Changes in the Church caused by Second Vatican Council were challenging, but good

The Diocese Report ^ | Week of February 26, 2003

[Land of the Irish]

Retired Bishop Hanifen reflects on effects of council on the life and ministry of the clergy

So began the reflections of recently retired Bishop Richard Hanifen of Colorado Springs as he talked about "The elements of change in the life and ministry of the bishop since the Second Vatican Council." Some 175 people, young and old, packed Regis University's Science Amphitheater the evening of Feb. 19 to hear Bishop Hanifen's insightful, often funny and obviously fond observations, which he emphasized were "personal reflections, not scholarly reflections."

The talk was the second in a series sponsored by the university to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Convened by Pope John XXIII in 1962 to update and renew the Church, the council engaged in a three-year process of examining the signs of the times in light of the enduring tradition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A graduate of both Regis Jesuit High School and Regis University, Bishop Hanifen is now on the university's board of trustees. He was the founding bishop of the Colorado Springs Diocese, which he served for 19 years until his retirement last month.

A lot has changed since he was ordained in 1959, which influenced his understanding of a bishop's job.

"I see myself as an agent of change committed to tradition," Bishop Hanifen said. "Try that one on for size.

"A bishop needs to be an agent of change in such a way that the tradition out of which our faith comes is not lost or obscured but rather enhanced," he said. "Tradition doesn't live if that doesn't happen."

Outward changes caused by the Second Vatican Council were perhaps most visible in the liturgy. They included the Mass being said in English, rather than Latin. The altar was turned to face the people and so did the priest. Church architecture went from "classical — long and high — to contemporary," often fan shaped. Communion rails were removed. Music went from being "mostly Gregorian chant" to "mixed."

"That's a nice word for what we're trying to do," Bishop Hanifen said to laughter. "We're still trying to develop our liturgical music."

Priests had to learn to say the Mass in a new way. They had to become more engaged with the people. They were instructed to give a Scripture-based homily, rather than a sermon delivered on a topic of their choosing. Suddenly, a priest's personality became part of the liturgy's dynamic, which was a challenge for priests.

"There seems to be an overemphasis on the personality of the priest now, Bishop Hanifen said.

The piety of the people changed. It went from being private and largely individual — people prayed the rosary during Mass — to being more communal. Para-liturgies were introduced. The laity were given roles as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and readers.

"The council said we need to have full, active participation of the liturgy," Bishop Hanifen said. "That was the keystone of the revision of the liturgy."

The image of the Church went from being the "rock of Peter — solid, unchanging, stable and predictable," said Bishop Hanifen, to the "pilgrim people of God" characterized in the council document "Lumen Gentium."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We moved from `rock' to `pilgrim people,'" Bishop Hanifen said. "From unchanging and stable, to changing and unpredictable."

The change was challenging for everyone and caused distrust of the Church.

"You told us it was this way. If you were wrong then, why should we believe you now?" Bishop Hanifen said describing some of the laity's response. "I call it `the theology of suspicion.'"

On the positive side, however, was the laity's new involvement in advisory roles on parish councils and committees. Where once the laity's participation in Church ministry was largely confined to fraternal and service organizations, they now served during the liturgy. Laity became better educated in theology and took on positions as directors of religious education, liturgists and even as theologians.

"They feel entitled to serve the Church by way of their baptismal call," Bishop Hanifen said.

The Second Vatican Council restored the permanent diaconate, which though initially misunderstood and underused, is now deeply appreciated and depended upon. Additionally, local, state and federal government agencies now collaborate to a greater degree with the Church.

The new partnerships meant a certain loss of control for priests as the Church went from having a "top-down, monologue-style" leadership, to a more collaborative "dialogue style." As the changes were implemented, the laity's expectations rose.

"Priests were trying to be good celebrants, but they felt like they were under the gun a lot," Bishop Hanifen said.

Like the laity, the clergy's piety has changed as well.

"Eucharistic devotion has also grown among priests," Bishop Hanifen said.

