The Reception of Vatican II: Historical and Theological Perspectives

In the May 8, 2024 New York Times Ross Douthat, a conservative Catholic convert with a large influential audience, published an op-ed entitled “Can Conservative and Liberal Catholics Coexist?” Douthat who uses the political terms “liberal” and “conservative” to make broad generalizations about movements in the Catholic church, argues that liberal Catholicism is a “relic of the 1970s,” has no “real long-term viability,” and is no longer a major source of “dynamism and growth.” The progressive hope that Pope Francis would revitalize liberal Catholicism in the U.S. has proven illusory. He has not succeeded in putting his stamp on the American church. During his ten-year pontificate there has been no big return of lapsed Catholics, no increase in Francis inspired vocations to the priesthood, and no revitalization of Catholic institutions. On the other hand, Douthat thinks that conservative Catholicism will probably become steadily more influential, even dominant, but will not achieve a sweeping victory.

In response to Ross Douthat, let us examine the post-conciliar era not as a contest between conservative and liberal Catholics, but as a long, complicated, ongoing process of “reception,” as the American church attempts to understand and appropriate the teachings and spirit of the Second Vatican Council.  I will recall the “reception story” from my perspective as a diocesan priest working with colleagues to implement the Vatican II reforms for over six decades.

Pope John called the council not to condemn heresy or proclaim new doctrines, but to renew the church, to experience a “new Pentecost,” to serve as a sign of unity, to be “a most loving mother of all,” and to be more attuned to the needs of the world. The pope put the task of preparing documents for discussion in the hands of the Roman Curia headed by influential cardinals including Alfredo Ottaviani and Guiseppi Siri. As John O’Malley recounts in his excellent book What Happened at Vatican II, on the first working day of the council, French Cardinal Achille Leinert, supported by German Cardinal Joseph Frings, objected to the plans of the curia and engineered a coup that enabled the assembled bishops to take control of the council (pp 97-102). Over the next four years, they produced 16 documents that with occasional help of Pope John and his successor Pope Paul VI won near unanimous consent.  For example, the ground breaking Constitution on the Liturgy was approved 2,149 to 4 and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church passed with only five dissenting votes. There was no division between conservative and liberal bishops. There was general unity on promoting the reforms envisioned by Pope John.

Contrary to Ross Douthat, who in a previous op-ed declared Vatican II a “failure,” the implementation of the reform agenda has been amazingly effective in improving parish ministry in the United States. Historically, parish priests did an outstanding job in meeting the spiritual needs of millions of Catholic immigrants and helping them make it economically, socially and politically in their new homeland. More recently but before Vatican II, priests did almost all the ministerial tasks in the parish. Since the council lay persons have assumed more of the ministerial responsibilities which has greatly improved parish ministry. For example, today most parishes provide better marriage preparation by married couples; the reception of converts is more effective through the RCIA process; eucharistic visits to the sick and homebound are enriched by eucharistic ministers who spend time with their fellow parishioners; more effective social outreach sponsored by social justice committees; more compassionate care for unwed mothers by members of the pro-life committee; better financial decisions by pastors with expert advice from the finance council; and more inclusive ministerial practices suggested by parish councils in touch with various needs and interests of the congregation. Obviously not all parishes have made good use of lay ministers, however, there is no doubt that the Vatican II reforms have greatly improved parish ministry and structures are now in place to sustain and grow this important fruit of the council.

Vatican II has also enriched the spiritual life of many American Catholics in significant ways. For the first time in the history of the church, Vatican II explicitly taught the universal call to holiness. All Christians “in any state or walk of life are called to holiness,” to the “fullness of Christianity, and to the perfection of charity” (LG n39-40). This core teaching continues to work its way into the consciousness of U.S. Catholics: repeated in homilies and religious education classes for young and old; appropriated by lay persons serious about their spiritual life; and manifested in those attending retreats, seeking spiritual direction and finding God in their daily lives. It is hard to imagine any resurgence of clericalism that would totally reverse this conciliar teaching.

The Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy taught that the primary aim of the liturgical reforms is the “full and active participation by all the people” in the sacred rites (n14). Many of the changes have facilitated more conscious participation: celebrating Mass in English; priests facing the assembly; and sharing the greeting of peace. The liturgical reforms turned many Catholics from passive spectators to active participants with lasting effects on Catholic spirituality.

The Constitution on Divine Revelation provided a new positive approach to the Bible. For Christians, the Scriptures are “strength for their faith, food for their soul and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life” (n21). In a reversal of traditional pastoral advice given since the Reformation, the bishops have encouraged Catholics to read the Bible, confident that “veneration of the Word of God will enrich their spiritual life” (n26). Today many Catholics are now inspired and guided by scripture on their spiritual journey in various ways:  reading the Bible privately, participating in Bible studies, looking at the Sunday readings before Mass and doing lectio divina which is a slow meditative reading of a scripture passage of interest. Not all Catholics have embraced a scriptural piety but the Bible is now an integral and permanent resource within the rich and diverse Catholic spiritual tradition.

Finally, the Vatican II Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World has fostered an “incarnational spirituality” that recognizes the Christian responsibility to be a “leaven” in society and to transform the world in the light of the Gospel (n21). More Catholics today see their work as a way of sharing in God’s ongoing creation and of growing spiritually. The large number of collegians who continue to participate in Christian service projects suggests that Vatican II incarnational spirituality will remain a valuable resource for American Catholics.

As we continue to examine the American reception process let us look at some of the most significant events.  On November 29, 1964, the first Sunday of Advent, Catholics in the U.S. celebrated Mass in English for the first time. In many parishes there was an immediate positive response, especially where pastors explained the purpose and significance of the changes. Among reform minded Catholics there was anticipation that more changes were to come including the three-year scripture cycle.

Applying the teachings of Vatican II on war and peace (GS n77-82), a committee of American bishops chaired by Archbishop Joseph Bernardin held hearings, consulted with experts, released various drafts and eventually published in 1983 “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response.” This document used traditional Catholic Social Teaching, including the just war tradition, to address questions of war and peace in the nuclear age. For example,    the U.S. bishops condemned initiating a nuclear war, and insisted that the policy of deterrence based on mutual assured destruction (MAD) cannot be the basis for true peace. They urged countries with nuclear arms to pursue policies to eventually eliminate them. The bishops’ letter drew the attention of the secular world including the Reagan administration and brought Catholic Social Teaching into the discussion of a very serious contemporary issue.  Following the same dialogic, public process, the bishops published in 1986 another pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All,” that proposed moral principles for judging economic policies. For example, asking if they enhance human dignity, promote family life, and care for the weakest members of society.  This document was newsworthy in part because it was severely attacked by Catholic economists.

After these efforts to bring the church into dialogue with the contemporary world, the bishops attempted to write a pastoral letter on women’s issues that was redrafted a number of times to meet objections of the Vatican and was eventually dropped. A few years later Pope John Paul issued a decree that national hierarchies could publish pastoral letters representing the official teachings of the church only if they had unanimous consent of all the bishops, a setback for the American reception process.

In the last decades of the twentieth century, many American Catholic parishes with the permission of their bishop, held communal penance services that included hymns, prayers, scripture readings, examination of conscience, general absolution and the opportunity for private confession with visiting priests. These celebrations, using the third form of the sacrament of reconciliation, drew large crowds especially during Advent and Lent. In 2001, Pope John Paul sent a letter to all the bishops in the world telling them to put an end to penance services that included general absolution, thus eliminating a pastorally effective conciliar reform.

Vatican II put the task of translating the Latin liturgical texts in the hands of local episcopal conferences. The English-speaking bishops formed the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), including the U.S., the UK and Australia, that consulted experts and poets and published in 1998 a highly praised translation which they sent to the Vatican for final approval. Unfortunately, Rome rejected the ICEL translation and in 2010 made official the stilted, clumsy translation now used in English speaking countries.  This clear violation of a conciliar directive by curial officials impeded efforts to promote “conscious” participation in the liturgy.

In 2007, Pope Benedict issued a declaration that the 1962 Roman Missal (also called the “Tridentine Mass”) should be considered as “an extraordinary expression” of the one liturgical prayer of the church while the Vatican II Mass is the “ordinary expression” of the church’s liturgical prayer.  The pope declared parish priests could make the decision to provide the Tridentine Mass for groups requesting it.  Benedict intended this pastoral initiative to meet the spiritual needs of a small group of Catholics, but liturgical scholars perceived it as a blow to the liturgical reforms and reformers considered it an obstacle to the reception process.

In the same year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a voter’s guide called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which called abortion the “preeminent threat to human dignity.” The 2024 voter guide continues to call abortion the preeminent issue of our day, a teaching not found in The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. True to their priority, the American bishops have strongly and consistently spoken against policies that allow or promote abortion. In contrast, the bishops have said very little publicly about other significant moral issues, including climate change, voter suppression and preserving democracy, an imbalance that has retarded the reception process in the United States.

When Jorge Bergoglio was elected Bishop of Rome in 2013, the reception of Vatican II teaching was reenergized. One theologian reformer commented that it feels good to have the pope on our side. On his first day as pope, he gave several signals that he wanted to adhere to the Vatican II admonition to be a servant leader (CD n16). For example, taking the name “Francis” honoring the self-effacing saint from Assisi; asking the crowd assembled in St. Peter’s Square to pray for him; and choosing to live simply in the Vatican guest house. There was a sense among many reformers that Francis would renew the “spirit of the council” and encourage the faithful to join in the ongoing effort to implement its reforms. The pope went on to call the council “a visit of God to his church,” not just a renewal but a “rejuvenation” that makes the church a more “mature” force for good in the modern world.

The phrase “spirit of the council” has become controversial. Pope John Paul used it positively when he promulgated the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983, hoping that it would help the church progress in “conformity to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.” Over time, John Paul came to share the view of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that progressive theologians had severed the notion of “the spirit of the council” from the conciliar texts, emphasizing their discontinuity from official doctrine and opening up the call for further changes in church teaching not envisioned by the council. Both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict emphasized ways the conciliar documents were in continuity with traditional church teaching. During their long pontificates, Catholics opposed to the Vatican II reforms commonly accused reformers of misusing the so-called “spirit of the council” to subvert the traditional teachings of the church.

To put some order in the discussion, theologians have identified in the conciliar documents general trends and a guiding vision: a commitment to reform and renewal; a need to reformulate traditional teaching; a desire to improve pastoral practices; and the importance of clergy and laity working together on the reception and implementation of the conciliar teaching.

Pope Francis, who enjoys a 75% approval rating among U.S. Catholics, appears to many to be the embodiment of the conciliar spirit.  Reformers have found wisdom in some of his impromptu pastoral comments: God never tires of forgiving us; clergy should be shepherds with the smell of the sheep; the church should function like a field hospital; Catholics should be joyful and not look like they just came from a funeral; and about a gay priest, who am I to judge?

Although Francis did not participate in Vatican II, he lives and speaks its simple spirit, encouraging U.S. reformers to follow his example. Concretely, the Argentine pope reenforced the conciliar directive that local bishops should be in charge of translating the Latin liturgical texts which makes it likely that we will one day be praying the excellent ICIL translation rejected by the Vatican in 2017.

In July 2021, Pope Francis promulgated an Apostolic Letter stating that the Vatican II liturgy is “the unique expression” of the official worship of the Roman Rite and that priests needed the permission of their bishop to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.  By that time, many bishops had granted permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass based on their authority to “regulate the liturgical celebration” in their diocese.  Under Pope Francis, Rome responded by introducing new restrictions on bishops, including getting permission from the Vatican to allow or extend in any way the celebration of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.  Pope Francis was convinced that fidelity to the conciliar reforms of the liturgy was essential to maintaining the “concord and unity of the church.”

Pope Francis has noted that historians say it takes a century or more for the church to appropriate the teachings of an ecumenical council, indicating we have a long way to go. To facilitate this long process of reception, the pope has chosen an approach he calls “synodality.” Although the word is not found in the council documents, Francis grounds it in the conciliar ecclesiology that the church is the whole “people of God” and that all the members are responsible for building up the Body of Christ and spreading the reign of God in the world. Francis has described synodality in various ways. It is “the path that God expects of the church of the third millennium” and it expresses “the nature of the church, its form, its style and its mission.” Based on its etymology the pope sees synodality as “walking together” to implement the conciliar teachings. He uses the phrase a “Synodal Church” to make clear that synodality is not just a slogan or a theological theory or an optional approach but an essential dimension of church life.

