Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND THE UNIVERSAL VOCATION TO SANCTITY


One of the unpublicized minority groups at the Council was the Roman Union of Superiors General, comprising 125 Council Fathers, some bishops, but most of them priests. These Fathers were particularly disturbed by the fact that, in the interim between the first and second sessions, the members of the European alliance had succeeded in prevailing upon the Coordinating Commission of the Council to delete the chapter on religious life from the schema on the Church, and to replace it by a new chapter entitled, “The Vocation to Sanctity in the Church.”

The position of the European alliance was based on the arguments advanced by Father Rahner and Monsignor Philips, and submitted to the German-speaking Fathers meeting in Munich in February, 1963. Those arguments were that the inclusion of the chapter on the religious life would “confirm Protestants in their objections, namely, that in the Church, through the religious state, there exist two essentially diverse paths to salvation; that the laity are not called to evangelical perfection and automatically are always on a lower level of sanctity; and that those who are members of religious orders are automatically considered better than those who are joined in marriage.”

The Munich Fathers forwarded these considerations to the Theological Commission; and, in the process of the revision of the schema, the chapter on religious was duly dropped, and a new chapter included instead on the universal vocation to sanctity in the Church. When news of this revision reached the German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers gathered at Fulda in August, they wrote to Rome expressing their satisfaction at “the victory that has finally been won—after long discussions— for the view that this chapter should treat of sanctity in the entire Church, and should make special but not exclusive mention in that context of those in religious life.”

It was against this background that the Roman Union of Superiors General decided on October 14 to request a detailed report on the matter from Bishop Enrico Compagnone of Anagni, a Discalced Carmelite whom Pope John had appointed to the Commission on Religious; he had previously been a member of the Preparatory Commission on Religious.

Bishop Compagnone explained that the preparatory commission had expressed the desire that the schema on the Church should contain something on religious orders, “since they constitute an integral part of the Church.” In consequence, the Theological Preparatory Commission had included in its schema a chapter entitled “On the States of Life Devoted to Achieving Evangelical Perfection.” Immediately after the first session, the Coordinating Commission had instructed a joint commission made up of members of both the Theological Commission and the Commission on Religious to review that chapter. The joint commission had agreed on a new title, namely, “On Those Who Profess the Evangelical Counsels.” However, after the text had been returned to the Theological Commission, the title had been changed to read “On the Vocation to Sanctity in the Church,” and the text had also been “substantially altered.” He labeled as “perplexing” these steps taken by the Theological Commission on its own initiative.

While there were positive elements in the new chapter, said Bishop Compagnone, such as the emphasis on the fact that all members of the Church were called to holiness, it was defective in its presentation of the nature of the religious life. It stated merely that the purpose of the religious life was to bear witness to the fact that the evangelical counsels were followed in the Chinch. That, however, was only one aspect of the religious life. Those in the religious life, he said, constituted “a vital part of the Church.” Various forms of the apostolate would perhaps never have come into existence but for the religious orders: for example, the missionary apostolate, which was an essential function of the Church, and which had in practice been carried out solely by religious, at least up to modern times.

Bishop Compagnone proposed that a chapter should be included headed “On Religious,” in which it would be clearly stated, as had been agreed in the joint commission, that “Christ wished to have in his Church consecrated souls who would follow the evangelical counsels.” Precisely because this was Christ’s will, the schema on the Church ought to speak of the religious life, and to clarify the position effectively occupied by members of religious orders in the Church.

The Council’s Commission on Religious had decided that all statements on the vocation to sanctity in general should be transferred to the chapter “On the People of God.” The schema would then have this logical sequence: 1. The Mystery of the Church; 2. The People of God; 3. The Hierarchy; 4. The Laity; 5. Religious. Bishop Compagnone urged the superiors general to make oral and written representations to secure this order and formulation.

After further discussion, the Roman Union of Superiors General decided to request the introduction in the schema of a new chapter on religious.

On October 22, Father Schiitte, Superior General of the Society of the Divine Word, officially proposed in the Council hall the sequence of chapters for the schema on the Church which had been advocated by Bishop Compagnone. Father Schiitte suggested further that everything pertaining to the universal call to holiness should be treated in the chapter on the People of God. That chapter dealt with all members of the Church as a whole, and it should therefore treat of the call which all received to holiness. “If in this schema on the Church,” he said, “we have a special chapter on the hierarchy . . . , even though there is another entire schema on bishops, and if we have an entire chapter on the laity, although still another schema is going to treat of the lay apostolate, then why can we not have a special chapter which properly treats of religious?”