"Priests are more scripturally aware, better trained in Scripture," he said. "Priests have found the joy of (prayer) support groups. I've been in one since 1968."

Bishop Hanifen said that's a vast improvement over the days when a priest's work was their prayer.

"You dry up pretty fast that way," he said.

The bishop's role, defined by the Church as to teach, govern and sanctify, has been a loved service, Bishop Hanifen said.

"It sounds like a burden," he said. "That's OK. That's what love is. How many things do you do that don't feel like love because you love? How many things do you do with half-resentment, half-regret — wishing it were otherwise? That's what love is.

"This, for me, has been a joy," he said. "Every bit of the change and all that that involves."

And the change continues, he said.

"Now the Church is really trying to recapture what was asked for by Pope John XXIII when he called the council," Bishop Hanifen said. "That what would happen would be the interior renewal of every Catholic. The deepening of their life in Christ so that they would be the sign of Christ to a world that desperately needs that.

"That's real good stuff for us to be about," Bishop Hanifen said.

The bishop addressed a host of topics ranging from new movements in the Church to the impending war with Iraq during the subsequent question-and-answer session.

On Catholic schools: "Yes, they are needed and they are Catholic. We do a heck of a job in Catholic schools. I wish we had more of them. I think they're irreplaceable.

On new movements in the Church: "We need to quit making judgements about each other based on press. Why not find out what their charism is? If it's gone somewhere else, dialogue. .... What are you afraid of?"

On war: "The Church takes a position on policies, not politics. The pope is against war."

Audience members said the bishop's comments were inspiring.

[Land of the Irish]

The Spirit of Vatican Council II: it's like the Eveready Bunny; it just keeps running, and running and running.......... amock.

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[St.Chuck]

Bishop Hanifen was very supportive of the indult. St. Mary's Cathedral was the only cathedral in the U.S. to host the latin mass. Of course, the indult has since moved to the boonies, since the wreckovation of St. Mary's commenced last fall. Bishop Hanifen invited the FSSP in and Fr. Vosko as well. Go figure.

[ultima ratio]

Notice how when the bishop talks about the changes in the Mass he never once mentions anything substantive like the subversion in the Novus Ordo of the doctrine of the Real Presence or its suppression of all reference to Christ's propitiatory sacrifice--both of which are deliberate rejections of the Council of Trent. It's all about communion rails and architecture--superficial changes. Either he is very dumb or he is being deliberately deceptive.

The repeated lie that Catholics used to pray the rosary during Mass is laughable. Catholics prayed along silently with their missals--even small children had their missals. There may have been a case here and there of an illiterate person saying the rosary instead--but attention to the celebration was just as reverent. Catholics were far more conscious of the truths of their faith and were far more devout and pious than they are now. They knew their Baltimore Catechism inside out.

Nor are priests today of the same calibre. They are nowhere as dedicated nor well-trained as they once were. The emphasis in seminaries these days is on psychology and philosophy. Moral Theology is a joke and prayerlife, more often than not, is non-existent. I know whereof I speak. In the major seminary I attended back in the 80s, the Blessed Sacrament was hidden in a room in the basement. Hardly anybody ever bothered to visit there. The only spiritual obligation was daily Mass--which was said in a gym-like room complete with bleachers. I kid you not. Spiritual direction was a waste of time.

My father, on the other hand, had been trained in a Jesuit novitiate back in the fifties. His prayerlife then was not to be believed. These were manly, cream-of-the-crop guys, highly intelligent, tops in their respective classes, not gays looking for a free lunch. They meditated twice daily, once in the morning before Mass for an hour, once later in the day for a half hour; two examinations of conscience daily; daily Mass and daily visits to the Blessed Sacrament; daily private recitation of the rosary; daily readings of Scripture; daily ascetical readings; daily readings of the lives of the saints. This was besides working outdoors and taking classes and playing sports. They practiced silence indoors at all times. The idea was to focus on God--loving God and dedicating one's life to God. We had none of that.

