THE COMING OF THE COUNCIL, APRIL 1961–OCTOBER 1962

Commentary: preparations for the Second Vatican Council

In October 1958 Cardinal Angelo Roncalli was elected Pope. He took the name John XXIII and in January of the following year he announced that he intended to convoke an ecumenical council. John XXIII pursued two aims in calling the council: first, he wished to promote ‘the enlightenment, edification, and joy of the entire Christian people’; secondly, he wished to extend ‘a renewed cordial invitation to the faithful of the separated communities’.¹ John XXIII died after the first session and his successor, Paul VI (1963–1978) continued the work of the Council and presided over the final three sessions held in 1963–1965.

During the period from the announcement of the Council until its opening in October 1962, the texts to be discussed were prepared by commissions, headed by prefects of the Curia. A Central Preparatory Commission oversaw the work of the others and in 1960 the Pope established a Pontifical Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, which was to communicate with other Christian bodies. The Commission was made up of members, who had the right to vote and freely express their opinions, and consultors (the periti), who did not.

Between 1962 and 1965 bishops and theologians from all over the world, as well as representatives from the media, gathered in Rome. Meetings were held in the central nave of St Peter's. Before the Council commenced, the Vatican had consulted the World Council of Churches in Geneva and sent invitations to the non-Catholic churches. These, with a few exceptions, accepted the invitation to ‘observe’ the Council. The ecumenical observers attended all four sessions from 1962 to 1965 and they sat in a tribune that had been especially reserved for them – in other words, they had good seats in the Basilica. Although they officially took part as observers sent by their respective churches, some of them also worked as theological advisers for the drafting of a number of conciliar documents.

The Anglican observers were the first to accept the invitation which came from Cardinal Augustin Bea. According to Massimo Faggioli, ‘The representatives of the Anglican Church approached Vatican II with a history of dialogue and conversations with the Roman Catholic Church, even if the relationship between the two remained ambiguous in England because of the dominant attitude among Catholic bishops to “win back” England for the Catholic Church.’² The Communion was represented by John Moorman, Bishop of Ripon (England), Najib Atallah Cuba'in, Bishop of the Diocese of Jordan (Lebanon and Syria), Eugene R. Fairweather, Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, University of Toronto (Canada), and Clement W. Welsh, Canon-Theologian of Washington Cathedral and Director of Studies, College of Preachers, Washington, DC (USA). Moorman was the most active of the Anglican representatives in making a contribution to the Council, not least because he was fluent in Italian.

The Council Fathers debated, amended, voted on, and eventually approved and published sixteen documents that covered a wide variety of themes. The four largest and most important documents that resulted from the Council are called Constitutions, while the shorter documents that address more specific issues are either called Decrees or Declarations. Many point to three as being the most significant: Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), and Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom).

Report No 1.      19 April 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

ARRIVAL

I arrived here on Thursday April 13th, 1961.

ADDRESS

St. Paul's American Episcopal Church, Via Napoli 58, Rome.

PUBLICITY

A considerable amount of publicity surrounded my arrival. A photographer was at the door of the American Church House when I arrived and the press had been alerted. I had much difficulty in evading their constant requests for information. Even so, several papers carried completely fictitious reports of my arrival (including the invention that I arrived by air) and intentions. Monsignor Willebrands was alarmed at first about this and requested me to go to the Secretariat on the first morning, which I did. He showed me a copy of the letter he had written to you. I was quickly able to persuade him that we were not responsible for this publicity and, in fact, hoped to avoid it. Nevertheless, I got the impression that he wished he had been officially informed of my arrival, so that a joint statement could have been put out. I also am inclined to think that we ought to make careful use of publicity, so that what is published is at least correct. I told Colonel Hornby³ of my date of departure at least six weeks previously. When so many people must necessarily know of an event, it is not possible that it can remain secret. The lack of information has made some sections of the press speculate as to whether my arrival has anything to do with the Queen's visit. The first Secretary of the British Legation to the Holy See also hinted that he would have liked to have been officially informed of my arrival. I told him, as I also told Willebrands, that the Secretary of the C.I.R. was out of England at the time, and that might account for the omission; and that the Archbishop was in Africa.

I told Mons. Willebrands that it was the Archbishops’ general intention that I should ‘lie low’ as much as possible in order not to embarrass them, and that I had in fact written to Fr. Boyer⁴ privately a week previous to my arrival in order to inform him that I was coming. Willebrands was very soon satisfied about the whole matter. While I was in his office he was called three times by reporters to ask if I was there, so that I had either been followed or somebody had made a very lucky guess. The staff of the Secretariat, including Willebrands himself, are quite prepared for this affair to have better, but controlled, publicity. They complain about the bad press relations of the Vatican and get a certain amount of innocent delight from the discomfiture of their elders from their failure to be more adventurous.

I have reported this in some detail because I think that care should be taken at the time of my return etc. Perhaps the C.I.R. might like to take up the question of an occasional agreed statement with Willebrands. I will pursue it further with him.

THE AMERICAN CHURCH

The flat put at my disposal is large and comfortable, and considering that the Americans call it ‘make-shift’, quite adequately furnished. I am having to provide some household utensils for myself, but all the main items of furniture are found.

The new American chaplain, the Reverend Wilbur C. Woodhams, has arrived and is very friendly. I gather that the chaplaincy here has had a difficult history for some time, but I should think that this era is at an end. The new chaplain has been brought from Bishop Bayne's own diocese of Olympia.

The leading American vestrymen etc. have been very friendly indeed and express themselves as very anxious to be associated with my work [. . .]. The same general current of feeling makes these generous people say repeatedly that they suppose I am ‘representing the whole Anglican Communion’. I am disclaiming this as gently as I can, but I must obviously not appear to be rebuffing them. No doubt you will already be aware of this general situation, and I expect it can best be resolved through the good offices of Bishop Bayne. I am looking forward to my first talks with him when he comes at the end of the month to institute the new chaplain.

THE SECRETARIAT

My first visit was precipitated by the need to confer about publicity, referred to above. This whole discussion ended on a note of much cordiality. It was regarded as a great joke by all Willebrands’ staff that the first Cosmonaut and I had caused the Italian press totally to ignore the arrival and meeting of the Liturgical Commission of the Council. This Commission is regarded as the most important and certainly has the heaviest weight of cardinals on it.

The Secretariat went into plenary session on Sunday, 16th, for ten days, at Castel Gandolfo.⁵ This is very convenient for my purposes, as it leaves me free to get myself established here while they are deliberating. Presumably Archbishop Heenan will be returning to England about the 27th or 28th of this month and it might be a help if you could check whether there are any press reports of the Secretariat's work about that time.

The whole atmosphere of my reception was very pleasant indeed. They seemed genuinely pleased to see me and went out of their way to say that they thought I could be useful. When I asked for some ‘homework’ while they were all away at Castel Gondolfo, I was given Volume 1 of the Acta et Documenta of the preparatory stage of the Council to study. It is a lengthy document.

I am now in possession of a full list of the members of all the Commissions and Secretariats and am able to say that the list of names of the Unity Secretariat I previously gave you is correct. The members of the office staff whom I met are as follows:-

• 

These men, who are all even younger than Willebrands, talk with misgiving of the senility of the senior cardinals and speak openly of Tardini etc. as reactionaries, but seem to think that their influence is on the wane. Mons. Willebrands said that he hoped that I should have an interview with Cardinal Bea in a fortnight's time, and perhaps eventually an audience with the Pope.

DATE OF THE COUNCIL

The general talk seems to be that the Pope would like the Council to be at the end of 1962, though everybody sees this to be impossible. Three responsible people have said to me that Easter 1963 is, in their view, the earliest possible date.

FREE ENQUIRY

At a lunch party today I had an opportunity of discussing this subject with a group which included Mons. Clark, Vice-Rector of the English College and Fr. [Tucai], S.J., Editor of La Civilta Cattolica.⁶ They had been discussing the difficulties of a biblical scholar whose researches had caused him to be called to heel by his bishop. They said he had resigned from the teaching staff of a seminary and asked to be sent back to a parish. When I suggested that this might be the official version of the fact that he had been dismissed, they laughed and agreed that this might be so. They then asked how we dealt with independent theologians in our universities. I was able to explain the comparative independence of our university faculties from episcopal control and our reluctance to persecute heresy. They asked for information about Bishop Barnes⁷ and the affair of the Bishop of Woolwich and ‘Lady Chatterley's Lover’.⁸ I said that I supposed that the Archbishop only administered rebukes in both cases when he thought that the offenders were causing pastoral distress, and that one heretical bishop in half a century was not a dear price to pay for freedom of enquiry. The company gave me the impression that this issue was causing increasing disturbance in Roman seminaries.

Report No. 2      19th. April 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

VATICAN PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT THE COUNCIL

The General Secretary for the forthcoming Council, Monsignor Pericle Felici, Titular Archbishop of Samosata, held a press conference today at 12 Via Serristori, which was said to be the future press office for the Council. You might care to make a note of this address. I summarize the main points of his speech as follows:-

1. a) If the work of the Commission proceeds at its present rate, there is considerable hope that the Council will take place in the Autumn of 1962, as the Pope has often said he hopes it will.

2. b) The eleven Commissions and three Secretariats are hard at work.

3. c) The Central Commission has recently authorised the publication of fifteen volumes of documentation of the preparatory phase. These are not yet available to the public, for they are being carefully indexed.

4. d) It is not possible at the moment to say for certain what subjects will be before the Council, as this decision is in the hands of the Holy Father. But one thing is certain, which is that clerical celibacy will not be under discussion, as the Holy Father distinctly said at the time of the Synod of the diocese of Rome.

5. e) Journalists and the public in general must not expect too much of the press office of the Council. Although it is very desirable that all the faithful should take the keenest interest in the proceedings of the Council, it must be borne in mind that the Council is a solemn act of the highest authority and jurisdiction of the successors of the Apostles, with the successor of St. Peter at the head of them. They should therefore look up to them in reverent silence, praying that the Holy Spirit will illuminate and encourage them in the highest interests of the Church. The Commissions are working at the moment under conditions of the strictest secrecy.

The Secretary then answered certain questions as follows:-

1. a) Asked about the participation of the laity, he said that active participation was only possible for the ‘ecclesia docens’.⁹ This does not preclude the laity from making suggestions to their bishops if they feel so inclined.

2. b) Asked what language would be used, he said that it would certainly be Latin, though he did not exclude the possibility of certain bishops asking to speak in their own native tongue.

3. c) The Secretary said, in answer to a question about non-Catholics, that he did not rule out the possibility of their being invited as observers, though this was still under consideration.

MY RELATION TO THE SECRETARIAT

Willebrands has said that he hopes to justify his willingness to accept me by the loophole which is given in the Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram, of the 29th June 1959, which the Pope quoted in his Motu Proprio¹⁰ setting up the Council. In it he says that he trusts ‘that those who are separated from the Holy See may accept his gentle invitation to speak and to obtain that unity which Christ Jesus asked from His heavenly Father in the most earnest prayers’.

[. . .]

Report No. 3      22nd. April 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE SECRETARIAT

I have been handed a cyclostyled document called ‘BACKGROUND TO THE SECRETARIAT’, copies of which I enclose. You may already have received one, for the document is not new.

I draw special attention to Section 4 in which it speaks of ‘obtaining suggestions from Catholic and non-Catholic sources by written, intermediate, and especially personal contacts.’

If it is the intention of the Church of England to put in any written representation, I imagine that this should be done as soon as possible, as whatever is submitted would have to be adjudicated upon by Commissions now sitting. The present Archbishop did mention one or two minor items that might go in in the way of suggestions. Perhaps you could be so kind as to let me have some comments on this matter.

BACKGROUND TO THE SECRETARIAT FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY (official English title)

(Official titles; Secretariatus ad Christianorum Unitatem fovenam Praepartorius Concilii Vaticani I; Segretariato per l'Unione dei Cristiani; Secretariat pour l'Unité des Chrétiens; Sekretariat fuer die Einheit der Christen’)

I   History of the Creation of the Secretariat (1960)

On May 30, 1960, His Holiness Pope John XXIII announced his intention to erect a Secretariat in a semi-public meeting of all the cardinals.

On June 5, the Pope issued a ‘Motu Proprio’, called ‘Sperno Dei nutu’ (from the initial three words), which dealt with the setting up of ten commissions and two secretariats to prepare for the coming Ecumenical council.

On June 6, he appointed Augustin Cardinal Bea to be the president of the Secretariat

On June 24, Mons. J.G.M Willebrands was appointed the Secretary.

During September the members and consultors, along with the working staff, were appointed.

On October 24, the new offices opened at Via dei Corridori, 64.

On November 14–15, the first sessions of all the members and consultors were held in Rome.

II   Purpose of the Secretariat

1. 1. In ‘Superno Dei nutu’,¹¹ His Holiness restated the primary purpose of the coming council, quoting his own words from his first encyclical Letter, ‘Ad Petri cathedram’, 29 June, 1959:

   ‘the development of the Catholic Faith and the renewal along the right lines of the habits of the Christian people, and the adapting of the Church's discipline to the needs and conditions of the present time. The event will surely be a wonderful manifestation of truth, unity, and charity; a manifestation, indeed, which we hope will be received by those who behold it but who are separated from this Apostolic See, as a gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father’.

   Referring to the Secretariat, the Pope said:

   ‘As a token of our affection and goodwill towards those who bear the name of Christians but are separated from this Apostolic See, to enable them to follow the work of the Council and to find more easily the path by which they may arrive at that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father, we are establishing a special “Advisory Board” or Secretariat, presided over by a Cardinal whom we shall choose, and organised in the same manner as the Commissions.’

2. 2. The Secretariat has a double purpose:

   1. (a) Its immediate purpose is to inform accurately non-Catholic Christians on the work of the coming Council, to receive their wishes and suggestions relating to the Council, to weigh them, and, if needs be, to pass them on to other Commissions (e.g. Theological Commission, Commission for the Missions; Commission for the Eastern Churches; Liturgy Commission, etc.)

      The Secretariat is not a mere Information Centre. It aims to help guide the Council in those theological and pastoral matters which directly or indirectly bear on the problem of Christian Unity.

   2. (b) Its larger and more general end is to aid non-Catholic Christians to find ‘that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father’; to establish, for example, the exact situation with its Unity problems in various countries: (1) what various non-Catholic Christians here and now have in common with the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine, discipline, and cult; and also how they differ from it; (2) what are the desires of these different groups touching on the Unity Problem, and what ways can the Catholic Church help them to true Unity.

      The Secretariat, at the same time, does not want to be a substitute for the initiatives of qualified private individuals and, even less so, for those centres and institutes which for some years have been established to study ecumenical problems.

III   Composition of the Secretariat

1. 1. The permanent working staff in Rome comprises:

   1. (a) The President, Augustin Cardinal Bea, 79 years, a German-born Jesuit. An internationally known biblical scholar who, especially in biblical studies, has had for many years personal and written contacts with non-Catholic Christians and non Christians. For years he was the head of the Pontifical Institute for Biblical Studies in Rome.

   2. (b) The Secretary, Monsignor J.G.M. Willebrands, 51 yrs., Dutch-born. Former professor of theology at the Major Seminary in Warmond, Holland. He is also Secretary for the Catholic Conference on Ecumenical Questions. Since 1951 this Conference has held at least annual meetings of Catholic theologians on ecumenical questions. Often the problems were common to those being considered by the World Council of Churches.

   3. (c) The assistants, Monsignor Jean-Francois Arrighi from Corsica and Father Thomas F Stransky, a Paulist Father from the United States.

2. 2. With the Secretariat are members who have voting power in the Secretariat's general sessions, and those who are only consultors. The composition of both groups is very international; it represents especially those countries in which there is a large number of non-Catholic Christians;

(Here follows a list of the voting members and consulting members, already despatched)

IV   Mode of Operation of the Secretariat

The Secretariat utilizes every means of obtaining suggestions from Catholic and non-Catholic sources by written, intermediate, and especially personal contacts. It also keeps abreast of the many pertinent articles appearing in periodicals.

According to their importance, the results of this research are studied more closely by the voting and consulting members, who work in small subcommissions and in general sessions. They evaluate the theological and practical implications. The voting members then decide, if and how the suggestions should be passed on to the other commissions of the Council, and what recommendations should be made.

V   The Permanency of the Secretariat

The Secretariat has been erected explicitly and immediately for the needs of the coming Ecumenical Council. The result of the Council's coming deliberations and their importance for Christian Unity will reveal in what way the Secretariat should be continued.

From the Secretariat

(25.1.1961)

Report No. 4      26 April 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

OTHER COMMUNICATIONS AND THE VATICAN COUNCIL

In answer to my question as to what other Communions or bodies had made personal or written communications to the Secretariat for the Council, I was told that they had been in touch with the following:-

1. (a) The World Council of Churches. They had had a written statement from the General Secretary acknowledging the Pope's intentions with regard to unity and giving an assurance that member churches would be made aware of them. But of course it is recognised that the W.C.C. cannot act in this matter.

2. (b) Federation Protestante de France. This is an unofficial grouping of Lutheran and Calvinistic congregations in France. The theological sub-committee of their Commission for Ecumenical Studies under Pastor Herbert Roux wrote in about two points, though I have not been told what they were.

3. (c) Lutherisches Kirchenamt of Hanover. I imagine that this is one of the independent synods of the Lutheran organisation. Apparently they are in direct and active communication with the Archbishop of Paderborn,¹² who is a member of the Secretariat. This is the only other case at the present of there being a direct and recognised channel of communication between the Roman Church and some other body.

