Roman Catholic theologians like the phrase “unity in diversity” to signify their singleness of faith and diversity of opinion. But as scheduled adjournment drew nigh, the emphasis in Vatican Council II appeared to be on the diversity.
True, the council had begun discussion of a schema on ecumenism. The introduction to the schema, which has five chapters, including a declaration on religious liberty, affirms that “the Unity of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit is the principle and the supreme model of the mystery of the unity of the Church.”
Other recent developments in council sessions and at conferences behind the scenes, however, tended to divert attention from the church’s proposed expression of joy over the spread of ecumenism.
For one thing, the doctrine of infallibility—admittedly a major stumbling block in the path to reunion with the “separated brethren”—had been dropped squarely into the midst of a council discussion, with almost complete irrelevancy, in the opinion of some theologians.
For another, a German cardinal had directed a pointed attack at the procedures of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, citadel of conservatism in the Roman Curia, and had evoked an even more barbed defense from the cardinal-secretary of the Holy Office.
There had been other outright demands for “decentralization” of the church’s administrative power, and so much acerbity had been displayed that a cardinal had spoken sadly of the need to “tolerate no shadow of division.”
Four American cardinals divided evenly on the question of juridical or legally binding powers for national conferences of bishops. Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, had returned to the United States and took no part in the debate.
The discussion of ecumenism began amid a veritable welter of reports and rumors—of threats by Curia officials to resign; of conferences and special audiences granted by the Pope; of petitions submitted to the Pontiff; and of statements issued by various council fathers.
It was in this atmosphere that Vatican Council II began discussion of ecumenism—the movement and activity which has church unity as its goal.
The diversity had been present from the opening of the session last September, but it became an issue only when the four cardinal-moderators appointed by Pope Paul proposed that the council vote on four guidelines, or directives (a fifth was added later), to assist the council’s Theological Commission in revising a chapter of the schema De Ecclesia treating the hierarchy.
What happened behind the scenes may never be known accurately, but many days elapsed before the proposals were brought to a vote. Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. 74-year-old secretary of the Congregation of the Holy Office, is also president of the Theological Commission. He subsequently made it clear that he was incensed because the moderators had bypassed his commission and submitted the guidelines directly to the council, which clearly indicated its approval of the “short cut” and of the principle of decentralization.
A few days later, Joseph Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne, Germany, who is seventy-six years old and a recognized leader of the progressives in the council, took sharp exception to the idea that the moderators should have submitted their proposals first to the Theological Commission.
From that point of departure he extended his criticism to the Holy Office. As his remarks were summarized officially for the press. Cardinal Frings said:
“No Roman Congregation should have authority to accuse, judge, and condemn an individual who has had no opportunity to defend himself. With all due reverence and gratitude for the devoted individuals who spend their lives in the difficult work of the Holy Office we feel that its methods should be basically revised.
Billy Graham At Belmont Abbey
Evangelist Billy Graham made headlines by accepting his first invitation to speak at a Roman Catholic institution, and he chose the occasion to preach “a straight Gospel sermon.”
The 1,500-seat gymnasium of Belmont Abbey College near Charlotte, North Carolina, was packed to capacity to hear the Baptist minister call for personal commitment to Christ and to warn against a “second-hand faith.” Included in the audience were Belmont Abbey’s 600 students and novices as well as its faculty, plus students, priests, nuns, and monks from nearby Protestant and Catholic institutions.
Graham cited passages in the writings of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen that assert the principle of the New Birth. He also quoted an Eastern monk whose book insists on a similarly personal relationship with Christ.
Graham issued an implicit invitation at the close of his 35-minute address but did not ask students to step forward or raise hands. He usually foregoes this practice at educational institutions unless the sermon is part of an evangelistic crusade.
Graham was invited to the college by a student organization and was introduced by a student leader. Following Graham’s address, the Very Rev. John Oetgen, college president, noted that his school had been praised for being the first Roman Catholic institution to invite the evangelist. “But after hearing your talk,” the priest declared, “we should be blamed for having waited so long.”
