The Jim Carrey Thesis of Vatican II

[Elijah_Baley]

Not like Mr. Carrey said this or anything, but you’ll see what I mean.

---

Suppose for a moment that the bishops during Vatican II intended precisely what happened after Vatican II, that Kung, et al., fully and truthfully represent the intent of a great many bishops as well as the prevailing mood during and after the council. Still there is the matter of what was actually written down, which is what we actually have to work from, which must take precedence.

This interpretation has a number of benefits, two of which come to mind:

1. It presupposes good faith on even those who would gut the Faith.
2. It allows for a case study on how God makes even bad things good, for under this view there was a terrible atmosphere which still produced the nonetheless ho-hum documents of Vatican II.

(I imagine it’s like that movie Liar, Liar where the main character tries so hard to say he holds a red pen but it’s really blue. He … just … can’t … force … out … the words.)

---

Is this interpretation possibly true? It may well be if the infallibility of the college of bishops ensures the infallibility of the intent of the bishops, for an analogous principle governs the truth of divine revelation. (What the author intended to convey is always true in addition to what the Divine Author intended to convey.)

Is or is not the Jim Carrey thesis of Vatican II potentially kosher?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Not like Mr. Carrey said this or anything, but you’ll see what I mean.

---

Suppose for a moment that the bishops during Vatican II intended precisely what happened after Vatican II, that Kung, et al., fully and truthfully represent the intent of a great many bishops as well as the prevailing mood during and after the council. Still there is the matter of what was actually written down, which is what we actually have to work from, which must take precedence.

This interpretation has a number of benefits, two of which come to mind:

1. It presupposes good faith on even those who would gut the Faith.
2. It allows for a case study on how God makes even bad things good, for under this view there was a terrible atmosphere which still produced the nonetheless ho-hum documents of Vatican II.

(I imagine it’s like that movie Liar, Liar where the main character tries so hard to say he holds a red pen but it’s really blue. He … just … can’t … force … out … the words.)

---

Is this interpretation possibly true? It may well be if the infallibility of the college of bishops ensures the infallibility of the intent of the bishops, for an analogous principle governs the truth of divine revelation. (What the author intended to convey is always true in addition to what the Divine Author intended to convey.)

Is or is not the Jim Carrey thesis of Vatican II potentially kosher?

I would say it is largely untrue, although elements of truth are certainly there. Of course the Holy Spirit can bring great good out of evil, distortion, falsehood, modernism etc. But the premise that the bishops and their attending theologians intended to destroy the Faith at Vatican II is, first of all, a rather harsh presumption; and secondly it is flatly false. The idea that the Council itself is problematic because of the upheaval caused in the Church in its wake ignores the history of the Ecumenical Councils - all of which were followed by a greater or lesser upheaval (some of them producing greater upheaval than even Vatican II - particularly the first seven).

No. If one really wants to understand the documents of Vatican II, then one has to apply oneself to more than just reading those documents. Read them, yes. Study them and know them inside and out, yes. But one also has to understand the spiritual and theological context that gave them birth. Remember, we are dealing with a piece of historical literature. Like all literature, the documents of Vatican II were written within a specific context. To understand those documents one must be familiar with all that went before; the documents of the previous Councils, the theological movements of the Church, the history of what was taking place in the Church, etc., etc., etc. One especially ought to be familiar with the “Ressourcement” movement and her theologians. I know such theologians often get a bad rap here, but Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Louis Bouyer, Henri de Lubac, etc. were all part of this movement among scholars and clergy in the Church. Many self-proclaimed “traditionals” don’t like them (I’ve yet to figure out why), but the fact is that these men were well-versed in the writings of all the great Doctors as well as the Patristic Fathers. They had a vision for restoring to the Church a more Patristic approach to the Faith. The fact that liberals got ahold of their works and falsely interpreted them is no fault of their own.

Finally, one must also understand the documents of Vatican II within the wider tradition of the Catholic Church at large, not just the tradition of the Roman/Latin Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches played a huge role at Vatican II, particularly the Melkites and the Ukrainian Catholics. Many found their presence to be a breath of fresh air, and their insights into the Faith to be quite genius. These Eastern bishops and theologians were not progressives or liberals in any sense, but have always been VERY traditional. Understanding Eastern theology and the Eastern approach to theology goes a long way in understanding the documents of Vatican II.

