Vatican II Ambiguities

[jerome_ky]

There’s a story out now about Cardinal Walter Kasper being quoted as saying that there were deliberate ambiguities inserted into the documents of Vatican II. I have been searching online about this and I see a lot of people agreeing and saying, We knew this all along, but every example of “ambiguity” someone gives seems very non-ambiguous.

Here’s one example- and I’m sorry but I’ve lost the original link. A claim was made that Dignitatus Humanae discourages coercion in matters of religion, but affirms a type of coercion as being permitted, so long as it is missionary. That’s not the exact wording of the claim. But I went through Dignitatus Humanae, and there is no statement with the word “coercion” or “coerce” which refers to it in any way but negative- no coercion is allowed, men are entitled to freedom from coercion, an immunity to coercion, it is a principle of the Church that no one is to be coerced into the faith.

One example doesn’t make an argument, of course. But with all the affirmations of ambiguities in the documents, someone here should be able to give a clear example of at least one obvious one. That is to say, an example from the documents themselves, NOT an example of someone else SAYING there is ambiguity, even if it’s one of the authors of the conciliar document.

Oh, and the example needs to be within reasonable bounds, not just an ambiguous definition of the same word in two different contexts. This is something a lot of people seem to feel very strongly about, so it has to stand up to a reasonable use of our faculties

 

[otjm]

Too often, the “ambiguities” are found by people who do not have sufficient training in theology.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Too often, the “ambiguities” are found by people who do not have sufficient training in theology.

I think you have a point, but there is a tension… Which is it: are we supposed to be totally and fully active members of the Church as laypeople (doesn’t that necessarily mean we will have a very deep theological training), or are we supposed to just take marching orders and get on with it?

Either give us theological training–that’s not going to happen–or give us a crystal clear road map. Or abandon that paradigm all together.

 

[CrossofChrist]

There’s a story out now about Cardinal Walter Kasper being quoted as saying that there were deliberate ambiguities inserted into the documents of Vatican II. I have been searching online about this and I see a lot of people agreeing and saying, We knew this all along, but every example of “ambiguity” someone gives seems very non-ambiguous.

Here’s one example- and I’m sorry but I’ve lost the original link. A claim was made that Dignitatus Humanae discourages coercion in matters of religion, but affirms a type of coercion as being permitted, so long as it is missionary. That’s not the exact wording of the claim. But I went through Dignitatus Humanae, and there is no statement with the word “coercion” or “coerce” which refers to it in any way but negative- no coercion is allowed, men are entitled to freedom from coercion, an immunity to coercion, it is a principle of the Church that no one is to be coerced into the faith.

One example doesn’t make an argument, of course. But with all the affirmations of ambiguities in the documents, someone here should be able to give a clear example of at least one obvious one. That is to say, an example from the documents themselves, NOT an example of someone else SAYING there is ambiguity, even if it’s one of the authors of the conciliar document.

Oh, and the example needs to be within reasonable bounds, not just an ambiguous definition of the same word in two different contexts. This is something a lot of people seem to feel very strongly about, so it has to stand up to a reasonable use of our faculties

The Council was meant to be a starting point for future spiritual and theological revival and renewal. It wasn’t meant to be very authoritarian or decisive in its theological content because it wasn’t meant to weigh down heavily on future generations. This would leave room for different schools of theology to have dialogue with one another (e.g the New Theology, which heavily influenced the Council, wanted more breathing room since the neoscholastic status quo was unjustly repressing it.). Of course, the assumption was that the documents would be read in light of Catholic teaching, something not always done.

 

[pnewton]

Too often, the “ambiguities” are found by people who do not have sufficient training in theology.

I do not know if I would go that far. Although that may be the case, I thing a lot of what we call ambiguous is nothing more than a formulation that represents our imperfect understanding of God, the “glass darkly” effect.

 

[Lucky7]

I do not know if I would go that far. Although that may be the case, I thing a lot of what we call ambiguous is nothing more than a formulation that represents our imperfect understanding of God, the “glass darkly” effect.

But wouldn’t that be the case at any point in Church history? I could be completely wrong, but I just don’t hear Catholics who were brought up/catechized in the Church prior to Vatican II saying that Church teaching, etc was ambiguous in their time.

 

[pnewton]

But wouldn’t that be the case at any point in Church history? I could be completely wrong, but I just don’t hear Catholics who were brought up/catechized in the Church prior to Vatican II saying that Church teaching, etc was ambiguous in their time.