It is important for U.S. Catholic reformers to understand the purpose and dynamics of synodality. For Francis, who distrusts top-down solutions while having great trust in the wisdom of the people of God, synodality is more concerned with process than results. It is a way of developing habits of church discernment, a mode of decision making that involves mutual listening so that all the members of the church are heard and function as both teachers and learners while listening together to the Holy Spirit. Francis wants this habit of mutual listening to guide decision-making in parishes, dioceses and the world church. This is a long-term project with delayed results. For example, Pope Francis presided over the 2019 Amazon Synod Assembly which drew attention to the plight of the indigenous people in the Amazon basin and the degradation of the Amazon rainforest. That synod voted 128 to 41 to allow permanent deacons to be ordained priests, but Francis in his follow-up apostolic exhortation did not even mention the priestly ordination of married men and no action has been taken since. This example prepares U.S. Catholics for the fact that Francis is not going to allow the ordination of women deacons after the 2024 Synod in Rome, as he has stated publicly. Pope Francis has at least opened up the possibility of expanding the ordained ministry and many U.S. reformers hope that a future pope will take action on this prospect.

From the perspective of U.S. reform-minded Catholics, the story of the reception of the Vatican II reforms and spirit is incomplete and on-going.  It has had high points like the first Masses celebrated in English and setbacks including the prohibition of very popular penance services with general absolution. Reformers who at times felt stifled by Popes John Paul and Benedict welcomed Pope Francis as an ally in implementing Vatican II reforms. They applauded his support for the liturgical reforms and expressed disappointment over his position and rhetoric on women’s issues and of his uneven handling of the sex abuse scandal. The sense of freedom fostered by Francis moved reformers to push harder for ordaining virtuous married men to the priesthood and women to the deaconate. Now that this is not going to happen under Francis, reformers are looking for other ways to implement the conciliar reforms.

Some are concentrating on improving parish life and ministry, helping them become “synodal parishes,” that practice the synodal virtues of shared prayer, empathetic listening, compassionate attention to the needs of marginalized persons, and consensus decision making. We can envision concrete examples of a synodal parish in action. A pastor facing the challenge of combining two parishes initiates a year-long synodal process that involves representatives of each parish meeting in small groups, praying together, sharing their personal views, making non-judgmental responses, reporting to the whole group and preparing a written summary for further discussion in both parishes. At the weekly staff meeting members take turns leading prayer, everyone shares a ministerial concern or success, all can offer opinions on the issue at hand and the meeting ends with a prayer followed by a shared meal. The parish council holds periodic open meetings where parishioners can express their concerns about parish ministry. Twice a year the prolife committee and the social justice committee sit together at Sunday Mass and go out together after Mass for conversation over brunch. The parish publicly welcomes Catholic members of the LGBT community. The parish liturgy committee finds ways for disabled persons to actively participate in Mass. The parish outreach program does a survey of the surrounding neighborhood to see if the parish can help improve life in the neighborhood. The parish makes use of diocesan resources to help parishioners in need. Reformers can further the reception process by finding other creative ways to improve parish life and ministry.

Contrary to Ross Douthat, the Second Vatican Council was not a failure, but has made a positive impact on the church by improving parish ministry and deepening Catholic spirituality. Against Douthat, the American church is not locked in an unwinnable battle between liberals and conservatives, but is experiencing a long process of appropriating and implementing the Vatican II reforms. Versus Douthat’s previous claims that Pope Francis was leading the U.S. church into schism, the pope is trying to unify the church around the reception of conciliar teaching using synodality to bring Catholics closer together. Those of us committed to the conciliar reforms are called to do all we can to support the pope’s project.  Let us pray, asking the Holy Spirit, the Advocate who lives in our hearts, to bless us with the gift of wisdom to guide us on the path of reform and the gift of hope to strengthen us when the path is dark and rocky.