Today, 50 years after the opening of Vatican II, the
misinterpretation of one of its most salient documents, Lumen Gentium,
continues to drive a number of Catholics in the United States into one of two
camps, the “right” or the “left.”
Fifty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the
Church in the United States is in the throes of a struggle. Loyal Catholics are
showing renewed vigor and vitality, and are helping the Church to move forward
in unity. At the same time, the Church is also being exhausted and drained from
within by a vocal movement of other Catholics who continue to dissent from
Church teachings, particularly the teachings of the Second Vatican
Council.
Dissent is entrenched in the Church in the U.S.
For most
American Catholics over 50, it is an accepted fact that dissent from the
magisterium of the Church is widespread, tolerated, and, in some quarters, even
welcomed. The breaking point, of course, was Paul VI’s 1968 prophetic
encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception as
“intrinsically disordered.” The encyclical became one of the most
controversial documents of the century, if not many centuries. The widespread
dissent by Catholics was led with enthusiasm by huge numbers of Catholic
theologians, professors and intellectuals. The onslaught of bright, articulate
academics turning on the Pope encouraged many Catholics in the pews to do the
same.
Why would so many educated Catholics—who should have been ready and able to
defend the teaching authority of the Church—turn against the Pope with such
force? How could they justify it?
The most popular argument was that permission to dissent had been given by
none other than the Second Vatican Council.
The dissenters claimed that
“the spirit of Vatican II,” along with theological perspectives of the Council,
supported their argument that individual Catholics have a right to dissent from
“non-infallible” Church teachings—even authoritative encyclicals like
Paul VI’s “
Humanae Vitae”—if they felt they had a good enough
reason.
Unfortunately, this false notion was unwittingly given a boost by
none other than the bishops of the United States. On November 15, 1968, a few
months after the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, the bishops issued their
pastoral letter, “Human Life in Our Day,” to help Catholics interpret the Pope’s
encyclical. The bishops said in no. 51 of that document that in some cases, a
Catholic could dissent from “non-infallible authentic doctrine” of the
magisterium. They explained: “The expression of theological dissent
from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and
well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the
teaching authority of the Church, and is such as not to give scandal.”
So, the bishops did approve of limited dissent from papal teaching in faith
and morals.
This position was given even more credence later by the powerful and widely
quoted Cardinal Bernardin when he was Archbishop of Chicago. Shortly before his
death in 1996, Cardinal Bernardin initiated his Catholic Common Ground Project,
to bring factions of the church together in “dialogue.”
According to a
Nov. 14, 1996, article in Origins (pp. 353-356), the axis of Cardinal
Bernardin’s legacy was the belief that “limited and occasional dissent” from the
magisterium of the Church was “legitimate.”
But what did Vatican II really teach?So, the
intellectual community and even the high-ranking Church leaders were reinforcing
the idea that dissent from Church teachings was to be expected, even
welcomed—and that permission to do so came straight from Vatican II.
However, had they really read the documents of Vatican II?
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),
no. 25, presents a far different answer from the dissenters. This carefully
reasoned Vatican II document states that, even though the bishops of the
Catholic Church are not individually infallible, they do teach infallibly the
Church’s doctrines of faith and morals “when, gathered together in an ecumenical
council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal
Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of
faith.”
What could be clearer?
Lumen Gentium, no. 25, explicitly states that
one such case of the bishops teaching infallibly is when they teach a matter of
faith and morals in “an ecumenical council.” Vatican II was “an ecumenical
Council.” The Council also taught in no. 25 of
Lumen Gentium that these
definitions of the bishops on matters of faith and morals must be held with a
“religious assent.” Furthermore: “This religious submission of mind and will
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman
Pontiff, even when he is not speaking
ex cathedra …”
The Council goes on to explain this required assent to the Pope’s non-
ex
cathedra teaching: “…that is, it must be shown in such a way that his
supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him
are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” But how does
one know the Pope’s “manifest mind and will?” Again, the Council clarifies it by
saying that: “… His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the
character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,
or from his manner of speaking.”
