The fundamental
historiographical question of the Conciliar period is whether the
collapse of the faith that occurred in the wake of Vatican II was a
result of the poor implementation of good conciliar documents, or were
the Council documents themselves deficient in such a way that they
directly enabled or led to the collapse? This is where the question of
"ambiguity" arises; to what degree were the Council documents ambiguous?
And is ambiguity always a bad thing? After all, the Bible is ambiguous
in many parts, and we do not go around blaming God for the ambiguity of
the Bible. In this article, we will attempt to really dig into this
question of ambiguity, utilizing the Council fathers themselves as our
sources.
Why is this study necessary? It is often stated that the accusation of
ambiguous Council documents is one invented by traditionalists and used
as a stick with which to beat or diminish Vatican II. Furthermore, in
answering these objections, it is not sufficient to talk about ambiguity
in the Council without being able to document which texts are ambiguous
and what damage this ambiguity can do. Thus, I present to you here a
chronicle of concerns of ambiguity and vagueness in the documents of the
Second Vatican Council from the lips of the Council Fathers themselves.
What we have below is accusations of ambiguity and vagueness, not from
the blog of some Traditionalist representing his own opinion or poorly
formed theological vision, but from the Council Fathers themselves, from
the men who made the Second Vatican Council. These statements are all
taken from the public acts of the Council, during the discussions of the
General Congregations in which the drafts (or schemas) that
woudl become the Vatican II documents were discussed. The
"interventions" of the Council Fathers quoted below are thus part of the
public acts of the Council.
Nor are these fathers obscure; in these citations we will see the heads
of religious orders, like the Irish Dominican Michael Browne;
Archbishops of major sees like Cardinal Siri of Genoa; Cardinal
Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office; even the Karol Wojtyla criticizes
two documents for ambiguity, and none other than Paul VI himself admits
"fundamental contradictions" in the final text of Lumen Gentium,
contradictions that will eventually lead him to publishing an
explanatory note to the document.
The purpose of this collection of citations, then, is to prove two
points:
(1) That the critique of ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II is not
some canard invented and bandied about by traditionalist Catholic
bloggers, but was in fact a substantial charge made against many
conciliar documents by the Council Fathers themselves. It was, and
remains, a legitimate criticism of the documents of the Second Vatican
Council that must be taken seriously since the Council Fathers
themselves took it so seriously.
(2) That to offer this critique does not imply any "denial of the
Council", heterodoxy, or poor taste - if it does, then similar
accusations must be leveled against Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI, John
Paul II,
Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper,
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the hundreds and hundreds of
bishops who all voted non placet on many conciliar documents
and did not thereby become heretics by doing so. What we are dealing
with when looking at the question of ambiguity is a simple
acknowledgement of fact - the documents have inherent ambiguities, and
as much was admitted by scores of Council Fathers.
A few things to keep in mind:
First, to be as accurate as possible in this study, the
following citations from the Council Fathers are taken solely from
sessions three and four of the Council (1964-1965), when the
Council schemas were either complete or very near the forms we know them
today. The purpose of this is to take away the objection that the
Fathers were simply objecting to errors in earlier drafts of the
schemata that were subsequently corrected. All
of the criticisms you read below are criticisms of the documents in
their final or near final incarnations, and most have to do with the
overall tone or nature of the documents, not with specific words or
phrases.
Second, since the ambiguities in the constitution on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium are already very well know, having been
extremely well documented by the late Michael Davies, I have omitted all
critiques of the liturgical documents here, lest it be said that I am
simply reproducing what everybody already knows. The specific objections
below all relate to the remaining council documents, mostly Gaudium
et Spes, Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, and Dei Verbum.
If we were to add the ambiguous "time bombs" documented by Mr. Davies,
as well as further critiques from sessions one and two, this study could
be much more extensive.
