Truth About “Spirit of Vatican II” Finally Revealed!

It’s the twin brother of

Casper the Friendly Ghost!

Well, that’s how I interpret the opinion of one recent visitor to The Wild Reed. Here’s more precisely what this anonymous visitor had to say:

I find it interesting that [Michael Bayly] cites Sacrosanctum Concilium [when discussing the liturgy that has developed at St. Stephen’s Catholic Church]. It appears that, like so many before him, he uses the documents of the Second Vatican Council without actually having read them. Instead, he interprets the documents with something called the “Spirit of Vatican II”. This “Spirit” allows it proponents the license to interpret the documents, not for what they actually say, but instead in ways that support what they want them to say. The reason for thinking [that he has not read it] is that right in the middle of Sacrosanctum Concilium, under the heading “General Norms,” are these clear and unequivocal statements:

1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Interestingly, those who advocate the “Spirit of Vatican II” seem to also forget the following from Lumen Gentium, Chapter III: “On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate”:

And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.

I encourage [Michael Bayly] to remember that the “Spirit of Vatican II” is as much fiction as that other spirit, Casper the Friendly Ghost.


Oh, dang! You mean Casper isn’t really real? I’m devastated!

But seriously, I appreciate the perspective shared by this visitor and consider the issues he/she raises to be very important. Accordingly, I asked my theologian friend William Hunt to share his thoughts on this matter. Here’s what he had to say:

The commentator has a valid point. The Vatican II documents in many places are compromise documents that smooth over some of the major conflicts without resolving them. Thus the decree on the Church talks about collegiality on the one hand but absolute papal authority on the other. The decree on the Liturgy says: “Lingua Latina est lingua Ecclesiae” (variously translated as “Latin is the language of the Church.” “Latin is a church language.” “A Latin language [Italian?] is a language of the Church.” etc.) but at the same time opens the way for the widespread use of the vernacular.

One response to this responder to The Wild Reed would be to turn his/her argument around. One can’t absolutize church authority to the point that there is no room for the active participation of the laity in the liturgy. Similarly, one cannot stress the hierarchical nature of the Church to the point where the Church becomes identified with the Bishops and Pope with no place for the laity or to the point where it negates the notion of the Church as the people of God.

These ideas have to be held in creative tension as the Church adapts to the needs of the time. As such they form the basis for sisterly and brotherly dialog as to where the contemporary Church should fall within the extremes. For example, we need to address the question: How should hierarchical oversight be exercised so as to encourage the active participation of the faithful.

Liturgical rules are not absolute. Over the centuries the Roman Rite has developed and changed due to the influence of local customs that were incorporated into the liturgy. A good example is the lighting of the fire at the beginning of the Easter Vigil Service, as far as I recall an influence of the Gallican (French) church.

The crucial thing is to enter into dialog. I’m not so sure that your interlocutor is willing to do that.

Perhaps the willingness to hold this “creative tension” when reading and interpreting the documents of Vatican II is a big part of what is meant by “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

That being said, I guess this spirit isn’t related to little ol’ Casper after all!

My thanks to my anonymous visitor and to William Hunt for sharing their thoughts. Oh, and stay tuned for more writings on Vatican II.


Above: William Hunt (back row, left) with myself and members of The Progressive Catholic Voice editorial team and Connie Aligada (front row, second from right) of Call to Action Minnesota – February 19, 2008.

Back row (from left): William Hunt, Michal Bayly, and Rick Notch. Front row (from left): Mary Beckfeld, Mary Lynn Murphy, Connie Aligada, and David McCaffrey.


To read William Hunt’s October 2006 Pioneer Press commentary, “On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition,” click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Shrinking Catholic Tent
• Libertas Ecclesiae
• What it Means to Be Catholic
• Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
• Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
• Choosing to Stay
• The “Underground Church”

On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition

Catholic theologian and former CPCSM president William Hunt, has shed much needed light on the same-sex marriage issue in a recent Pioneer Press guest editorial.