Religious, said Father Schiitte, should not be considered in the schema on the Church “only from the viewpoint of their vocation to sanctity, but also from the viewpoint of their educational, charitable, social, pastoral, and especially missionary work, which is of the greatest importance for the life of the whole Church.” Over one third of all those entitled to attend the Council, he pointed out, were members of religious orders. Moreover, one third of all priests in the world were members of religious orders, and there were altogether some 2 million men and women in the world who had consecrated themselves to Christ in the religious state. “Why, therefore, do we appear to be ashamed to speak out about members of religious orders properly and clearly, distinctly and explicitly, not only about their vocation to sanctity, but also about their fruitful activity which is so necessary to the life of the Church?”

Some days later. Cardinal Dopfner addressed the Council on behalf of seventy-nine German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers. He praised the new chapter on the vocation to sanctity, because it laid down that all the People of God were called upon to practice the evangelical counsels, thereby refuting the false notion that there were different classes of Christians, more or less perfect by reason of their state of life. He suggested that the Council should warn religious not to live for themselves and remind them that they were called upon, together with other groups of the faithful, to form a united Christian people.

Cardinal Leger of Montreal recalled that the monastic ideal of holiness had long been the prototype on which all Christian life had been modeled.

But since the life of lay people was so different from that of monks and other members of religious orders, sanctity had seemed to them to be unattainable. Many of the faithful, the Cardinal continued, had searched in vain for a life modeled on the Gospels and suited to their needs. A great loss of spiritual forces in the Church had resulted. Consequently, he said, the laity would welcome the propositions contained in the chapter on the universal call to holiness.

The Cardinal pointed out, further, that the only specific aspect of lay life mentioned in the text was the conjugal life. But the search for holiness must be pursued by people regardless of their age, and whether or not they were married. He asked that mention be made of all the activities of human life: daily work, political affairs, cultural activities, leisure, and recreation, since through them and in them holiness must be developed.”

Cardinal Bea contended that the schema was not realistic enough, since the Church included sinners as well as holy persons. He therefore called for a distinction “between the Church in heaven which is perfectly holy, and the Church on earth which tends dynamically to sanctity, but is never perfectly holy.” The way in which the schema cited Scripture was “unworthy of the Council,” he said, in referring to several examples where Scripture texts were used to support statements to which they had no reference.

Bishop Frane Franic, of Split-Makarska, Yugoslavia, spoke of poverty as a necessary condition for holiness of bishops. “When the Church was poor, it was holy. When it became rich, sanctity diminished accordingly.” Bishops, he said, had a much greater obligation to be holy than all other members of the Church, “because as bishops we must sanctify others.” But, he pointed out, since the Middle Ages, most saints had come from the ranks of the religious orders, not from the ranks of the bishops. “This would seem to indicate a lack of heroic sanctity among bishops,” he said, “and I believe the reason for it is a lack of evangelical poverty.” Diocesan priests and religious orders also needed to reform themselves in the matter of poverty, he added.

A good number of bishops belonging to religious orders, as well as some superiors general, had prepared statements in favor of the inclusion of an entire chapter on the religious life in the schema on the Church, and had given due notice of their desire to speak. But day after day of discussion passed, and their names were not called out by the Cardinal Moderators.

On October 30, the assembly voted to close the discussion, but many of those scheduled to speak took advantage of the rule which allowed one to address the assembly after cloture, provided five Council Fathers had endorsed the request.

Cardinal Dopfner was Moderator at the fifty-ninth General Congregation, on October 31. Before permitting any speakers to come to the microphone, he announced that many Council Fathers were complaining that the Council was proceeding too slowly. In order to preserve the right to speak of those Council Fathers who had obtained five signatures, and at the same time to satisfy the general desire of the assembly to close the discussion and keep moving, he asked speakers “to confine their remarks to pertinent matter, to avoid repetitions, to stay within an eight-minute time limit instead of the usual ten, and to remember that statements not delivered in the Council hall but presented in writing have equal weight before the Commissions.”