By their fruits you will know them. Look at the fruits of this Council. Religious devastation everywhere. Yes, the laity have been more empowered--but not in ways that matter. What the laity wants more than anything else is to practice the true faith under the leadership of truly good priests, men who are solidly devout, not fakes. There are still some of these guys, thank God--I know some. But they are men who preserved their faith IN SPITE of their modernist seminary training, not because of it.

[sinkspur]

There may have been a case here and there of an illiterate person saying the rosary instead--but attention to the celebration was just as reverent.

Here and there? We were forced, for eight years of grade school, to say the rosary during Mass. And my mother, and many women her age, said the rosary during mass to their dying day.

You don't like Hanifen because, unlike your SSPX Williamson, he didn't have anything good to say about the Unabomber.

[ultima ratio]

You were FORCED to say the rosary during a traditional Mass? How common do you think such a bizarre experience like that was? Ask around. The older generation will tell you that people did whatever brought them in closer contact with God, there was no regimentation and rote-responses-that-never-shut-up as there is now. Most followed with their missals. A few might have said the rosary. Some used contemplative prayer. People found God sometimes just in the music or in the silence. For all the focus was centered on God, not on themselves as is the case with the people-centered, chattery Novus Ordo.

The significance of SSPX is that it is a direct link to the traditional past. Unlike the Indult Masses at which the assembly is obliged to respond to the celebrant aloud, the SSPX priest celebrates the Mass, and the faithful participate in it, exactly as Catholics had always celebrated and participated in the Mass before Vatican II. The SSPX is, therefore, the actual institutional memory of the way things were. No one at their Masses that I can see prays the rosary during Mass. But even if someone did, it would be of no great interest or consequence. Nobody cares how another individual chooses to pray to God. Each finds his own way, and for many that way is contemplative, by means of a missal or a rosary. It is the Novus Ordo that treats the faithful like so many inmates of a Gulag, regimenting them down to the last amen. It is a noisy and restless liturgy with no genuine sense of the sacred and little respect for the interiority of souls.

[Dajjal]

"We moved from `rock' to `pilgrim people,'" Bishop Hanifen said. "From unchanging and stable, to changing and unpredictable."

All is flux. You never step into the same Church twice.

[american colleen]

Nor are priests today of the same calibre.

This just isn't right. My back is up. Ya know, around here there are tons of priests not teaching the faith - it's a big, big problem. Most of them are around 70 and most of them were educated in the 50s seminaries that you think were so much better than the seminaries of today. Your problem is that you seem to think we, as fallen beings, are immune to societal changes and upheavals. Those priests who reputed Humanae Vitae (which ushered in the age of dissent) -- where and when were they educated? Post Vatican II? Not.

And another thing -- I'm almost 44 and I remember snippets of the Mass in Latin when I was a little kid. I distinctly remember the almost overwhelming clicking of beads during Mass and most of the old ladies saying the rosary. That is a fact. When I attend the Latin Mass today, no one says the rosary. So maybe we are a little better educated?

[ultima ratio]

If you remember the overwhelming sound of clicking beads, you have an overactive imagination. I ask anybody over fifty to help me out. Was praying the rosary common? I believe this is an exaggeration put out by the Novus Ordo crowd to justify their atrocities. As for your claim that most of the priests you know are around 70--that is highly unusual. Most in my experience are at least a decade younger and would have been trained in the Nineteen Sixties or Seventies, not in the Fifties. Vatican II was forty years ago, remember.

As for calibre--you need to read Goodbye Good Men. The straight and the orthodox have been systematically excluded as candidates to the priesthood by many of the major seminaries in America. This is simply a fact--the documentation is there. But anyway I was talking about how men were trained and what kind of men were attracted to the priesthood in those days. They were not so predominantly gay and they were far more idealistic. This carried-through in their ministry. Their faith was far stronger.

[ultima ratio]

Okay, I mistook what you said. Not that most of the priests you know are 70, but that most of the BAD priests you know are 70 and were trained in the Fifties. All I would say about that is that again you exaggerate. There are plenty of bad priests who are far younger. Contrarywise, I know a lot of guys in their 70s who are cut in the admirable mold of Fr. Groeschel or Msgr. Clark. I don't think age is the factor. A lot of today's older guys in the priesthood let their guards down once discipline grew slack after Vatican II--sometime in the early Seventies.