Yes, it has been the same throughout history. That is why we have had most of our Church Councils. Only in the last few generations have the laity become so informed and educated as they have today. Greater educations does not mean greater understanding and in fact usually results in an greater understanding of one’s own ignorance.

 

[YoungTradCath]

But wouldn’t that be the case at any point in Church history? I could be completely wrong, but I just don’t hear Catholics who were brought up/catechized in the Church prior to Vatican II saying that Church teaching, etc was ambiguous in their time.

Isn’t this arguing the other side’s (other side of your) argument?

I would say give people a very good, basic education in the faith, repeat it a thousand times if you have to. Then, let the people who are truly intellectually interested pursue additional education, and facilitate it, but the Church shouldn’t act/expect every lay person to have the interest or even ability to be a theological mastermind. And that is okay. That is not a dirty thing. You don’t have to go to a Pontifical university to be a saint, although most people do need some basic formation.

Yes, it has been the same throughout history. That is why we have had most of our Church Councils. Only in the last few generations have the laity become so informed and educated as they have today. Greater educations does not mean greater understanding and in fact usually results in an greater understanding of one’s own ignorance.

So what do we do? Co-opt the secularists before they can ruin our children? Failed. What do we do next? I’m afraid I can’t offer a politically correct answer that is also factually/really correct at the same time.

=p

 

[Lucky7]

Isn’t this arguing the other side’s (other side of your) argument?

I would say give people a very good, basic education in the faith, repeat it a thousand times if you have to. Then, let the people who are truly intellectually interested pursue additional education, and facilitate it, but the Church shouldn’t act/expect every lay person to have the interest or even ability to be a theological mastermind. And that is okay. That is not a dirty thing. You don’t have to go to a Pontifical university to be a saint, although most people do need some basic formation.

I’m not sure I understand your question. What I was trying to say was that we hear that many folks are confused by the ambiguity of V2. OTOH, you never hear pre-V2 Catholics saying they were ever confused by Church teaching. I guess the question is, why are folks confused “today” and not “yesterday”?

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not sure I understand your question. What I was trying to say was that we hear that many folks are confused by the ambiguity of V2. OTOH, you never hear pre-V2 Catholics saying they were ever confused by Church teaching. I guess the question is, why are folks confused “today” and not “yesterday”?

Simple. Mass media. Very few had internet access pre-V2. Not even sure when it became a household norm. People in those days just lived their faith in simplicity without the rampant need to question everything they saw on a website.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not sure I understand your question. What I was trying to say was that we hear that many folks are confused by the ambiguity of V2. OTOH, you never hear pre-V2 Catholics saying they were ever confused by Church teaching. I guess the question is, why are folks confused “today” and not “yesterday”?

Well, as Sirach said above, media is a problem (a problem, not the only problem).

So many things that are wrong center around things that are fundamentally part of modern life: technology, communications, education, etc. I don’t think any Catholic worth his weight in gold would actually argue that those things are intrinsically wrong; they aren’t. But my world view tends to be very suspicious of them; I view their modern reckonings as incompatible with a Catholic society by association.

For example, it’s not that in principle computers are evil. That’s silly. But they are so capable of doing so many things and people are so tempted to use them in the wrong way that I believe that it would be better for them to not exist. Well, you ask, “What are you doing on a computer, then?” I’d respond that we have to live with stuff until we can agree as a Catholic society (if that even exists…) to dump these things collectively, or until larger society falls apart, if that happens. And to anyone who says, “Then don’t use them in a bad way,” I respond that that is wholly unhelpful in the long term.

It would be better, in my opinion, that the shift in thinking–and with it the shift in morality and other bits–that has happened in the last four hundred years or so had never occurred, even if that means that none of the medical and educational advances will not have happened either. In short, I recognize and believe that many good things have happened with the shift of philosophy, but I believe that more bad has occurred than good, and that, now, the only way to clean up the bad stuff, is to scrap the thing that holds it all together, which is the philosophy that created it. It is no longer going to happen that we can stop “just” the bad stuff. We’ve jumped off a cliff, whenever and wherever that cliff was take your pick, and maybe it’s fun and exciting to fly through the air, but eventually we’re going to go splat on the ground in a gutty mess unless we pull the parachute cord and stop the whole thing. Yes, the fun will be over, but we won’t die. =)

What I say is extremely unpopular even probably in the Catholic world, but until someone can come up with a better alternative past catchphrases and giant ideas that only a few people can handle even on a practical level, I will persist. I want to be dissuaded, but nothing does it quite yet.