This latter recommendation, which the Cardinal himself did not follow, was followed consistently by Archbishop Felici, the Secretary General, who because of his position had renounced his right to deliver interventions.

Cardinal Dopfner intervened frequently during the speeches on that day, reminding the Council Fathers of the points that he had mentioned. At least three speakers were interrupted twice. Three others were interrupted once, or were told when they had finished that what they had said was not pertinent to the matter at hand. Many Council Fathers found it hard to understand the Cardinal’s hasty manner and his seemingly arbitrary reduction of the time allowed to speakers.

Father Agostino Sepinski, Superior General of the Franciscans and President of the Roman Union of Superiors General, was the nineteenth speaker to take the floor that day. He suggested that the text on the universal call to holiness in the Church should be transferred from Chapter 4 to the chapter on the People of God. Chapter 4, he said, should treat only of the religious state, according to the logical sequence of chapters. He informed the assembly that the superiors general, at one of their meetings, had unanimously decided to request the inclusion of a special chapter on the religious state in the schema on the Church.

Bishops from religious orders waiting to speak were not invited to the microphone. At the same time, others whose names had been handed in only that morning were called upon to speak. The silenced Council Fathers were so indignant that they decided to send Cardinal Dopfner a private warning, stating that they would not allow the matter to rest and would ask for an official investigation if there was no change. But when they tried to contact him, they found that he had left for Capri for a long weekend and was not due back until the evening of November 4.

On his return, Cardinal Dopfner found a message from the offended Council Fathers waiting for him. He called them together, apologized for what had happened, promised that it would never happen again, and asked them to renounce their right to speak. They refused. He then agreed to read a summary of their speeches in the Council hall and asked them to indicate the points they considered essential. At the sixty-second General Congregation, on November 7, he read a summary, but not the one that they had been asked to prepare. It was extremely short, obscure, and in many places inaccurate.

The immediate result was that seven bishops from different religious orders met to decide on action to neutralize the German and Belgian element which they felt was exerting a “dictatorship” in the Council. They drew up a series of propositions, or postulata, concerning the schema on the Church, including, in particular, a demand for a separate chapter on the religious life, The postulata were printed in large numbers to be distributed to individual Council Fathers for their study and signatures.

On November 11, the seven bishops met with thirty-five other bishops from thirty-five other religious congregations, and it was decided to give the organization permanency and elect a board of seven presidents. The first of these was Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, Italy, a former Superior General of the Franciscans and a close acquaintance of Pope Paul VI. Bishop Richard Lester Guilly, S.J., of Georgetown, British Guiana, was elected secretary. The name decided upon for the organization was “The Bishops’ Secretariat,” and its offices were set up in the international headquarters of the Jesuit order.

When the Roman Union of Superiors General held its regular meeting two days later, it decided to establish immediate liaison with this new group, and to give full support to the project of collecting signatures for the postulata. For the balance of the Council, the Bishops’ Secretariat and the Roman Union of Superiors General worked hand in hand. Because of the disdain shown by many diocesan bishops and Roman Curia bishops for religious orders, it would not have been possible for the Roman Union of Superiors General alone to conduct a program at the Council with anything near the success that the Bishops’ Secretariat could hope for.

Within two weeks, the postulata had been signed by 679 Council Fathers, including seventeen cardinals. The seven presidents of the Bishops’ Secretariat then personally presented the signed postulata to the Secretary General of the Council and to Cardinal Browne, Vice-President of the Theological Commission, at the same time giving them an oral explanation of the background of the matter. Both the Secretary General and Cardinal Browne said that they would take the matter up with Pope Paul. The Pope subsequently referred the postulata to the Theological Commission with a personal note saying that he was sending them “for diligent and careful study.” In a separate letter to Archbishop Perantoni, of the Bishops’ Secretariat, Pope Paul explained what he had done, expressed his thanks for the interest shown by the Bishops’ Secretariat, said he hoped it would continue its work, and applauded the fact that religious were collaborating in so positive a way in the work of the Council.

When the Theological Commission revised the schema on the Church once more between the second and third sessions, it added a new chapter “On Religious.” The reason it gave in its report was that “very many Council Fathers, including the 679, have explicitly and formally requested a chapter to be reserved for religious.” This was the first defeat for the European alliance. Its iron grip on the Council had been broken, because a group had come into being with comparable powers of organization.