Graham took several minutes at the beginning of his address to discuss Vatican Council II. He said he considered his first message to a Catholic institution “a very important part of my ministerial career.”
George Whitefield said in another era: “If the Pope invites me to Rome to preach. I’ll go.” Billy Graham probably would, too.
“It would be advisable to diminish substantially the number of bishops working in Curial offices. No one should be consecrated bishop just in order to honor him or the office he holds. If a man is consecrated bishop, then he should be bishop and nothing else. No one is ever ordained to the priesthood as a mark of honor or gratitude. Not a few of the tasks of the Roman Curia could be performed by laymen. Consequently, efforts should be made to use fewer bishops, fewer priests, and more laymen.”
Before Cardinal Ottaviani could reply, the tall, dignified Laurian Cardinal Rugambwa, Bishop of Bukoba, rose to declare that the social structure of modern times and a genuinely “redemptional” vision of the entire world call for establishment of a permanent body of bishops in Rome. The council, he said, has a duty as well as a right to make possible such an establishment.
As envisioned by many bishops, such a “senate” of bishops would supersede the Curia in administrative authority.
Permanent representation of the world’s bishops in Rome is involved to a degree in the extent of the powers to be granted—or “restored,” as some theologians insist—to the national conferences of bishops. Given judicial powers, the conferences would have fewer problems to refer to Rome—to a permanent council of bishops, or to the Roman Curia.
The fiery but nearly blind Cardinal Ottaviani minced no words in his reply. A theologian who was present remarked later:
“The cardinal seemed to me to be pretty mad!”
The criticism of the Holy Office, the cardinal said, according to an official summary of his remarks, proceeded “from lack of knowledge, not to use a stronger term, of the procedures of this Sacred Congregation.”
Cardinal Ottaviani categorically denied that anyone had ever been “accused, judged and condemned without a thorough previous investigation carried on with the help of competent consultors and experienced specialists.” However, a distinguished theologian said later that he knew of two persons who had been condemned without being given opportunity to defend themselves.
The cardinal followed long-established custom in noting that “all decisions of the Holy Office are approved by the Pope personally, and thus such criticisms are a reflection on the Vicar of Christ.”
However, he himself sharply criticized the cardinal-moderators—personally appointed by Pope Paul—for submitting the five points to the council without first having them reviewed and approved by the Theological Commission.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, carefully avoided since the start of the session because it is recognized as an irritant in efforts to promote ecumenism, was injected into the debate on bishops’ powers by James Francis A. Cardinal McIntyre, Archbishop of Los Angeles. Opposing juridical powers for national bishops’ conferences. Cardinal McIntyre said, according to the official summary:
“Wanting to give a national conference juridical character could be interpreted as an attack on the Roman Curia and thus an indirect attack on the infallibility of the Pope. This proposal brings clouds on the horizon. No one knows better than the Pope how to provide for the needs of the Church. His natural talents are elevated by supernatural protection which make him the one best qualified to understand problems and find their solutions.”
Francis Joseph Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, also opposed the granting to bishops’ conferences of “authority to issue decisions which would be juridically binding on all individual bishops.”
Albert Gregory Cardinal Meyer, Archbishop of Chicago, and Joseph Cardinal Ritter, Archbishop of St. Louis, spoke in favor of granting juridical powers in varying degrees.
Dr. Lorenz Jaeger, Archbishop of Paderborn, discussing papal infallibility in an article in Echo der Zeit on the Ecumenical Council, wrote:
“If the Pope acts alone to decide questions of faith or to introduce measures of reform, then this divine assistance (infallibility) will indeed protect him against any error in doctrine. But it is not necessarily the case that he will hit upon the best possible formulation of a doctrine, or that he will institute the most effective possible reforms, such as will be most beneficial in given circumstances. The cooperation of the episcopate gathered together in council will often bring to light points of view of which the Pope had not thought.”
It was pointed out in council circles that an individual bishop who wished to follow a certain course of action might find it easier to convince key members of the Roman Curia, or even the Pontiff himself if he were granted a special audience, than to persuade several hundred fellow bishops in a national conference of the wisdom of his course.