 

[edwest2]

But wouldn’t that be the case at any point in Church history? I could be completely wrong, but I just don’t hear Catholics who were brought up/catechized in the Church prior to Vatican II saying that Church teaching, etc was ambiguous in their time.

I was there before and after Vatican II. The documents weren’t presented to us in my Catholic school, but when they brought in a new, smaller altar one day, the priest faced the people and the service was in English, I trusted Holy Mother Church. I was there to worship God not examine documents.

Meanwhile, someone signed orders and allowed architects to create the ugly after the Second Vatican Council. I think it was a network of somebodys because you don’t allocate funds to build ugly Churches from nowhere.

"Interestingly, after the Second Vatican Council, a strain of theology emerged in the Church, which redefined churches as “meetinghouses” and found its inspiration in the so-called house churches of the time of the apostles. Although this sort of uncritical antiquarianism had been widely condemned by Church authorities over the centuries, including Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, many Catholic theologians nonetheless argued that a church building had no import other than as a place of comfortable hospitality, a “skin for liturgical action,” which “need not look like anything else past or present.”

"Though highly influential in the late 1970s through the 1990s (and even today in some circles), this is no longer the prevailing notion of church architecture. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that churches “are not simply gathering places, but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ” (CCC, 1181). In other words, a church is an image that shows the realities of the heavenly future when God’s reconciliation with humanity is complete.

“In the late 1960s and forward, then, many people who accepted this redefinition of the church as a meetinghouse for the community’s sacred meal then saw old altars, altarpieces, statues, and murals as relics of the “old” way of understanding the Church. In order to best express the new notion of a church as meeting house, they removed and destroyed many precious artifacts. Under Pope Benedict, the Church has come to understand better the Second Vatican Council as a call for reform within a hermeneutic of continuity rather than rupture, and people are learning to see the value of many traditional forms in the Church once again.”

I suspect that this “understanding” was not passed along via telepathy to others in the Church, but that a stop order was issued. No more ugly Churches and no more destruction of precious artifacts.

I submit there was a web that said one thing to “management” and did the exact opposite. Now that the dissenters of the 1960s and 70s are dying out, and no good replacements appear to be on the horizon, I don’t see coincidence but renewal.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

Simple. Mass media. Very few had internet access pre-V2. Not even sure when it became a household norm. People in those days just lived their faith in simplicity without the rampant need to question everything they saw on a website.

The internet, not to mention internet TV, came way, way after V2. The (paper) media, and television, advocated for changes and ideas which had nothing to do with V2. (See Pope Francis’ recent words on this topic.) In addition, some believe, and apparently have the research, there were internal deconstructionists at work, who saw openings (due to vague wordings of documents) and took expedient advantage. Thirdly, (I have lost the link describing this), some bishops of that time have described a situation of “chaos” among the episcopate in terms of application of the documents, locally. Those bishops sought answers and were not always given adequate answers (according to them), let alone guidance.

V2 was overwhelmingly pastoral and theological, not doctrinal. However, the documents were written with theory as the theme and in a visionary tone. (You might say – as YoungTradCath is hinting at – they were written primarily with “insiders” in mind.) IOW, the opposite of what every Catholic until then was accustomed to, from their Church. The lay person looked to the Church as the authority for clear answers and specific doctrine, which the Church has always maintained, including today, is provided and can be expected.

Marshall Mcluhan said the medium is the message. I say style is a huge part of message as well. If a style is ambiguous, general, or theoretical, a reader can easily receive the message as ambiguous in its application.

As to this:

the neoscholastic status quo was unjustly repressing it.

The “status quo” was not “repressing” anyone, let alone “unjustly.” You’re talking about the Magisterium here.

 

[YoungTradCath]

V2 was overwhelmingly pastoral and theological, not doctrinal. However, the documents were written with theory as the theme and in a visionary tone. (You might say – as YoungTradCath is hinting at – they were written primarily with “insiders” in mind.) IOW, the opposite of what every Catholic until then was accustomed to, from their Church. The lay person looked to the Church as the authority for clear answers and specific doctrine, which the Church has always maintained, including today, is provided and can be expected.

Marshall Mcluhan said the medium is the message. I say style is a huge part of message as well. If a style is ambiguous, general, or theoretical, a reader can easily receive the message as ambiguous in its application.