[TradicalRC]

Pride is the peculiar sin that blinds us to our own blindness. The diehard Vatican II Catholics either are not aware of what was lost or are so enamored with their own progressiveness that they cannot admit that there is anything wrong. I am flabbergasted when they deny that ANYTHING at all is wrong in the Church. (To the extent that none of the pederasting priests have had their day in court so they are still innocent and nothing has yet been PROVEN to have happened). THis is simply ridiculous. Obviously there are those who will bash the Church for any reason but what of those who cannot seem to practice basic spiritual discernment? I wonder if those who will simply regard only the latest word from the Vatican as true would do if the Vatican came out and said "WE were wrong, we need to restore the Tridentine Liturgy". Would they STILL remain in the one, true Church? I also thought the Bishop's snide comment about the "theology of suspicion" was laughable in light of the current theology of ideological novelties that is poisoning the Faith of Our Fathers.

[k omalley]

I attended Mass pre-VII and there were a few people saying their rosaries but most people followed the Mass with their Missals. In Catholic school we were expected to use our Missals during Mass. Never saw anyone praying the rosary during the school Masses.

[St.Chuck]

Unlike the Indult Masses at which the assembly is obliged to respond to the celebrant aloud....

I've never been to an indult where the assembly responded aloud.

[sinkspur]

You were FORCED to say the rosary during a traditional Mass? How common do you think such a bizarre experience like that was?

Not bizarre at all. We were grade school kids; we did what we were told or got bopped up side the head by Sr. Mary Joseph. And the practice of school children saying the rosary during their daily Mass was so common in the early 60s that I could count on one hand the schools that DIDN'T do it.

As to the rest of your rant, please, please, please...just go to your SSPX Mass, mumble to yourself, make a novena, do the stations or whatever you want.

You worship your way, and those who are actually in the Catholic Church will focus on the Eucharist. Just stop telling us to do what you do because we are not going to do it.

[k omalley]

Goodness, sinkspur. Chill down. I don't think that anyone is suggesting anything other than concentrating on the Eucharist during Mass.

[american colleen]

No. I do not have an overactive imagination. I grew up in Boston and attended Mass in beautiful big Churches full to standing room only. I know what I remember and I remember quite a few of the old ladies saying their rosary. I distinctly remember the clicking of the beads as well. I also remember this from my childhood when the Mass was in English. I know what I saw and what I heard.

Maybe each diocese is a bit different, but mine is home to many older priests educated before Vatican II and who are not teaching the faith. The leaders of "Voice of the faithful" and most of the abusers are mostly older priests. The younger priests here are somewhat more orthodox, believe it or not. Fr. Groeschel spoke at a parish here a few weeks ago - the parish of a younger priest (40s) - most of the older ones wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. They don't like Mother Angelica or EWTN, either.

Listen, secular society affects everyone, regardless of age. There is a "lump" of abusers here who graduated seminary in 1961 - McCormack, Geoghan and Shanley are a few of them. All pre Vatican II. In fact, look at the situation with the nuns... all the feminazi nuns are older - educated in the 50s and early 60s. The younger ones are the more orthodox ones on the whole. Goto a Call to Action or a Voice of the Faithful meeting... all grey heads. Same with the 4500 person VOTF meeting at the Hines Convention Center last summer. It made the national papers and attracted people from all over the country. The pictures don't lie - most of the priests and the nuns and the laity in attendance are OLD - educated before Vatican II.

I read "Goodbye! Good Men." In fact, I bought 4 copies as soon as it came out and distributed 2 copies to the priests in my parish (who have never commented on it). I think Mr. Rose is correct as I personally know 2 men who left seminary in disgust in the 80s and I know two currently taking theology classes as Catholic colleges in prep for seminary and they are hanging on by prayers. Too bad the Kellyeni (sp) story has relegated this book to the dustbin for a lot of people... Mr. Rose exposed what needed to be exposed exactly when it needed to be exposed. But he needed to check some of the facts better than he did.

