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

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

DEADLOCK AND SOLUTION

It was not hard to predict that the schema on the sources of revelation would run into serious trouble on the Council floor. Its opponents, led by Father Schillebeeckx and the Dutch bishops, had been agitating against it outside the Council hall for over a month. Although the Preparatory Commission which had drawn up the document had included liberals like Bishop John Wright of Pittsburgh, Bishop Joseph Schroffer of Eachstatt, and Monsignor Gerard Philips of Louvain, the schema was regarded as bearing the stamp of Cardinal Ottaviani and Father Sebastian Tromp. The latter, though Dutch and a Jesuit, was placed second only to Cardinal Ottaviani as a champion of conservatism. Cardinal Ottaviani had chosen him to be secretary of the Preparatory Theological Commission, and had appointed him to the same post in the Theological Commission of the Council.

A number of lectures had been organized during the first month of the Council, featuring eminent liberal theologians, and these had been well attended by Council Fathers. The lecturers pointed to the weaknesses in the schema, charging that it was too negative, too aggressive, too intolerant, too one-sided, and altogether outmoded. It lacked a pastoral tone, they said, condemned good Catholic authors by quoting them out of context, and was marked by a number of theological errors. One of the main objections was that it recognized two sources of revelation instead of one.

The schema on the sources of revelation was presented by Cardinal Ottaviani on November 14. It was his first appearance in the Council hall since he had been silenced by Cardinal Alfrink two weeks earlier. He spoke of the pastoral value of the schema, and said that it was the first duty of every shepherd of souls to teach the truth, which always and everywhere remained the same. He then introduced Monsignor Salvatore Garofalo, another well-known conservative, and had him read the introductory report on the schema. Monsignor Garofalo had been a member of the Theological Preparatory Commission, and had been retained by Cardinal Ottaviani as a consultant to the Theological Commission of the Council.

Monsignor Garofalo, who was not a Council Father, said that the primary task of the Council was to defend and promote Catholic doctrine in its most precise form. There was no question of a renewal of doctrine, he said, but only of a closer study and knowledge of existing doctrine. He described the thorough work which had gone into the preparation of the schema, and pointed out that learned men from many nations and various universities had contributed to it. He then explained briefly the contents of the five chapters.

The reaction from the Council floor was swift and deadly. Cardinal Alfrink of Holland, Cardinal Frings of Germany, Cardinal Bea of the Curia, Cardinal Konig of Austria, Cardinal Lienart of France, Leo Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, Cardinal Leger of Canada, Joseph Cardinal Ritter of the United States, and Patriarch Maximos IV all categorically expressed their dissatisfaction with the schema. They were supported by Archbishop Adrianus Soegijapranata of Semarang, president of the episcopal conference of Indonesia, who said that he was speaking on behalf of all the bishops of his country. He attacked not only the schema on the sources of revelation, but the other three dogmatic constitutions as well, saying that none of them corresponded to the pastoral preoccupations of the Council. Since the vast majority of the bishops of Indonesia were Dutch, and since their chosen theological adviser was the Dutch Jesuit, Father Peter Smulders, who vehemently opposed the four dogmatic constitutions, the position of the Indonesian hierarchy was not unexpected.

Cardinal Siri of Genoa and Fernando Cardinal Quiroga y Palacios of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, expressed general satisfaction with the schema, saying only that it required certain amendments. The only speaker to express complete satisfaction with the text as it stood was Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini of Palermo, Italy. He then called attention to an alternative text which was being circulated among Council Fathers, and asked, "By what authority?”

A rival schema was in fact circulating. It was in mimeographed form, headed by the following statement: “Since it appears impossible for the Council to discuss all the schemas and vote on them, it would seem necessary to omit some and to shorten others and combine them. Therefore the presidents of the episcopal conferences of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Holland make bold to propose as a basis for discussion the following compendium of material from the first two schemas. These are here presented in a more positive and pastoral tone.”

A group of Council Fathers from Latin America—that was how they identified themselves—put out a two-page statement attacking the first two dogmatic constitutions. “These two schemas,” it stated, ‘ as they stand, contradict the purpose of this Council. They lag behind the present stage of progress in theology and the study of Sacred Scripture, they do not correspond to the present stage of ecumenism, they fall short of the expectations of the modern world, and they are lacking in clarity of doctrine.” Each of these five points was elaborated, and the following conclusion stated: “It is clear that these two schemas are no answer to modern theological and pastoral needs. Therefore, let them be completely rewritten along the lines of these observations.”

At the twentieth General Congregation, on November 16, the tempest continued in full force. Nine of the twenty-one speakers sought to defend the schema by suggesting amendments to it. Two dared speak out in praise of the schema. Realizing the drama of the situation, one of them said that he felt like Daniel in the lions’ den. Nine other speakers revived previously stated objections or brought up new ones. They demanded that the schema in its present form be rejected and replaced by another. Some of them proposed the appointment of a special committee to draw up a new schema, such a committee not to be restricted to one school of thought.

At the twenty-first General Congregation, Cardinal Dopfner, who had been one of the sixty-seven cardinals on the Central Preparatory Commission, remarked that some of the Council Fathers had begun to wonder how it was that members of the Theological Preparatory Commission and the Central Preparatory Commission were so vehemently attacking a schema which they had previously approved. He explained that things had not been so very peaceful at the meetings of the preparatory commissions. “The same objections that are being made now on the Council floor were made then,” he said, “but they were simply set aside.”

