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: