Michael Winter, a leading member of the Movement for a Married Clergy, began by posing the question, "Why is the 22 April 1418 significant?".

At first silence fell upon the room and then there was a buzz of consultation. Finally Michael revealed that the 22 April 1418 marked the end on a significant General Council in the Church's history: the Council of Constance. After the election of Pope Martin V, the Council promulgated the famous decree, "Frequens", on 9 October 1417. This provided for a General Council to be convoked every 10 years. It also promulgated reform of ecclesiastical government and life. (It is interesting to note how involved both the England and the Germany were in this Council.) It has been unfortunate for the welfare of the People of God that this decision was never really implemented.

He posed a further question, "How is it possible for a Council held on an occasional basis to control the prevailing bureacracy?"

We see in our own time how the popular discourse over the Second Vatican Council has changed in 45 years. One of hope, collaboration, enthusiasm and inclusivity has been changed into that of the absolutism of hierarchy.

Yves Congar OP, 1904 - 1995, the author of a number of important books, including "True and False Reform in the Church" was no stranger to suffering.  In 1956 he wrote to his mother,

After successive persecutions by the Holy Office, Rev Fr Yves was created Cardinal in 1994 by Pope John Paul II. In Michael Winter's opinion he exemplified charity and apostolic zeal, great patience and an overwhelming desire to preserve the unity of the Church. An example to be followed.

In order to make the Church relevant to the people of God and the world in which it exists, a General Council of the Church needs to consider four aspects:

Vatican II fulfilled all of these. There was a concrete theological basis for the reforms, notably in liturgy. The Council defined the Church as the people of God and put the onus of promoting the Kingdom of God firmly on their shoulders. The Deacons, Priests and Bishops exist for the sake of the laity to encourage and strengthen them for the task to which their baptism calls them. Michael cited Jesus' own teaching in Mark 10:41-45. He also mentioned that it was worth noting that the Council of Trent, in the Decree on Reformation makes it mandatory for 'Pastors of Churches' to be actively engaged in caring for the souls entrusted to them.

Sadly, since the Middle Ages Popes have imitated Emperors and the absolute monarchs of the 17th and 18th centuries even though some have spoken about subsidiarity: the practice of decisions being made at the lowest possible level. Unfortunately, even petty decisions are now reserved to Rome. Our Bishops have been deprived or authority in their own dioceses and have suffered as a result. The laity continue to suffer, for example, there is no defence against the machinations of a dictatorial Parish Priest. Power still remains as defined by the Council of Trent.

Michael transfered his thoughts from lament to remedy.

The first things needed in the Church were elected Pastoral Councils at parish and diocesan level. Only four of the 22 dioceses in England and Wales have elected Pastoral Councils. At parish level the Pastoral Council exists at the will of the Parish Priest.

Parishes need to return to ancient tradition where they were real communities. Numbers in a Eucharistic community too much in excess of 70 result in anonymity of individuals in the community, potential alienation from the group, lack of cohesion, poor or non existent peer to peer relations and care. Of course, it goes without saying, that these smaller communities will want to join with others to experience the joy and more formal liturgy of a larger gathering. The diocesan celebrations of the Eucharist would make visible the unity of the people in the diocese with their bishop. Michael indicated historical records that showed there were 40 parishes in Canterbury in the middle ages. In King Street in Norwich there were 8 churches. Small intimate communities was not a new idea.

Michael exhorted the meeting not to despair of the election of an enlighted Pope. The Catholic Church cannot remain in the situation it is in. He pointed to significant courageous figures of recent times:

The long and short of it is that people in the Church are exasperated. However anything that is said must be courteous. We must be prepared to listen as well as speak out. It is the custom in societies such as ours in the modern world to obey and support governments that we criticise.

Michael left us with a reminder that when there is a choice between obeying our informed consciences and blindly obeying the authority of the Church we should follow our conscience.(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1968)

Council of Constance
Council of Trent
Cardinal Yves Congar OP
What If We Just Said Wait?
Stand Up for Vatican II

I recently wrote about the need for mainstream and liberal Catholics to offer remonstrance -- an earnest presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance against the reactionaries now fomenting schism within the Church.  

I'd now like to further explain the need for such action. Why is Catholic remonstrance necessary? Here are a few compelling reasons.

Read more

Robert Nowell, a disinguished journalist who was present at Vatican II, gave his audience at the Stand Up for Vatican II meeting much food for thought on Tuesday, 26 January 2010.

He began by noting that history is full of 'what ifs'.    As an example, what would have been the outcome if Vatican I had not been adjourned on 20 October 1870 due to the results of the Franco-Prussian War?    Vatican I had not been able to complete its agenda and had only produced the Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome.  Robert summed it up as "They had only got through the papal bits."

The notion promulgated by Vatican I was that the Church could operate with a head and nothing much else.

Blessed Pope John XXIII was regarded as mad when he proposed a continuation of the agenda of Vatican I in Vatican 2.  In fact he had quite a lot of opposition to overcome.  Nevertheless Vatican II came to be in 1962.

Vatican II redressed the balance.  It was manifestly obvious that the Church could not operate with the Curia doing everything.  The Council proclaimed fraternity, dialogue and collegiality.   The papal role was to be that of a chairman not a dictator.

The Council did not discuss birth control, celibacy for the clergy or the way bishops are appointed.

Once the Council ended, the bureaucracy in Rome acted in the way of all bureaucracies: it made manifest that it did not wish to be disturbed.  

Robert called our minds back to the 1970s and the Third Rite of Penance which allowed general absolution.  In the UK this was very effective and led to an increase in the number of individual confessions.   Despite protests this Rite was banned by Rome even though it could have been used very effectively in millennium celebrations.

The People of God were obviously getting too stroppy and Rome acted, especially effectively by retaining the centralisation of the appointment of Bishops within their remit.

It is known and appreciated that the late Cardinal Hume did much to prevent interference by Rome in the day to day affairs of the English and Welsh Church.   However some have criticised this as "obsequious diplomacy".   Since his death in 1999 modern technology has made it possible for Rome to increasingly display 'Big Brother' characteristics in its quest for control.   Bishops are regularly rung up by Vatican authorities to interrogate them about their actions in their dioceses.   Delation (tale-telling) to Rome is advocated and practised by a vociferous minority in the Church.  One has to have empathy for the bishops.  They have risen to high rank in the Church and enjoy, quite rightly, status in the community.  To lose these would cause them loss of face and position.   (See, however, how one Bishop reacted to being transferred to a diocese under the sands of the Sahara.)

A very up to date example of the lack of listening and dialogue on the Vatican's part is the new translation of the Missal.   Inculturation is  a dirty word in the ecclesial institution today.   The Japanese have seriously objected to the translation into their language, done in Rome, without any sensitivity to their culture or social customs.  The question, "What if we just said wait?" has been posed.

Robert exhorted us to pray.   Jesus said he would not abandon the People of God.  In response to our prayers the Holy Spirit will stimulate the renewal of the Church.

The real issue with the resumption of the inclination towards tyranny in the Church is that it diminishes our attention to what we hear from our leaders in faith.   The stimulation of prejudice, mindless obedience, transfer of responsibility, willingness to intimidate and destroy all lead to disaffection.   This is what is dangerous and risks fragmenting the Church we love.

Useful links: