This is the first of a series on the second session of the Vatican Council by the GEORGIA BULLETIN’S managing editor, who has just returned after three weeks of coverage and conversations at the Vatican.

BY GERARD E. SHERRY

The second session of the Vatican Council was concluded this week. On the surface, little seems to have been accomplished. Only one piece of major legislation, the Schema on the Liturgy, has been promulgated. In addition, Pope Paul approved the communication schema. Yet, there have been great strides toward aggiornamento, renewal within the Church, since the late Pope John called the Council Fathers to Rome in 1962.

One has to be present in Rome to completely grasp the many hidden accomplishments of the council so far. Publicly, the Church still appears to be shackled with ponderous machinery, with some of its leaders, not only not wanted renewal, but actually fearing it. However, my three weeks sojourn covering the Council in Rome, leads me to the conclusion that much was accomplished in changing the minds and hearts of all those concerned; that renewal is already taking place; that the basic unity of the Council Fathers remains intact.

At the first session, last fall, a deep cleavage seemed to be reflected in the Council debates. Entrenched conservatives seemed to be battling a minority of progressives (or Liberals) for the right to establish the norms of renewal. In press reports, the accent seemed to be on acrimony between the leaders of these groups. It seemed almost to come from out of the pages of Zane Grey, with the role of hero and villain being played by stars on the side you favored most. It would be less than honest to try to hide the fact that there were deep differences at the first session. Neither Xavier Rynne nor Robert Kaiser invented these differences—even if their books on the first session drew the ire and the censure of some in authority. The differences of the Council Fathers at the first session received so much play because of the over-emphasis on secrecy; the press was fed only the bare bones of the real news. Unknown to the outside world was the fact that these differences also led to a reexamination of positions, and led toward a greater unity.

This is so very obvious to any observer at the second session just completed. One has only got to look at the votes on the matters debated to realize that in a space of nine months a great measure of unanimity has been achieved by the Council Fathers. The conservatives are still there and they still fight from their entrenched positions. But the progressives (or liberal) have almost scaled the heights, picking up stragglers on the way. Acrimony was less evident, and was confined to some giants in both of the so-called camps. It is obvious that with majorities of 80% or more on most of the matters voted upon ,we are well on our way toward the renewal so ardently desired by Pope John and his successor, Pope Paul VI.

The main accomplishment at this session was the promulgation of the decree on the liturgy. This involves complete revision of the rites of the sacraments and the Mass, with its emphasis on the vernacular. It also encourages local initiative in relation to liturgical changes. But even here most of the work on the liturgy schema was done before and during the first session. For this reason, it was the first item on the agenda of the just-completed session. Our own Archbishop Hallinan was a member of the Liturgical Commission as were two other American, Fathers Frederick McManus, a canon lawyer form Catholic University, and Godfrey Diekmann, O.S.B., editor of Worship Magazine, from St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota.

It is interesting to note that Father Diekmann has been one of their country’s leading pioneers in the fight for liturgical change. He was one of the four priests banned from the Lenten series by Catholic University. He is now an expert officially appointed to the council. Three other priest who came under the ban, Jesuit Fathers John Courtney Murray and Gustave Weigel, both of Woodstock College, and Father Hans Kueng, Swiss theologian, have also been vindicated by their presence as experts at the Council. Perhaps the greatest consolation must have come to Father Murray, whose views on religious liberty caused him to be silenced for quiet a while, even though he was permitted to continue teaching at the Jesuit Seminary. Father Murray is credited with a major contribution in the work of preparing the council draft on religious liberty. His views have been eagerly sought by groups of Council Fathers from all over the world.

The implementation of the various liturgical changes will take time, but the American hierarchy has already taken steps to make sure that it will still be “as soon as possible”.

Another obvious accomplishment of the second session of the Council has been the widening or real liberty within the Church. Some of the statements made during the Council debates lead me to believe that we laity are less courageous than our bishops. Perhaps this is only to be expected in view of our reverence for authority; but some American bishops hardly seemed bashful in lecturing to their superiors, including the cardinals present at the debates. Certainly some of the remarks of these bishops contained points which laymen here have expressed-and some which they wish they had. Alas, I have known much milder remarks by laymen and priests to have been reported to the Holy Office, with the suggestion that they contained the seeds of anticlericalism or encouraged the flouting of authority.

One great disappointment, to my mind, was the position of the lay auditors. The first thing that must be said right away is that hardly any of the fifteen originally appointed are concerned in the day-to-day workings of the lay apostolate. They are basically administrators. Furthermore, as auditors, their main job is to listen, even though it is claimed that various commissions of the Council consult them at will. No doubt steps will be taken to give lay auditors a greater part in future Council deliberations. This can be seen by the appointment of two additional lay auditors, Martin Work, executive director of our own National Council of Catholic Men, and Patrick Keegan, former international president of the Young Christian Workers and now an official of the International Lay Apostolate Movement. So, too, we shall see the advent of women auditors. While I was in Rome, Cardinal Suenens, primate of Belgium, urged an increase in lay auditors, including women, “since women constitute one-half the population of the world.”

The great expectations of this second session of the Council may not have been realized. However, what is clear is that Pope Paul and the majority of bishops are determined that the updating of the Church will become more than an empty promise. It is no longer a question of a struggle between conservatives and liberals, but rather between an entrenched system and the desire by an overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers to seek new positions in the propagation of eternal truths. There is no question of changing doctrine, but only that of updating the methods.