So to sum up; read the documents:

1. within the context of Tradition and the Magisterium
2. (as a subsection of 1) within the context of the complete Catholic Tradition, not just the Roman tradition
3. within their historical and theological context (i.e. within the context of the theological movements of that time)

An honest reading of the documents in this way will reveal not only their truth, but also their beauty.

 

[clem456]

I would say it is largely untrue, although elements of truth are certainly there. Of course the Holy Spirit can bring great good out of evil, distortion, falsehood, modernism etc. But the premise that the bishops and their attending theologians intended to destroy the Faith at Vatican II is, first of all, a rather harsh presumption; and secondly it is flatly false. The idea that the Council itself is problematic because of the upheaval caused in the Church in its wake ignores the history of the Ecumenical Councils - all of which were followed by a greater or lesser upheaval (some of them producing greater upheaval than even Vatican II - particularly the first seven).

No. If one really wants to understand the documents of Vatican II, then one has to apply oneself to more than just reading those documents. Read them, yes. Study them and know them inside and out, yes. But one also has to understand the spiritual and theological context that gave them birth. Remember, we are dealing with a piece of historical literature. Like all literature, the documents of Vatican II were written within a specific context. To understand those documents one must be familiar with all that went before; the documents of the previous Councils, the theological movements of the Church, the history of what was taking place in the Church, etc., etc., etc. One especially ought to be familiar with the “Ressourcement” movement and her theologians. I know such theologians often get a bad rap here, but Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Louis Bouyer, Henri de Lubac, etc. were all part of this movement among scholars and clergy in the Church. Many self-proclaimed “traditionals” don’t like them (I’ve yet to figure out why), but the fact is that these men were well-versed in the writings of all the great Doctors as well as the Patristic Fathers. They had a vision for restoring to the Church a more Patristic approach to the Faith. The fact that liberals got ahold of their works and falsely interpreted them is no fault of their own.

Finally, one must also understand the documents of Vatican II within the wider tradition of the Catholic Church at large, not just the tradition of the Roman/Latin Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches played a huge role at Vatican II, particularly the Melkites and the Ukrainian Catholics. Many found their presence to be a breath of fresh air, and their insights into the Faith to be quite genius. These Eastern bishops and theologians were not progressives or liberals in any sense, but have always been VERY traditional. Understanding Eastern theology and the Eastern approach to theology goes a long way in understanding the documents of Vatican II.

So to sum up; read the documents:

1. within the context of Tradition and the Magisterium
2. (as a subsection of 1) within the context of the complete Catholic Tradition, not just the Roman tradition
3. within their historical and theological context (i.e. within the context of the theological movements of that time)

An honest reading of the documents in this way will reveal not only their truth, but also their beauty.

Great post, and I would encourage everyone to at least start with your advice here:

So to sum up; read the documents

At least do that, and go from there. Of course, if we’re going to assume a first premise of conspiracy and ill will as the OP narrowly views V2, as opposed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who is only good, it’s all pointless.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Well, the point of narrowly reading Vatican II is that it leaves only the Holy Spirit. This criticism doesn’t really address the premise.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Not like Mr. Carrey said this or anything, but you’ll see what I mean.

---

Suppose for a moment that the bishops during Vatican II intended precisely what happened after Vatican II, that Kung, et al., fully and truthfully represent the intent of a great many bishops as well as the prevailing mood during and after the council. Still there is the matter of what was actually written down, which is what we actually have to work from, which must take precedence.

This interpretation has a number of benefits, two of which come to mind:

1. It presupposes good faith on even those who would gut the Faith.
2. It allows for a case study on how God makes even bad things good, for under this view there was a terrible atmosphere which still produced the nonetheless ho-hum documents of Vatican II.

(I imagine it’s like that movie Liar, Liar where the main character tries so hard to say he holds a red pen but it’s really blue. He … just … can’t … force … out … the words.)

---

Is this interpretation possibly true? It may well be [EDIT] false [EDIT] if the infallibility of the college of bishops ensures the infallibility of the intent of the bishops, for an analogous principle governs the truth of divine revelation. (What the author intended to convey is always true in addition to what the Divine Author intended to convey.)

Is or is not the Jim Carrey thesis of Vatican II potentially kosher?

 

[clem456]

Well, the point of narrowly reading Vatican II is that it leaves only the Holy Spirit. This criticism doesn’t really address the premise.

