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

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

EXPANDING THE PROPOSITIONS ON PRIESTS AND THE MISSIONS

In the first ten days of the third session, numerous petitions were submitted by Council Fathers and episcopal conferences requesting that a normal discussion period should be granted for all schemas that had been reduced to a series of propositions. On Friday, September 25, 1964, only eleven days after the opening of the third session, the Secretary General announced that the Moderators had agreed to the wishes expressed by the Council Fathers and had decided to allow a short discussion before the votes were taken. He pointed out that the interventions read would not be used for the revision of the propositions, but would serve solely to assist the Council Fathers in deciding how to vote on the propositions. Any proposed changes in the drafts would have to be submitted as qualifications accompanying affirmative votes. He announced further that, by decision of the Moderators, summaries of such interventions must be presented to the General Secretariat by the following dates: on Oriental Churches, by October 10; on the missionary activity of the Church, by October n; on priests, by October 12; on religious, by October 13; on the sacrament of Matrimony, by October 14; on priestly training, by October 15; and on Catholic education, by October 16.

In the evening of September 25, the bishops representing the world alliance gathered for their weekly meeting at the Domus Mariae and expressed pleasure at this initial victory, but also apprehension lest the “short” discussion should be confined to a single day. They decided that this was not enough, and prepared formal requests, which episcopal conferences would be asked to direct to the Cardinal Moderators, that a fuller discussion of the propositions be authorized.

At their next meeting on October 2 these bishops were asked to promote a “slow down” policy, since the Council had been moving along at great speed until that date. This sudden change in Council policy, which in a matter of days was adopted by nearly all the episcopal conferences, was due to the appearance on September 30 of the Supplement for the schema on the Church in the modern world. Said to be a commentary on the schema, it was rather a collection of liberal teachings which the leaders of the European alliance were anxious to have included in the schema. The technique was to postpone discussion of this topic as long as possible, so that support could meanwhile be won for the Supplement, and then to draw out discussion of the schema so much that completing the revision of it during the third session would be impossible. An aid in achieving this goal was the authorization of a normal period of discussion for all the propositions.

In the morning of October 7, each Council Father received a revised and expanded version of the propositions on priests, differing from the propositions circulated by mail before the third session. The Secretary General announced that the revision had been authorized by the Coordinating Commission, and was based on written interventions that had been officially submitted to the General Secretariat “in the last few months.” It was immediately apparent that some 90 per cent of the additions and changes resulted from the proposals submitted by the German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops after their conference at Innsbruck in May 1964.

On October 12, the Secretary General announced that, at the decision of the Moderators, the short discussion on the propositions on priests was to begin on the following day, “because the reports for the schema on the Church in the modern world are not yet ready.” Psychologically, this was the worst possible moment to launch a short discussion of the 100 lines on priests, since four days had just been devoted to discussing the 476 lines on the apostolate of the laity.

The first speaker on October 13 was Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, who said that the topic of priests merited a proper schema of its own, as well as ample discussion, similar to the discussion devoted to the schema on bishops. His suggestion, he said, was based upon the necessity for giving testimony to the esteem, interest and solicitude which all the bishops in the Council felt for their priests. He found fault with the propositions for speaking exclusively of the obligations of priests, without taking into consideration anything which might comfort or encourage them in fulfilling their difficult role. He was applauded when he stated, in conclusion, drat the document should be redrafted.

Speaker after speaker pointed out weaknesses in the schema, calling it shallow, especially in regard to priestly spirituality. Fourteen Council Fathers spoke on that first day.

On the following day, it was announced that the discussion on the propositions on priests would end on the same day. Three cardinals, from Brazil, Italy and Spain, said that the propositions were too much concerned with externals in the life of a priest and too little concerned with his sanctification. Archbishop Salvatore Baldassarri of Ravenna, Italy, stated that it was impossible for the Council to treat of priests, the closest collaborators of bishops, in so offhand a manner. He called for a schema on priests as thorough as the schemas prepared on bishops and the apostolate of the laity.

Archbishop Fernando Gomes dos Santos of Goiania, Brazil, speaking on behalf of 112 bishops of Brazil and other countries, said: “We are not at all ignorant of the good intentions of those who drafted this text. In fact, we praise their intentions. But it is what they have produced that we deplore!” The text, he said, had proved “a very great disappointment to us . .. and there is no reason why we should not say so." The text of these propositions, he said, was “an insult to those most beloved priests who labor with us in the vineyard of the Lord.” If the Second Vatican Council was able to say “so many sublime and beautiful things about bishops and the laity,” he asked, “why are so few and such imperfect things now to be said about priests?”

