Religion: The Loyal Opposition

Cautioning newsmen against reporting the Second Vatican Council as if it were a political convention, Auxiliary Bishop Fulton J. Sheen of New York offered some imaginary stories that might have been written by political-minded reporters before the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 51. “Now,” said Sheen, “go back and read the report of the council in the Acts of the Apostles. Did the precouncil ‘press reports’ of conflicts, blocs and groups ever materialize? Not a one!”

In fact, Acts reports a rousing controversy at the Council of Jerusalem, with two groups bitterly divided over the issue of just how far the young church should break away from Judaism. There are, similarly, two blocs at the Second Vatican Council; for if the council is not a political convention, it is a religious parliament. Wrote the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano recently: “It is natural that within councils emerge what in parliamentary parlance are usually called center, right-wing and left-wing ‘parties,’ depending on their moderate or more advanced positions, and that one speaks about an ‘opposition.’ ”

“Too Protestant.” The loyal opposition at Vatican II is a group of prelates called progressives, liberals, autonomists or transalpinists. By whatever name, they stand for change, and thus oppose the standpat Italians of the Roman Curia.

The strength of the liberals was shown in the voting for the council’s ten commissions. Presenting their own lists of nominees as alternatives to those proposed by the Curia, they won a substantial victory and thus managed to internationalize the commissions. In the atmosphere engendered by the liberals, the council a fortnight ago approved a “Message to Humanity” that one conservative priest called “too Protestant” in that it invited “all our brothers who believe in Christ” to affirm it. The gist: “All men are brothers, irrespective of the race or nation to which they belong.”

The identities and beliefs of the liberals are as varied as the names given to the bloc. Certainly the leaders do come from across the Alps—Achille Cardinal Lienart of Lille, Joseph Cardinal Frings of Cologne, Julius Cardinal Dopfner of Munich, Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht. But the ranks include prelates from almost every part of the world, including Italy.

Liturgical Reform. Most of them favor more local autonomy for bishops, for both practical and theological reasons. They believe necessary reform efforts are constantly blocked by a Vatican Curia that is insulated from the problems of non-Italian Catholics. The liberals also want to play down the hierarchical, juridical concept of the church, under which, says one French archbishop, “the bishop is reputed to be a sort of prefect, priests functionaries, sacraments residues of magic rites, religion a group of laws to which one suits himself because of a feeling of exterior discipline and from which one escapes without understanding their true value, as happens with the laws of the state.”

The liberals propose both revisions to meet the modern world and reversions to an earlier church that they believe was closer to Christ. They tend to favor liturgical reform, a greater emphasis on the Bible. But they vary widely by nationalities and individuals, influenced by local situations as well as personal philosophy.

In the pluralistic U.S. society, for example, Catholic bishops take a liberal, flexible view on the relationship of the church to the state and to other religions. But most U.S. bishops are more administrators than theologians, and often look to the conservative Curia for guidance on theological matters. In Rome, U.S. prelates form no bloc, and are wooed by both sides. Last week both New York’s Cardinal Spellman and Los Angeles’ Cardinal Mclntyre spoke against the introduction of vernacular into the liturgy —generally favored by liberals—while St. Louis’ Cardinal Ritter argued for it.

Still not wielding as much power as the Vatican Curia, liberals have been heartened by the open-mindedness of Pope John, whose secretary reportedly phoned a fence-sitting North American prelate to assure him that “a vote against the Curia is not a vote against the Pope.”