I’m not exactly sure I comprehend what your original post is getting at. It seems to me you are narrowly reading the documents and some of the authors’ intentions. You are presupposing two dark scenarios in realtion to V2 as opposed to assuming the best of intentions. In addition to that you categorize them as “ho-hum”. I think the documents are profound, beautifully written, and moving. Let me ask you, what role do you think the Holy Spirit plays through them?

 

[triumphguy]

Vatican II was a council presided over by 2 popes, and attended by the College of Bishops.

Any wrong that came out of Vatican II was purely human in the making, or the misrepresenting of Vatican II.

Be aware that misrepresenting Vatican II is actually gravely sinful.

I, and most Catholics who have read them, find the documents inspiring and uplifting and full of the Holy Spirit.

There are many fruits of Vatican II: Just one being that without Vatican II we wouldn’t have had John Paul II and without him Communism wouldn’t have fallen, and the people of Eastern Europe might still be enslaved.

 

[Melchior_1]

So to sum up; read the documents:

1. within the context of Tradition and the Magisterium
2. (as a subsection of 1) within the context of the complete Catholic Tradition, not just the Roman tradition
3. within their historical and theological context (i.e. within the context of the theological movements of that time)

An honest reading of the documents in this way will reveal not only their truth, but also their beauty.

Exemplary, thank you for this.

 

[OraLabora]

Exemplary, thank you for this.

x2

 

[Elijah_Baley]

The OP was meant to be hyperbole, playfully. Sorry if namechecking Jim Carrey didn’t make it obvious. That said, it was inspired by the following observations:

1. 
   *]Reading the documents in immediate historical context: Certainly the misinterpretation, the rot of false interpretations of Vatican II, didn’t come out of nowhere.
   *]This explanation of Vatican II has the benefit of explaining why the documents had the quality they did despite the egregious, ubiquitous and gravely sinful interpretations afterward.
   *]It seems true that if false interpretations of Vatican II existed afterward it must have existed in the mind of some — if not all — bishops during the Council.
   
   There are therefore these sober questions:
   
   1. 
      *]Is it possible for the bishops at an ecumenical council say mean one thing and say another?
      *]If so, is it possible for individual bishops at a council to mean something contrary to truth but express something fully in keeping with it?
      *]If not, how do you explain the huge ubiquity of false interpretations of Vatican II?
      
      When wondering about these questions, the Liar, Liar connection immediately made itself available.

 

[triumphguy]

Perhaps it was the spirit of the times we were in, not the “Spirit of Vatican II”

In the 1950’s men dressed like this

http://c.ancestry.com/email/newsletters/amu/012010/50_man.jpg

In the 60’s they dressed like this:
http://www.cameranaked.com/images/Men’s%20Fashion-1960s.jpg

In the 70’s it was this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

People were turning on and tuning out.

It wasn’t just the Church ANY and EVERY institution was questioned, from marriage, the family, the Government and even the nation.

Maybe you guys and gals don’t remember the 60’s (either 'cos you weren’t there or 'cos you were), but the whole world was in turmoil.

 

[triumphguy]

This was the spirit of the age: Hippy quotes about spirituality:

“Time to live, time to lie, time to laugh, and time to die. Take it easy baby. Take it as it comes.” Jim Morrison

“I’m the one who’s gonna die when it’s time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want.” Jimi Hendrix

"Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people Sharing all the world. " John Lennon

"We are stardust, we are golden, and we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden. "
Joni Mitchell

“If you’re going to San Francisco, be sure to wear a flower in your hair.” Scott Mckenzie

"You create your own reality. " Seth

“We are all just prisoners here of our own device…You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” The Eagles

“We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first- rock and roll or Christianity.” John Lennon

“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you’ll get what you need.” The Rolling Stones

"The attitude is we live and let live. This is actually an amazing change in values in a rather short time and it’s an example of freedom from religion. " Tom Wolfe

“Hippy is an establishment label for a profound, invisible, underground, evolutionary process. For every visible hippy, barefoot, beflowered, beaded, there are a thousand invisible members of the turned-on underground. Persons whose lives are tuned in to their inner vision, who are dropping out of the TV comedy of American Life.” Timothy Leary

It was this context, this environment that surrounded and immersed every Catholic in the western world. And the Vatican could not compete in the PR and AV world.

 

[triumphguy]

Technology changed us:

It brought in the pill (1964-7 depending on the country) which made “free love” and the “sexual revolution” possible.

