What Happened at Vatican II

The best adjectives to describe this work are basic ones: thoughtful, logical, systematic, detached—the kind of qualities one looks for in a serious study, and particularly in a treatment of Vatican II. The Council (1962-1965) has been acclaimed and derided, quite intensely, in the five decades in the United States. I dislike using the pedestrian term “useful” to describe fine literature, but John W. O’Malley’s 300-page overview of the Council is the kind of work one buys in hardcover, because it will enjoy a long shelf life. It will be the quintessential one-volume history of the Council for catechetics, adult education, the college classroom, and the general adult Catholic readership.What strikes me about O’Malley in his narration and conclusions is his ability to make sound judgments without lapsing into judgmental excesses. Many commentators have found this balance hard to achieve in their own writings on the Council. The old assessment of Vatican II as progressive European theologians staving off a Machiavellian Roman Curia still lingers, particularly on Catholic blog sites. O’Malley does not run away from “prelates behaving badly,” but he provides an insightful overview of how those passions developed. Chapter 2, “The Long Nineteenth Century,” is an intriguing and balanced account of Church and society in the formation of Vatican II; the author dates this century as extending from the French Revolution (1789) to the eve of Vatican II.The “nineteenth century” was the coming to full bloom of secular modernity; for the Church, there was no hope of turning back the clock to a time before nationalism, democracy, science, and separation of Church and State, the end, as O’Malley phrases it, of the “old marriage of throne and altar.” (p. 54) Given that the modern era posed physical as well as philosophical threats to geographic Rome—Risorgimento and the end of the papal states, for example--an embattled central church used the tools at its command: a fierce adherence to its past and a resistance to the present. The defensive posture of the Roman Church maintained itself through the election of Pope John XXIII.O’Malley captures the scope of the Council in terms of size and cost with some wonderment that such an event as Vatican II could have taken place at all. The author does not idolize Pope John; he recognizes that the pope—a keen observer of twentieth century horrors—came to the Throne of Peter with a conviction that the times called for a new conversation between the Church and the world. Pope John could model what he hoped for in his messages and encyclicals, but O’Malley comments on the unwieldly machinery collected for the drafting of documents and floor management. Visionary as he was, John XXIII fielded an old guard administration.The efforts of the Curia to engineer a brief Council in the mode and format of Vatican I are well known. But O’Malley explains the Curial mind without malice at numerous points in the narrative. If I may jump ahead to a telling episode on the debate over Revelation, “Dei Verbum,” in October 1965 the floor debate virtually ground to a halt over the language on the relationship of Scripture and Tradition. While a strong majority of the Council fathers endorsed a greater role for the Bible in Church life, the Curia lobbied Pope Paul VI to maintain a definition of Tradition as equal to Scripture. For Cardinal Siri, among others, any hint of diminution of Tradition as an equal revelation source would undermine doctrines of the Virgin Mary, notably the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, neither of which enjoyed a strong Biblical foundation. (p. 278)O’Malley’s narrative incorporates three impulses driving the majority of Council fathers and their theological advisors: Aggiornamento, Ressourcement, and Development of Doctrine. “Aggiornamento” is a term often applied to Pope John’s “throwing open the windows.” In his addresses, John used the term favorably as a need to openness and change in the face of new challenges throughout the world. Aggiornamento was a mood; Ressourcement, on the other hand, was a technical theological term for a contemporary review of the primitive or early practices of the Church. “Perfectae Caritatis,” for example, challenges religious orders to return to the principles of their founders. “Development” too was a theological principle of exploration into existing teachings to consider new applications. A notable example is John Courtney Murray’s contribution to the Council’s “Declaration on Religious Liberty.”O’Malley manages to produce a consistent chronology of the floor proceedings despite considerable odds. Among them was uncertainty over just how long the Council would last. That Vatican II extended over four years came as a gradual surprise and point of concern for bishops—and certainly to the Curia, which had hoped for a one-session conclave of several weeks. Once the original plan for the Council was scuttled, its proceedings were managed by Curial moderators in a fashion of haphazardness, an unevenness of clock management, and a maddeningly disjointed daily agenda of serious debate interrupted frequently by calls to vote on schemas or portions of schemas on entirely different subjects. Hardly a Roberts Rules convocation.As a result, many bishops from the “third world” and the Eastern rite churches received precious little attention to their pressing concerns by Council’s end. Moreover, some documents were written hastily (on “Social Communications,” for example) so that precious time could be allotted to major doctrinal and pastoral concerns. The author speaks positively of the bishops themselves—their openness to Pope John’s vision, their own theological acumen or their selection of competent advisors, and their willingness to tackle controversial questions from the start: the “Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy” was the first document promulgated.In his final chapter, “Conclusion,” O’Malley does offer a telling assessment of perhaps the biggest error of the bishops, particular Western bishops: “They assumed an easier transition from ideas of the scholars’ study to the social reality of the church than proved to be the case.” (p. 292) Hence the turmoil when the bishops returned home.