Clearly according to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council there
is no room for dissent from even the non-ex-cathedra or “non-infallible”
decisions of the Pope on matters of faith and morals—not even “limited and
occasional” dissent. This means that there is no room for dissent from
the Pope’s teaching on contraception in
Humanae Vitae. A Catholic,
therefore, who would maintain that one could dissent from a non-
ex
cathedra or non-infallible decision of a pope, would be implicitly
dissenting from Lumen Gentium no. 25 and the Second Vatican Council itself.
The occasion for the misunderstandingAlthough
Lumen
Gentium, no. 25, speaks clearly, it should not come as a surprise that it
was misinterpreted. Part of the confusion arose from an interpretation of Paul
VI’s statement about the authority of the decisions of the Council. As found in
vol. 11 of The Pope Speaks, Paul VI stated in “After the Council: New
Tasks,”
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary
statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it
still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary
magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to
be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with
the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual
documents.
For the dissenters, the Pope’s careful parsing of the Council’s mission—to
avoid “any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note
of infallibility”—was apparently just enough of a loophole to keep the fires of
their argument alive.
However, note that the Council titled
Lumen Gentium, as the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.
That indicates that the “nature” of
Lumen Gentium is “dogmatic” per
se
, and its “aim” is to point out to Catholics those dogmas of divine
faith which have always been part of the belief of the Church!
So, while there are no “extraordinary” dogmas in Vatican II, there are
ordinary dogmas which are drawn from Scripture, Tradition, or previous teachings
of the magisterium. Thus, even though the Pope and the Council did not exercise
their infallible authority to teach
Lumen Gentium, the contents
(teachings) in
Lumen Gentium are, by their very sources, clearly
dogmatic. Thus, each Catholic must accept no. 25 of
Lumen Gentium as a
matter of faith, even though the form of the document
itself is not infallible.
Of course, the fact remains that none of the documents of Vatican II are
taught
ex cathedra. Therefore, none of the teachings of Vatican II are
formally pronounced as dogmas by the Second Vatican Council itself. So, very
strictly speaking, a person can dissent from Vatican II
itself
without being a formal heretic. However, to dissent from an ecumenical council
is no small matter. To put it informally, one may avoid being a heretic, but
still may be a “bad” Catholic.
Ordinary counciliar self-verification is not enoughHow
did this confusion take root? It can best be explained as rising from the
concept of conciliar self-verification. In other words, the Second Vatican
Council teaches that the fathers at an “ecumenical council” are teachers of
faith and morals, and their “definitions must be adhered to with the submission
of faith.” The problem is, the ecumenical council making this statement is
itself an ecumenical council—and, therefore, is making statements about itself
and not making it with the highest authority, i.e.,
ex cathedra.
In other words, one might say this is the conciliar version of chasing one’s
own theological tail. The fallout has been that, for several generations of
Catholics, from academics and Church leaders to the laity in the pews, the
lasting impression is, “Vatican II said it was okay to disagree with the
Pope.”
Thus began the era of “taking sides.” It was as if the Catholic faith became
no more than a grand game—Pope and established Church teachings versus the
dissenters—and individual Catholics could simply pick which team to root for.
Some called themselves liberals (the “left”) while others called themselves
conservatives (the “right.”) Each group dissented from Vatican II, but for
different reasons.
Many liberal nuns in the U.S., for example, continue to sympathize with
anti-life groups that claim they are helping the poor by promoting the poor’s
right to funds for abortion and contraception. They claim to be supporting
social justice by defending, or, at least, sympathizing with, the gay agenda.
They are especially vocal in demanding that the Church ordain women to the
priesthood—even after John Paul II informed them that the Church teaching on an
all male priesthood is infallible and, therefore, cannot be changed.
On the other hand, the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre, continues to err on the side of utter conservative rigidity. They
reject the Second Vatican Council as a movement of the Holy Spirit, and cling to
the minutiae of 500-year-old rituals as necessary, for their own sake. The
change of the liturgy from Latin to English, or the vernacular of each
particular country, is their most well-known objection.