As you’ll see, William is an astute thinker and gifted writer. Not surprisingly, he has a contribution in the book I’ve recently completed editing, Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Perspective (Haworth Press), due out in December.

______________________

On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition
Wisconsin’s Marriage Amendment

By William C. Hunt
Pioneer Press
October 31, 2006

Christians concerned about the so-called marriage amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution would do well to examine our own religious tradition, in particular a centuries-old condemnation of an “unnatural” practice.

This practice is mentioned more than 15 times in the Hebrew Bible — always in the negative sense of a serious offense. Christian leaders condemned it as an unnatural vice for more than 1,500 years. In 1312 an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church condemned as heretics all those who argued that this practice was not sinful. Dante places people guilty of this vice in the seventh ring of hell. Martin Luther equated this sin with theft and murder and insisted that anyone who engaged in this activity should not be buried in consecrated ground.

What was this sin? Homosexual activity? No, it was taking interest on loans, a practice called usury.

How did church leaders go from universal condemnation of interest-taking to the situation today, where Thrivent Financial for Lutherans sings the praises of compound interest and the Vatican runs a bank?

Part of the explanation comes from a radical change in our understanding of money. Ancient peoples thought of money as merely a medium of exchange. If you loaned your neighbor a cow, you could expect some payment for it because the cow was useful. It produced milk and pulled your plow and might even bear a calf. Coins, on the other hand, just lay in a bag and didn't produce anything. Charging interest was seen as contrary to the very nature of money. Treating something sterile as though it were productive was going against nature.

Also, lending money was closely associated with oppression of the poor, especially when interest rates were often 50 percent per year or higher. At the time of Jesus, high interest rates were driving more and more peasants off their land and into the ranks of day laborers and beggars who could not make enough to feed themselves and their families. Usury imposed a death sentence of slow starvation on its victims.

Over time, our understanding of money has become much more nuanced. For us, money is a human invention, not something with natural value. In addition to being a medium of exchange, we see money as equivalent to productive resources, an abstract measure of purchasing power (as opposed to bartering), and something that stores value.

Likewise, our understanding of interest has become more discriminating. Not all interest-taking is bad. Usury laws still prohibit unreasonable rates of interest that prey on the poor, but low-interest loans actually help poor people lift themselves out of poverty.

In the biblical period and for much of Christian history, homosexual activity was condemned for many of the same reasons as usury. Ancient peoples had no concept of homosexual orientation as a natural phenomenon. In a male-dominated patriarchal society homosexual activity among men was seen as degrading to the passive partner. It was unnatural because he allowed himself to be reduced to the essentially lower status of a woman. Also, biblical authors and church leaders commonly understood homosexual activity only in the context of idol worship, promiscuity and violence.

The 20th century witnessed a revolution in our understanding of sexuality, something comparable to the scientific revolution in Galileo's time. Today we hold to the natural equality of the sexes, and we are aware that committed, loving sexual relationships between persons of the same gender are possible. True, we continue to condemn promiscuity and rape in homosexual as well as in heterosexual relationships, but it flies in the face of facts to consider homosexual relationships only in that light.

To sum up, because we understand the nature of money differently, we are not opposed to all interest-taking. Now that we understand homosexuality differently, need we be opposed to all homosexual activity? Could it be that we are in the midst of a development of social consciousness and even of church teaching on this subject?

If so, just as now is not the time to reinstate laws that prohibit all interest on loans, so also now is not the time for a constitutional amendment that prohibits committed sexual unions between gay and lesbian persons.

William C. Hunt holds a doctorate in theology from the Catholic University of America. He writes from his home in rural Somerset, Wisconsin.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• This “Militant Secularist” Wants to Marry a Man
• “Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality is Complex and Nuanced”, says Theologian
• The Catholic Church and Gays: An Excellent Historical Overview
• Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
• Good News from Minnesota
• The Non-negotiables of Human Sex
• The Sexuality of Jesus