It brought TVs to every home, and transistor radios and record players to kids. And the music kids played in their garage could be sent around the world without any filters.

The 60’s also brought cheap credit to the baby-boomer masses.

You can’t forget the context when you’re talking about Vatican II.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The OP was meant to be hyperbole, playfully. Sorry if namechecking Jim Carrey didn’t make it obvious. That said, it was inspired by the following observations:

1. 
   *]Reading the documents in immediate historical context: Certainly the misinterpretation, the rot of false interpretations of Vatican II, didn’t come out of nowhere.
   *]This explanation of Vatican II has the benefit of explaining why the documents had the quality they did despite the egregious, ubiquitous and gravely sinful interpretations afterward.
   *]It seems true that if false interpretations of Vatican II existed afterward it must have existed in the mind of some — if not all — bishops during the Council.

1. 
   Regarding your first three observations (I’d like to deal with each one by one).
   1. Misinterpretations never come out of nowhere, you are absolutely correct. But blaming those misinterpretations on either the documents themselves, or on the bad intentions of any/all the bishops at the Council is simply a false step. But I’ll get more into this in a bit. For now, one important thing that I believe really needs to be remembered is that Vatican II was the first Council who’s documents were almost immediately available to the general public, bishop, priest, and lay person alike. It is inevitable that such wide availability would open the doors to misinterpretations. Just look at how misinterpreted the Bible is these days. Someone once said that a text, once penned and published, really takes on a life of its own apart from the meaning that the author(s) originally intended. The documents of Vatican II illustrate that very well.
   2. I believe your explanation doesn’t actually explain the false interpretations of the documents of Vatican II adequately. It is certainly possible that certain bishops did have their own agenda for the Church at Vatican II. Call it “liberal,” call it “progressive,” say that they wanted to destroy the Church, whatever. The truth is, every Council that the Catholic Church calls “Ecumenical” and holds to be infallible has had those bishops. For many of those Councils that was part of the reason they were called to begin with. But I believe it is a false step to presume on the intentions (good or otherwise) of any single one of the bishops when reading the documents of Vatican II. Presumption itself is sinful, and presumption on the intentions of another often leads to bearing false witness against our neighbors. So when it comes to the bishops’ intentions, we ought to hope for the best and use that as our starting point in reading the documents.
   3. See above, #2. There may have been bishops at the Council who were seeking to destroy the Church by promoting what we’ve come to call the “liberal/modernist” agenda. But I think presuming so, without real study before hand and without actually speaking to any of those bishops, is dangerous and potentially sinful. You are correct, however, in pointing out that false interpretations don’t just pop up out of nowhere (which ought to make us take off our rose-tinted glasses of the pre-Vatican II Church). I, like “Triumph Guy” above, believe that the world-wide culture of the 60s and 70s is the primary thing that ought to be blamed for the misinterpretation of the Council. It was a revolutionary period (and revolutions always have a negative connotation). Change was the “flavor of the month,” and institutions were somehow “evil.” Folks saw what they wanted to see in Vatican II and acted accordingly. It had nothing to do with what the Council actually did or said, and everything to do with folks - mostly lay people and parish clergy - twisting the Council to serve their own agenda. If you think this is new in Church history, read some good accounts of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There are therefore these sober questions:

1. 
   *]Is it possible for the bishops at an ecumenical council say mean one thing and say another?
   *]If so, is it possible for individual bishops at a council to mean something contrary to truth but express something fully in keeping with it?
   *]If not, how do you explain the huge ubiquity of false interpretations of Vatican II?
   
   When wondering about these questions, the Liar, Liar connection immediately made itself available.

1. 
   In answer to your questions:
   1. Sure, it’s possible. Anything is possible. But is it probable? I don’t think so. I think if you read the various drafts and discussions over the drafts from the Council, you’ll find that in the final draft the bishops said what they meant and meant what they said.
   2. I don’t know how it is possible for someone to mean something contrary to the truth while at the same time expressing that falsehood in such a way that is completely in keeping with the truth.
   3. See my previous post for an explanation of the false interpretations of Vatican II.
   One thing that I believe is good to bear in mind is that the Holy Spirit guides an Ecumenical Council in order that it might express the truth of the Faith without error. I believe that if anyone studies the drafts and discussions that took place at the Council, they will see the Holy Spirit at work.
   