4. (d) The Lutheran World Federation. Professor Skydsgaard of Copenhagen, its President, has been in personal communication with the Secretary and has expressed his intention of persuading as many of the member churches as possible to send in an official statement later.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES

It was explained to me that certain difficulties are being experienced in deciding who shall be the authority responsible for dealing with the Patriarch of Constantinople etc. as between the Secretariat and the Commission for the Oriental Churches (this latter is, of course, to be distinguished from the Congregation for the Oriental Rites). There is some hesitation, apparently, on the Commission about making the first approaches. But the Secretariat is very insistent that it should be done and done soon. They do not hold out any hope that the Patriarch will make the first move (is this so?). The Secretariat is going to propose to the Commission that immediate relationships, on the level of information only, be established with the Patriarchate at once [. . .]

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

This has been under discussion at the recent meeting of the Secretariat. It is therefore very confidential. The Secretariat intends to recommend that observers from non-Roman churches should be able to be present, although it is by no means certain that the recommendation will be endorsed. It is taken for granted that the decision about this will have to be made not later than the Autumn of 1961. The Secretariat is not clear to whom invitations would then be issued. They could clearly not go to all the hundreds of constituent members of the W.C.C. If a favourable decision is made by the Central Commission, approaches will be made to the main confessional groups only (Anglican Communion, Lutheran World Federation, Presbyterian Alliance etc.). Willebrands intends eventually to go to Germany to speak with Bishop Dibelius about this matter.¹³

MY OWN POSITION

The Secretary thanked me this morning for having ‘lain low’ as requested. Cardinal Bea will see me in a few days’ time. He is said to be anxious to have seen me, and to have regularised my position, before the Queen comes (!).

[. . .]

Report No. 5      1st May 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

CONTACTS

ARCHBISHOP DAVID MATHEW. I met Archbishop Mathew at a lunch party at the British Legation to the Holy See. He was exceptionally friendly [. . .]. He is R.C. bishop to the forces in England and Secretary of the Commission on Missions. He had been Auxiliary to Cardinal Hinsley¹⁴ and said openly that Hinsley's two successors, being lesser men, had not taken so satisfactory a view of the Church of England, and that he was sorry for it. He hoped for better things in the future. [. . .]

BISHOP DWYER OF LEEDS.¹⁵ He is a member of the Commission on the government of dioceses etc. I met him at lunch at the English College. He said that he hoped that the Church of England had him down on their list of friends, and said that I could call on his help at any time. I had previously been told that this bishop was by no means friendly and I am glad to know that I was mistaken. I had a long talk with him for several hours at which I was able to explain our hopes about South India.¹⁶ On the subject of Freedom of Enquiry, he said that there was much more liberty in the Roman Church than we supposed. But the Roman Church was much more sensitive of the danger done to the faith of simple people by allowing the ill-digested results of enquiry to be published unnecessarily. He thought that the Church of England had been much too easy-going about this and had lost much ground in consequence. I admitted that there was some truth in this though we were not masters in our own household. I said that I thought the Roman method stood to lose most in the long run, and that for them the run still had a long way to go.

He said that there could be no unity without theological agreement. I said that we thought the same, but that the difficulty was to decide what should be the limits of theological definition.

He spoke with great respect of the Bishop of Ripon¹⁷ and said that he supposed that he would take a prominent part in any future relationships between us.

CARDINAL BEA

I had my first long official interview with the Cardinal this morning. It was very friendly and lasted for an hour and a quarter. He spoke with great warmth of the visit of the present Archbishop of Canterbury and asked me to convey greetings, which I have done in a separate letter. He expressed the hope that the Archbishop-designate would also visit Rome in due course.

He made many courteous offers of facilities for my work and expressed himself anxious to do all that was possible to help.

He said that he had told the Pope about my assignment and that His Holiness had been pleased about it. The Cardinal said that he thought that I would eventually be received in private audience. He said that my position was now perfectly well established and that there was no further need to be furtive about it; though now, as always, we should be careful about the press. He commented on a statement he had read in the paper that when, in a few days’ time, the Queen holds a reception for the Roman Curia, there will be no Anglican clergy present. He seemed surprised that this should be so. I told him that the chaplain and I were going to be presented to the Queen at one of the civil receptions. I said further that with regard to my own case as far as the Holy See Legation was concerned, any decision would have been made before my position was as clear as it now seemed to be, and that probably the Minister would have wished to be careful. The Cardinal said that he did not think that there was any further need for this kind of care. I thanked him for this assurance. I hope he is right.

The Cardinal was pleased that the Moscow Patriarchate had in the last few days intimated its willingness to accept membership of the W.C.C. I had not known about this. He was also very pleased that the General Secretary of the W.C.C.¹⁸ had written to tell him about it.

The Cardinal told me that the Lutheran World Federation was intending to send a representative to be in Rome eventually, and that the Secretariat were pleased about this.

When I asked the Cardinal whether the Secretariat was expecting written representations from us, he said that they would certainly be gladly received. I am afraid I haven't yet got a clear impression as to whether they really want written representations or not. I told him what my present plan of working was and asked him what I might do when I had finished that. He said he thought I might start on drawing up the written representation. I told him that I was not authorised to do that. I said that the whole subject would have to be given careful consideration by experts in England and that it would take a long time, in which case it would not be ready in time for the Council. So I do not think that they can be seriously expecting the Church of England to be going to produce a detailed written statement of their position before the Council. What alternative the Cardinal could have in mind, I am not quite clear, and I shall have to bring the subject up in some other way. I thought that at this first interview I could not represent the Church of England as being very keen to submit such a document, because I have not yet been authorised to say so.

The Cardinal asked me whether I thought that liberal modernism had ‘had its day’ in England, as in Germany. I said that I thought that the movement in England had never taken quite the same shape that it had in Germany and that biblical scholarship in England had in the last 25 years taken on a more orthodox trend. He expressed himself as a great admirer of English biblical scholarship. He was examining the new English Bible¹⁹ and so far had been quite pleased with it.

I told the Cardinal of my general plan of visits to Rome and he agreed that it would be convenient.

Report No. 6      7th May, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

I have now completed my reading of Volume 1 of the Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vatican II Apparando (Official Pronouncement of the Pope on the subject). This is the only volume that I shall be able to see as the others are confidential to the members of the Central Commission of the Council. It was given to me as showing better than anything else the intentions and aspirations of the Roman Church for the Council [. . .]

Report No. 7      18th May, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

QUEEN'S VISIT

You will know from other sources that the visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh was a very great success here. I was present at the Commonwealth Reception, at which there were over three thousand guests, and also at the much more select reception at the British Embassy.

I feel bound to report that there was very widespread comment on the fact that there was no Anglican clergyman present at the reception given at the British Legation to the Holy See by the Queen to meet the Curia and their Roman Catholic clergy, including the English Roman clergy in Rome; and that there were no members of her ecclesiastical household, or an Anglican cleric, in the suite which went to the Vatican. Cardinal Bea and other Roman clergy have commented on this to me, the Italian press was very keen to know about it, and there were comments on it in the papers here, and I gather also in the English press. I gave no interviews on the subject, though pressed to do so.

I should like to comment on the above situation as follows. Sir Peter Scarlett²⁰ was kind enough to ask me about it shortly before the Queen came. I had to say reluctantly that until my position was regularised with Cardinal Bea I thought it would be as well if I were not present. Had it been a week later my position would have been different, for I am now apparently under no obligation to lie low. Though I do not think it would have made much difference; I did, in fact, see Cardinal Bea on the Monday before the Queen's arrival. But since he asked for my comments I did venture to say to the Minister that I did think that some Anglican cleric, either the chaplain in Rome (who is an honorary Queen's Chaplain, anyhow), or the Archdeacon, or Bishop of Gibraltar should be there, but nothing was done about this. I don't know what the protocol about this sort of thing is, and I don't suppose the occasion will arise for a long time again, but I should like to place on record that the reaction in Roman circles and among the British and American communities was one of considerable surprise. I am, of course, a tyro in all these matters and quite anxious to learn. Since I have ventured the above comments I might as well go the full length and record my surprise that with the exception of the Minister, the staff of the Legation seems to consist of such intense Romans. I have had one or two occasions to wish it were otherwise. That does not in any way modify the fact that they have all been very kind, hospitable and cooperative.

ENTERTAINMENT

There are two very stately rooms in this house which the Americans have very kindly put at my disposal for the purposes of entertainment and I have given a few lunch parties [. . .]. Thanks to having my wife here, the cost of entertainment is considerably less than it might have been otherwise. We are looking forward to a series of meetings with Bishop Bayne next week-end, who will be here for Pentecost (Whitsun you call it) and to institute the new American Chaplain.

LA CIVILTA CATTOLICA

I have made contact with the Jesuit Editor of the right-wing periodical, who appears to be very friendly. He has very kindly given me a long series of off-prints of articles to do with the preparations for the Council. I have completed an examination of them and append a series of notes, extracts, etc. You will easily believe that the longer I am here the less there is, proportionately, to report. I have to wade through pages of themes which I have already reported to you and which there is no need to repeat. Some of this is old history by now, but I thought you might care to have it for the purposes of record:-

1. (a) 1960 December number ‘The Courtesy Visit of Dr. Fisher to His Holiness John XXIII’

   The first paragraph describes Dr. Fisher as Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury ‘and so in a certain manner the most authentic representative of the Anglican communion in England, and of the communion throughout the world.’ After saying that this is only one of a long series of visits of Dr. Fisher to ‘other churches’, the article quotes from the Canterbury Diocesan Gazette in which the Archbishop is alleged to have said that there had been a rapid change of attitude on the part of Rome from ignorance and suspicion to a growing interest and sympathy and even, in certain quarters, to a manifest desire to enter into the spirit of the Ecumenical Movement. Dr. Fisher had said that the constitution of the new Secretariat was a clear indication of this change of front. The article comments that the Archbishop did not give due weight in his article to the fact that there has been a considerable change of attitude also among non-Catholic bodies towards the Church of Rome.

   Although the Italian electoral campaign was working up to a pitch of considerable excitement, and the American Presidential campaign was in full swing, the international press gave a very great deal of publicity to this visit. The review then indulges in a lot of verbiage to show that this degree of publicity was out of proportion to the importance of the visit. It makes very heavy weather of this and quotes English, Italian, French and German newspapers in defence of its thesis. Some papers saw in the visit ‘the first steps towards a future pact for united action in social matters’, and the left-wing paper ‘il Paese’ thought that the visit would represent ‘the creation of a united religious front of a political character against Marxism and the powers behind the curtain.’ The Stuttgarter Zeitung on the other hand, thought this line of interpretation constituted ‘Latin exaggeration’. Then there follow quotations from Dr. Fisher's address to his Diocesan Conference and to the Church Assembly. The next long paragraph labours the fact that the Holy Father quite frequently receives very important personages and that Dr. Fisher's visit was nothing special. In fact in the previous twelve months he had received Bishop Dibelius, Mervyn Stockwood and Canon Donald Rea. This section is rather distasteful. The writer then turns on the heat about the change of front in the Church of England, quoting the way in which the establishment of the Roman Hierarchy in England in 1850 was received by the English bishops [. . .]

   In a paragraph headed ‘fundamental doctrinal divergences’ the articles refers to ‘the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, validity of Anglican orders, concessions and ambiguities in the matter of birth control in Lambeth 1958, and compromise in the precise meaning of episcopal ordination as witnessed in South India. A section on ‘Anglo-Catholics’ says that they are unrepresentative, though influential out of all proportion to their numbers. The article continues: ‘the Anglican Reformation has nevertheless preserved, to a greater degree than have the Lutherans or the Calvinists, certain positive elements, which make it a little less distant from the Catholic religion. Among these elements we can name a considerable consciousness of the visible Church, an ecclesiastical structure based on the episcopate, a reasonably rich liturgical piety and a theology which on the whole preserves the traditions of antiquity in such a way as to avoid the grosser excesses of the application of the principle of the free examination of the scriptures. But of course that is not sufficient to make up for the other serious doctrinal divergences.’

   The concluding paragraph says that no one in their senses thinks that this visit of courtesy is even the beginning of negotiations for reunion. Nor is it the ‘Canossa’ of Anglicanism. The most realistic attitude will in the long run be the most helpful. It then quotes from AD PETRI CATHEDRAM,²¹ in particular the phrase that ‘the love of the truth will in the end dissipate all hesitancy and disunity’. And ends, as these things always do, with a eulogy of His Holiness.

[. . .]

Report No. 8      May 22nd, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

BISHOP BAYNE

The Bishop was here yesterday and instituted the Chaplain. I had a long and very useful talk with him. He said openly, as I had been warned he would, that he hoped my whole mission would be regarded eventually as being on a wider basis than it is at present. I explained the reason for it being on its present basis, and he seemed to understand; there was no trace of criticism in what he said. He made an offer of financial help, for which I thanked him, though I said that due to their kindness, expenses were at the moment proving less than might have been expected and that all was well so far. When he asked what other help he could give, I said that I should appreciate as much information as possible on the relations between the Roman Church and other churches in the various continents, particularly where there would seem to be infringements of religious liberty. I presume there is no need for me to record the various things that he told me on the Roman question in general, as they will be available to you direct. The thing that surprised me most was to hear that objection had been raised to my mission in Canada. That there had been grumblings in Sydney was, of course, no surprise.²²

[. . .]

RERUM NOVARUM 1891–1961

I was present in the large square outside St. Peter's when the Pope gave a discourse on the 70th anniversary of the great sociological Encyclical. There was a very large crowd present, estimated variously as 19,000 and 70,000 in different newspapers. The Pope promised a new Encyclical in a week or two's time elaborating the doctrines of RERUM NOVARUM in a way that QUADRAGESIMO ANNO did in 1931.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Roman Church in Italy is too conscious of the communists as the source of all their troubles, both political and religious. I think the political influence of communists is exceedingly strong in Italy, and a menace to them and to the whole of Europe. But I think the Roman Church deceives itself if it thinks that opposition or misunderstanding in the case of religion comes only from them. There is a very large body of ordinary lay people who are disaffected and anti-clerical who are also very anti-communist. A considerable amount of this kind of opinion thinks that the last three dogmatic pronouncements went too far. In fact I have often heard laymen say that ‘no one believes them here, except priests and women’.

Similarly the Roman Church, in its analysis of the political situation, eventually seems to find the communists, East or West of the iron curtain, at the root of all evil. This tendency is even more noticeable when it is indirect, as for example in the standard declaration that ‘the objective of political life must be the safeguarding of the free expression of opinion among workers.’ In my view the Church's invective should be directed also, if not primarily, against all those sources of corruption and injustice in Italian political and economic life which make the path of the communists so easy. And to achieve this the aim would have to be much more to the right than it is at present. Quite a number of the more objective clerics with whom I have discussed this question would agree with the foregoing.

[. . .]

DOM CUTHBERT McCANN²³

Dom Cuthbert arrived as you said. He confirmed that Downside had been entrusted with work for unity, but in a different sense from what we might suppose. They have been given this assignment, as within the Benedictine Order as a whole, and not specifically for work in England. They regard their chief work as being towards the Orthodox, such as they carry on at Chevetogne²⁴ in Belgium. It does not mean that they are the proper channel of communication in England. That would be the episcopal committee to which reference will be made later.

CARDINAL BEA

I had another long interview with Cardinal Bea last Wednesday the 17th. Whenever I go to see him, or the Secretariat, I am rung up by the press afterwards. There can be no doubt that there are people in the pay of the press in both places. They might be doorkeepers or liftmen.

The Cardinal had noticed that Archbishop Fisher had drawn attention to the novena of Prayer for unity, and he asked me to thank him for doing so. He told me that His Holiness had heard about this and was pleased. It is hoped that I shall have an audience with the Pope in the first weeks of June.

I tried out a new line with the Cardinal, of good humoured protest about the activities of the ‘Foyer Unitas’ which I have been observing for a long time, which sees unity mainly in terms of propaganda and conversions. I took with me the current number of UNITAS, Fr. Boyer's paper. In it there was an article on ‘Tendencies in the Church of England towards Rome’. I said that it was now being said in England that if you wanted to have fair conversation about reunion you had to turn to the Benedictines or Dominicans, and that Fr. Boyer's association was becoming suspect. The paper in question was open to criticism on two grounds, first that the thesis was not in fact true. Dr. Pusey was dead and the influence of the Oxford Movement had broadened out, leaving the Church of England with a thirst for Catholicism, though not for Rome, between which conceptions it was now able to draw a broad distinction. Secondly, the paper was controversial in an unfriendly way; it made unnecessary reference to individual conversions. The Church of England could do the same [. . .]. The Cardinal said that he was in agreement with what I said [. . .]. Controversy should not appear, as such, in a paper called UNITAS. The Cardinal agreed.

FR. BOYER AND ‘UNITAS’

On the same morning I had to lunch the said Fr. Boyer, S.J. and Mons. Arrighi, a Corsican, an administrative member of the Secretariat for Unity, and Fr. Augustine Hoey, of the Community of the Resurrection. Fr. Hoey spoke no languages other than English, but I was glad for them to meet another member of an English community. They both seemed to have met Fr. Curtis. Mons. Arrighi has always struck me as a brilliant man. He evidently has a good reputation, and it is a pity that he speaks no English. I told Fr. Boyer all that I had said to the Cardinal, in front of Mgr. Arrighi. He was, of course, impenitent, though he looked serious when I said that we were more inclined to turn to the Dominicans and Benedictines. He said that he was interested in individual conversations. I agreed that he had every right to be, but that he should not make so much capital of them in a magazine entitled UNITAS. The whole conversation was very amicable and conducted with much leg-pulling.

