ottaviani was old and partly blind; no living Catholic has served the Church with more zeal and devotion; he holds his views with the deepest sincerity and, however outdated they may appear to some Catholics today, they are what most of us professed until 1962.
During the debate upon the Liturgy the Cardinal's poor eyesight compelled him to speak without a text; he spoke from the heart about a subject which moved him deeply:
Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.
There was a ten minute time limit on speeches. The Cardinal exceeded it and a bell was rung. Engrossed in his speech he did not hear it and carried on. "At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful Cardinal in the Curia had been silenced and the Council Fathers clapped with glee." [Wiltgen, pp. 28/29]
The Council Fathers "clapped with glee"! And why not? Cardinal Ottaviani was a "bad guy" and Cardinal Alfrink was a "good guy"! Xavier Rynne comments that it "seems to have caused Ottaviani (sic) to feel insulted and to remain away for almost two weeks." [Letters from Vatican City, X. Rynne, 1963, p. 117] In other words, the "bad guys" are poor losers! What, it seems permissible to wonder, would have been the reaction of Xavier Rynne and the press in general had Cardinal Ottaviani ordered Cardinal Alfrink to be cut off in mid speech?
HOME
---------------------- TRADITION