   We ought not to blame the Council or the intentions of the Council Fathers for the false interpretations of the Vatican II documents, any more than we ought to blame the authors of Scripture (including its divine Author) for the plethora of false interpretations of Scripture. Such blaming is unfair, simplistic, and ultimately childish. As I’ve said before, every Council has had its own plethora of false interpretations. If this weren’t the case there would’ve never had been a need for a second Ecumenical Council, let alone another 20 of them.
   
   How do I explain the ubiquity of false interpretations? Read the Genesis account of man’s fall into sinfulness and then work your way through the rest of history (both of society at large and the Church in particular). The Church is made up of saints and sinners; always has been, always will be. There will always be those people in the Church who zealously work for her good. There will always be those in the Church who zealously work against her good. There will always be those in the Church who unwittingly work for her demise, all the while believing that they are working for her good. And there will always be those in the Church who simply don’t care. Blaming Vatican II or the bishops that attended for the current problems in the Church will get you nowhere but frustrated because ultimately Vatican II itself had/has nothing to do with the problems in the Church today.

 

[nordskoven]

Bella Dodd, a mover and shaker in the leadership of the CPUSA/Communist Party USA, left after watching the constant collusion with global financiers with the Communist leadership to ensalve the masses. Dodd alleged that the CPUSA (just America alone) put 1,100 men into the seminaries who were unfit to be priests. This doesn’t mean they were Communists; and one may imagine there was an element of moral terpitude. The fix was in long before Vatican II. The nuns quashed their traditional sisters and that left the enablers of today who are doling out permission to sin with the support of “theologians.” God save us! Here’s a link to Bella Dodd’s book, School of Darkness.

romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/03/bella-dodd.html

 

[TimothyH]

It brought in the pill (1964-7 depending on the country) which made “free love” and the “sexual revolution” possible.

Actually, the drive toward the culture of recreational sex was started in earnest in August of 1930 when the Anglican Church began teaching that “Other means” besides absinence for avoiding pregnancy and birth were not always sinful.

The Holy Father responded on December 31 of that same year with the encyclical Casti Connubii, which is breathtaking to read.

Article 15 of the 1930 Anglican Church Lambeth Conference was the beginning of the sexual revolution. Contraception, abortion, porn addiction, fatherless children are all the result.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

In answer to your questions:

1. Sure, it’s possible. Anything is possible. But is it probable? I don’t think so. I think if you read the various drafts and discussions over the drafts from the Council, you’ll find that in the final draft the bishops said what they meant and meant what they said.
2. I don’t know how it is possible for someone to mean something contrary to the truth while at the same time expressing that falsehood in such a way that is completely in keeping with the truth.
3. See my previous post for an explanation of the false interpretations of Vatican II.

One thing that I believe is good to bear in mind is that the Holy Spirit guides an Ecumenical Council in order that it might express the truth of the Faith without error. I believe that if anyone studies the drafts and discussions that took place at the Council, they will see the Holy Spirit at work.

We ought not to blame the Council or the intentions of the Council Fathers for the false interpretations of the Vatican II documents, any more than we ought to blame the authors of Scripture (including its divine Author) for the plethora of false interpretations of Scripture. Such blaming is unfair, simplistic, and ultimately childish. As I’ve said before, every Council has had its own plethora of false interpretations. If this weren’t the case there would’ve never had been a need for a second Ecumenical Council, let alone another 20 of them.

How do I explain the ubiquity of false interpretations? Read the Genesis account of man’s fall into sinfulness and then work your way through the rest of history (both of society at large and the Church in particular). The Church is made up of saints and sinners; always has been, always will be. There will always be those people in the Church who zealously work for her good. There will always be those in the Church who zealously work against her good. There will always be those in the Church who unwittingly work for her demise, all the while believing that they are working for her good. And there will always be those in the Church who simply don’t care. Blaming Vatican II or the bishops that attended for the current problems in the Church will get you nowhere but frustrated because ultimately Vatican II itself had/has nothing to do with the problems in the Church today.

Huge huge huge
We must always look for the Holy Spirit at work in the Church as a FIRST priority.
And we must not look at the Church through our temporal eyes. Your post begins to put these issues in the eternal context in which they belong. The Church was not formed in 40 years and it will surely not be destroyed in 40 years, never in fact.
BE NOT AFRAID!!!
Or if I could quote Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty: “I be positive” the Church lives forever, always in holiness and truth.