[. . .]

Report No. 9      26th May, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

MY RETURN

I have received the notice of dates of meetings of the C.I.R. Provisionally I had already arranged to leave here on Tuesday the 13th June and shall therefore be able to attend the R.C. Committee²⁵ on Friday 16th.

HOUSE OF LORDS’ DEBATE ON UNITY²⁶

I have had to try and explain this to quite a number of contacts. I have been put at a disadvantage by the fact that they (Willebrands, Fr Corr, the Benedictines of St. Anselm's) have been in possession of offprints of Hansard, while I have not. I have had other occasions than this to admire their information service. I suppose in future tours I ought to ask somebody at home (Secretary of C.I.R.? or whom?) to send me any vital material of this sort which comes to hand. I did my very best to explain away the harmful conclusions they might have drawn from this debate. In my view the Archbishop's speech at the end saved what from this angle would have been a total wreck. Apart from the speeches of the bishops, the two outstanding speeches were by Roman Catholic laymen [. . .]. What the Archbishop said towards the end of his speech about the treatment of the Reformation happens to have come in very usefully on an occasion referred to below.

[. . .]

FURTHER IMPENDING CANONISATIONS

Mons. Willebrands said that his main reason for asking me to come to the office was to tell me from Cardinal Bea that the Holy Office was proceeding to canonise a large group of English Reformation martyrs and that the Cardinal was himself the ‘penens’ of the question. The Cardinal particularly wanted it to be understood that this process had been planned a long time previously (the candidates concerned had now been beatified some years), and it was not intended in any way as anti-Anglican propaganda. I thanked him for his courtesy in informing me and assured him that I would pass the information on to the appropriate authority. I said that I did not think it would be advisable to issue any statement about this, or any disclaimer, for it would come under the general rule that ‘Qui s'excuse s'accuse’²⁷ [. . .]

THE ENGLISH ROMAN HIERARCHY AND UNITY

I told Willebrands that I had received invitations to speak in England on ‘the Roman Catholic conception of Unity’ and that when the occasions were to have been public I naturally refused them, saying that the organisers should ask Roman Catholics. I explained that in some parts of England they would only get a rebuff to this request. To whom should they then turn if they wanted to pursue the matter? He then told me of the existence of a Committee of the hierarchy for these matters to whom I should address the question. The members were:-

The Archbishop of Liverpool, Mons. Heenan, Chairman

The Bishop of Shrewsbury, Mons. Murphy

The Bishop of Clifton, Mons. Rudderham

The Aux. Bishop of Portsmouth, Mons. Holland

Bishop Cashman, St. Mary's Cadogan St., Chelsea²⁸

Had you heard of this Committee, and are you in touch with them?

THE ROTARY CLUB

I consulted Bishop Bayne on the advisability of attending the meetings of this Club here, of which I am the member representing the cathedral in Ely. It seemed to be a good way of making contacts with Italian laymen. I am very pleased that I have done so as the contacts are invariably interesting and the membership of the central Rome club which I attend is distinguished, I should say more so than a corresponding club in England.

I have enquired why the Roman clergy do not seem to be represented. Nobody seems to know why this is and there is no prohibition. Cardinals are frequently guests, and the members to whom I have spoken so far all seem to be practising Romans. I was involved in an interesting conversation with a group dominated by a professor of chemistry in the University of Rome. He was talking about the increase of theoretical communism among the intelligentsia. Not only were the workers sold on it, but 15% of the university teaching staffs and 20% of the schoolteachers held a party ticket. But more than this, the ecumenists were the effective minority. When I asked if the Italians realised that the corollary of dialectical materialism was totalitarian occupation by Russian troops, he said that they did not think that possible – ‘it couldn't happen here’. They envisaged an independent communist state, such as that of Tito in Jugoslavia. I said that that took extreme moral and physical courage which, with respect, the Italians did not possess. The speaker agreed. He reckoned to be a loyal Catholic. He said further that they were unfortunate in Italy in not having a strong phalanx of Protestantism to set between the two dogmatisms of Catholicism on one hand and Communism on the other. I questioned him at this point and elicited the fact that he meant what I hoped he meant, that as a result of the reforms of the 16th century we (i.e. England, Germany and the Scandinavian countries) had found a place for true humanism and freedom which gave us a sturdy independence and reliability, enabling us to think for ourselves, and to see the fallacies, as well as the attractions, of the communist ideology. Their difficulty in Italian universities was that people came to them from the Church schools or state schools (indifferently) taught how to assimilate information, but not how to think. This was traceable to the whole Jesuit pattern of education, which had been taken over by the state without question, which ministered continually to this defect. What they wanted was new educational methods in the schools. These were not forthcoming.

I asked what they intended to do about it (there was now a group of 5 listening and approving). They said ‘What can we do; we must wait.’ I said that that wouldn't do. If it was too late to have a Protestant reformation, they should at least have one on the pattern of the French, which, though it had started by being liturgical was now thoroughgoing in some parts. When they asked what it comprised, I said the discovery of the Bible and the priesthood of the laity. There were nods of approval, but the opinion was expressed that the Curia was too strong for that to happen in Italy, at least for the present.

CARDINAL TISSERANT

I had a short interview with the Cardinal on Wednesday last and to my astonishment and pleasure he immediately accepted an invitation to come to dinner here in the near future. He joked openly against Cardinal Tardini several times. His next visitor after me was the Israeli Ambassador to Italy, a Jewish scholar of some distinction. Tisserant said that Cardinal Tardini didn't like having Jews in the Vatican under any circumstances ‘because they killed Jesus’.

Report No. 10      31st May, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

CARDINAL TISSERANT'S VISIT

The Dean of the Sacred College²⁹ came to dinner as arranged, together with Dr. Bolshakoff ³⁰ who first effected the introduction. I presented the English Chaplain after dinner. The old man talked almost incessantly for nearly two hours and a half, chiefly about himself; but as his life, work and views are all interesting, nobody noticed the passage of time. Among the things of direct interest to my work which he spoke about were the following:-

1. (a) In talking of the political situation in Italy, he gave a description of it almost identical with that reported in my Report No. 9. He always gives his voice against the habit in the Curia of condemning communism out of hand instead of trying to understand it, interpret it and convert it. He also deplores the failure of the Curia to launch criticism in any other direction.

2. (b) As the effective bishop of a ‘suburbicarian diocese’ he lamented his failure to bring about any reforms at all in popular piety. He laughed at my suggestion that the Church in Italy could do with a reform on the French pattern. He agreed heartily, but said ‘You try’. There were the first indications of attempts in the North (Milan, Bologna etc.), but he thought the rest of Italy would have to wait another 60 years.

3. (c) The Synod of Rome. The old man was in particularly good form about this, and was enjoying being indiscreet. The whole thing had been ‘a flop’. The synodical rules were openly flouted, and no single reform had been effected, this in the Pope's own diocese. The chief reason for this was that the people on whose advice the Pope chiefly relies (Tardini, Ottaviani, etc.) were out of touch with the situation. He himself was, of course, a dangerous liberal.

He made no reference to my work at table, or in the conversation afterwards, and I didn't feel inclined to force it on his attention. Dr. Bolshakoff told me that the Cardinal knew about it and was very interested. He preferred to stand off and observe people at first acquaintance and disliked being ‘got at’. I was pleased when at the end he said ‘We haven't talked about your work tonight, but I know all about it and am very interested. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can do anything for you.’ He was insistent that the dinner party should be small, and I was wondering whether he was a little bit nervous about coming. But I was glad to hear from the Secretariat today that he himself had told them that he had been and had enjoyed himself.

THE IMPENDING CANONISATIONS

I enclose a copy of my letter to Willebrands.³¹ When I get their reaction, I will send it. I should then value comments from someone about procedure. If I feel you are in general favour of continuing with the subject I shall send my letter to some historian. It would have been the Dean of Winchester, who had promised to help.³² Who is now our best Reformation historian? I don't get the impression that either Greenslade or Owen Chadwick³³ have made a special study of it. I wish Gordon Rupp³⁴ were one of us.

[. . .]

Report No. 11.      9th June, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

MY RETURN AND PUBLICITY

Attached hereto is a draft agreed with Cardinal Bea of a press statement to cover my return. They are not going to put anything in the Italian press, though I think they would be better advised to do so. A large number of people know of my departure from here; and if a journalist happens to get interested, his conjectures could lead anywhere. I do hope our Central Office will put this message out to forestall the kind of misrepresentation which resulted in England and Italy, in my opinion, from too little information at the time of my arrival out here. As you may imagine, I am also anxious to avoid another press attack on my home.

[. . .]

THE CARDINAL SECRETARY OF STATE'S DEPARTMENT

I went this week by appointment to see the Sostituto of the Cardinal Secretary of State, Mons. Dell'Acqua (Tit. Archbishop of Chalcedon),³⁵ via his secretary Mons. Cardinale. I was asked by them not to mention to the Unity Secretary that I had been in their department. Dell'Acqua said that a message of greeting to the Cardinal might be a good idea. After much negotiation to-and-fro with Cardinal Bea etc. this was agreed as per enclosed and eventually sent through the Unity Secretariat to the Secretary of State. Dell'Acqua was very effusive, and thanked me when I said that at least half my work here had been in reporting to England objectively what the Roman Church was saying about the forthcoming Council. I thanked him for what he was known to have done for Anglicans in Rome. He thought that a visit of respect to the Cardinal might be arranged on my next visit in October. I was presented with a very large bound volume of essays published in honour of Pius XII by various persons extolling his work in all parts of his Pontificate.

I cannot report that I learned anything new or useful in this interview except that the atmosphere of intrigue and suspicion between the various Vatican departments is even deeper than I supposed it was, though I should think both Dell'Acqua and Cardinale are honest enough in themselves.

[. . .]

MGR. HÖFER

I have seen a good deal of this eminent man. He is a full member of the Secretariat, professor of Theology at Paderborn and Ecclesiastical Counsellor to the West Germany Embassy to the Holy See. When we met recently he spoke of:-

1. (a) the Italian pastoral situation. He said that Italian priests, especially in Rome, had almost no right, or even the possibility, of entry into people's homes, except on formal occasions. Their only pastoral ministry, therefore, was in the administration of the Sacraments. He said this wasn't fatal to the practice of religion, because faith was a family affair. The Italian had from his Roman ancestors a sense of an other world than this, now expressed in the culture of the Saints which was a good, even a necessary background to religion in this world.

2. (b) the Council. His hopes for the Council were confined almost entirely to internal reforms. The Curia, he thought, was still too strong and reactionary for the great progress which the Church would make in some areas (Germany, Austria, France) if there were more decentralisation.

SACRED MUSIC

A contact on this subject led to some interesting exchanges from an unusual quarter. At the Assoc. Italiana S. Cecilia per Musica Sacra, I had an interview with the (clerical) Secretary, Don Olivieri, because he wanted to collect some compositions for a Marian festival at Lourdes, and wondered if I could name any good contemporary English composers. I said gladly I would, having in mind Benjamin Britten, Francis Jackson, Arthur Wills and one or two others. He would supply the texts. I said that we should be a little selective about the degree of ‘Mariolatry’ in them, though I told him that we sang Byrd's ‘Beata Virgo’ and such things, without blenching, at Ely. This brought out the astonishing revelation that he had not heard of Byrd, Gibbons, Tallis etc. After a broader discussion I was asked, in ingenuous honesty, ‘have you the Eucharist?’, which made me insist on a further meeting the following morning. At this meeting I played my tape-recording, which I had brought from England, of the canticles at Matins (Vaughan Williams Te Deum in F) and the whole of the Sung Eucharist (Wills’ Missa Eliensis) on Easter Day 1961 in Ely Cathedral. This was a very good performance and did great credit. I was able to explain the Eucharist in detail. Several members of the neighbouring Institute Pontificio per la Musica Sacra (Direttore Mgr. Angles) came in and were obviously very impressed. He, the Director, is not well informed, not having heard of Vaughan Williams, or of Benjamin Britten! Hindemith, a German Protestant (or Jew) had declined to contribute to the series. The Secretary was anxious that I should get the Archbishop of Canterbury's approval to this scheme!

I hope to develop this contact in future visits. It has considerable, if unexpected possibilities. I shall, for instance, bring some records of our best music. It is a remarkable thing that in this country which is renowned for its tradition of secular and sacred music, there is today almost no normal performance of Church music in acts of worship. The Sistine Chapel Choir, for instance, though it is quite good (not up to the standards of a good English cathedral), only performs, when summoned, at large papal functions, not in the daily performance of the offices.

This might be a convenient point at which to relate an interesting episode at which I was present. On Ascension Day the Pope canonised S. Maria Bertilla Boscardin, a member of an order which has since spread into France, and many French people were present. When the Sistine Chapel choir started an elaborate Credo in the Papal Mass, a great roar of French voices started up the common Creed and drowned them. This was widely commented upon in Rome and people said ‘This is a great day; the liturgical revival has reached St. Peter's’.

FOYER UNITAS

You will remember from previous references that I have been trying to bring about a change for the better in this organisation, which is entirely under Fr. Boyer's control and which suffers from his well-intentioned but limited attitude (see my Report No. 8).

[. . .] When we arrived Boyer asked me to speak also. I took a chance on this and spoke as follows:-

• There were many people speaking and working for reunion who did not seriously believe that there was any hope of eventually coming to terms with the Roman Church. Their conception of future developments was limited to the hope of a peaceful co-existence similar to that in the political world. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, on the other hand, wanted to make it clear to all that their eventual aim was not duality or peaceful co-existence, but unity, which was an absolute term. We hoped that the Roman Church would consider the same distinction. By too rigid an insistence on their claims, the Roman Church could in fact force us all into this difficult position, which was obviously not according to the will of God. I said frankly also that one of the hopes of the Church of England was that the Roman Church at the forthcoming Council would not resist the will of God by making further dogmatic definitions, particularly with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which would drive a deeper wedge between us.

  I said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had asked the Church of England to join in the Novena of prayer called by His Holiness for the Council from Ascension to Whitsun. I hoped that all present would reciprocate by asking God's blessing on the plenary meeting of the W.C.C. in New Delhi in November of this year.

There was much enthusiasm expressed, and I suspected that Fr. Boyer jumped up to propose the vote of thanks slightly sooner than he would have done had the applause been less lively. I was also slightly irritated that Fr. Boyer had seen fit to invite an ex-Anglican priest called Davies (formerly of the diocese of St. Albans and editor of a particularly stupid paper called the ‘Dome’) to this meeting. Boyer has made much of this particular conversion in his writings in ‘Unitas’, but I have heard since that Davies has now left (or been asked to leave) the Beda College.³⁶ So his presence at the Foyer was all the more extraordinary. He is apparently now without means of support.

Report No. 12      11th June, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

UNITY IN BRITAIN

[. . .] I have exchanged letters with Archbishop Heenan who replied in a very friendly manner. He says that the Committee of the hierarchy to which I referred has not yet met. We can refer all such matters direct to him at present.

[. . .]

ANGLICAN ORDERS

These have recently been under discussion in the Secretariat. The line seems to be that although the matter is closed officially, it might be possible to ask for further investigation of the historical background. Though there are those who think that this might do more harm than good (see below). Others ask why we don't short-circuit the whole matter by arranging for consecrations always to have present bishops of whose place in the succession there could be no doubt. I have been asked if it could be ascertained from Lambeth what consecrations have been so ‘regularised’. I said I was sure that a detailed register was kept at Lambeth.

DOM GRIBOMONT, O.S.B.

Dom Gribomont, Prior of S. Girolamo, came to see me. He is a patristic and biblical scholar, friend of Fr. Dalby etc. He is engaged on work in connection with the text of the Vulgate. He is very objective about unity. He hoped that the Church of England would not hesitate to send written representations to the Council. Subjects which he would like to see treated were:-

1. (a) objectivity of truth, especially in regard to history. Here we might even be a help to liberal elements in the Roman Church. Texts available to students are all ‘doctored’ in the interests of Roman dogma, and it would be better if they were not so. I asked if the various Denzinger Handbooks would be regarded as cases in point. He agreed;

2. (b) certainly religious liberty;

3. (c) perhaps the sufficiency of the present ordinal, and e.g. the ordinal of South India, which he regarded as excellent. He was against the idea of opening up the question of Anglican orders, for fear of making the situation worse than it is.

4. (d) Asking particularly for no further dogmatic definitions which would drive the wedge deeper.

Speaking about the last he said that he thought the dogma of Maria co-redemptrix and Maria Mediatrix would come eventually, though not through the Council, or at all soon. But they were already in the liturgy implicitly, and the step to dogmatic definition was not a long one. I protested at this, and said that the declaring of them divinitus revelata was a big step, as was the anathematising and consequent excommunication of those who did not feel able to accept them. To my surprise he said he would himself accept the doctrines; though he thought we should not worry unduly about them, because they did not change the situation, from one point of view, much from what it was at present. He quite recognised that we drew a distinction between papal and conciliar definitions, but since the infallibility decision was itself a conciliar one, he did not now think there was much in the distinction.

