This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
From Hitchock's article linked above: "While the council was still in session, it occurred to some that it was less important what that body actually said and did than what people thought it said and did. Thus as early as the first session, in 1962, there was an orchestrated propaganda campaign to present the deliberations and define the issues in particular ways and to enlist the sympathies of the public on behalf of a particular agenda. Certain key journalists became "participant-observers," meaning that they reported the events and at the same time sought to influence them -- the chief practitioners being "Xavier Rynne" (the pen name of the Redemptorist historian Francis X. Murphy), who wrote "Letter from Vatican City" for the New Yorker magazine, and Robert Blair Kaiser, who reported for Time."
The various schemata had been sent to the bishops prior to the opening of the Council. Much of what these contained was not well receieved even before the Council fathers began their deliberations. There was bound to be a conflict between what the bishops were after and what the curia wanted to do.
Pope John XXIII was well aware of what was happening and did a good job of establishing what he would allow and what was not permissible. Hitchcock is rehashing a lot of arguments he employed in the late '80s and early '90s. After all, we are still figuring out what VII means in practical terms in the life of the Church. I prefer the analysis of O'Malley and Komonchak, and that of the Holy Father himself, which seeks to balance progress and tradition- a hermeneutic of continuity. According to the two rules of the sainted Vincent of Lerins, the faith permits of authentic development.
3 comments:
In a word, "No." The bishops at the very first session rescued it.
From Hitchock's article linked above:
"While the council was still in session, it occurred to some that it was less important what that body actually said and did than what people thought it said and did. Thus as early as the first session, in 1962, there was an orchestrated propaganda campaign to present the deliberations and define the issues in particular ways and to enlist the sympathies of the public on behalf of a particular agenda. Certain key journalists became "participant-observers," meaning that they reported the events and at the same time sought to influence them -- the chief practitioners being "Xavier Rynne" (the pen name of the Redemptorist historian Francis X. Murphy), who wrote "Letter from Vatican City" for the New Yorker magazine, and Robert Blair Kaiser, who reported for Time."
The various schemata had been sent to the bishops prior to the opening of the Council. Much of what these contained was not well receieved even before the Council fathers began their deliberations. There was bound to be a conflict between what the bishops were after and what the curia wanted to do.
Pope John XXIII was well aware of what was happening and did a good job of establishing what he would allow and what was not permissible. Hitchcock is rehashing a lot of arguments he employed in the late '80s and early '90s. After all, we are still figuring out what VII means in practical terms in the life of the Church. I prefer the analysis of O'Malley and Komonchak, and that of the Holy Father himself, which seeks to balance progress and tradition- a hermeneutic of continuity. According to the two rules of the sainted Vincent of Lerins, the faith permits of authentic development.
Post a Comment