A final word on sources: except where otherwise stated, the sources for
these interventions by the Council Fathers were the Acta Synodalia
of the Council, which contains the complete acts of the congregations
and public sessions, the interventions of the fathers, oral and written,
the different versions of the schemas, proposed amendments, and in some
cases, letters sent by council fathers or groups to the pope or
distributed amongst the rest of the fathers. Much of the material taken
here was documented in the excellent reference work The Second
Vatican Council: The Untold Story by Robert de Mattei (Loreto
Publications, 2012).
Lumen Gentium
The major disputes on the document that became Lumen Gentium
was on the issue of collegiality, addressed in Chapter 3. Whereas
traditional ecclesiology held that the pope's infallibility was a
personal prerogative given to the Successor of St. Peter directly by
Christ, the text on collegiality seemed to suggest that the pope held
this grace only by virtue of being head of the Episcopal College; thus,
the true subject of infallibility is the College, and the pope only
exercises it by virtue of being head of that College. This vagueness of
the nature of the pope's infallibility confused many fathers. The nature
of the Blessed Virgin's Mediation was also a topic of controversy, the
ambiguity laying in the source of her mediation: was it due to her
Divine Maternity and relation to her Son, or was it due to her
relationship with the Church as exemplar and model?
*In September 1964,
during the opening of the third session, a group of conservative bishops
presented a document ("Note Addressed to the Holy Father on the Schema
Constitutio De Ecclesia") to Paul VI which expressed "serious
reservations" about the chapter on Chapter 3, saying that the teaching
contained therein was "uncertain" and contained "doctrines and opinions
that are often vague or insufficiently clear in their
terms, their true meanings, or in their aims." The document also called
the teaching of collegiality "a new doctrine, which, until 1958 or
rather 1962, represented only the opinions of a few theologians." The
document was signed by twenty-five cardinals and thirteen
superiors of religious orders, including the Dominicans and the
Jesuits. [1]
*On September 20th, 1964, Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of the Sacred
Congregation of Rites, wrote a letter to Paul VI in which he said
Chapter 3 "cannot help but be profoundly disconcerting"
and stated that "if the Church were to go so far as to accept the
proposed teaching, she would deny her past, and the teaching that she
has upheld until now would automatically accuse her of having failed and
of having acted for centuries against divine law." [2]
*Amazingly, Paul VI himself noted in a letter back to Cardinal Larraona,
dated October 18, 1964, that Chapter 3 of what would become Lumen
Gentium did in fact contain "fundamentally contradictory
statements", and said that these "objections [are] supported in
Our personal opinion." These concerns would later cause Paul VI, not to
amend Lumen Gentium, but to add an explanatory note to the
document. [3]
*On October 28, Cardinal Larraona again addressed Paul VI, saying that
the schema on the Church was still sufficiently vague so as to permit a
variety of interpretations, even heretical ones: "Unless some formulas
are not revised, in many questions disputed among theologians we will
end up taking a position contrary to what has been until now the more
common opinion, reinforced by the Church's magisterium and by its
practice for entire centuries." [4]
*With regards to Chapter 8, what would become the section on the Blessed
Virgin Mary, Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo, said the
schema "obscured" Mary's work in the redemption. [5]
*When the progressive and conservative sides could not come to a
consensus on the nature of Mary's co-mediation, Cardinal Frings of
Cologne suggested a "compromise" that could be supported "either by the
right of the left"; in other words, an ambiguous statement that any
party could find what they want in. This was one of the deliberate
ambiguities later referred to by
Cardinal Kasper. [6]
*Bishop Franic of Split, Croatia, said the document contained doctrinal
error, with propositions "altogether new, unheard-of, and
anomalous" and said the teaching on collegiality constituted "a
serious danger". [7]
*On October 26, 1965, during the discussion of the chapter on the
vocations of religious, Bishop Compagnone of Anagni, speaking for
eighty-five fathers, said that the exhortation to priestly holiness was
unclear and insufficient. [8]
*During the third session, a number of liberal German and Dutch bishops
exchanged letters noting the possibilities that the ambiguous passages
of Lumen Gentium on collegiality would afford them for pushing
their progressive agenda after the Council. These letters were passed on
to Paul VI, who as a direct result, amended the document with his
Nota explicativa praevia.