Speaking of the Liturgical Commission, he said that he thought that the normal work of the Congregation of Rites was very much swallowed up in the activities of the Commission for the present. He himself particularly hoped to see secured a wide use of the vernacular, and ‘concelebration’ in convents and monasteries. He hoped for great measures of decentralisation, to the disadvantage of the Curia, and felt sure they would come. He said there could be no hope of progress in the Church until the Holy Office was radically altered or abolished.

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL

Willebrands told me that the Commission was to meet on Monday 12th for a week and would be of the greatest importance. It would have before it much of the collected work of the subordinate Councils, Commissions and Secretariats, though they had by no means yet reported in full. The Unity Secretariat had prepared four reports. Three of them were going to be presented that very day both to the Central Commission and to the Theological Commission. They were on:-

1. (a) the nature of the Church,

2. (b) the hierarchical structure of the Church,

3. (c) the priesthood of the laity

all as they concerned oecumenical matters. The fourth was a liturgical report, to be presented to the Liturgical Commission. Further reports were being prepared on Religious Liberty and Mixed Marriages.

I asked if he thought that the Central Commission would be in a position to fix the date, or the agenda, of the Council. He thought it unlikely. It was said that their time would mostly be occupied by consideration of the intensely complicated questions of procedure which must arise. Is each of 3,000 bishops to be able to speak on any motion, and on any footing and at any lengths, in any language? The main language must certainly be Latin, but there was much difficulty in the national pronunciations. Willebrands thought that the question of observers might come up, and hoped it would, for even if a single affirmative decision were given about them, immense administrative problems would still be left over to solve. I asked if it would be essential for observers to be able to speak Latin. He said he thought not, for he supposed that observers would probably not be able to observe the actual proceedings, but would be invited daily to meetings which would report, in the manner of a press conference, the daily progress and decisions. This was only his private opinion.

[. . .]

Report No. 13      12th June, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

PATRONAGE OF S. JOSEPH

I have been reading further past files of La Civilta Cattolica ³⁷ concerning the preparations for the Council. On March 15th last the Pope, in a public audience, announced that he had just put the whole Council under the auspices of S. Joseph. He then made a very florid discourse on Our Lady's Most Chaste spouse which I will forebear to translate because it is couched in language so foreign and excessive that it would seem ridiculous to our ears. But it is evident that the Pope was most devout in the dedication. I mention this because it is, in my view, essential background to the understanding of the Council. So strong is the belief in the efficacy of the prayers of the Saints that, not to mention the Holy Ghost (who isn't mentioned as often as He should be!), they alone guarantee the success, and the inerrancy, of the Council; and its decisions. I remember reading somewhere that at the 1st Vatican Council, Bishop Dupanloup and others made a last effort to dissuade the Pope from declaring infallibility, only to be met with the response that ‘Our Lady is with me; I cannot resist her’.

THE LAITY AND THE COUNCIL

Cardinal Cento³⁸ gave a television interview in France in February on the above subject. He was bowled some very fast balls by the interviewer, some of which he found rather difficult to play. Asked if the creation of a Commission of the laity did not create a precedent, the Cardinal said that of course the laity had always been there and had always been a part of the Church, but now they were waking up and realising that they are the Church.

Asked if the laity were now going to be given a voice in the government of the Church, the Cardinal said that the direction of the Church must of course always rest with the ecclesia docens, the hierarchy, but the hierarchy welcomed every possible suggestion and help from the laity. It did not fall to the laity to participate in the Council itself. Asked then what was the chief duty of the laity, the Cardinal said that it lay in the matter of active apostolate under the general direction of the hierarchy of the clergy.

THE COUNCIL AND PROTESTANTS

1. (a) Cardinal Bea, speaking at Genoa in January, said:-

   What are the possibilities for Protestants from the forthcoming Council? The first seems to be the possibility that some of the dogmas previously declared could perhaps be explained in a way which should be more satisfactory to them. Difficulties often come from the fact that a dogma is not understood, or is even perverted. Methods of thought are changed in the course of centuries. Our separated brethren, cut off now for centuries from the Mother Church have since then been under the influence of many secular systems of thought which have made it impossible for them to understand the fullness of Catholic truth without it being totally re-expressed.

   [. . .]

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

In an interview with Willebrands I asked openly about a book called ‘Roman Catholicism and Religious Liberty’, by Dr A.F. Carrillo de Albornoz. No secret has been made of its existence or contents, nor of the circumstances of the author, who is an ex-Jesuit from Spain, at present working on the staff of the W.C.C. in Geneva. The book is known about and is acknowledged as objective by the Secretary. It is true that there is a great variety of opinion and practice in the Roman Church in this matter. The Church had to keep the faith alive and fulfil her mission in many different places and ages. It was realised that the Church was accused of being opportunist in these matters and as having no fixed policy. It was hard to say if there was any ‘official teaching’ of the Church on this subject. There were no conciliar decisions; no papal infallible pronouncements; there were few references in the third category (of Encyclicals sent to Bishops not being ex-cathedra); and the only reference one could point to with any authority was the speech of Pope Pius XII to the Italian lawyers in December 1953. This speech can almost certainly be taken as a rebuke to Cardinal Ottaviani for his speech at the Pontificio Ateneo Lateranense on 3rd March 1953. Even so this speech is only in the fourth category of authoritative importance.

Willebrands said that there is admittedly divergence of belief among Roman theologians and difference of behaviour by the Church over against changing situations in different places and ages. How could it be otherwise? It would be difficult for the Church to behave in the same way in the 15th century in France and the 19th century in Ireland. But it was now admitted by many (and should be admitted by more) that many mistakes had been made and that greater consistency of policy and practice should be aimed at.

In the course of further discussion, the Secretary mentioned discrimination against R.C.s in Sweden. I said that we should admit that the principle of ‘cuis regio cuis religio’³⁹ at the Reformation was itself in essence a cynical and intolerant principle. None of us were in very good shape for casting stones at the others. We agreed that all concerned should pray for God's guidance on the situation and on the Council, that it may be guided to bring new light and understanding.

The technical answer to the question whether the subject will be under discussion at the Council is that the agenda has not yet been drawn up. But the Secretariat for Unity is preparing a report on Religious Liberty which will be submitted to the Central Commission with the proposition that it be considered at the Council for discussion (see my Report No. 12 item 5).

My own additional thoughts on the matter were as follows[:] that the non-Roman Catholic world itself holds such a variety of opinions about the proper relations between Church and State that it should not be surprised if there is this variety of opinion among the Romans in the matter of religious liberty; second, that whatever the practice of the Roman Church with regard to the liberties of others, they have in recent years a very good record in resisting unto blood for the faith itself; third, that it would be ironical if pressure were brought on the Roman Church from non-Roman sources, to make official pronouncements on a matter on which there is apparently liberty of opinion. But of course what we want them to do is to remove obvious inconsistencies and contradictions.

AUDIENCE WITH THE POPE

On my last day, Monday June 12th, I had a long private audience with the Pope, quite alone. His Holiness said he had heard of my mission and was pleased I had come. What was my exact relationship to the Archbishop? He had supposed I was a member of his personal staff. He asked in detail about my work at Ely, my family and past career. He spoke with much warmth about Archbishop Fisher and said ‘There is a straightforward man, of high ideals, and great sincerity. I see many people here from kings to the least of men: but I knew at once that here was a great man of God.’ I agreed, and said that I was sure he would find the same qualities in the new Archbishop.

His Holiness had just come from the first meeting of the Central Commission of the Council. He said it had gone well, but was mainly concerned with organisation. An analysis of his published speech will appear in my next report. He was doing all the talking, very vigorous and at high speed, but very scintillating and vivid.

He then told me his views on unity which were identical, of course, with those already expressed in speeches reported previously. We were in a very much better position than our forefathers were in 1893 (?) when Leo XIII issued invitations to the other churches and was met with rebuffs on all sides, and even insults.⁴⁰ Now there had been a most friendly reception on all sides of the announcement of the Council and of the invitation to unity. It was no use discussing unity problems now while the Council was putting the Roman Church in order. Afterwards, when that was accomplished, they would say to all, particularly to us, ‘Here is your mother Church, all resplendent and beautiful: now surely you will want to find your way back.’ I said that I hoped in that case that such changes as would be made at the Council would make it easier, rather than more difficult for us to contemplate approaches. He said Yes, he hoped so. We had been together for 16 centuries: what a shame it was that we ever parted. He then gave me a hasty sketch of English Church history, starting of course in 597. I thought it inadvisable to argue the point.

His Holiness then relaxed and told me to tell him ‘all that was in my heart’. I had prepared points, one of which had been made above. So I said that most of his visitors from the Church of England so far had been from the ‘High Church’ wing. Archbishop Fisher, and now I following him up, represented the whole generality of opinion in the C of E. who were indeed friendly towards the Church of Rome, but who also, in thinking of Union, had to have in mind the Orthodox and the many Protestant sects. Reunion must eventually include them all. I said that was not an easy position. The Pope agreed. I then said we welcomed the opportunity to exchange information. So much harm had been done by misrepresentation in the past, particularly in manipulating history to suit dogmatic needs. Thirdly I was so glad to be able to state our views direct to Rome because, as His Holiness knew, contacts in England and America were not as friendly as we should like them to be. He said, Yes, he knew, but they were getting better. Did I know Archbishop Heenan? I said I did indeed, and how grateful we were for his attitude.

The Pope said ‘Your principal difficulty is the Primacy of the Holy See.’ I said ‘Yes, and the new Marian definitions’. He: ‘Yes, but they derive from the former.’ I said they had their separate difficulties about the nature of truth and the place of dogma. He then gave me a rapid statement of the Primatus Petri,⁴¹ beginning with the Acts. He said ‘You accept the Scriptures?’ I said ‘Of course, but it depends on the interpretation.’

The Pope then went off on the matter of first and second grade questions. The question of the Anglican rite, which was good, offered no difficulty. Nor did clerical celibacy. He mentioned S. Peter (!) and the Uniates. He said ‘I'm very fond of Anglicans: you're friendly, you're sincere. I like the English character, its robustness. I am trying hard to speak English well. I read it easily. Fr. Faber's writings have had a great influence on me.⁴² I wish the Orthodox were more approachable, like your Archbishop Fisher. They're afraid, they're resentful of past political glories lost, and the great days of the Byzantine Empire.’ He then reminisced, touchingly, about his days in Constantinople, Bucharest, etc.

The whole interview was exceedingly cordial and animated. Much good humour. He was complimentary at the end and said Cardinal Bea had reported well of me and my mission and Cardinal Montini had also spoken of me. He invited me to come and see him again. I was to be careful of the press. The interview was a secret. But he said I could say when I got back to England that I'd been received by the Pope, and what a jolly old fellow the Pope was!

His Holiness presented me with a medal and 2 large volumes, one of his speeches and the other the Acta Synodus Romanie. At the end he made me kneel for a blessing (!), though he prefaced it by saying that it was not a sacramental matter.

I talked in the anticamera with two domestic chaplains, Mgr. Pocci and Mgr. Capovilla. The audience lasted 25 minutes.

[. . .]

RETURN

I leave Rome on Tuesday June 13th, 1961, by train.

Report No. 14      23rd September, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

This report is submitted from ELY.

GENERAL

[. . .]

It has been a surprise to come across the considerable number of foreign visitors to Ely Cathedral who have asked if this was the cathedral from which a canon was ‘assigned to Rome’. Sometimes I have owned up and the result has always been most warm and friendly.

READING

I have taken and digested the Acta Apostolicae Sedis,⁴³ the ‘Civilta Cattolica’,⁴⁴ Documentations Catholiques,⁴⁵ the Osservatore Romano (daily!),⁴⁶ and the Tablet.⁴⁷ The news items which follow are extracted principally from them.

[. . .]

THE POPE ON THE SAINTS

In a general audience the Pope said ‘Many accuse us of exaggerating the cultus of the Saints. That is not so. We adore the persons of the Holy Trinity; we venerate Our Lady and we honour the Saints.’

The fact is, though, that a very large proportion of celebrations, discourses and exhortations are centred upon the cultus of the saints and involve supplications to them for their aid without mention, except incidentally, of the persons of the Trinity. The whole thing is a matter of proportion.

[. . .]

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA

On July 6th the Pope published a message of condolence to Abp. Beran of Prague on the occasion of his 50th anniversary of ordination to the priesthood. He paints a doleful picture of the state of the Church in that country which, he says, is as bad as anywhere in the world. It is the victim of full systematic persecution.

THE B.V.M.

In a radio message to the people of France on July 11th, the Pope used the extreme words of his predecessor in which he spoke of the B.V.M as ‘omnium memborum Christi Sanctissima Genetrix’⁴⁸ (Enc. Mystici Corporis).

[. . .]

July 30th

Death of the Secretary of State (Cardinal Tardini)

[. . .]

NEW SECRETARY OF STATE

On Aug 15th the O.R. carried the news of the appointment of Cardinal Amleto Cicognani (to distinguish him from his brother Gastano) as S[ecretary] of S[tate] in place of the late Tardini.

NATURE OF THE CHURCH. A Report from Spain

The Archbishop of Barcelona, in a pastoral letter gives a very rigid interpretation of the doctrine of the Church in order to bolster up a programme of caution towards ‘precipitate hopes of reunion’. He lays particular emphasis on the idea that although all the baptised are thereby made members of Christ and of the Church, when they consciously adhere to a separated body they ‘put themselves outside the real Church of Christ’.

[. . .]

PROCEDURE OF THE COUNCIL

[. . .]

It is expected that the work of the Council will be done partly in plenary sessions and partly in Commissions. These are not to be confused with the preparatory Commissions. The Commissions will consist only of Fathers of the Council.

[. . .]

Report No. 15      25th September, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

This report is submitted from Ely.

THE NEW SECRETARY OF STATE

The R.C. papers have been trying hard to find something good to say about Cardinal Cicognani. He has at least lived a long time in America, and is bound to be an improvement on his predecessor. The Tablet starts its notice ruefully by saying ‘Cardinal Cicognani is not 79 until next February.’

[. . .]

THE CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTRE

in London is reported to have had an increase in enquiries of 5% in 1960, with 6,500 conversions to its credit, bringing the total since 1954 up to 100,000.

MGR. HEENAN

I went at Abp. Heenan's invitation to stay with him in Liverpool. I was shown round some very powerful and impressive institutions, schools and churches in new suburbs, and the pre-cathedral in its crypt. I tried not to be too depressed by the comparison between that and the Liverpool Cathedral. In the latter there seem to be almost no weekday services: in the Roman pre-cathedral there are mid-day masses on several weekdays and at the one I attended there were not less than 400 young people present.

We covered a lot of familiar ground, but the main points of conversation which were new to me were as follows:- There is to be a meeting of the Central Commission of the Council in the middle of October, which will probably fix the main shape of the Council itself, date, agenda, etc. The October meeting of the Secretariat has been postponed till after this meeting. That is because it will wish to know in what form, if any, the matter of unity will be before the Council. I shall be in Rome by then and the Abp. promised to call on me after the Secretariat meeting if possible.

He apologised at some length for the appointment of Fr. Ripley as Secretary of the R.C. Hierarchy's unity committee in England. He is a known reactionary. But he had been the very able Director of the C.M.S.(!),⁴⁹ and after a serious illness which has caused his resignation, is in need of a job. Heenan, who was his predecessor but one, has a high regard for him, but does not intend to let him have any say in the direction of the committee. He is to be a post-bag and minute-man only.

He spoke of the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, whom he knew personally. He would be a great improvement on Tardini, and (for an Italian Cardinal) had quite broad views. He had been in America and had met a large number of people. But he was old.

I asked for clarification of the phrase ‘receiving the wishes and suggestions of non-Catholics regarding the Council’ in the aims of the Secretariat, and whether the secretariat would really like the Church of England to send in a formal statement on these lines. He was very strongly in favour of it in principle, and asked me what I thought such a letter might contain. I said that I had discussed this with no one and was only guessing, as follows:-

1. 1. A message congratulating the Pope on setting up the Secretariat, thanking him for his good wishes and high hopes expressed therein: telling how we had already used it most profitably and hoped to continue to do so.

2. 2. A message of goodwill to the Pope and the fathers of the Vatican Council, assuring them of our prayers for their guidance.

3. 3. A sentence saying that while, as was known, we, in common with a large proportion of Christendom, were unable to accept the Vatican Council as oecumenical, we should nevertheless await its decisions with interest and would hope that they would make [it] more easy, rather than more difficult, for us to advance towards unity.

4. 4. A sentence telling the Pope of the blessings we had already found in seeking unity with other Christian bodies and how without the sacrifice of principles we had been able to achieve a unity which already bore signs of most abundant fruits.

5. 5. Perhaps a suggestion that theological continuation committees should be set up after the Council.

6. 6. Expression of the hope that all parties would feel able publicly and frankly to confess that their own failures had contributed to the present estrangements.

7. 7. Perhaps something on religious Liberty.

8. 8. And mixed marriages.

He said that such a document would do much good, perhaps more than we thought, and as he would be the person who would have to introduce it, he spoke with some authority.

I repeated that these headings were only my impromptu suggestions so far, and that great difficulties might face us even in considering such a course. I asked if any other bodies had considered sending representations. He said that the Orthodox would undoubtedly reply to the message already sent to them and that the World Lutheran Federation were likely to send in something.

