Vatican Council: The Uses of Ambiguity

In seeking to resolve the arguments of its progressive and conservative forces, the Second Vatican Council has frequently pressed into service that invaluable tool of consensus, ambiguity. Last week the bishops approved two major documents that show the strain of compromise and revision: the schema on revelation and the declaration of religious liberty.*

The decree on revelation was intended to resolve one of the most troublesome of Roman Catholic theological issues: whether God’s word is contained wholly in Scripture or whether some truths are also found in “tradition,” the teachings passed down orally in the church from the Apostles. Until the Middle Ages, every Christian took it for granted that Scripture was the sole source of revelation. But as the church, in responding to heresies, was forced to clarify and define its doctrines, it found that not all of them could be directly traced to what the Bible explicitly says. The bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven, a common Catholic teaching since the 6th century although not defined as dogma until 1950, is clearly not spelled out in Scripture in the way that the Annunciation is. During the 14th century, theologians tried to solve the problem by arguing that there were two channels of revelation —the Bible and tradition. After the Protestant reformers proposed that revelation is found in Scripture alone, the Council of Trent declared that divine revelation is also contained in the unwritten instruction received by the Apostles from Christ himself.

Since then, Catholic theologians have been divided between “two-source” adherents and those who argue that tradition is nothing more than the church’s living, unfolding interpretation and explication of the Bible. France’s great Dominican theologian Yves Congar argues that “there is no Christian truth which is not connected with Scripture” —a view similar to traditional Protestant teaching.

What, Not Where. The first draft of the schema on revelation presented to the council sided with the two-source theologians; progressive bishops attacked it so strongly that Pope John ordered the text rewritten. Concluding that the mind of the Church was not clear, the bishops and theologians charged with the revision decided to skirt the matter; the text given final approval by the council last week emphasizes what revelation is rather than where it is found.

As he has done in the past, Pope Paul proposed some changes in the final draft of the document. In the second chapter, the text declares that the word of God is transmitted integrally by the church from Christ and his Apostles; the Pope insisted that a clause be added to the effect that the church does not get its certitude concerning revelation “only” from Scripture. Problem for scholars: Is this an implicit endorsement of the two-source theory?

The second papal change touched on the sore issue of Biblical error. Catholic Biblical scholars admit that on a factual level the Bible does make mistakes—Daniel, for example, calls King Darius a Mede when he was certainly a Persian. The drafters of the decree on revelation wrote that the Bible presents “salvific truth”—that is, the right knowledge of those things concerned with man’s salvation. Pope Paul insisted that salvific be dropped.

To do that, the bishops feared, would seem to place the church on the side of a too-literal interpretation of the Bible. Instead, they wrote a new version that says the Bible teaches “firmly, with fidelity, and without any error, the truth which God, for our salvation, wanted put down in writing in Holy Writ.” Although foiled by decree-writers on that change, Paul nonetheless persuaded them to make another change that pleased literalists. After a reference to the Gospels, the text now adds: “. . . whose historicity the church constantly affirms.” The problem: what precisely is meant by historicity?

One True Church? Protestant observers and progressive Catholic theologians generally approved what they took to be a new emphasis on the place of Scripture in the church. But they were sorely disappointed in changes proposed for another key document; the declaration that all men have a right to liberty of conscience in religious matters. An added paragraph asserts that God has indicated to all men the way of salvation, which is through membership in the Catholic Church, and that all men have a “sacred duty” to join it once they perceive the truth of the church’s faith. Many council experts feel that the point has been sufficiently stressed in other decrees, and is out of place in this document. “A very annoying thing,” complains American Theologian George Tavard.

How ambiguous this document will be in its final wording remains to be seen. Italian Bishop Luigi Carli of Segni, one of the council’s most outspoken conservatives, has submitted a host of amendments seeking to emphasize the truth of Catholic thinking and the error of other views. U.S. Jesuit John Courtney Murray, who is regarded as the architect of the declaration, has had bishop friends propose amendments strengthening it. And the council has yet to hear from Paul, who has a great sense of compassion for the conservatives and is eager to nourish their support for church renewal.

* The council also gave final approval to five more documents, which were then formally promulgated by Pope Paul: the declaration on non-Christian religions, which clears the Jews of responsibility for Christ’s death, plus decrees on the pastoral office of bishops, on Christian education, on the renewal of religious life, and on priestly training.