Nevertheless, despite the explanatory note, confusion abounded on the
meaning of the phrase subsistit in in Lumen Gentium 8 almost
immediately and was the object of "contradictory interpretations" which
were being published within months of the promulgation of the document
in November, 1964. The ambiguity was not resolved until 2007 with the
CDF document of Benedict XVI. The fact that both Paul VI and Benedict
XVI issued explanatory notes is a sure testament to the ambiguity of
this document. [9]
Dignitatis Humanae
Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty was the most
controversial document of the Council and received the least support of
the Council Fathers. Common critiques were that the document was vague
on the distinction between the rights of people to practice the true
faith versus false religions, different forms of coercion, and the
difference between liberty and tolerance. Note the objections to the
document made by Karol Wojtyla.
*On September 16,
1964, a group of nine Latin American bishops wrote to Paul VI to express
reservations about the schema of this document. They mention that the
texts were interwoven with "new and sometimes entirely
unexpected formulations" that "do not seem to preserve the same
sense and same significance as those images used by the Church." Going
into further detail, they wrote, "What seems to us to aggravate the
question is the fact that the schemas' lack of precision
threatens to allow the intrusion of ideas and theories against which the
Apostolic See has not ceased to warn us." [10]
*Speaking on the same schema on September 23, Cardinal Heenan of
Westminster thought the document so ambiguous that it could even be
taken in a sense repugnant to Catholic teaching: "Is it truly possible
that an ecumenical council should say that every heretic has the right
to alienate the faithful from Christ, the Chief Shepherd, and to carry
them to pasture in his poisonous fields?" [11]
Cardinal Ottaviani stated that the document contained "a
substantial omission" in its failure to speak about the liberty
of the faithful to profess the true religion, something that would have
been especially relevant and pastoral given the millions of Catholics
living under communist regimes. [12]
Cardinal Quiroga y Palacios of Santiago de Compostella proposed the
schema on religious liberty be entirely scrapped because of its
ambiguity. Cardinal Michael Browne, Irish Master General of the
Dominicans, supported this objection. [13]
None other than Archbishop karol Wojtyla of Cracow objected to
the document on the grounds that its teaching was not
sufficiently clear that the only real freedom is found in adherence to
the truth. Yes, John Paul II believed Dignitatis Humanae was
ambiguous. [14]
On the eve of the fourth session, Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa and
former head of the Italian Episcopal Conference, sent a letter to Paul
VI, saying the document was "extremely and seriously perplexing." [15]
On September 16, 1965, Bishop Velasco, exiled Ordinary of Hsiamen,
China, stated that the document was unclear enough that it could
be construed to encourage pragmatism, indifferentism, religious
naturalism, and subjectivism. Similar complaints were offered
by three other bishops, as well as by the eminent Bishop Emilio Tagle
Covarrubias of Valparaiso, Chile, who spoke on behalf of
forty-five Latin American bishops. [16]
Cardinal Ottaviani, on September 17, 1965, stated that the document was
vague in that it did not properly distinguish "between physical
restraint and moral restraint, or even more than moral constraint, moral
obligation." [17]
On November 17, 1965, Shortly before the vote on the schema on religious
liberty, the conservative episcopal block Coetus Internationalis
distributed a letter to all of the Council fathers, noting that the
document was distressingly vague on "the criterion determining the
limits of religious liberty." [18]
When the schema that would become Dignitatis Humanae was
finally voted on on November 19, 1965, it received 1,954 fathers in
favor and 249 against, garnering the highest number of negative votes of
any conciliar document. [19]
Dei Verbum
While Dignitatis Humanae may have been the most controversial,
Dei Verbum undoubtedly went through the most revisions. It was
the first schema proposed at the first session in 1962 and was revised
multiple times, not being ratified until session four. The fundamental
problem with Dei Verbum was on the sources of revelation:
tradition spoke of two sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition)
while Dei Verbum spoke of a single source which was passed on
in two forms. The ambiguity, then, centered on the nature of tradition.
