|
Vatican II: 40
years later
Bishops too had to re-learn ‘being church’
By CHARLES BUSWELL
In the very year of my being made a
bishop, on the feast of the conversion of St. Paul, Jan. 25, 1959, Pope John
XXIII announced that there would be an ecumenical council, calling all the
bishops of the world to modernize and to adapt the church to modern times. The
Second Vatican Council was about to begin.
I received a paper blizzard, giving indications and directions for
the council as well as topics and schemas for each session. I was rather busy
myself getting used to my role as bishop of the diocese and did not pay too
much attention to the material that was sent. I sensed that much of it appeared
to be a rerun of the material we had been given in seminary.
During the three years before the beginning of the council I
regularly attended the annual meeting of the bishops of the United States. At
that time it was called the NCWC -- National Catholic Welfare Conference -- and
the president was always the ranking prelate of the United States. At that time
the ranking prelate was Cardinal [Francis] Spellman, the archbishop of New
York. He presided over the sessions of the bishops with a spirit of authority.
There was not much discussion, and I think the cardinal felt he was responsible
only to God. Some of the bishops of the West said NCWC meant not National
Catholic Welfare Conference, but Nothing Counts West of Chicago. Often the
cardinal would propose a question, have no discussion of it, and proclaim that
the motion had been moved, seconded and carried all in one breath. There was
never any discussion.
In contrast, however, the Second Vatican Council held public
discussion on all sorts of matters given for our consideration. There was
freedom and encouragement to open topics for discernment. This freedom was
especially apparent when the first speaker was presented at the council. The
speakers were chosen in order of seniority. The first speaker was Cardinal
[Achille] Lienart, the cardinal archbishop of Lille in France. The general
secretary had Archbishop Pericle Felici announce that the Roman curia had
assigned those who would be members of the conciliar committee and would be
entrusted with the responsibility of moving the material of the council.
Cardinal Lienart took exception to this decision made by the Roman curia and
said the bishops themselves would name this committee, since the council was to
be a council of bishops and not a council of the Roman curia. The second
speaker, Cardinal [Josef] Frings, archbishop of Cologne, Germany, seconded the
suggestion, saying the bishops should be given the responsibility for moving
the prepared material of the council. At that point Archbishop Felici
terminated the discussion and went to the board of five presidents that the
Holy Father had named for resolution of the issue. They determined that indeed
the committee should be made up of the bishops themselves. Archbishop Felici
then announced that this working session would be terminated and the bishops,
not the Roman curia, would be free to name the members of the committee as well
as be responsible for the workings of the council. This was an important
breakthrough at the very beginning.
At the [council’s opening liturgy], presided over by Pope
John XXIII, he gave a very impressive homily that set the tone for the entire
council. He said there would be no definitive statements of the council that
would be condemnations or excommunications. There would be freedom of
discussion and the purpose of the council would be to give new light to the
world. The church was not to be a static remnant of past glory but would be a
dynamic organism to penetrate the world with a spirit of truth and light. The
church would open windows to let in fresh air and bring in a new vision that
prepares the world for new responsibility for the world in which we live.
There would then be four sessions of the council, each dominated
by the spirit that John XXIII indicated at that first liturgy: a spirit of
freedom and common understanding and a spirit of openness to other religions
and the world. The council would provide an opportunity for the church to
exercise a real influence toward good for all, and to help in the cause of
peace for all nations.
The first session centered on a discussion of the liturgy of the
church. I think the initial plan was to have the nature of the church to be the
first matter to be discussed. But it was determined that the documentation for
this grave and important matter was not sufficiently in tune with the spirit of
Pope John XXIII. In fact, all prepared material was subject to careful scrutiny
because it had been built upon the past spirit of the church and Pope John
wanted to infuse the church with a new spirit.
There was one document that had not been prepared by the Roman
curia but by an international group of theological and liturgical scholars. In
this group were two U.S. priests who were experts in modern liturgy. One was
Fr. (later Msgr.) Frederick McManus, and Benedictine Fr. Godfrey Diekmann from
Collegeville, Minn., who played an important part in the commission’s
activities. I had been part of the National Liturgical Conference in which
these two men were especially prominent, and from them I had received a new
awareness and education on the importance of liturgy in the formation of the
church.
I was very impressed and convinced that new forms for the liturgy
would be proposed at the council. Because of the freshness of the material
provided by the preparatory commission for the liturgy, it was the liturgy that
became the first item chosen to begin the council’s activities. As a
matter of fact, the entire first session was given over to the topic of the
liturgy and it gave certain indications that would be important for the future
work of the council. For instance, one of the most important parts of the
liturgical reform was the call for the full and active participation of the
faithful in carrying out the liturgy of the church. Formerly the bishops and
priests were solely responsible for carrying out the liturgy. Now, while they
would still be responsible for it, it must include the full, conscious and
active participation of all baptized persons in the worship of the church. This
could be interpreted to mean that all of us, ordained or unordained, would be
responsible for the church, because we are the church.
The council reminded us that the church is the church of all
baptized people, and the faithful, both men and women, have a responsibility
for the welfare of the church. All should be considered as equal to one another
through baptism and the outpouring of the Spirit. So “laypeople” were
to be considered in full equality. We were to have different responsibilities,
but all are one in Christ. The church also has responsibility for those
“outside” the church, that is, not members of the Roman Catholic
church, and those not baptized. So the council would reconsider its
relationship with non-baptized persons with a new ecumenical spirit. The Second
Vatican Council gave us a new outlook on the church as an organization, as an
organism, and as part of the human family even outside its own membership,
seeing all people as an important part of the human family with whom we need to
interrelate and learn.
In the liturgy, as we bishops saw in the discussion of the
document on the liturgy, the Word of God played a very important part and needs
to be a vital part of church worship. Not only would the scriptures be
presented more fully over a three-year period of time but also would be brought
to bear on the lives we live. We are reminded that the scripture proclaims that
God is really present and speaks to us directly through the Word. In the
following documents of the council, then we are reminded that it becomes
imperative that we apply the Word to ourselves in order to bring us to an
understanding of the importance of working toward justice and peace.
It is through the Word of God that we are to become men and women
of justice and peace. The Word of God is the word of peace. The Word of God
prohibits all discrimination within and outside the church. There is to be no
discrimination because of sex, color of skin or any other factor. We are to
respect the dignity of every person. I felt driven then, to help make the
church of Pueblo, Colo., a Vatican Council church, that is a church blessed
with openness and freedom with high regard for the dignity of every person.
Bishop Charles Buswell, now retired, led the Pueblo, Colo.,
diocese from 1959, the eve of the Second Vatican Council, until 1979. His
reflections are excerpted from his privately published autobiography, Peace
and Love Always; reprinted with permission.
National Catholic Reporter, October 4,
2002
|
|