I asked whether in his view it would appear discourteous if we sent nothing written. He said not, because the Church of England had in a way responded to the ‘invitation’ by sending me, though he thought it would be more satisfactory if we committed ourselves to at least something in writing.

DR BOLSHAKOFF

This character is well known to C.I.R and they know that his opinions are to be treated with reserve. My experience is that they come direct from Cardinal Tisserant, and in so far as they do so, are reliable. I send an analysis of a recent letter.

1. 1. Belgium. The death of Cardinal Van Roey will enable the Consistory to reconstitute the Belgian hierarchy, subdividing the huge archdiocese of Malines, setting up new Bishoprics of Brussels and Antwerp.

2. 2. Russia. 53 Russian Bishops met at Zagorsk on July 19th and discussed the situation created by the intensification of persecution. Plans to complete the introduction of communism by 1980 mean that new religious persecution must be expected. In the last two years 29 monasteries out of 69 were closed and 3 seminaries out of 8 and literally thousands of churches. Taxation of the clergy has become such that only the largest town churches can pay it. Those who cannot are struck off the ‘register of cult’ and lose the right to celebrate. Those who violate this are sent to prison for years, the bishops at Zagorsk have either ordained many ‘worker-priests’ or have given laymen wide powers in order to forestall the sudden disappearance of the clergy.

Report No. 16      29th September, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

MONS WILLEBRANDS

paid me a long day's visit on September 15th. He was staying with the friars of the Atonement, Westminster. He had been the previous day to see the Abp. of Canterbury and had called at West Malling Abbey on the way back. Much of this report will therefore probably be familiar, but I submit it for record.

He was as usual anxious for there to be no publicity, though much easier than he has been in Rome. He gave as his reasons (a) dangers of misrepresentation of his motives in Rome. It might be supposed that he was trying to pre-empt the decisions of the Central Council in favour of the Secretariat's policy by his frequent tours abroad. The Holy Office and the Secretariat of State are both jealous of the Secretariat for Unity inasmuch as their fields might overlap; the Holy Office in the matter of theology and the Secretariat of State in questions of local relationships with the hierarchy. (b) possible misunderstandings with the hierarchy in England. But he said that the position was getting better here all the time, and Heenan was established, entrenched with full papal support and able to flourish his membership of the Secretariat in the face of gainsayers.

He said that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, was an improvement on his predecessor from our point of view, though he was of course too old.

He spoke about the observers at the W.C.C. 3rd Assembly at New Delhi, though he added nothing to what has already been in the papers.⁵⁰

He had already had a meeting with Cardinal Godfrey⁵¹ who had been quite affable. But he considered it necessary to have a further interview with Mgr. Worlock,⁵² his private secretary, who needed further conversion. He, Worlock, was worried about rumours that Anglican priests had been touring France with bogus ‘celebrets’⁵³ and obtaining entrance to French altars. He was going to tell Worlock that he must not give credence to rumours and that he was sure the Anglican authorities would be severe on any priest who committed this indiscretion. I assured him that this was so. Worlock could produce no names.

He mentioned discussions he had had with English secular (R.C.) clergy who had said that ‘you are flirting with the very episcopate which our Blessed Martyrs gave their lives rather than accept’. He had said that ‘you are wasting everybody's time keeping alive the bitterness of the 16th century. The Blessed Martyrs are undoubtedly throwing their prayers in on the side of peace and reconciliation.’

[. . .]

Speaking of the forthcoming Council he said, in spite of what the General Secretary is reported as having said, that 1963 is more likely than Autumn 1962. The Central Committee will meet in the middle of this Oct., when it will probably make the decision. The meeting of the Unity Secretariat, which was to have been in the middle of Oct., is postponed to November. The Pope will probably issue a Bull. He thinks it is likely there will be observers. When I asked what they could really expect to do more than receive bulletins at the end of sessions, he said that if observers were allowed, they would clearly have to be something more than journalists and would be real observers of part at least of the proceedings. They would therefore have to be Latinists. 60% of the proceedings of the Unity Secretariat were in Latin. Heenan, e.g. was quite fluent. He thought the Council might conceivably have more than one session (i.e. might disband and go home for months and then reassemble).

It was fairly certain that one of the outcomes of the Council would be theological continuation conferences, especially with us. He spoke of the catholic body already in being which, he hoped, would extend itself by invitation, and start by trying to convert the Roman clergy where necessary especially the seculars. They would meet at Oscott⁵⁴ rather than at Downside to emphasise the appeal to the secular clergy.

[. . .]

I pressed Willebrands as to whether they really expected the Church of England to send written representations to the Council. He said that they did so expect, and that he understood that the Archbishop of Canterbury was already contemplating submitting statements with regard to Religious Liberty and Mixed Marriages. But he did not seem clear as to whether this was in direct connection with the Council or not. I asked further whether he thought a general statement of our hopes (and fears) would be acceptable. He thought it certainly would be, and handed me the latest version [. . .] of the ‘Background to the Secretariat’, copies of which I believe are already in the possession of the Archbishop and of the C.I.R. [. . .]

His response was immediately that he thought we ought to send such a note. I am bound to report that my own opinion is that we ought to profit by the occasion, and that to be cautious or hesitant would be to miss a real opportunity. Notwithstanding the considerable difficulty of sanctioning such a statement.

Russia

He spoke of Russia in terms identical with those of Dr. Bolshakoff, already reported.

Report No. 17.      September 30th, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

The enclosed report is submitted from Ely.

MIXED MARRIAGES AND THE SECRETARIAT

Mgr. Willebrands seems to think that the Archbishops intended to submit something on this subject to the Secretariat. If this is so could I please be kept informed? [Handwritten note: ‘This was written before my last interview with the Archbishop, who answered the question.’]

RETURN TO ROME

I propose to return to Rome on October 19th, arriving 20th. I have already told Willebrands, but I get the impression that he would like to be informed officially by C.I.R. When I got out there last time it looked as though the Minister to the Holy See would also have liked to be informed [. . .]

Report No. 18      12th October, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

This report is submitted from ELY

[. . .]

PASTORAL THEOLOGY

August and September were the season for summer schools and conferences all over Roman Catholic Europe. I read at length the themes and findings at a ‘Pastoral refreshment Course’ for the diocese of Turin. They were very disappointing, hopelessly behind anything that would be achieved on a similar occasion in France or in Germany. The chief enemies of the Gospel are ‘communism’ and ‘laicism’. The latter was defined as ‘a systematic and hysterical tendency to oppose any influence of religion or the hierarchy upon human institutions’; i.e. what we should call anti-clericalism. There is a total absence of self-criticism in the speeches and comments, no trace of a search for the possible causes of the phenomenon. The only remedies proposed seem to be an intensification of methods at present in use. This whole conference seems very reactionary and not up to the standard even of Milan or Bologna. But I imagine it is typical of much of the pastoral attitude in Italy.

[. . .]

THE LAITY AND THE COUNCIL

In a recent speech the Pope said that in the great mass of opinions, suggestions and requests which had been sent in to the Central Commission by the bishops we could be quite sure that the wishes of the clergy and the laity were fully represented. He wished to thank the laity, particularly those who had worked in close cooperation with the hierarchy, for their help and interest. He hoped that they would continue to exercise to the full their proper, and important, function in the Church, which was to pray and to cooperate with the hierarchy in the apostolate.

This, and similar utterances, are a clear indication, in my view, that there has been uneasiness among Roman laity in some circles that they had in fact no say whatever in the deliberations of the Council.

[. . .]

MGR. HEENAN'S COMMITTEE OF THE HIERARCHY

The Universe of 4.8.61 published an article of Mgr. Heenan about his new Secretariat. No doubt it will have reached you. It follows the lines which would be expected and seems to be eminently reasonable. He even puts the Anglican doctrinal point of view fairly, except that he quotes us as believing that whereas we've preserved the faith which S. Augustine brought, we think they've lost it. In fact we should say that they have added to it in those 1300 years things which were not there.

Report No. 19      28th October, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

This report comes from Rome again, where I arrived on October 20th.

[. . .]

DATE OF VATICAN COUNCIL

The excitement is increasing here because of the realisation that the Pope must soon announce the date of the Council and publish the Bull convening it.

The Central Committee will meet from Nov. 7th–20th. It is likely that the announcement will be made soon after that. But Willebrands says that there are strong rumours that the Pope may ‘jump the gun’ and make an announcement on Nov. 4th. There is no doubt that there is considerable tension about this. Professor Witte, who is a member of the Theological commission, says that there is no question of their being adequately prepared by the autumn of 1962.⁵⁵ On the other hand he agrees that if they had to get ready by then they would do so, though it would be at the sacrifice of thoroughness.

The Pope is at the moment indisposed (with ’flu) and it is thought that this will give him an additional inclination to want to hurry the Council through.

[. . .]

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

This will certainly be on the agenda of the Central Commission soon to meet, referred to above. Willebrands is hopeful about the matter. He says that the Unity Secretariat has presented quite a strong recommendation in favour of it, and that it was well received. He hopes for a decision in favour in principle, and that details will then be left to the Secretariat to work out.

[. . .]

DATE OF THE COUNCIL

Since writing [the] above, I have read in one newspaper: ‘It is reported from well-informed Vatican sources that in his address at the Mass in S. Peter's on Christmas Day, the Pope will probably announce the date of the forthcoming Council’. I have not so far been able to check this rumour against other information. The most likely explanation is that nobody knows and many are guessing.

Report No. 20.      November 4th, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

PROFESSOR KILPATRICK⁵⁶

I had the good fortune on arrival here to find the Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis doing research in the Vatican Library. He was well acquainted with my mission and immediately allowed me to use him. I invited him to meet Professor Witte, S.J. Professor of Protestant Theology at the Gregorianum, (a Dutchman). Kilpatrick had seen the correspondence in the Tablet about ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ and Ratcliff's⁵⁷ and Vidler's⁵⁸ comments on it.

The two professors exchanged a lot of information about personnel. Witte expressed admiration of Kilpatrick's knowledge of theological faculties on the continent. They talked about Catholic faculties in State universities, e.g. Munich and Strasbourg, and their comparative independence of the hierarchy.

We eventually turned the conversation on to the nature of the Church. Witte admitted that there were differences of opinion among Roman theologians. His way of expressing this (it is quite common here) is to say that ‘there were certain things about the doctrine (e.g. of Mystici corporis) which needed further definition’. When pressed he admitted that all were made members of Christ's body the Church at baptism, but that there were grades of membership. ‘Grace unto salvation’ could undoubtedly be given outside the Catholic Church, but the full attainment of it (i.e. salvation) demanded in this world full use of the sacraments.

A ROMAN RUMOUR ABOUT ANGLICAN CANONISATIONS

The illustrated paper Tempo (rather like Picture Post) carries an alarming heading ‘George VI on the altars’.

The main points of the text are as follows:-

1. (1) There are rumours not only in England but in other parts of the Anglican communion that George VI would be the sort of person who would be qualified to be canonised according to the ideas of the Church of England.

2. (2) Dr. Fisher, Archbishop of Westminster (sic) arranged at the last Lambeth Conference that a committee should investigate the question of canonisation in general.

3. (3) It was the Bishop of Rockhampton (McCall) who started the idea about George VI, in a published sermon.

4. (4) Anglican opinion is by no means unanimous about this. The whole question was discussed in the press. One of the leading figures in the discussion was Canon E.C. Ratcliff, Titular Professor (sic) of Divinity in Cambridge who said that ‘it was not outside the realm of possibility that George VI might be canonised’ .

I have sent the text of the article to Professor Ratcliff, and look forward to hearing his reaction.

[. . .]

DOWNSIDE AND UNITY

I asked Mgr. Willebrands what was the exact position of Downside with regard to unity. They had been said to have a special responsibility in England and I wondered if that had been superseded by Archbishop Heenan's committee.

The answer was that Leo XIII had asked the Benedictine order to have a special interest in problems of unity, in the encyclical Equidem verba. They were the oldest of the orders and dated from the days of the undivided Church. Their chief responsibility was to be to the Orthodox east. The foundation of Chevetogne in Belgium was their chief response to this request.

At a meeting of abbots in 1960 it was suggested that the order was now doing little in this interest and that the matter should be revived. Accordingly it was decided to appoint one abbey in each country to have an eye to this matter, and Downside was appointed in England. The effort still doesn't amount to much, and is in any case directed mainly towards the Orthodox.

[. . .]

THE BRITISH LEGATION

I have had much help, as previously, from the British Minister to the Holy See, Sir Peter Scarlett.

I attended a reception given by Brian McDermott, the First Secretary, and at it met, among other people, Canon Curtin, the new Principal of the Beda, Fr. Tindal-Atkinson, O.P., of St Mary Major (one of the Roman members of the Vidler theological group), Archbishop David Mathew, Mgr. Lamb Vice-Principal of the Beda, Mgr. Tickell and Mgr. Clarke, Rector and Vice-Rector of the English College, Mgr. Ryan, an enormous Irishman who translates into English (!) for the Pope. All friendly.

[. . .]

CARDINAL BEA

I have had a further long interview with the Cardinal, which was chiefly an exchange of courtesies. He spoke about the Council and seemed to know nothing new about the dates or agenda, though he repeated that there was every intention of ‘clarifying’ the doctrine about the Church. He asked for a great deal of information about P.E.C.U.S.A. and the Presiding Bishop. He told me that he had received a communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was presumably the Archbishop's message to the Pope on the occasion of his official 80th birthday.

Report No. 21      8th November, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

MGR. WILLEBRANDS and C.I.R.

Willebrands has asked me about C.I.R., etc., and how it is constituted, how it works. He imagined that the R.C. section of it was in fairly frequent session these days considering the relationships of the Church of England in view of the forthcoming council. I was able to hide the gruesome truth by saying that the Council was being reconstituted by the new Archbishop and said that I was sure that a strong panel would be recruited to deal with this situation.

[. . .]

CORONATION ANNIVERSARY AND 80TH BIRTHDAY NOV. 4TH.

I was present in S. Peter's in a first class seat, just behind the cardinals, and in among the diamond tiaras of the Italian noble families, thanks to the kindness of the Secretariat. The spectacle was most moving, and the 80-year-old Pope was in good form. The allocution had three main points:-

1. (1) S. Carlo Borromeo (whose day it was) was effective for the Church in the days of the Council of Trent, which is a good omen for us and our Council.

2. (2) S. Leo the Great is one of the most important Popes and should be more closely studied. The Pope intends to issue an encyclical specially about him soon.

3. (3) Some leg-pulling about the longevity of the Roncalli family, with the consequent implication that the Church may have John XXIII for a long time yet.

The Pope made no reference to the date of the Council. Afterwards I met Cardinal Montini, with whom I stayed in Milan in 1956, for a few minutes. I hope to see more of him in the next weeks.

[. . .]

Report No 22.      10th November, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL

The Central Commission started its meetings on Tuesday last in the Vatican Palace. The session was presided over by the Pope himself who delivered the opening speech. According to my information the meetings of the Central Commission will last nearly a fortnight, so my next few reports will be concerned mainly with the press announcements about it.

THE POPE'S INAUGURAL SPEECH

The Pope announced the formation of three Sub-Committees. The work of the Commission itself will be to correlate their reports. His Holiness said that the preparations for the Council were going ahead in an atmosphere charged with much prayer and goodwill in every corner of the Church. Moreover, it was a matter of much satisfaction to him to note how much attention the separated brethren, and even those who had no Christian allegiances at all, had been giving to their work. A torn and distracted world looked to the Church for guidance and comfort. What he had seen of the preparatory work so far encouraged him to hope that the work could be carried to a successful conclusion.

[. . .]

THE NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH

The Second Meeting of the Central Commission was held on Wednesday November 8th. The opening speech was made by Cardinal Ottaviani, the Grand Inquisitor, Prefect of the Holy Office, as President of the Theological Commission, on the question of the new formula for confession of faith to be administered to the Fathers of the Council. In all Councils it is usual after the solemn opening for such a declaration to be administered. A fusion will be effected between the present formula and the anti-modernist oath. This will be brought up to date as necessary and will then be a standard profession of faith. The Cardinal explained that there would be no question of re-stating old dogmas or of adding new ones. The formula at present in use is that prescribed by Pius IV and modified by Pius IX in 1877 to include the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the definitions of Vatican I. It was Pius X in 1910 who ordered that the oath, as well as being read, should be subscribed and accompanied by the anti-modernist oath.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

The third day of the proceedings of the Central Commission was taken up with the preparation of a ‘Constitutio’ on the above subject. The subject was introduced again by Cardinal Ottaviani. It is a pity that this character seems to play so much part in the proceedings, but unfortunately he is President of the Theological Commission. He represents the extreme right wing, both in theology and in politics. He has an insensate hatred of communism and is often referred to as a fascist.

He said that in the proceedings of the Commission and eventually at the Council, the word ‘Constitutio’ would be used for proposals concerning doctrinal themes and ‘decretum’ for the text of findings of disciplinary matters. The theme of this ‘Constitutio’ is exactly what it would be expected to be. The two twin sources of revelation are Holy Scripture and Tradition. Holy Scripture can roughly be described as that part of God's revelation which He wished to be written down; Tradition was at least at the beginning passed on by word of mouth, though now, of course, its truths are enshrined in the documents of the magisterial ecclesiae and in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. There are two fountains, but one source. Holy Scripture, although it is the word of God is enshrined in human language, which, because of all the imperfections and limitations of human modes of expression, is often in need of exact interpretation and authoritative explanation. These cannot come from mere man, but only through a body which has upon it the promise of the continued assistance of the Holy Spirit.