You say that "they carried through in their ministry" -- how come so many left in the early 70s?

[Maximilian]

Most of them are around 70 and most of them were educated in the 50s seminaries that you think were so much better than the seminaries of today. Your problem is that you seem to think we, as fallen beings, are immune to societal changes and upheavals.

I think there are 2 different issues here that need to be looked at separately. It's true that every single bishop and theologian at Vatican II was educated before Vatican II. And that goes for those who disagreed with the Church teaching on contraception as well. And some of the priests involved in the recent scandals were also old enough to be ordained before Vatican II. All this is true.

But it's another question to blame the pre-Vatican II environment for the problems. Imagine the priests who were ordained just before Henry VIII took over the Church in England. Think of the priests who were ordained just before the French Revolution in France. Think of all those subjects of the Czars who suddenly found themselves "comrades of the revolution." Do we blame the Czars for the liquidation of the kulaks? Do we blame St. John Fisher for the persecutions of Catholics under Elizabeth? Do we blame St. Francis de Sales for the reign of terror during which the majority of the French clergy took an oath of allegiance to the state-controlled "church" of the revolution?

I compare it to the situation of my aunts. My mother was a little bit older, old enough to be settled in her opinions, beliefs and lifestyle when the tsunami of the "sixties" (really the seventies for most people) hit society. But she had several younger sisters who got married in the sixties, who had grown up in one world, who got married in that world, but who shortly thereafter found themselves living in an entirely different world.

Everything about society had changed. Expectations for women were suddenly totally different from what they had been just a couple years earlier. They were confused (although they wouldn't have said so, they would have said they were "liberated.") Every single one of my 6 aunts ended up divorced.

Priests who were ordained before Vatican II and nuns who entered the convent before Vatican II found themselves in the exact same situation. They had entered upon their vows in one world and found themselves living in another world entirely. Those who claim most vociferously that they were "liberated" by Vatican II are likely to be merely those who are most confused by the revolution.

I distinctly remember the almost overwhelming clicking of beads during Mass and most of the old ladies saying the rosary.

This certainly sounds like an apocryphal memory. But be that as it may, there is nothing wrong with praying the rosary during Mass. BlackElk is one person who still does so proudly. "Active participation" in the Mass means interior, spriritual activity. It does not mean hand-holding, singing, jumping up and down, etc. Praying the rosary is probably a good aid for many people to concentrate their interior attention on the spiritual activity that is occurring on the altar.

So maybe we are a little better educated?

LOL. That one is not going to fly. We are so much worse educated about the faith. Consider just one example: Bishop Fulton Sheen was on prime time television every week giving all people of the United State, both Catholics and non-Catholics, an unadulterated course in the catechism using nothing more than a chalkboard as a prop. His show was so incredibly popular that it drove Milton Berle off the air.

[Maximilian]

I've never been to an indult where the assembly responded aloud.

This varies from parish to parish. I've been to Mass at more than half a dozen indult sites. Some use the "dialog Mass" format where the congregation recites the responses together with the servers, e.g. "Et cum spiritu tuo," "Dignum et justum est," etc. Other parishes maintain the silent tradition where only the servers respond.

My understanding is that the same situation applies in the SSPX. Some parishes do a dialog type Mass while others do not. So I don't believe that this is a significant difference between the SSPX and the indult.

[american colleen]

I've never been to an indult where the assembly responded aloud.

Nor have I.

[sinkspur]

Chill down. I don't think that anyone is suggesting anything other than concentrating on the Eucharist during Mass.

UR spends his life on Free Republic tearing down the Novus Ordo. It is the spawn of Satan, in his nineteenth century little mind.

I grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I now worship at the Novus Ordo.

Everyone who wants to worship at the Tridentine should be given the opportunity to do so. Everyone else should continue to worship at the Novus Ordo.

But, if you'll read UR closely, he doesn't want that. He wants the Novus Ordo suppressed. Completely.

That ain't gonna happen.