This is the tension I was talking about. On the face of it, Vatican II was written to be read by theologians, clerics, and religious. It was written to be applied to and largely motivating for not only those people, but also your average laity as well.

People say “salt of the world” and other fun catchphrases and then say, “Go read Lumen Gentium and you’ll see,” or whatever, and you get blank stares. Since when has the Church expected laity to read apostolic constitutions and encyclical letters? I bet ya very few read Pastor aeternus, yet most Catholics in, oh, 1903 had at least some very basic understanding drilled in to their heads that the Pope is infallible when he teaches faith and morals.

In short, all Councils have affected Catholics in differing ways. Yet what we have with Vatican II is this Council that hyper-affects laity. The natural tendency is to tell them to read the documents. But how many can, or are willing to do that? That is what I mean by impracticality. If you want people to do that kind of stuff, you have to provide them with the prerequisite education. I can go read Dei Verbum and I will understand the words, sentences, paragraphs, even the whole thing on one level. But unless I have an extremely good education before that, it won’t have any real value. It’s like trying to jump in to any subject without a very good prerequisite education. Sure, some people will be able to understand an anatomy textbook without first having taken basic biology courses, but the vast majority will be lost. They will understand the words, but probably not much past that. I do think this aspect of the whole hubbub is really that simple.

Plus, when you take a document that isn’t technical in nature but is very poetic and flowery and has lots of internal tensions and ebbs and flows, this is getting in to a whole other level of practical difficulty.

The Church expects me to understand Vatican II, right? I don’t think you can really say no. So, I want the education or the Cliff’s Notes.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The internet, not to mention internet TV, came way, way after V2. The (paper) media, and television, advocated for changes and ideas which had nothing to do with V2. (See Pope Francis’ recent words on this topic.) In addition, some believe, and apparently have the research, there were internal deconstructionists at work, who saw openings (due to vague wordings of documents) and took expedient advantage. Thirdly, (I have lost the link describing this), some bishops of that time have described a situation of “chaos” among the episcopate in terms of application of the documents, locally. Those bishops sought answers and were not always given adequate answers (according to them), let alone guidance.

V2 was overwhelmingly pastoral and theological, not doctrinal. However, the documents were written with theory as the theme and in a visionary tone. (You might say – as YoungTradCath is hinting at – they were written primarily with “insiders” in mind.) IOW, the opposite of what every Catholic until then was accustomed to, from their Church. The lay person looked to the Church as the authority for clear answers and specific doctrine, which the Church has always maintained, including today, is provided and can be expected.

Also, you have what Elizabeth here points out. It’s not just that Vatican II documents are self-apparently written to be read by theologians, religious, clerics and academic types, but that the language itself is so different from what came directly before it. It’s not only how something is, but how it relates to other things that determine its meaning.

 

[Megan7]

There’s a story out now about Cardinal Walter Kasper being quoted as saying that there were deliberate ambiguities inserted into the documents of Vatican II. I have been searching online about this and I see a lot of people agreeing and saying, We knew this all along, but every example of “ambiguity” someone gives seems very non-ambiguous.

Here’s one example- and I’m sorry but I’ve lost the original link. A claim was made that Dignitatus Humanae discourages coercion in matters of religion, but affirms a type of coercion as being permitted, so long as it is missionary. That’s not the exact wording of the claim. But I went through Dignitatus Humanae, and there is no statement with the word “coercion” or “coerce” which refers to it in any way but negative- no coercion is allowed, men are entitled to freedom from coercion, an immunity to coercion, it is a principle of the Church that no one is to be coerced into the faith.

One example doesn’t make an argument, of course. But with all the affirmations of ambiguities in the documents, someone here should be able to give a clear example of at least one obvious one. That is to say, an example from the documents themselves, NOT an example of someone else SAYING there is ambiguity, even if it’s one of the authors of the conciliar document.

Oh, and the example needs to be within reasonable bounds, not just an ambiguous definition of the same word in two different contexts. This is something a lot of people seem to feel very strongly about, so it has to stand up to a reasonable use of our faculties

Thanks for the thread, will read it later on.

 

[pnewton]

So what do we do? Co-opt the secularists before they can ruin our children? Failed. What do we do next? I’m afraid I can’t offer a politically correct answer that is also factually/really correct at the same time.