[. . .]

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

There is another heavy-footed warning in the ‘Osservatore Romano’⁵⁹ that rumours about the above are premature. But it does also say that Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Amleto Cicognani made their recommendations to the Commission today.

Report No 23      21st November, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION CONTINUED: DISTRIBUTION OF CLERGY

The last day of the first week of the Commission's meetings was concerned with the distribution of the clergy. Cardinal Ciriaci, as President of the Commission on ‘The discipline of the clergy and Christian people’ introduced the theme. On the practical side this discussion was bound to turn at once to the principle of ‘incardination’ of clergy in the dioceses, i.e. the principle whereby clergy can only move from one diocese to another by permission of the bishop, and whereby, in effect, they are anchored in the same diocese for life. The principle is an extension of the one whereby we are unable to ordain men except to a ‘title’. The difficulties of our system were felt at their worst, in my opinion, at the end of the war when the returning chaplains to the forces were nobody's particular responsibility, and are felt still to a certain extent by returning missionaries. But the inelasticity of the Roman system is now obviously causing them trouble. They also have to reckon with the fact that as an increasing proportion of vocations are to the religious life their distribution is out of the control of the diocesan bishops.

The Roman Church is obviously scared of having presbyteri vagantes. They traced a long history of these back to the Council of Nicaea. Statistics show that the density of clergy varies from 1 priest to 500 to 1 priest to 11,000. In the 1,100 dioceses which have returned statistics, there are approximately 200,000 priests for 400 million Catholics among a population in the same area of 700 million. In order to obtain a distribution of 1 priest to every thousand Catholics, they would need 190,000 more priests: and to achieve a ratio of 1 priest to every thousand of the overall population of the world, they would need half a million more priests.

THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEETINGS

The Press service has put out a line of propaganda under the above heading. The three characteristics of the meetings of the Central Commission are: a. Universality b. Historical Continuity and c. Liberty of Expression – this last, of course, in the limited sense in which the Romans understand it.

[. . .]

MIXED MARRIAGES

I was interested to hear from the Secretary of C.I.R. that a memorandum is being prepared on this subject for presentation to the Secretariat. In his letter he also states that ‘our own Roman Catholic Committee is also to provide another memorandum on other causes of friction between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in this country [. . .] After they have received the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury they will eventually find their way to you to be presented to Monsignor Willebrands.’

I am pleased to hear that we are to start communication of a more formal kind with the Secretariat. But I beg leave to express the hope that our communication will not consist only, or even mainly, of complaints. I feel sure that there is a great opportunity open to us to make general observations of a positive kind on some of the matters which we now know will be before the Council.

Report No. 24      27th November, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION: THE DUTIES OF THE CLERGY

This discussion centred round proposals for the reform of the canon law. This also was mainly concerned with the distribution of the clergy as over against the pastoral situation. It was interesting to see that there is evidently a problem parallel to what we call ‘the freehold of the clergy’, although it takes a different form in the Roman Church. The discussion grouped under three main heads (a) the duty of residence of a priest upon his cure, (b) the duty of the ‘application of the mass’; that means the current duty of reviewing the circumstances under which the mass is celebrated in order to see that its benefits are available to as many people as possible; (c) the duties of the administration of the other sacraments and of religious instruction.

The report spoke of the increasing and more variegated responsibilities of the parish priest confronted with his situation in the modern world; and a lot was made of his need for continual spiritual renewal. It speaks of the constant danger of overwork, with its consequences of actual illness if it is persisted in, or of superficiality. There is also the danger of discouragement. As far as I could see the discussion ran along more or less the same lines as it would in the Church of England except that perhaps more emphasis was given to the need for meditation, spiritual retreat (at least once a month) and study than would be the case in our more activist circles. The word ‘holiness’ is used more than any other to describe the excellence at which the clergy should aim [. . .]. There is a certain preoccupation about ‘modernism’ in its effect on the clergy as well as upon the laity, though it is admitted at the end of the discussion that the problem is a chronic one.

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION: ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES AND BENEFICES AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHURCH PROPERTY

The last-named subject is described as ‘not being of interest to the public’ and so is not reported upon. I sometimes feel that the Church Assembly gets itself a bad reputation in the public mind by allowing too much of its administrative business to be reported.

The report distinguishes two classes of ecclesiastical offices: one of direct divine institution such as that of the papacy (!) and the three orders of ministry; and others which are of human expediency. There was apparently a lot of discussion about the provision of benefices, i.e. about our old friend the stipends of the clergy. Although I have read through all the available reports I am not sure that I have got hold of the whole of the story here, and I will make further enquiries. The situation with regard to the payment of the clergy, I imagine, varies from country to country. I understand that there are some lucrative tied benefices in Italy which stand in the way of progress, and there the problem is similar to that of our endowments. But in other cases and places the problem is that of lack of adequate provision for livelihood. The question of ‘worker-priests’⁶⁰ obviously came up for discussion at this point, though in what sense it is not easy to tell. The only idea which seems clear from the press reports is that no priest should be obliged to earn his living in a secular occupation for lack of means of support. Cardinal Ciriaci, who seemed to be in charge of this discussion, was obviously against the whole principle of worker-priests because their secular occupation took up too much of their time. But he is a known reactionary and his views should not be taken as typical.

UNITY SECRETARIAT

This began its further session on Monday November 27th at Ariccia, near Rome. Mgr. Heenan was here on Nov. 25th and came to see me. The visit was mainly social, though we did talk about observers. I gather from him that though still unofficial these are extremely probable. He sympathised with us over the open letter to the Archbishops about intercommunion which is to him an incomprehensible and badly-timed act of indiscipline, calculated to cause dissension inside the Church and mistrust outside it.

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION: END OF SESSION

The Central Commission has now dispersed and gone home. It will meet again in January. It is now supposed that the Commission has covered sufficient ground and made sufficient recommendations for the Pope to be able to announce the date of the Council and the general outline of its business before the end of the year. Certain statistics concerning the number of people who could be present at the Council have now been published [. . .]

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION: A RUMOUR

A reliable source told me that the meetings of the Central Commission have been very lively and that there had been much opposition, in particular to Ottaviani's extreme right wing theories about the Papacy and the Curia. It was reported that the Northern European bishops in particular are going to make a very strong bid for more discretionary powers.

A SPEECH BY CARDINAL BEA

Speaking in an interview with the review France Catholique the Cardinal said:-

‘We Catholics owe a duty to the Protestants to help them find their way back to the Catholic faith. We failed them badly in the 19th century when they fell a prey to many secularist ideas; to their great impoverishment. Works of charity undertaken together should be a great help to this as Cullmann has often suggested. The Protestants, who are not alone responsible for the splitting up of the Church, can also aspire to salvation on a level footing with the Catholics. In a certain manner they are also united to the Church, and we Catholics should do all we can to foster that unity.’

CARDINAL BEA IN SWIITZERLAND

The Minister to the Holy See⁶¹ entertained the Cardinal to lunch and I had a long talk with him there. [. . .] I asked him for further clarification of his reported statement that the ‘Council was not primarily one for union’. He had said that it was to be regarded as being concerned with the necessary preliminaries to union. In particular he hoped that the embodiment of ecclesiastical authority would undergo such a revision as to make it more acceptable both to the Orthodox and the Protestants. When I asked if this meant curtailing the powers of the Curia he said he hoped so!

Report No. 25      7th December, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

CARDINAL BEA ON DOGMA

In an article entitled ‘The Council as viewed by the Protestants’, the Cardinal reviews again the difficulties as Protestants see them. He says that we should be thankful that old propagandist cries, the cause of so much hatred in the past, such as ‘popery’, ‘papalism’, ‘lust for power’ are dying out but many difficulties remain, the chief of which is of course a totally different conception of dogma. Professor Schnell, a Lutheran teacher in one of the German universities, said that ‘Anybody who shuts himself up in a dogmatic prison will not be able to do any service to the cause of unity’. [. . .] Cardinal Bea comments that no well-instructed Catholic could ever suppose that the Council, the Supreme Pontiff and the Church, could or would change a single dogma. It is their unchanging duty to preserve entire the inheritance of doctrine and tradition, and no love for our separated brethren could persuade us to change a single item of it. Any ironical attempt to level down doctrine would be infidelity to the Church's commission received from Our Lord. The more serious and respectable of the separated brethren would not wish to have unity at the expense of truth. He quotes Asmussen as saying that ‘The great possibility that Rome and Wittenberg may meet peacefully at the Council will not be helped by making unlawful concessions’ and Professor Bornkamm, President of the German Evangelical Federation, has said that ‘The way to unity should never ask of anybody the sacrifice of conscientious conviction’.

The only possibility is that the Council should be able to demonstrate the internal harmonies and the religious and moral elevation of Catholic doctrine as a whole: to clarify the sense of individual dogmas and to remove common false interpretations such as the confusion between infallibility and impeccability, and the difference between ex cathedra and other pontifical pronouncements.

PUBLICITY

I confess to wondering whether the Church of England is doing as much as it could or ought to answer the immense blast of propaganda that the Roman Church is putting out about the Council. I get the impression that this is being very effective in England. [. . .] Is any agency in the Church, to your knowledge, putting out any literature or taking any steps to instruct the people of the Church of England about the issues involved? The Roman reviews here have been careful to see that their readers are given the proper ‘slant’ about the World Council of Churches, what it is all about, and why it is ‘safe’ for Roman observers to be there. I am inclined to think that if and when we are invited to send observers, at the latest, we should be ready to put out some explanations.

[. . .]

Incidentally I do not think it will be necessary to take any steps about preventing publicity about my return home this time. I've had no trouble from journalists since October and the hue and cry seems to have died down [. . .]

WORLD LUTHERAN FEDERATION

The W.L.F. set up an ecumenical institute in Copenhagen after Evanston. Professor Skydsgaard is the President of it, and Pastor Petersen, of the Danish State Lutheran Church, is its permanent secretary. He called on me in Rome. He explained the position of the Church in Denmark, which is in considerable bondage to the State, according to him, to a degree even worse than Sweden. He also tried to explain the exceedingly complicated organisation of the W.L.F. throughout the world. He thought it likely that the W.L.F. would send written representations to the Council, and that some office similar to my own might be created nearer to the Council itself.

FR. BECKER, ORATORIAN

Fr. Becker, R.C. chaplain at Leipzig University in the Eastern zone, whom I had met previously, called again. He had been allowed out for a second time to attend the meetings of the Secretariat. He gave me much interesting information about ‘the Church in silence’ which is not relevant to this report. He referred again to the tendency of Lutherans to sell out to the communists, mentioning especially Emil Fuchs.⁶² He repeated that the R.C.s had actually gained in persecution more than they had so far lost. He said that of students from African and Asian countries coming to Germany to study ½ are usually sent to West German and ½ to East German universities indiscriminately. He believes that this is turning out very much to the benefit of democracy and the Christian Church when comparisons are made by the returning students.

THE UNITY SECRETARIAT

At the meetings of the Secretariat concluded last week, the question of ‘guests’ at the Council was discussed. At every meeting with Willebrands he refers to this subject first as though it is the subject I am most interested in. I have had to try to play this down and give the impression that though we should most probably accept invitations we are not consumed with desire to be present.

Willebrands asked me at length about our attitude to intercommunion. I made it clear that our action at New Delhi was entirely canonical and that express permission for extension of the moral regulations was being written into the new canon law.

[. . .]

Report No. 26      28th December, 1961

________________________________________________________________________________

This Report is submitted from Ely.

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Cardinal Bea showed great interest in the W.C.C. and asked for my comments, particularly on the speeches of Sittler⁶³ and Franklin Fry.⁶⁴ There was no point in hiding that I thought, as he did, that they were unbelievably verbose, and we agreed that Lutherans were inclined to be that way (I was going to say Germans, but remembered in time that Cardinal Bea is a German – though most untypical). I was able to present him and Willebrands with the discourse of the Archbishop of Canterbury which was greatly praised by both. Cardinal Bea said ‘This is why your Church has so much to contribute: you always have such level-headed people at the top. I wish all our leaders could always be the same.’

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

When I took leave of Cardinal Bea before returning he referred once more to the above subject and said that it was now morally certain that ‘guests’ would be invited. It had been recommended to the Pope that they should be known by that title. He said that the Unity Secretariat had been discussing details. I might inform the Archbishop of Canterbury (though this would please remain confidential for the moment) that the Anglican Communion would probably be invited to send three ‘guests’. The Secretariat hoped that the guests taken all together would represent Christian opinion throughout the world. They had decided that the invitations would have to be confessional rather than regional. How did I suppose the Archbishop would allot three places to the Anglican Communion? I replied that it was difficult for me to say, though when the Cardinal seemed anxious for me to guess, I ventured (with appropriate safeguards) to say that the Archbishop might, for example, allot one place to the Church of England, one to the Church in America and one to one of the new provinces in Africa or Asia. The Cardinal said that I would be invited privately, and would be an addition to any delegation which the Anglican Communion sent. He hoped that those chosen would be theologians, and preferably ‘Latinists’. I put in a caveat about this last and said that although we had many men who were both theologians and fluent Latin scholars, even our most eminent men would not necessarily be able to follow a discourse in ‘church Latin’ as pronounced in Italy, France, etc. without some practice. And it was very unlikely that a suitable e.g. African Anglican delegate would be able to follow Latin. He said it was not essential, only preferable, that he should. I said that in all these matters I imagined that the Archbishop would make use of the consultative committee of the Lambeth Conference.

[. . .]

THE WALDENSIANS⁶⁵ AND THE COUNCIL

I attended a series of 3 lectures at the Waldensian seminary by Prof. SIBILIA (the successor in office to the late Giovanni Miegge) on the forthcoming council. The lectures were very critical, and I thought rather bitter. People to whom I spoke afterwards said that the late Professor would have been more understanding. The main points of the lecture were:-

1. a. The Council is not ecumenical in any Catholic sense of the word.

2. b. The papacy since Vatican I is in such a position as to be able to impose the will of a minority on the Church.

3. c. The Council will have no idea of the fallibility of councils (though history should teach them about it), and so cannot approach the issues in penitence and humility, which is a sine qua non of God's blessing on any assembly.

4. d. The attitude to unity is preposterous. They are hoping to set the Church in order. It will then be presented to the world ‘sine macula et sine ruga’⁶⁶ for the amazed contemplation of the rest of Christendom, who will then be scarce able to resist its blandishments. This conception offends the sensibilities of reasonable men.

5. e. Only persecution can purify the Roman Church.

DATE OF THE COUNCIL

The Pope's broadcast of Christmas Day was according to our predictions, though it failed to include a date for the Council. But it can now reasonably be inferred that the Council will start in the autumn of 1962 and will be adjourned at least once and go into 1963.

[. . .]

COUNCIL ON INTER-CHURCH RELATIONS

Willebrands has twice asked for information on how the Church of England decides its policy. Who in fact decides what will be the relation of the Church of England to the Vatican Council? I replied in terms of the new constitution of the C.I.R. as sent to me, and repeated that the Council had been reconstituted. He has the impression that Archbishop Fisher liked to keep the reins of government solely in his own hands. I said that he should not make too many deductions from the fact that Archbishop Fisher's visit was indeed an individual gesture on his own responsibility. I added that although the Church of England valued democratic methods it tried not to be the slave of any constitutional theory and was quite content to see its prelates take their own line occasionally. In this case there was no doubt that Archbishop Fisher's action had been strongly endorsed ex post facto in all responsible quarters. I told him I did not know what the present Archbishop's policy would be in these matters.

[. . .]

Report No 27.      10th January, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

This Report comes from Ely.

LIBERTY OF OPINION

On December 12th, the English press reported that a Spanish Baptist and an American companion were stopped on the frontiers of Spain and 5,000 copies of St. John's Gospel were confiscated as subversive literature. I expect that the various Protestant agencies which are concerned with this subject will have taken notice of this extraordinary event and that the defence which will be offered from official Roman sources is that they cannot be responsible for acts of the Spanish government. It is always difficult to establish the complicity of the Spanish hierarchy even where it is morally certain.

[. . .]

THE BULL ‘HUMANAE SALUTIS’

With the signing of this ‘apostolic constitution’ on Christmas Day, the Pope solemnly convened the forthcoming Vatican Council. The important passages are the following:

1. a. ‘The Council will be held in the year 1962 at a convenient date to be announced later.’

2. b. ‘We invite all Christians separated from the Church of Rome to join us in prayer that the Council may turn out to their advantage as well as to ours . . .’

3. c. ‘Several of these communities have already promised to send representatives (legates), so that they can follow the proceedings of the Council at first hand.’

THE CHURCH IN POLAND

Cardinal Wyszynaki has written a letter to the Polish government, protesting against the new restrictive legislation perpetrated by the Polish government. The restrictions of which he complains are the usual ones, including crippling taxation, which had been made retrospective. The Polish government does more than most to keep up the fiction of being democratic. In this case it has ‘suspended’ the action of the new decrees ‘for investigation’, though there is no doubt of the end of the affair. The ‘investigation’ is merely to see what is the will of the People's Party.

[. . .]

Report No 28.      24th January, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

This Report comes from Ely.