Was tradition a constitutive element of revelation, or merely
explicative? That is, did tradition itself constitute part of
revelation, or was it merely a lens used to interpret revelation, which
basically means Scripture? The continuous work that went into Dei
Verbum ensured that the compromise document was full of questions
and ambiguities, such as the debate about inspiration "for the sake of
our salvation" in Chapter 11.
*Bishop Schroeffer of
Eichstatt stated that Dei Verbum was a disappointing,
compromise, "the result of a laborious struggle", "a compromise with all
of the disadvantages that a compromise entails." [20]
*On September 30, 1964, during the third session, Cardinal Ruffini of
Palermo said that he was "amazed" at the omissions in Dei Verbum."
[21]
*Bishop Franic of Split in Croatia noted that, while the document did
not contain any error, it was "notably deficient"
because "it did not present the integral tradition." [22]
*Luigi Maria Carli, Archbishop of Gaeta, said the document was
unclear on the historicity of the Gospels. He called this a "serious
defect"and said "Tradition is not sufficiently respected in
Chapter 3...It is deplorable that this schema says nothing about the
veracity of the Gospels concerning Christ's infancy and the
post-Resurrection." [23]
*Shortly before the document was approved, and when it was in its final
form, Cardinal Siri of Genoa wrote to Paul VI, warning that Dei
Verbum "leaves to be desired a greater clarity
concerning the constitutive tradition" [24]
Despite all of these objections, there were no more revisions
of the text. The schema was approved at the beginning of the
fourth session between September 20-22, 1965.
Gaudium et Spes
Gaudium et Spes, originally referred to simply as "Schema XIII", was the
subject of some biting criticisms by the Council Fathers, who castigated
the document as being a pile of banalities, too wordy, confusing, overly
optimistic, imbibed with the spirit of secular humanism, and dangerously
confusing. Note Cardinal Heenan's bitter criticism of the document as
laughable and unworthy of an ecumenical council.
*On March 20, 1965,
Cardinal Ruffini said of Gaudium et Spes: "There are
things that are said wrongly or at least that I do not understand"
and that the implication that human nature arose as a result of gradual
processes "is contrary to the Church's doctrine." [25]
*The strongest words against the problems with the document came from
Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster. He said Gaudium et Spes was "unworthy
of an ecumenical council of the Church" and stated "It would be
better to say nothing rather than these banalities and these empty
words...This pitiful schema will make the world laugh...Even
when completed with additions, it would remain insufficient and
ambiguous. Without the additions, then, it would be downright
harmful." [26]
*Cardinal Ruffini, speaking of the section that would become Part II,
Chapter 1 of Gaudium et Spes on marriage and the family, said
the document's language on spouses' responsibility to regulate the
number of children was "obscure, and full of extremely dangerous
ambiguities." [27]
*Monsignor Philippe Delhaye, a periti, called the document "a
synthesis holding a middle position between two tendencies", in
which both "tendencies" could find justification for their positions.
[28]
*In a September, 1965 letter to Paul VI, Cardinal Siri of Genoa said
Gaudium et Spes was "profoundly perplexing and
frightening" and feared "that the Christian people may be scandalized"
when reading the document. [29]
*On December 3, 1965, shortly before the final vote on Gaudium et
Spes, the episcopal bloc Coetus Internationalis Patrum,
representing around 80 cardinals and bishops, sent a text to all the
Council fathers urging them to vote against the document because of its
ambiguous positions on the ends of matrimony, conscientious objection,
and total war. [30]
*Archbishop Wojtyla also criticized the document strongly for not
relating human fulfillment to Christ in strong enough terms; in other
words, the document's statements on human happiness were too vague. [31]
*Even Cardinal Lercaro, a moderate liberal, called the whole document
into question and said it was riddled with "defects and
ambiguities" and criticized the document's "naturalistic
optimism." [32] This is not too dissimilar from the critique Benedict
XVI would make years later (see
here).
