Vatican II, 50 years on

Last week we observed the 50th anniversary of the defining moment in modern Catholic history - the calling of the Second Vatican Council. The Council was opened by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and lasted until December 8, 1965, when it was closed by Pope Paul VI. It certainly was a momentous occasion, involving around 2,600 people who produced four new dogmatic constitutions, nine new decrees, and three new declarations concerning various aspects of our Catholic life in the Church. The purpose of the Council was ostensibly to figure out a way for the Church to engage the world in a more effective manner. This itself was an innovation: never before had an ecumenical council of the whole Church been called for purely pastoral reasons. All of the previous councils were called in order to respond to a heresy or to clarify a doctrine (Nicaea and the Arians, Trent and Protestantism, etc.). In a way, Vatican II was responding to the world - yet, it was a world that had become disinterested in the Church's theology, rather than a world seeking to change or misconstrue the Church's theology. And, we still inhabit that version of the world.

Now, 50 years and several generations removed, we have an opportunity to look back on the documents and the history of Vatican II in the life of the Church. Much ink has been used by people much more intelligent than I in either defending or lambasting the Council and its aftermath. Everyone has an opinion on it. It went too far and changed too much or It stopped short of what should've happened. I think the great benefit of those in my generation is that we are emotionally disinterested in the Council. It happened during the time of my grandparents, and its changes (both approved and non-approved) took place over the course of my parents' childhood and adolescence. I have only known a post-Vatican II world and post-Vatican II popes. This has shaped my views, obviously.

I am of the opinion that the Council itself was a rather neutral affair. It was perhaps the last great adjustment of the Church to the Industrial Revolution and its accompanying philosophies. Yet, the Council did not spring fully formed from the head of John XXIII. The priests and bishops who became the movers and shakers at the Council went through formation in a per-Conciliar world. The roots of Vatican II lie in that world. They lie firstly in the Council of Trent - the first evangelistic council, since it sought ways to effectively distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism and ways to bring Protestants back to the Church. This Counter-Reformation institutional mentality persisted in the Church throughout the latter half of the second millennium until the pontificate of Leo XIII, the first major reforming pope in many centuries. It was Leo XIII's exposition of Catholic social teaching and the rights of laborers - inspired by the industrializing labor markets in Europe and the US - that became the theological genesis of much of what would be discussed during the Council.

Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, the Church was changing continuously - though incrementally - from papacy to papacy. Pius X introduced several liturgical reforms, as did Pius XII. This history is often lost on those who see Vatican II as a new beginning of the Church, rather than as an organic continuation of the eternal faith. Alternatively, there are those who cling to the pre-Vatican II Church as some sort of golden age, which is also easily disproved. Alas, the truth of matters is always more complicated than the polemics.

Again, I take a rather dispassionate view of the Council itself, though I do think it prepared the Church to deal with the modern world in a rather roundabout way that I don't think has truly matured yet. At the heart of the Council, and all of its documents, is a desire for ordinary Catholics to strive toward holiness (often termed the universal call to holiness). This, to me, is the greatest fruit of the Council. It seems to me that the Faith in pre-Conciliar days had become a bit static and mechanical. Holiness was seen as something priests and nuns did, not as something that everyone should strive toward. Even Sunday mass was dealt with in an almost factory-like way of one after another - sometimes as short as 20 minutes! For me, the call to the average Catholic in the pews to wake up and smell the Spirit is the most important effect that Vatican II brought about. It reminded us that our faith is not rooted in the grand institutions of the Counter-Reformation, but rather in our personal and communal relationship with God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ.

As with any momentous event, it will take more time for Vatican II to work itself into the lifeblood of the Church. I need not list the myriad of unintended and unfortunate consequences it triggered in the liturgy and other areas in the life of the Church. But, people are aware and are working to correct some of these unintended consequences. The gradual reintroduction of some of the traditional elements of Catholicism that were obscured by the razzle-dazzle of post-Vatican II excitement is a laudable trend that I foresee continuing. Pope John Paul II and especially Pope Benedict XVI have provided us with ways to integrate the unchanging doctrines of the Church into our modern lives through our relationship with Jesus.

The last 50 years have been an interesting ride, but that is to be expected because we are sinful people. As time goes on and the dust settles, I think we will begin to see Vatican II for what it was - an attempt to renew the soul of the Church in a way that does not discard the beauty and history of the Church. Like I said, we have a ways to go, but it's a path worth traveling.