Many things, he said, were urged upon priests in the propositions which the bishops had not dared to prescribe for themselves. He appealed to the general assembly—“and we earnestly beg the most eminent Moderators”— that the matter should be given mature consideration, and that the present text should not yet be submitted to a vote. “Instead, let a new and worthy text be drafted, to be discussed and voted upon at the forthcoming fourth session of the Council. . . . The priesthood is too great and sacred a thing for us to speak hastily about it. We owe at least this testimony of love and veneration to our priests, who have been called to share with us in the work of the Lord.”

At the end of the morning, with only nineteen of the twenty-seven speakers on the list of speakers having addressed the assembly, the Moderators sent new instructions to Archbishop Felici, and had him announce that interventions would continue on the following day and that the vote would be postponed until such time as the Moderators saw fit.

On October 15, eight more Council Fathers addressed the assembly. The first speaker was Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht, Holland, who maintained that it was the conviction of many Council Fathers that the propositions could not be published as they stood without gravely disappointing priests.

He therefore suggested that the Commission concerned should be asked to prepare a new text which would better correspond to the expectations of priests and the proposals made by Council Fathers. His suggestion was greeted with applause.

After the eighth speaker, the Moderator announced that the vote would be taken at some as yet unspecified future date. The “short” discussion had extended over three days.

On the following day, the Secretary General read out the following notification: “Many Fathers have requested the most eminent Moderators that all the schemas reduced to propositions, or at least some of them, should be sent back to the Commissions concerned after a short discussion, to be redrafted on the basis of the observations made by the Fathers. The Moderators therefore considered it opportune to refer this matter to the Coordinating Commission, which in turn has carefully examined the requests of the Fathers. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the Rules of Procedure, this Commission has decided that, after a short discussion of each set of propositions, the views of the Fathers should be requested on the following statement, ‘Would it please the Fathers to proceed with the vote now that the discussion is over?’ If an absolute majority of the Council Fathers (50 per cent plus 1) should reply in the affirmative, then the votes on the individual points in the propositions will be taken immediately in accordance with the threefold formula, ‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ and ‘Yes, with qualifications.’ If on the other hand the reply should be negative, then the entire matter will be referred back to the Commission with instructions to revise the schema speedily in accordance with the observations made by the Fathers.”

The Secretary General then announced that the vote on the propositions on priests would be taken at the next meeting, on Monday, October 19.

On that day, by a vote of 1199 to 930, the propositions were referred back to the Commission concerned for revision in accordance with the observations made in the oral interventions. Notice was also given that additional suggestions might be made in writing within three days. The strategy of first expurgating undesirable elements from the text and then expanding it again by new proposals had been successful.

The reaction to the propositions on the missions was no less heated than the reaction to the propositions on priests. The propositions on the missions had been approved by Pope Paul on July 3, 1964, for distribution to the Council Fathers. Almost immediately thereafter there appeared a counter schema called Documentum nostrum I (“Our document No. 1”), followed in quick succession by revised editions entitled Documentum nostrum II and Documentum nostrum III. All three were in circulation by August 3.

The leader of the group supporting the counter schema was Bishop van Valenberg, who had been connected with the efforts of the Dutch hierarchy early in the first session to secure the rejection of certain schemas. Others in the same group were the superiors general of the White Fathers, the Montfort Fathers, the Society of African Missions, the Picpus Fathers, the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, the Holy Cross Fathers and the Assumptionists. The group claimed to have found considerable support among bishops and superiors general, and submitted Documentum nostrum III to the General Secretariat with the request that it be officially printed as a commentary on the existing propositions, to assist the Council Fathers “in properly and fully understanding the propositions which are to be voted on.” But the General Secretariat did not react favorably to the suggestion.

When bishops from mission lands began to arrive in Rome for the third session, it was evident that they were very displeased with the propositions on the missions. This was especially true of the bishops of Africa. The Commission on the Missions had in fact voted unanimously in favor of the propositions at its plenary session from May 4 to 13, 1964. Knowing this, and seeing the dissatisfaction of the missionary bishops, I asked Father Schiitte, Superior General of the Divine Word Missionaries, how this could be explained. “Not one of us on the Missions Commission was satisfied with the propositions,” he said. “We voted unanimously in favor of them, however, because the Coordinating Commission had ordered drastic cuts, and we believed that the six pages were the best that could be produced in the circumstances.” He had foretold, at that meeting, that the missionary bishops were unlikely to accept the propositions, “since many of them had come to the Council precisely because a full-size schema was dedicated to the missions.”