 

[triumphguy]

Actually, the drive toward the culture of recreational sex was started in earnest in August of 1930 when the Anglican Church began teaching that “Other means” besides absinence for avoiding pregnancy and birth were not always sinful.

The Holy Father responded on December 31 of that same year with the encyclical Casti Connubii, which is breathtaking to read.

Article 15 of the 1930 Anglican Church Lambeth Conference was the beginning of the sexual revolution. Contraception, abortion, porn addiction, fatherless children are all the result.

-Tim-

You are right. The pill just made it less “messy,” and you didn’t have to be think about contraception.

And 20 years later we had the AIDS epidemic.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Here’s the real nut of my reaction: I’ve read all those explanations again and again. But such explanations strike me as backpedaling, of sweeping under the rug the grand horror of what happened after Vatican II as merely “one of many” times there was post-conciliar upheaval. It’s like Catholics who, in explaining the Inquisition, end up defending it. This must be intolerable.

For example: “false interpretations?” What a tiny phrase that does it no justice! Our souls must burn with righteous anger that the souls of many have been led astray into sin, that many faithful were gravely scandalized, that even more have been so inoculated against the true faith by a watered-down version of it that our countries are once more mission territories? Surely you must burn with greater anger than we have even for the abortion victims, caught in lies and pincers, each killed, for these children in the mercy of God are at least innocents.

Who in love with Truth would not feel great indignation that the (ordinary) means to Christ was denied a whole generation? It does the Church no good to cry out O Tempora, O Mores! as an excuse, the Church who must be eternal and unyielding to the times. The times played a role, indeed, but the problem is that the bishops apparently did not. That much cannot be denied.

As for blaming the bishops, you’ll notice I did not name names. I do not know, and I could not. But every bishop did something, right? Participated in some way? And how ubiquitous was the abuse afterward, and how instantaneous? If certain bishops were merely caught off-guard, isn’t that they were caught off-guard enough to wonder if there were bishops complicit by inattention if not malice or self-interest, even during the council? **If these questions can be truly dismissed, so be it, but quickness in dismissing them would betray a carelessness of their gravity or apparent merit. **

Yes, yes; nobody but Christ is perfect. Perfection was not the problem. But this is such a sudden, glaring lack of carefulness, and such an instantaneous adherence to dreck, that it suggests something more than impersonal sociopolitical forces. It is easier to explain a glaring lack of carefulness than a sudden, glaring lack of carefulness.

Evidence: There is certainly enough in the Vatican II documents to suggest exactly the same abuses that immediately took hold. You can denounce certain modern practices as “never being mandated by Vatican II” or that these abuses are merely over-emphasis of solid principles, but the point is that these over-emphasized principles were precisely the same principles first greatly emphasized by Vatican II. (Thinking here of the placement of the People of God in relation to the Church, etc., and the following “clericalization of the laity.” I’m not very far in the documents, but I’m sure there are more examples.)

Points interpreting the event of the council which do not strain credulity:

a. We know the media whipped up a tempest on each little pronouncement. Are you saying that before the conclusion of the council no bishop was caught up in their winds, intending to implement the documents just as others were interpreting them?

b. What time in history, even post-conciliar decades, were abuses so quick on the uptake? This suggests some malfeasance and malice aforethought, some kind of inside job, if not in the bishops then in their advisers, or if not in their advisers then someone influential.

c. The continued recalcitrance of certain destroyer-theologians from the '60s goes far enough that it suggests a genuine belief that they are right. Destroyer-theologians do not believe they are wrong, or do not seem to believe this. This illustration of the Holy Spirit as holding back at least some bishops in the manner that Jim Carrey was held back in Liar, Liar would seem to for once give these guys some credit. These men are in a better position than I am to suppose what Vatican II was all about at the time, and what the local ordinary allowed at the time.

There may be a pious legend here or there in the manner of Paul VI sobbing at not being able to use a particular color of vestment, but these stories are so rare that it is an exception. If the bishops had such a firm idea of what Vatican II was all about, where are the bishops who resisted the tide, or even knew to?

It is well and good to defend the council as documents, but to ignore the council as event in determining where these abuses sprang from seems vastly disingenous. Denying the oddness of the abuse of Vatican II is worse than obsessing about the council as if it were the beginning of the Church.

If we are ever to read with a hermeneutic of continuity, determining what the abuses are and where they came from, and how this was possible given the divine guarantee behind an ecumenical council, is necessary work. Otherwise, we could never sort out the truth from the abuses.