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL: THIRD MEETING

The press reports of the sessions say, that the main preoccupation of the Commission will be Moral Law. The main object seems to be to assert the opposition of the Christian Moral Law to all opportunist and expedient systems of morality as now adopted in many political circles. They are an offence against the dignity of man and the law of God. The Press, the Stage, and Radio will come under special review. Some of the principles of psycho-analysis will also be considered.

[. . .]

Report No 29      6th February, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

This Report comes from Ely.

CENTRAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL

A full session of the Commission took place on the 18th of January and the following days. The Commission considered certain matters sent up to it by the Commission of the Discipline of the Sacraments, particularly that of Holy Order. In the reports on these matters from official sources, stress is always laid on the fact that neither the substance nor the divine institutions of the Sacraments, which were adequately defined, once and for all, at the Council of Trent, were discussed. Discussions only concern particular adaptations to meet present circumstances.

Particular attention was paid to the Diaconate. The functions of this order, according to canon law, are to distribute Holy Communion, to baptise, and to catechise. The idea of a married diaconate in the mission field, which would not lead on to the order of priesthood, is one that must be very seriously considered. Consideration will also be given to the revival of the order of Reader. Experiments have been made with this in the Diocese of Rome. It consists mainly of young men, trained to read the Epistle at Mass, and functions rather like a Fellowship of Vocation in an English diocese. The whole of the discussion is contained under the sub-heading ‘Helps for the Priesthood’.

Consideration was also given to the multiplicity of Oriental rites. The Roman Church sees no harm in an infinite variety in ways of worshipping, or of the invention of new rites, so long as they are sound in form and matter. There is no intention of forcing uniformity on the Church. On the other hand, there are too many rites current in the East and there should be some reform. It must first of all be made clear that the Oriental patriarchs have no independent jus liturgicum.⁶⁷ The only orders which have this right are the Supreme Pontiff and the episcopate. This will have to be the first point of discussion in any matters concerning the Oriental churches.

After this unpromising start the report goes on to say that it is too soon yet to talk of a ‘thaw’ in the relations with the Eastern churches which are always referred to as ‘Non-Catholic Oriental Christians’.

The Central Commission have also dealt with the report submitted to them by the Theological Commission, but as this was presented to them, by Cardinal Ottaviani, it contains nothing but a record of the well-worn phrases of right-wing Roman Theology.

The Pope himself presided over the last session of the Commission on January 23rd. In very florid language, he described the assembly of the ‘teaching church’ as likely to constitute a ‘new Pentecost’.

[. . .]

DATE OF THE COUNCIL

On the Feast of the Purification, Pope John XXIII announced the date of the beginning of the Council as the 11th of October, of this year. The appropriateness of this date is said to be, that it was on this very day that the priest Philip left the Church of St. Peter-in-Chains in Rome to represent Pope Leo at the Council of Ephesus.

GUESTS AT THE COUNCIL

Now that the date of the Council is known, I hope that the Archbishop will be selecting his three nominees. May I report that if the number is to be three, they will most probably be one Englishman, one American, and one national from one of the new churches? [. . .] It will be remembered that Cardinal Bea suggested that guests should if possible have a knowledge of Latin.

RETURN TO ROME

I plan to return on Thursday, 15th February, I shall be at the Church Assembly for the previous two days if required for anything.

THE CHURCH IN EAST GERMANY

[. . .]

My Roman Catholic informants say with apparent (and I believe real) sorrow that many of the Lutheran clergy are ‘selling out’ to the Communist Regime. See my report, no.25. Others interpret the same phenomenon as ‘a real attempt to adapt the Christian faith to life under the new conditions, and to avoid unnecessary provocation’.

[. . .]

My informants all say that anti-church repression is more severe than under the Nazi regime. There is a compulsory youth organisation called the ‘Pioneers’. Nevertheless, a lot of religious education for the young has been attempted even in state schools. Ironically enough, freedom of religion is guaranteed, by articles 42–45 of the constitution. But sadistic difficulties are always put in the way of its implementation. The Church puts a certain amount of hope in the fact that the government are at present over-reaching themselves. They seem to do more than anybody else in the matter of secular ceremonial ritual [. . .]

Report No 30.      27th February, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

This report is written from ROME. I returned here on Friday, February 16th and propose to remain until March 29th. I have to do the month of April in residence in Ely and shall then return here immediately.

[. . .]

THE BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK⁶⁸

The Bishop of Southwark is coming here in April and is contemplating fixing himself up with a private audience. [. . .] He was kind enough to ask me whether I thought this was a good thing. This was before the Archbishop's circular went round. I am inclined to think that the Bishop of Southwark is one for whom an exception might well be made. There is no doubt that his warm personality made a very great impression here when he last saw the Pope. At my first interview with His Holiness he made special mention of Mervyn Stockwood, who had been to see him just before his consecration. They have exchanged Christmas cards regularly ever since and I think this whole exchange has served to wear down the aloofness of the R.C. Bishop of Southwark (Cowderoy)⁶⁹ who is one of the least co-operative.

CARDINAL BEA

I have had my first interview with Cardinal Bea. His Eminence explained that the Secretariat are having much perplexity in deciding how far to scatter their invitations to guests at the Council. They are particularly anxious not to run the risk of having any rebuffs. He realises that there is no question of that from Canterbury. He asked if I knew whether the Archbishop had in mind what sort of people he was going to nominate. I said that I did not know whether the Archbishop had sounded any individuals, but it seemed to me that the Archbishop would want fairly exact details as to what was the proposed programme for the guests before he was able to decide as to whom to send. The Cardinal said that he hoped that the matter would be cleared up at the meetings of the Secretariat between the 6th and 10th of March. Willebrands was away in Athens and Constantinople (this is said to be very secret) sorting out the question of the Orthodox representation. They are wondering whether the Russians will come or not.

I told the Cardinal about the proposal for me to write a book about the Council from the Anglican point of view. He said he was very pleased to hear that this was so and that they had always assumed that I would. He was sure that Willebrands would read the proofs of what I wrote, at least as far as it concerned the facts of the Roman situation.

FR. STRANSKY, O.S.P.⁷⁰

The American chaplain had Bishop Emrich⁷¹ and me to lunch with Fr. Stransky who is an American Paulist and one of the permanent officials of the Unity Secretariat. We had a long conversation on the Council and the NATURE OF THE EPISCOPATE. We pressed Stransky about the dangers to Catholic order involved in an elaboration of the Pope-in-Curia. He argued that much of the episcopate was now in remote and undeveloped countries and could not adequately look after itself and not only needed but wanted central direction. We agreed that this might be so, but that the central control required ought to be more frequent councils or sub-committees of the Council which were international and which were composed of bishops. He agreed that the Curia was becoming too large and hoped that the Council would bring about a reform in this matter.

Bishop Emrich asked whether there might be any new alignment on the matter of BIRTH CONTROL or population control. Stransky said he thought it was very unlikely. So far scientists seemed to differ so much in what the basic problems were behind population control and the problems were not understood. It would not be reasonable to ask Christendom to limit itself voluntarily while the non-Christian world was proliferating ad lib:. The Bishop said that the East would not expect the West to go on indefinitely feeding its multiplying populations unless they undertook some form of population control. The American government would have to face up to this issue fairly soon and the Roman Catholic community in America would not be able to contract out of a decision.

THE POPE

It is rumoured that the Pope is to have an operation of the prostate gland in July.

THE ‘CHURCH TIMES’

I have now written and accepted the offer of the Church Times to be their correspondent, anonymously, during the Council.

THE SECRETARIAT

I visited the office of the Secretariat on the 21 February and had a long time with Mgr. Arrighi, Willebrands’ first assistant. We spoke at length about infallibility. He said he thought much could be done to ‘explain’ it. He places much hope in the Roman Canon 228 which says that supreme authority in the Church is vested in the universal episcopate acting in union with the Pope. The second phrase of it, which gives the Pope a veto, even against a unanimous decision of a Council, is ‘unthinkable’, and has in fact never been invoked. He had been present at the declaration of the Assumption in 1950. When the Pope made a declaration he wore a mitre, and the assisting Bishops all put on their mitres while the Pope read the decree. All the bishops in the world had been consulted in writing, and a very large majority had agreed. The decision was certainly not unanimous.

There were many spirits who had been anxious lest there should never be another council, since the Infallibility decree. To remove this anxiety was one of the present Pope's chief motives in calling the Council.

[. . .]

THE COUNCIL AND THE RECITATION OF THE BREVIARY

In an ‘Epistula ad clerum universum’⁷² the Pope makes a strong appeal to all members of the order of priesthood to be diligent in offering their daily round of prayer for the forthcoming Council. This seems very natural to us, but there is beneath it an undertone of reminder that the place of the order of priests in the forthcoming Council is to pray rather than to think, or to express their opinions too loudly.

THE COMMISSION FOR THE APOSTLESHIP OF THE LAITY

An official press notice has appeared about the work of this Commission. It gives very little information, but seems at pains to suggest that the work of the laity is to carry out loyally the decisions of the hierarchy when they are known. The work of this Commission is divided into three departments: (a) Catholic action and direct apostolate, (b) charitable work, (c) social action.

Report No. 31      1st March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

The Secretariat have still not been able to make final arrangements because of difficulties which are continually arising, though it is hoped that matters will advance considerably at the ensuing meetings (March 6th–10th).

There will be three types of session at the Council, Solemn, plenary and study. Observers will be able to be present at the first two. In addition special meetings will be arranged at which ‘explanations’ will be given to observers by experts and at which questions will be possible. Willebrands said that the sessions will probably be prorogued in December and reassemble the following February or March. It would on the whole be desirable to have observers who could stay through the time of the whole Council. But it was recognised that if the people appointed were of consequence, this would not be possible. Perhaps ‘alternates’ could be appointed for the subsequent sessions as required. He confirmed that he was hoping to come and see the Archbishop in Canterbury or London at some date between March 12th and 24th and will be writing soon to ask for an appointment.

ORTHODOX PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Willebrands has just been to Istanbul. He saw the Oecumenical Patriarch⁷³ and his foreign relations committee. This appeared to be stiff with Metropolitans, chiefly of places now depopulated and under Turkish rule, such as Ephesus and Chalcedon. I observed that then it must have been like a Vatican congregation – and he agreed. Speaking of the conference at Rhodes he said that the R.C.s there were not strictly observers, but press agents etc. The Orthodox had not wanted to ask Roman observers because they were afraid of the behaviour of the Russians. Had the Russian delegations suddenly sprung an anti-Vatican tirade in the middle of proceedings that might have been awkward.

Willebrands had been to discuss the question of observers at the Vatican Council. He had been very pleased indeed with the manner of his reception, not only by the Oecumenical Patriarch but by all concerned, even more so because, although the conclusions were far from satisfactory, yet there was complete understanding.

The Oecumenical Patriarch and all the committees said that there was no doubt at all but that all the Patriarchs wanted to send observers. But the brethren behind the Iron Curtain were a great problem. If they wanted to come and were not allowed to they would have to say to the world that they did not want to – and they hoped the Romans would understand this necessary prevarication. By Orthodox custom they should either all come or none at all. The committee were not very ready to say what they would do if the churches behind the Iron Curtain were unable to come. There was a further complication, which was that the patriarchates were autocephalous, and the Committee was not in a position to speak for all the others. It was decided that invitations, if they were sent at all, were to be sent to the Oecumenical Patriarch and his committee for distribution, though this would not imply any recognition of the Oecumenical Patriarch's claim to jurisdiction.

Willebrands was further asked to consider what would be the Vatican line about communism at the Council. It was possible that Khrushchev,⁷⁴ for example, would allow his delegation to come in the hope that it might be an embarrassment to the Council. Would the Council be able to denounce atheism without denouncing communism? If they did the latter the Russian delegation would have to walk out, and the rest of the Orthodox delegations, for reasons of ecumenical solidarity, would have to do the same. Willebrands said that the Secretariat would be considering these questions at their meeting next week. I observed that the Vatican seemed to me now to be in a dilemma with regard to the Russian delegation, if it came. If it made any move to denounce communism, that would have the consequences adumbrated above. If they didn't it would look like a change of front, and as if they had drawn in their horns and were afraid. Perhaps they had been too ready to confuse communism and atheism in the past. Willebrands said that he had always thought that this was so.

THE THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

I said to Willebrands that I thought that some of the press reports of the meetings of the Central Commission, particularly the reports of the Theological Commission, already made disappointing reading for us. In days when the key-word of the Council was ‘aggiornamento’ (bringing-up-to-date) were we going to have no let-up about the philosophy of S. Thomas Aquinas? Were S. Thomas’ five proofs to be stuck to as the only possible expression of the doctrine of God in philosophical terms? S. Thomas himself represented a bold attempt to restate the doctrines of the Christian faith, in their philosophical implications, in terms of the philosophy then current, viz. Aristotelianism. Was it not advisable at least to leave open the possibility that that could be done in our day? Willebrands hoped that it might, but said that the Theological Commission had very reactionary members on it. Yet the Central Commission had referred back a very great proportion of the Theological Commission's work to be recast. This had been widely reported and commented on as one of the most significant developments of the preparations for the Council.

[. . .]

THE LATIN LANGUAGE

The Pope has just issued a ‘Constitutio Apostolica’⁷⁵ which will be known by the title ‘VETERUM SAPIENTIA’⁷⁶ on the use of Latin, not only in the liturgy but in the life and studies of the Church. The main points of the document seem to be as follows:

1. a. Latin is a priceless and irreplaceable inheritance from the past.

2. b. It is an actual vehicle of unity.

3. c. It is the only certain way of expressing theological truths accurately without danger of misunderstanding.

4. d. The decline of the use of Latin in the Church would be an irreparable loss and would be bound to lead to division and confusion.

In order to safeguard the position of the Latin language in the life of the Church, the Pope then made the following provisions in the strongest language, saying for example, ‘We, with full regard to our office and authority, do ordain and decree as follows [. . .]’:

1. a. All bishops and generals of religious orders in charge of seminaries are to observe our wishes in this matter most scrupulously.

2. b. They are not to allow anybody to write or speak against the use of Latin in seminaries.

3. c. All seminary courses are to begin with a thorough grounding in Latin. Moreover students advancing to higher studies are not to be allowed to lose their familiarity with the Latin tongue.

4. d. If in any country the study of Latin has been relaxed under pressure from misguided modernistic ideas, it is to be reinstated immediately.

5. e. The principal sacred subjects are to be taught in Latin. No excuses are to be allowed or evasions tolerated.

6. f. There is to be founded by the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities an Academical Institute of Latin studies.

7. g. The Academical Institute is to be concerned also to see that students proceeding to degrees in Theology are conversant with Greek.

There is no doubt that this has given a very severe shock to all the people with whom I usually consort. They regard it as very ill-timed, coming just before the Council, and therefore being obviously calculated to limit discussion. It is apparently intended, among other things, to check the enthusiasm of those who hope for liturgies in the vernacular, though it does not actually mention liturgical matters. It represents a victory for the old guard, though, as a German Monsignor said to me this evening, ‘It is a victory of Pyrrhus’.⁷⁷ It is expected that the whole thing will be shelved and immediately forgotten as soon as possible. But I think it has shaken all of them to think that it could have happened at all.

[. . .]

Report No 32.      2nd March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL

The Central Commission had another session from the 20th–28th February. It has now appointed three further Sub-Commissions for Procedure, Mixed Questions, (i.e. to decide how to regulate questions which could come under three or four heads at once) and Amendments.

In his opening address to the Commission, the Pope stressed that the Church was an army on the march and should beware of settling down in any one place for long. He was very lyrical about the presence of Cardinal Zyszynski from Warsaw,⁷⁸ representing the ‘Church in Silence’.

The first report received was that of the Commission on Bishops and the Government of Dioceses. The report contains a preamble on the history, nature and organisation of dioceses, which would be quite acceptable to us. The rest of the report tries to hide the signs of struggles that are likely to go on at the Council. The missionary bishops are clearly complaining that there are too many dioceses in Italy, complete with curias. There has obviously been some murmuring about the large number of titular bishoprics and non-episcopal ordinary jurisdictions (abbacies Nullius⁷⁹ – situations equivalent to what would happen if the Dean of Windsor had the whole of a rural deanery as a ‘peculiar’). There is the further struggle going on about national episcopal conferences. As I have reported before, the bishops e.g. of France and Germany want a good deal of independence from the curia. The curia counter by recommending regional conferences such as that now operating in Latin America. They would evidently prefer an occasional European episcopal conference, in which Italians and Spaniards could outvote the French and Germans.

The concluding part of this report, however, is cast in a very conventional mould. It emphasises that the authority of the Pope and of the curia is there for the help, and not for the hindrance, of the bishops. The relationship as it is works very well. That is what the official report says, but there are many people here who would not agree. [. . .]

The report of the Commission on the Discipline of the Clergy and People was next considered. The Commission examined the five precepts of the Church. The tone of the official reports about these is again one of alarming satisfaction. [. . .]

The Commission on Vocations and Seminaries (C.A.C.T.M., as it were) presented the report which has already been referred to (Report No. 23. I). It repeats the alarming statistics there given, and adds that of 43,000 clergy in Italy, 10,000 are over the age of 60. It seeks out Latin Americans for special reference as a place where priests are very thin on the ground. It advocates intense fostering of some vocations (it does not use the word ‘recruitment’). It recommends the grouping of seminaries. Some of the dioceses of Italy are certainly very small and they all have their own independent seminaries. The report urges very strongly the continuing of separate Catholic universities.

[. . .]