On Wednesday afternoon, September 30, the general secretariat of the Pan-African Episcopal Conference assembled to discuss the announcement made on September 25 that there would be a “short” discussion of all propositions before the voting. This general secretariat consisted of the presidents of the eleven national and regional episcopal conferences of Africa and Madagascar. Archbishop Zoa of Yaounde, vice-president of the organization and a member of the Commission on the Missions, announced that, at a recent meeting of the Commission, he had suggested that the propositions on the missions should be discussed in the same way as any other schema. The other members on the Commission had also favored the idea, he said, and Cardinal Agagianian, President of the Commission, was to present the proposal in writing to the Council Presidency and the Cardinal Moderators.

As a practical resolution of this meeting, it was decided that each of the eleven national and regional episcopal conferences should directly petition the Council Presidency, the Cardinal Moderators and the Coordinating Commission for a normal discussion of all the propositions. A form letter was drawn up in Latin containing the points to be included, and each conference was to make its own translation and desired changes.

On October 6, the Missions Commission met in plenary session and voted 20 to 4 in favor of asking all episcopal conferences to make a formal request of Pope Paul VI that Documentum nostrum 111 should be printed by the General Secretariat of the Council as an official document and brought up for discussion on the Council floor. At the weekly meeting of the general secretariat of the Pan-African Episcopal Conference on the following day, Archbishop Zoa informed the members of the decision of the Missions Commission, and invited them to send formal requests to the Pope in the name of their episcopal conferences for the official printing and distribution of Documentum nostrum III.

At the meeting of the West African Episcopal Conference, held on October 8 at the Residenza Adele di Trenquellion, a hotel at which some sixty African bishops were staying, Archbishop John Amissah of Cape Coast, Ghana, announced that a tactful letter had already been sent to the Holy Father on behalf of many episcopal conferences—including the West African Episcopal Conference—to ask for “sufficient time” to discuss all the propositions on the Council floor.

On October 21, the report on the propositions on the missions was distributed, and it was announced that this topic would be taken up after the discussion on the Church in the modern world. By this time, more than 100 Council Fathers had notified the Secretary General that they wished to speak on the propositions on the missions. Among the Fathers who had requested to speak were outstanding figures such as Cardinal Bea, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Alfrink, Laurean Cardinal Rugambwa, of Bukoba, Tanzania, Cardinal Silva Henriquez, Cardinal Suenens and Bishop De Smedt. Each had been requested to speak by a small group of superiors general headed by Father Leo Volker, Superior General of the White Fathers. The complete texts of their interventions were printed in large quantities for advance circulation among the Council Fathers.

On Thursday morning, November 5, the Secretary General announced that the discussion of the schema on the Church in the modern world would be interrupted on the following day, and discussion of the propositions on the missions would begin in the presence of Pope Paul VI. That afternoon the Roman Union of Superiors General met to listen to a report on the propositions on the missions prepared by Father Schiitte.

“For most of us superiors general gathered here,” he said, “hardly any schema apart from the one on religious concerns us as much as do the propositions on the missions.” He gave a brief history of the process whereby the original schema had been reduced to a series of propositions, and then commented point by point on the thirteen articles included in the propositions. Many improvements, he said, could be made in the propositions, but even if all were adopted, many missionary bishops would remain skeptical and hesitant, because they would feel that the world-wide missionary activity of the Church had not received from the Council the treatment which its significance and urgency demanded.

Father Schiitte suggested that the Council Fathers should be allowed to indicate by a vote whether they were satisfied with the propositions, or whether they wished to have a proper schema on the missions. “If the vote should be in favor of a real schema on the missions—and I have no doubt that this will be the case—the new schema should be drawn up by the competent Commission, making use of the former schemas on the missions.” The superiors general decided to do everything in their power to secure the rejection of the propositions and the drafting of a new schema.

The same evening, Father Schiitte approached Cardinal Frings to ask him to speak in favor of a genuine schema on the missions on the following day, Friday. Cardinal Frings agreed to do so the day after, since he was already scheduled to give a conference on Friday. Still the same evening, Father Schiitte set to work with Father Karl Muller, one of his periti, to compose a letter to the Cardinal Moderators, stating that the short propositions were utterly unacceptable because the missionary aspect of the Church was far too important. Numerous copies of the letter were made so that signatures might be collected on the following day.