=p

I do not think what I said is harmful, just like I do not think what was described as ambiguity is harmful. It took a great mind like St. Paul to notice how little we really know about God. I think you said it best here:

I would say give people a very good, basic education in the faith, repeat it a thousand times if you have to. Then, let the people who are truly intellectually interested pursue additional education, and facilitate it, but the Church shouldn’t act/expect every lay person to have the interest or even ability to be a theological mastermind. And that is okay. That is not a dirty thing. You don’t have to go to a Pontifical university to be a saint, although most people do need some basic formation.

I know we have all come to hate the word nuanced, but that is what theology does when applied to the world. It takes the immutable moral laws and truths that have been revealed and fits this perfect peg in an imperfect hole. Ironic how we keep looking to the past which is dead and gone thinking that what worked then will work now and forever. If this was true, then we would not have needed a papacy. Jesus could have laid everything out and then told us not to change a thing. The papacy and apostolic authority exists because we have a world that changes and new challenges every generation.

 

[clem456]

I know we have all come to hate the word nuanced, but that is what theology does when applied to the world. It takes the immutable moral laws and truths that have been revealed and fits this perfect peg in an imperfect hole. Ironic how we keep looking to the past which is dead and gone thinking that what worked then will work now and forever. If this was true, then we would not have needed a papacy. **Jesus could have laid everything out and then told us not to change a thing. ** (But no, he had to go and die on us) The papacy and apostolic authority exists because we have a world that changes and new challenges every generation.

Well said.
This post should be a sticky right at the top of this forum.

Another “problem” is the giftedness of some of the writers of documents, one Abp Karol Woytla for instance, who was gifted in the extreme. Should the thinking and writing of gifted people be dumbed down for us? Can it be dumbed down and still contain the fullness of it’s teaching? I do not believe so. It’s on me to educate myself as much as possible, but more importantly, listen to the Church, prayerfully. And trust. If I trust, God will grace me to accept what he wills. Understanding? I’ll never have full understanding, so I’m not worried about it. It’s not my business to understand fully, it is my business to be faithful.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think you said it best here:

I know we have all come to hate the word nuanced, but that is what theology does when applied to the world. It takes the immutable moral laws and truths that have been revealed and fits this perfect peg in an imperfect hole. Ironic how we keep looking to the past which is dead and gone thinking that what worked then will work now and forever. If this was true, then we would not have needed a papacy. Jesus could have laid everything out and then told us not to change a thing. The papacy and apostolic authority exists because we have a world that changes and new challenges every generation.

But my point in saying that wasn’t to just say it, my point was that I feel like the Vatican II documents often have this tendency toward “laity must be at least as theologically well-trained as their parish priests.” There are often insurmountable bits in there, utopian society city on the hill Revelation type stuff. And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, for that is what the Church really is. But what I object to is this sort of unbridled positivity that is so positive that it seems like it ignores reality and human limitations. My internal struggle is that if I say what I just said here, I will be labeled as “faithless” or some other such nonsense. But I know if I say “Yippy!” like I’m expected to, I feel like a liar to myself and to God.

And if someone says, “That’s only in the documents,” or whatever, the implication being that these attitudes and tendencies have no real effect on daily Catholic life, I say, “Yeah, right.” It’s this very same unbridled, irrational positivity that we have been conditioned to believe is normal or even good that I think makes people think that just because the “vocations crisis” of priests has leveled off a bit–which it has and I grant that and I think that’s a fantabuwonderfultastic! thing–that it’s somehow okay that 25 years from now (barring some as yet unforeseen revolution) many or most diocesan priests in the West are going to be running four or five parishes/communities/whatever they are by then at once.

Sometimes I just feel like saying, “Cut the pretense.” Maybe that is my “charism” =p.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well said.
This post should be a sticky right at the top of this forum.

Another “problem” is the giftedness of some of the writers of documents, one Abp Karol Woytla for instance, who was gifted in the extreme. Should the thinking and writing of gifted people be dumbed down for us? Can it be dumbed down and still contain the fullness of it’s teaching? I do not believe so. It’s on me to educate myself as much as possible, but more importantly, listen to the Church, prayerfully. And trust. If I trust, God will grace me to accept what he wills. Understanding? I’ll never have full understanding, so I’m not worried about it. It’s not my business to understand fully, it is my business to be faithful.

Then who does it profit? The theologically inclined. But then why is every Jim, Tom and Suzy expected to read them? … Hmm… There’s that tension I was mentioning.

Second bold: is that really true? Then what’s this business about everybody understanding and doing his/her part, “read the docs,” etc?

note to mod: I’m not being argumentative, I’m trying to understand and have a conversation, much like amateur theologians around a fire I imagine.