*Cardinal Frings, one of the major liberals of the Council, also asked
for the text to be completely redone because of the "dangerous
confusion" it caused in confounding human progress with
supernatural salvation. [33]
*Cardinal Ruffini, speaking on September 29, 1965, stated that the
section on birth-control and population would sow doubts and confusion
among wedded couples. [34]
As with Dei Verbum, the fundamental issues addressed in these
critiques went unresolved.
Unitatis Redintegratio
The charge of vagueness against the schema on ecumenism is essentially
the same one that has been repeated ever since: by over-emphasizing the
"elements of truth and sanctification" found in other Christian
ecclesial groups, the necessity of formal membership in the Catholic
Church is downplayed to the point of confusion, leading to
indifferentism.
*Monsignor Gherardini, theology Professor at the Pontifical Lateran University and editor of the theological journal Divinitas, said the ambiguity in the document left it "decidedly open to syncretism". [35]
Nostra Aetate
While there was much discussion on whether or not to have a schema that
treated of non-Christian religion, most debate was not on potential
ambiguities, but on the question of whether or not to include the word
"deicide" with reference to the Jews and the death of Christ.
Nevertheless, a serious charge of ambiguity was leveled against the
document on the question of whether the necessity of Jews to convert to
Christianity was sufficiently addressed.
*On October 11, 1965, Cardinal Browne, Master General of the Dominicans, opined that the statements on the Jews in the schema on non-Christian religions could be misinterpreted to give the impression that "the perseverance of the Jews in Judaism is without fault", thus encouraging indifferentism. [36]
Conclusion
As anyone can see, the documents of the Second Vatican Council were
problematic from their inception, and this much was admitted by the
Council Fathers. While they all had their own concerns, questions and
difficulties, the theme that connected them all was ambiguity, expressed
in such terms as "lack of clarity", "greater precision needed",
"insufficiently clear", "lacking distinction", "perplexing", and so on.
This was the opinion of a great many of the Council Fathers, even some
of the liberals and (in the case of Lumen Gentium), Paul VI
himself.
Given this straightforward evidence, this obvious matter of fact, it is
no longer tenable for anyone to assert that the charges of ambiguity in
conciliar documents is a recent invention by Traditionalists, nor that
it is without merit or unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the documents
of the Second Vatican Council do contain problematic ambiguities that
need to be addressed and remedied. It does not detract from the validity
or authority of the Council to simply admit this; many Council Fathers
admitted it, and they did not consider it disobedient or schismatic to
do so. Rather, they saw it as their duty as bishops to ensure that the
faith was expounded in the most clear, precise, and easy to understand
manner as possible. In posting these citations from these same fathers,
we do so hoping the problems that went unheeded in 1962-65 will one day
be satisfactorily addressed.
NOTES
[1] "Nota personalmente riservate", cited in G. Caprile, Contributo
alla storia della "Nota explocativa praevia," op. cit.,
596
[2] ibid., 620
[3] ibid., 622-623
[4] ibid., 649
[5] AS, III/1:440-441
[6] AS, III:2:10-11
[7] AS III/2:199
[8] AS IV/5:197-199
[9] Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: The Unwritten
Story, 419
[10] AS, VI/3:339-340
[11] AS III/2:611-612
[12] AS III/2:375-376
[13] AS III/2:357-359 and 470-471
[14] AS III/2:530-532
[15] AS V/3:352
[16] AS IV/1:274-277 and 252-254
[17] AS V/1:299-300
[18] Mattei, 445
[19] AS IV/7:95-96
[20] Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, 175
[21] AS III/3:142-145
[22] AS III/3:124-129
[23] AS III/3:187-188
[24] AS V/3:354
[25] AS III/5:220-223
[26] AS III/5:319
[27] AS III/6:52-54
[28] Vatican II; L'Eglise dans le monde de ce temps, quoted in
Mattei, 397
[29] AS V/3:353
[30] Mattei, 483
[31] ibid., 448
[32] AS IV/2:28-33
[33] AS IV/2:406
[34] AS IV/3:18
[35] B. Gherardini, The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, 232
[36] AS V/2:645