bk as described

The Second Vatican Council is one of those things in life where everyone has an opinion. No one is lukewarm or has little to say on the subject. Yet it is a thing that is not well understood, either among Catholics or the public at large. Most wrap their heads around it as a strange concept of something that happened that resulted in a bunch of changes in the 60s and 70s, but few can really offer any details. Not wanting to be the sort of person with many opinions and few facts I bought this book, and feel a bit guilty that I had such strong opinions prior to reading this, because I see now how little I really understood. In other words, this book should be required reading for anyone who is remotely interested in the topic. It gives appropriate background to the council, to many of the main themes and goals, especially the status quo through what O'Malley calls the "long nineteenth century", and puts a lot of names and histories along with the ideas that come up, making for some great further reading if desired.As other reviewers have said, this is also a joy to read. I read through it quickly; it is one of those stay up too late sort of books. I intend to reread it again some time soon.There is no bias in this book... sorry to the other reviewers who think there is. Unless a reader feels O'Malley is obliged to give equal weight to the sedevacantist view of things or an ultramodernist view that it overthrew everything that existed before, I think most readers will agree. Of course, anyone who approaches a book thinking he already knows everything on the topic will hate the book! His work is even handed, very academic, and never strays too far from his sources. One example of his even handedness is that he deliberately avoids using group labels for the people at the council like "conservative", "liberal", "modern", "traditional" and so forth. Instead, he uses the simple terms "majority" and "minority" to give as little coloration as possible. He points this out at the end, though it may have benefited the book to have it at the beginning. At one point I felt he was making a bit of a caricature of one particular cardinal, but when I read about him outside of this book, I found that, if anything, he was actually understating his personality and commitment to certain ideologies. He could have gone further to make this particular cardinal look more extreme for his own literary purposes, but he intentionally down played it for the sake of having a good, clean historical text.If you're actually reading this review, then you have enough interest in the topic that you owe it to yourself to read this book.

Sets the scene for the future of the Catholic Church. Gives a fair and balanced picture of what actually took place. The author could have been much more critical of the efforts by vatican Curia people to manipulate the matters debated, and the statements that appeared, but he resists the impulse. The result is a factual account of the proceedings, which was what I was looking for - but I would have enjoyed a rather more pointed approach, highlighting the struggle by vatican officials to maintain power and control - the 'correct' way of viewing things, according to them.No doubt Vatican II was a breakthrough in many ways, as John XXIII intended, but much contentious ground was not dealt with - celibacy of clergy, ordination of women, clarification of questions about Infallibility, collegiality of Pope with fellow bishops. Perhaps an unquestioned traditionalism within the church, a reluctance to criticise, an exaggerated view of papal authority made it impossible for the bishops to discuss in a rational, scripturally based way; but the need remains.Vatican III is necessary, and at that time it will be a good thing if another fr O'Malley is there, providing a truthful, accurate account of the proceedings, but this time with a rather more critcal bite.

This book arrived on time and I have almost finished it ! If anyone wishes to know what happened at the Vatican II Ecumenical Council 1962-5, this book comes highly recommended. It is detailed, not confusing, written in a lively and interesting style and marches on apace. I cannot recommend it too highly for the ordinary person, interested to know what happened and how the various documents were arrived at. O'Malley makes what was sometimes a confused and confusing process decipherable for the average reader.

...for those who care about the current developments in the catholic Church - the tendency to lok back instead of forward, the dismissal of some (maybe even many) of the changes introduced at Vatican II. This highly literate, scrupulously fair account will make you think; it may even make you change your mind, whichever side of the liturgical fence you're on; it is essential reading for all those who take their Christian commitment seriously.

Very good book but I'm sorry I bought the kindle version, not the actual book. I am missing being able to look back, look up notes when I want and in fact just hold the book. Kindle may be ok for a novel but not this sort of book.

An exciting and authoritative account of the Council and its antecedents, it uses the five volume Alberigo and Komonchack of course but is more helpful than the Alberigo paperback. A balanced assessment of Vatican II, not afraid to face the problems its non-reception by the Roman bureaucracy has caused.