The next day, Friday, November 6, Pope Paul addressed the general assembly. He said that he had chosen to be present on a day when the attention of the Council was centered on the schema on the missions, “because of the grave and singular importance of the topic.” He said that he had examined the text which was in the Council Fathers’ hands, and had “found many things in it deserving of our praise, both as regards content and as regards orderly explanation. We believe, therefore, that the text will be approved by you without difficulty, after you have pointed out where further improvement is needed.”

These words of the Pope were immediately construed as a “qualified affirmative vote” for the propositions. Nevertheless, Father Schiitte went on collecting signatures, convinced that the Pope’s statement had been based on misinformation regarding the feeling of the Council Fathers on the propositions.

After the Pope’s address, Cardinal Agagianian, as president of the Commission on the Missions, read his introductory report, and then the Pope left. All of the remaining speakers that morning suggested major changes in the text.

That afternoon and evening, Father Schiitte sent priests of his order to the residences of bishops for additional signatures, and in this way obtained several hundred more, all of which he turned over to the Cardinal Moderators.

The first speaker on Saturday, November 7, was Cardinal Frings of Cologne, who said that the missionary role of the Church was of such importance, especially in present-day circumstances, that the matter could not be disposed of in a few propositions. Instead, he argued, a complete schema on the missions should be prepared and submitted at the fourth session of the Council. This, he said, was not only his opinion, “but also the fervent desire of the superiors general, of many bishops of Africa and of other missions. I humbly ask that this desire may yet be fulfilled.” His proposal that the text should be referred back to the Commission on the Missions for complete revision was greeted with two distinct waves of applause, reaching from end to end of the Council hall.

Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht agreed that it was impossible to give adequate treatment to the missions “in a set of simple propositions.” Cardinal Suenens, speaking on behalf of all the bishops of Africa, asserted that the text required major amendments.

Bishop Donal Lamont of Umtali, Southern Rhodesia, speaking on behalf of many bishops of Africa, said: “The presence of the Supreme Pontiff yesterday in the Council hall was a consolation far beyond anything that we had hoped for. We missionaries were all thrilled to see His Holiness, the first missionary, sitting amongst us, and for this we offer him our most profound thanks from our hearts.” Then he went on to compare the propositions to the “dry bones without flesh, without sinew,” in Ezechiel’s vision.

Six more speakers addressed the assembly before the debate was closed on Monday, November 9. The Council Fathers were then asked, “Is it agreed that the schema of propositions on the missionary activity of the Church should be revised once again by the competent Commission?” In reply, 1601 Council Fathers said “yes” (83 per cent), and 311 said “no.” This meant that the propositions were rejected and that a proper schema would now have to be prepared by the Commission on the Missions for presentation at the fourth session.

How explain Pope Paul’s words? Did he not know of the great dissatisfaction with the propositions on the missions which had been manifested as soon as they were distributed by the General Secretariat?

Did he not know of the objections repeatedly voiced by the bishops of Africa and other missionary countries, and by the superiors general of missionary orders? Had none of the petitions directed to him personally reached him? Did Cardinal Agagianian, President of the Missions Commission, fail to inform him of the great dissatisfaction manifested in the Commission itself? Did the other three Cardinal Moderators fail to inform the Pope of the dissatisfaction which they had witnessed and—in part—promoted ? Was the Cardinal Secretary of State unaware of the state of affairs?

It is difficult to understand how the Pope could have spoken so optimistically about the propositions in the Council hall had he truly realized the position. The reports which subsequently appeared in the press, stating that the Council Fathers had contradicted the view expressed by the Pope, necessitate a closer examination of what the Pope really said. He did not say that everything in the propositions was deserving of praise, but that he had found “many” things “deserving of our praise. ’ Even Bishop Lamont, who spoke more strongly than anyone else, stated that the propositions had much to recommend them, that they were positive in their approach, and that they were useful and necessary. Thus the Pope’s judgment on the propositions did not conflict with that of the Council Fathers. He erred, however, in thinking that the propositions would be approved without difficulty, after further improvements had been indicated. In depicting the incident as defiance by the Council Fathers of the Pope, the press was perhaps not aware that the interventions read on the Council floor had been prepared long in advance and would have been delivered had the Pope made his address or not.

There were those who charged that Cardinal Agagianian had invited the Pope to attend the session, hoping thus to win the Council’s support for the propositions which he was known to favor. The Cardinal, however, most emphatically denied this, stating that the Pope had spontaneously decided to attend the meeting.