I recently came across my deceased Grandmother’s copy of the transcripts from Vatican II. It is an interesting book, one that I really enjoyed. I was just curious, though, if someone could help me understand why a lot of Catholics seem to have a problem with Vatican II? What is the opinion of Vatican II in this forum? Most of the older Catholics that I know REALLY dislike Vatican II. Can someone help me understand that as well. Thanks.
The Second Vatican Council came along at a time when the mood in the United States and Europe was decidedly supportive of experimentation, change, and innovation. There was a lot of distaste for doing things merely for the sake of tradition. There was also- especially in Europe, a sense that young people were becoming increasingly alienated from traditional institutions of all sorts, and particularly from traditional forms of worship.
Vatican II was an attempt to accommodate some of these perceptions, and the actual documents of Vatican II were not necessarily radical or revolutionary, as some others have noted. There was a desire for some measure of liturgical change, for example, especially for the idea of using more local vernacular in the Mass and doing more to engage the congregation directly in the act of worship. (One of the complaints about the Tridentine Mass is that it is more a spectacle which the laity observe, than a collective act of worship in which all Catholics participate). There had already been some minor revisions in this direction–the 1962 Missal included a People’s Mass". But it was felt that more needed to be done.
Unfortunately, a lot of things began to be done “in the spirit of Vatican II” which vastly exceeded what Vatican II really encouraged or authorized. The most-conspicuous of these abuses happened in the Mass itself–in keeping with the idea of being ‘fools for Christ’ some priests reputedly conducted ‘Clown Masses’ in various places. (Some allege on this forum that 'clown Masses are actually an urban legend, but other members of the forum insist that they actually attended Masses of this sort. It should be noted that a ‘fool’ in old English vernacular was somewhat similar to what we think of today as a ‘clown’ or a comedian; the expression ‘fool for Christ’ is drawn from II Corinthians 11:16).
Other sorts of abuses also occurred. Any number of theologians began speculating around the edges about various aspects of Catholic theology–Hans Kung even questioned several explicitly-defined dogmas of the Catholic faith. Many of the younger seminarians eagerly quoted those speculative theologians and cited the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ from the pulpits, leading to a lot of confusion. If accounts are to be believed, there was also a problem with spiritual formation of priests during the post-WWII era, and a lot of men who would have otherwise have been advised not to pursue a vocation were in fact ordained.
People were told that there were no longer anything such as ‘mortal sins’, they were told that divorce and contraception were acceptable, and on and on. No one was quite certain what was or was not true in the Catholic Church any longer, and it really looked as if the CC was going to follow in the same liberal path as many mainline Protestant churches. It hurt a lot of people’s faith, and many folks left over it. After Paul VI and JPII began tightening up things in the CC, a lot of the ‘liberals’ began leaving, or in some cases openly confronting authority in various ways. A lot of this has passed now, but it was a painful period from about 1968 to about the mid-1980’s or so: some folks leaving because the Church seemed to be growing too ‘liberal’ and heterodox, others leaving because the Church was growing too ‘conservative’ or ‘authoritarian’.