Therefore, today, 50 years after the opening of Vatican II, the
misinterpretation of one of its most salient documents,
Lumen Gentium,
continues to drive a number of Catholics in the United States into one of two
camps, the “right” or the “left.”
However, the age of confusion may be coming to an end. According to a July,
2012, article in Catholic World Report, the widespread errors that had grown up
about papal authority was addressed head-on by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller,
the newly-appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith.
“We also have the problem of groups—of the right and the left, as is usually
said—which take up much of our time and our attention,” Archbishop Müller was
quoted as saying. “Here, the danger easily arises of losing sight of our main
task, which is to proclaim the Gospel and to explain concretely the doctrine of
the Church.”
The archbishop was clear: dissenters do not belong solely to one camp or the
other, despite the fact that each one would claim it to be so. Rather,
dissenting Catholics on both the “right” and on the “left” are soaking up the
energy of the Church by demanding attention to grievances and stifling the
apostolate.
A clear path aheadOne way out of this dilemma is clear
and simple. Obviously, the Second Vatican Council’s self-verification of
Lumen Gentium, no. 25, was not sufficient to bring about the hoped for
unity in faith and morals in the Church.
Therefore,
Lumen Gentium, no. 25, should be verified outside of the
Second Vatican Council. This could come either by the Pope, using his infallible
authority to define
Lumen Gentium, no. 25, as ex cathedra, or by
another ecumenical council doing so. Given the deep, lasting errors which
inadvertently took root after Vatican II—clearly, a great Council which has been
unfairly besmirched by controversy—is it too much to think that the solution may
be another, clarifying Council, perhaps Vatican III?
Some may argue that requiring all Catholics, even theologians, to make an
absolute assent to
Lumen Gentium, no.25, to remain in the Church would
be severe. It would be a retreat from the spirit of John XXIII’s promise, which
he made when he opened Vatican II in 1962, that the worldwide Council would use
“the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.” In other words, the
Church would guide her flock without condemnations”—known in earlier centuries
as the much dreaded “
anathema sit” (“let him be excommunicated”).
However, if this confusion is faced, either through a ringing papal document,
or the dramatic convening of a new Council, the outcome will absolutely follow
Pope John XXIII’s call for “mercy rather than severity.”
Consider that it is Mercy itself for the Church to clearly proclaim her true
nature and teaching authority. If she puts an end to the confusion of several
generations, she can turn her entire strength and authority to attract people to
the Catholic faith. And by doing so, how can we not say that she will be
extending the Mercy of Christ himself?
As Christ said, “The Truth will set you free”—and what greater act of mercy
is there, than to free those enslaved by error? Finally, dissenters on both the
“right” and the “left” will have the Truth clearly presented to them, so that
they can freely decide whether or not they are going to join the Church’s
mission into the future.
The beauty of this approach is that no one needs to be explicitly condemned.
The proclamation would be equivalent to the definition of “papal infallibility”
or the “Immaculate Conception” or the “Assumption.” It would be a dogma defining
the Church. A person who could not assent to
Lumen Gentium, no. 25,
would finally know—clearly and without equivocation—that they are no longer
Catholic. The decision would be theirs.
Will this happen?
We have reason to hope. Perhaps, the first inklings
of a definitive move by the Church came in the words of Archbishop Gerhard
Ludwig Müller, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Asked by an interviewer, “What do you think of the discussions with the
Lefebvrists, and with the religious sisters of the United States?” The
archbishop replied: “There are no negotiations on the Word of God, and one
cannot “believe and not believe” at the same time. One cannot pronounce the
three religious vows, and then not take them seriously. I cannot make reference
to the tradition of the Church, and then accept it only in some of its
parts.”
The Archbishop went on to say: “The path of the Church leads ahead, and all
are invited not to enclose themselves in a self-referential way of thinking, but
rather to accept the full life and the full faith of the Church.”
In the archbishop’s words are the seeds of rebirth, a rooting out of error,
and the beginning of a new era of faith.
About Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.