Cardinal Ottaviani rose, unannounced, to protest against this statement. He reminded the Council Fathers, further, that canon law prohibited the rejection of schemas which had been approved by the Pope. Whereupon Norman Cardinal Gilroy of Sydney, Australia, who was presiding, pointed out that under Article 33, Section 1, of the Rules of Procedure governing the Council, schemas could in fact be rejected. The section read: “Every Council Father is permitted to speak on every schema proposed, and may accept it, or reject it, or amend it.” Once again. Cardinal Ottaviani sat down in defeat.

Of the eighteen speakers at the stormy twenty-second General Congregation, two defended the schema, seven called for major changes in the text, and nine rejected it completely.

Great concern was expressed over the apparent deadlock. It was suggested that discussion of the schema be postponed to the second session. Auxiliary Bishop Alfred Ancel of Lyons thought that the Pope might wish to assign some additional experts from the opposing school of thought to prepare a completely new schema.

At this point Bishop Emile De Smedt of Bruges, Belgium, took the floor on behalf of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. “Numerous Council Fathers,” he said, “have shown a truly ecumenical preoccupation in their examination of the schema on the sources of revelation. All sincerely and positively desire that the schema should foster unity. Views differ, however, some saying that it meets the requirements of ecumenism, and others saying that it does not. In order that you may better judge the matter, perhaps you would be pleased to hear from our Secretariat what precisely is required before a proposal can be designated ecumenical. Our Secretariat, as you know, was established by the Supreme Pontiff in order to assist the Council Fathers in examining the various texts from the viewpoint of ecumenism.”

Bishop De Smedt recalled that although his Secretariat had offered its assistance to the Theological Preparatory Commission, that body, “for reasons which I have no right to judge,” had not accepted the proffered assistance. “We proposed the formation of a joint commission, but the Theological Preparatory Commission answered that this was not opportune. Thus it was the Theological Preparatory Commission alone that took upon itself the most difficult task of giving an ecumenical character to our schema. With what success?”

He concluded with a dramatic plea: “We who have received from the Holy Father the task of working in this Council toward the happy establishment of dialogue with our non-Catholic brethren beg all of you. Venerable Fathers, to hear what the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity thinks of the proposed schema. As we see it, the schema is lacking notably in the ecumenical spirit. It does not constitute an advance in dialogue with non-Catholics, but an obstacle. I would go even further and say that it causes harm. ... If the schemas prepared by the Theological Preparatory Commission are not drafted in a different manner, we shall be responsible for having crushed, through the Second Vatican Council, a great and immense hope. That hope is shared by all those who, with Pope John XXIII, in prayer and fasting expect that now finally some serious and notable steps will be taken in the direction of fraternal unity among all those for whom Christ our Lord prayed ‘that all may be one.’ ”

As he stepped away from the microphone, the assembly broke out in thunderous applause.

At the twenty-third General Congregation, on the following day, seven speakers voiced approval of the schema, four approved but suggested amendments, and two insisted on its rejection.

By this time, eighty-five Council Fathers had spoken on the schema as a whole, and the Secretary General intervened to point out that the time had come to examine the individual chapters. However, he said, since a number of Council Fathers had expressed objections to the form of the schema, the Council Presidency considered it advisable to request a vote whereby each Council Father might in conscience make known his opinion in the matter. The question to be voted on was: Should the discussion of the schema on the sources of revelation be interrupted?

A total of 2209 Council Fathers voted. Of this number, 1368, or 62 per cent, voted in favor of interrupting the discussion; 822, or 37 per cent, against; and 19, or 1 per cent, submitted invalid ballots. Since the Rules of Procedure required a two-thirds majority for the adoption of a proposal, the Council Fathers who wished to interrupt the discussion were technically defeated, and the discussion on the schema as it stood would have to continue.

Efforts were now made to bypass the Rules of Procedure, which, in the words of Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, Italy, had led to “the absurd position of making the vote of a rather small minority prevail over that of a strong majority.” He called this “an evident weakness” in the Rules of Procedure.

On the following day. Archbishop Felici read a communicatio the Secretary of State, which said that the Pope had taken into consideration the various views manifested in the interventions of the preceding days. These had led him to foresee a laborious and prolonged discussion of the schema. It therefore seemed to him useful to have the schema revised by a special commission before the discussion was resumed. This special commission on revision should include all Council Fathers on the Theological Commission and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The task of the commission would be to revise the schema, shorten it, and bring out in greater relief the principles of Catholic teaching already treated at Trent and Vatican I. The commission was to present the revised schema to the Council Fathers once more for their study. In place of the present schema, the next General Congregation would take up the discussion of the schema on communications media.

The victory of the conservatives had been short-lived. The liberals had won the election encounter; they had won the debate on liturgy; and now they had won the debate on revelation. They became increasingly conscious of the strength of their numbers. And the conservatives became gradually less sure of their position.

Four days later, L’Osservatore Romano announced the composition of the new commission on revision on its front page. The reference was no longer to the schema on the sources of revelation, but to the schema on divine revelation. This seemed to confirm that the liberal camp, which opposed the notion of two sources of revelation, had prevailed. The new commission on revision had two presidents, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea. Six cardinals had also been added, among them Cardinals Frings and Lienart.