In his closing speech the Pope used the words ‘Restauratio et renovatio universali ecclesiae’.⁸⁰ This is now a stock phrase used for this type of occasion. It deliberately avoids use of the word ‘reformatio’. He hoped that the whole Church would use Lent as a ‘vigil for the Council’.

[. . .]

THE GERMAN AMBASSADOR TO THE HOLY SEE

I was asked to dinner with Mgr. Höfer specially to meet Dr. von Scherpenberg,⁸¹ who had expressed an interest in my mission. I did not realise that Western Germany is one of the countries which has an Ambassador at the Vatican, as opposed to a Minister. He is alternately an R.C. or an Evangelical. This Ambassador is a Lutheran. [. . .]

The German Ambassador seemed pleased to make my acquaintance and said that he could let me know confidentially that I should ‘have a companion before long’. I was to take that to mean that the Lutherans would be sending a representative to Rome. I said that I was pleased to hear it, though I would rather know what sort of Lutheran he was and what his briefing would be before I said any more. I asked the Ambassador if he knew of Prof. Skydsgaard's symposium on the Council, ‘The Gospel and the Papal Church’, but though he seemed to be well instructed in other matters, he didn't know of it, though he knew of Skydsgaard. Mgr. Höfer didn't seem to know of the book either. The Ambassador seemed very interested when I expressed disappointment, and pressed for my reasons. I said it seemed so disappointing that the Church seemed to be still so bound to Luther and his teachings, as though they were all divinely inspired. I hoped the Church would have advanced in 400 years. He said that he didn't think they had learned much, or advanced. There were ways in which the Evangelische Kirche was further back than it was at the Reformation. The Aufklaerung⁸² had done it much harm. He said he was not disappointed to hear that the Evangelische Kirche still stood by Luther and his Protest. I said I had no objection to the protest, most of which was no doubt still valid, but I deplored the total lack of self-criticism, (except in one essay), in the book. The Ambassador said he wished that the Romans were back at the Council of Trent: it would be easier for us all if they were. He continually spoke of ‘Protestantism’ as if it were a whole, and I had to say how difficult it was for us to decide whether to allow ourselves to come under that description, especially when in Italy.

The Ambassador said he thought that the great wave of liberalism with regard to unity etc. in the Vatican had now passed over and that the tide was running in the other direction. I said that I would never have described what had happened as ‘a great wave of liberalism’. There never had been any immediate prospect of e.g. doctrinal concessions. He agreed that perhaps this was so. In that case what hope was there from the Council? I said that we must wait and see what Cardinal Bea means by the ‘explanation of difficult doctrines’. In any case this Council was only ever given out to be a beginning of new things. We might at least hope for the establishment of permanent relationships on the present unofficial footing. I also ventured to say that if we expected a great reformation from the Roman Church we must undertake the same ourselves, e.g. the Lutheran Federation was a loose and rather chaotic assembly of discordant bodies. Could they not improve upon that? He agreed that they could and should.

[. . .]

Report No. 33      12th March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

LUTHERANS AND THE COUNCIL

The Secretariat now confirm that the Lutherans are about to send a representative to Rome with roughly the same duties as myself. It is to be Professor Schlink of Heidelberg. Can I be told what is known about him, please?

[. . .]

THE LAITY

The insistent comments of the press on the total absences of the laity from the Council has led to the Pope again, in an audience to journalists, to say that the exclusion of the laity from the deliberations of the Council is a matter of doctrine. The government of the Church was entrusted by Christ to the ‘sacred hierarchy’ and to no one else. The Council is not a debating society or a parliament. The communist paper L'Unita suggests that the Council should give a definition of the position of the laity and such as will ‘liberate them from the yoke of the hierarchy’.

[. . .]

CLERGY DISCIPLINE

If any reader of these reports feels occasionally depressed about clerical scandals in the Church of England he might like to be encouraged by the thought that at the moment there are current in the Italian papers glaring headlines and reports of the following cases:

1. a. A Monsignor from the diocese of Naples charged with being a leader of a gang organising a slot-machine racket under the late ‘Lucky Luciano’ of Chicago!

2. b. Four Capuchin friars in Sicily being tried for homicide and blackmail, in the dock with leaders of the ‘Mafia’.

3. c. A priest in the North of Italy has resigned his orders and is trying to get married. Certain people, including his mother, probably instigated by the local bishop, are trying to get him certified. This is holding up the marriage. A neighbouring priest, asked for his opinion, cynically told the press: ‘I don't see why he had to go to all these lengths: the same objects are usually accomplished by much simpler methods’.

[. . .]

Report No 34.      12th March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

GRADES OF DOCTRINE

I had a visit from Mgr. H.F. Davis, R.C. lecturer in the faculty of Theology at Birmingham, Consultor of the Unity Secretariat, in Rome for that purpose.⁸³ He forms part of the theological team which treats with us. [. . .]

I said that the reactionary views about the Catholic universities seemed to have prevailed in the pre-Council commissions, particularly ‘Studies and seminaries’. He agreed that this was so, and that it was to be regretted. He thought that from every point of view they did better to go in to the secular universities as far as they could. I said that there seemed to be a frightening anti-clerical attitude abroad in the secular universities in Italy, and that that might be due to the segregationalist policy. He agreed that that was so.

We talked of the Council, and he asked me what I would like to see the Council do for unity. I said that we hoped for signs of a real change of attitude. Friendliness was a pleasant change, but by itself did not constitute a desire for union. We hoped, for their sakes, as well as ours, to see that the Catholic conception of the episcopate was not any further compromised than it had been by the infallibility decree, and that what was done in 1870 might generally be recognised as very dangerous. I then hoped for further clarification, which had been all but promised, in the matter of the doctrine of the Church. Was Cardinal Bea's view to be the official doctrine? What was, then, the status of the baptised non-R.C. who in good faith believed he was receiving the sacraments, was in full communion with Catholic Christendom, but who was bound in conscience to repudiate as de fide the last unilateral decree of Roman councils etc.

I pressed him further about the relative importance of dogmas. Was it true that the Assumption article was de fide in exactly the same way (and with the same consequences for the non-believer) as the Incarnation? He said that the formula ‘anathema sit’⁸⁴ applied only to ‘catholics’ who failed to receive the doctrine. I answered that if that was what it meant it was not what it said, ‘quis non credit . . .’.⁸⁵ He then said that there was a ‘certain difference’ in this respect between the ‘fundamental doctrines’ and the others. I said that in that case there was a difference between scholars in this matter, for others (I was thinking of Witte for one) had said otherwise. I asked whether the question of ‘fundamental doctrines’ could not be further clarified at this Council (i.e. what we call ‘catholic’ doctrine), or whether perhaps he would think it better to let it alone for the present. He became rigid about this and said that S. Thomas (Aquinas) held both views together, and said that they were not inconsistent, i.e. that in rejecting one you rejected all and that some doctrines were more ‘important’ than others. Mgr. Davis defined the difference by saying that by rejecting one (e.g. the corporal Assumption) you only ceased to be a ‘catholic’, but that by rejecting the incarnation you ceased to be a Christian. I said that we took some comfort from thinking that they did not hold the terms to be synonymous. There is clearly a little room for manoeuvre here if only they would exploit it.

BISHOP BECK of SALFORD⁸⁶

I have just come across a report, in a French review (Documentations Catholiques)⁸⁷ of a sermon preached in the Roman Cathedral at Westminster by the above-named prelate of a very contentious kind, giving a contemptuous, one-sided, ill-instructed view of Reformation history. ‘Englishmen are not historians: if they read history, they would become Catholics.’ ‘The national churches being formed now behind the iron curtain under the heel of communist governments can be compared in their origins to the State Church in England. If they have to survive 400 years in that condition they too may become venerable, but that will not make their origin any more respectable.’

[. . .]

PROFESSOR SCHLINK

The Professor has arrived in Rome. I heard this news from Cardinal Bea, to whom he went to present his credentials. I have sent a note of welcome to Schlink and invited him to a meal.

[. . .]

CARDINAL BEA IN ENGLAND

The Cardinal honoured us with his presence at lunch here today. In the course of it he told me that he is coming to Heythrop in the middle of August to address a conference of R.C. clergy (2 from each diocese), organised by Archbishop Heenan, on the new attitude to ecumenical matters. He said ‘They can certainly do with some new ideas in England’.

He hoped to see Cardinal Godfrey.⁸⁸ I naturally asked whether he was planning to see the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said he would certainly like to do so, but that it might be better if they met on neutral ground. Could I be told, please, whether this will be possible? I should have thought that there ought now to be no difficulty in the Cardinal coming to Lambeth, but he evidently does not want to offend Godfrey.

Report No 35.      15th March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

Willebrands asked me to his office this morning and gave me particulars of the decision of the Unity Secretariat at their meetings last week. I have communicated the substance of them previously, as I have heard guesses from other members of the Secretariat, and Willebrands will no doubt be communicating them to the Archbishop at his visit on Monday. The five points were:-

1. a. a formal administrative resolution that observers will be admitted if invited;

2. b. that observers will be admitted to solemn and to plenary sessions; Willebrands asked me at this point my opinion as to how far I thought they could trust the discretion of invited observers not to reveal details of intimate ‘scandals’ that might come to light. Who could tell what might be said? Did I think they could extract a ‘parole d'honneur’? I said that I thought they could not do this, but that in the written notes for guidance of observers, and indeed in the preliminary invitations, the point could be made as a strong request. They could then do no more than leave it to the discretion of invited guests not to take advantage of their privileged position. Perhaps the presence of observers might make the fathers of the Council careful? They could reserve the right to exclude guests at any difficult point. Willebrands thought that would not be easy. I reminded Willebrands that Tardini had said ‘We have no secrets’;

3. c. observers will not have the right either to speak or to vote.

4. d. The Secretariat will organise special sessions for observers, at which explanations will be given and at which questions may be asked;

5. e. The Secretariat will act as an intermediary for any communications which the invited guests may wish to make to the Council, either before or during it. I asked about this and elicited that if, e.g. an inaccurate report about the Church of England was made by a father of the Council, we could hand in at once a written correction (as I believe was done once by the Roman observers at New Delhi).

SPOKEN LATIN

The importance of being able to understand spoken Latin becomes more evident. I wish it weren't. Fr. Corr comes to me twice a week to speak Latin at me, and I go to an occasional lecture. Although I read Latin fluently the accent comes slowly, and, as has often been stated, the great difficulty will be the pronunciation.

Incidentally, the encyclical Veterum Sapientia has caused great misgivings. Even Cardinal Bea said yesterday that ‘it has been much misunderstood: the Pope did not intend it to have the effect it has had’. I couldn't embarrass him by any further questions, but I suspect that he really means that the whole Church is conspiring to see that it is forgotten as soon as possible.

ANGLICAN ORDERS

Willebrands (who introduced the subject) said that many of them would like to reopen the question. But there was no point in doing so until both sides could say that ‘We believe we are right, but are quite prepared to be proved wrong’. There were not yet sufficient R.C.s who could honestly say that. Were there Anglicans? I ventured to say that I thought there was a very large number of Anglicans indeed who would not have a closed mind on the subject, and would welcome a renewed enquiry.

Willebrands said he, and many others with him, drew an immense distinction between ourselves and e.g. Lutherans. They deliberately repudiated the succession of the Apostolic ministry and wanted a new start. We as deliberately intended to continue it, and in good faith believed we had succeeded in doing so. Even if it were proved that through an accident of history we had failed to do so, there was our faith to work on. The present Archbishop was reported as having said to the R.C.s ‘According to you I am a “laicus vagans extra ecclesiam”.⁸⁹ If you honestly believe that[,] I am prepared for you to say so, if you must. But much then depends on the spirit in which you say it.’ Willebrands commended this saying. For his part he would not so describe an Anglican cleric.

Were we really teaching orders as a matter of faith? I said that many of us were, but not all. He asked how the actions of the Church of England in South India, Ceylon etc. were to be interpreted with regard to the above. Did they represent a weakening of faith in the sacramental effectiveness of Holy Orders? (I still don't know whether he knows about the Open Letter or not – I suppose Heenan or Leeming must have told him). I said that on the contrary it could be taken as showing how much importance the Church of England attached to the place of the apostolic ministry in the Church – we valued it so much that we were prepared to tolerate a period of possible disciplinary irregularity in order to secure its eventual wider availability. Were they prepared to make a similar sacrifice?

Willebrands asked if I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury would mind if he brought up this subject (orders in general) when he was at Lambeth. I said I was sure he was free to mention any subject.

He asked how strong was the movement for the ordination of women in the Church of England. I said it had very little support indeed. Unfortunately he asked if there were any bishops who supported it, and I said I thought only one (Birmingham).

Report No 36.      21st March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

RETURN

I return from here on March 29th, arriving in Ely March 30th. I should like to be able to visit Lambeth, and if possible to see the Archbishop, some time during April. Could I be given a date, please?

[. . .]

THE CURIA AND THE EPISCOPATE

A very interesting development has taken place in the above relationship. The Pope has created 10 new cardinals, bringing the number up to 87. At the Secret Consistory at which the names were announced, the Pope revealed that it was his intention to give episcopal consecration to all the cardinals (old and new) who were not already in that order. It will be remembered that there are three ‘grades’ of cardinals,

Cardinal Bishops, who are bishops of the old suburban sees (Palestrina, Ostia etc.)

Cardinal priests, who are all in episcopal orders before appointment, and

Cardinal deacons who are in priests’ orders on appointment and usually stay in that condition.

The last two grades hold titles as incumbents of the old parishes of Rome.

The new announcement, made on the Pope's own initiative, has given rise to much speculation. It could represent a move either to the right or to the left. The status of the cardinals not in episcopal orders has already been a subject of criticism by ‘liberal’ commentators, and I have always made it clear that their existence is very puzzling to us. In particular, commentators have attacked the status of Cardinal Ottaviani who, being head of the Theological Commission and therefore in a very important position in respect of the forthcoming Council, is only in priests’ orders – with a loud voice and a vote in the Council of Bishops. It is as if we were to wake up one day and find that Cardinal Satterthwaite,⁹⁰ still in priests’ orders, had a voice and vote at the Lambeth Conference!

[. . .]

I am now on sufficiently good terms with the Secretariat staff to be able to make jokes about this sort of thing, such as suggesting that the new move represents the Pope taking notice of, and acting upon, Pawley's often-voiced suggestions for streamlining the Roman Church. But I have now told them that, although this is a good beginning, it is still not nearly enough, even in the matter of restoring catholic order in the Roman hierarchy. I have always said that we have no objection to the status of cardinals as such, providing that the primacy of episcopal order is in no way compromised. But now there remains the question of the titular bishoprics. These ‘cardinal deacons’ will be consecrated to the title of some place which is a heap of stones in Turkey. (e.g. Archbishop Mathew is Archbishop of Apamea in Bithynia, which is in fact Hissarlik hill, the site of Troy). Thus they are given status and order without jurisdiction or cure of souls, almost as if they were being made a ‘conte’ or a ‘marchese’ or as if, in our case, a man were being consecrated bishop in vacuo just to give him a seat in the House of Lords.

[. . .]

There is no doubt that the more liberal men here are very dissatisfied about the titular non-pastoral consecrations. Pope Pius XII, e.g., never held a pastoral cure until he became Bishop of Rome. Can we declare his consecration irregular?

Report No 37.      28th March, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

CARDINAL TISSERANT

The Cardinal did us the honour of coming to dinner again. We also had Stewart Perowne, archaeologist,⁹¹ so that the conversation was mainly archaeological. But the Cardinal did seem to think that observers at the Council would be well advised to brush up their Latin. He also said that the atmosphere in the Curia was improving all the time towards reunion and said with a smile that certain recent deaths had contributed to the change.

[. . .]

MGR. WILLEBRANDS AT LAMBETH

Mgr. Willebrands has told me of the substance of his visit to Lambeth, with which he seems to have been very pleased. I am glad about Cardinal Bea's visit in August and hope that a visit to Canterbury will mature. Willebrands is quite clear that Cardinal Bea will be welcome, though it is not yet certain about the attitude of the Roman hierarchy in England.

[. . .]

DR. SCHLINK

I invited Professor Schlink, who has recently arrived in Rome, to a meal, together with his secretary, Herr Jung, a layman, a theological research student in Heidelberg. I received him very warmly and said how pleased I was to have a colleague in the work. He immediately started to ask how far I had access to the documents which were to be before the Council, and seemed very disappointed when I revealed that I had no access to any others than had already been entrusted to him by the Secretariat. I said it was not reasonable to expect access to the confidential documents. Had he read the literature put out by the Romans about the Council? He had, very widely. Had he digested the press hand-outs from the Vatican Office? And the Osservatore Romano ad loc.?⁹² He had done these things, and of course is already widely read on the theological points at issue. He then asked, I thought naively, what I thought there would be for him to do in view of the fact that there were no documents to study, and seemed to imply that there would not be much. I said that there was first 400 years of prejudice and mischievous ignorance, and even adverse propaganda, to be cleared away. He made a modest answer but I imagine he was thinking that that might not be the right work for a professor of dogmatics. The whole discussion seemed to me to throw up in a high light two aspects of this whole situation. First, it is perhaps typical of the Lutherans to send a high-powered theologian for this work, as it is typical of us to send a man who, if he has any qualifications at all, has those of a general man of ecclesiastical affairs; and second, it perhaps shows up a difference between the German ecumenical scene and ours. They have been in constant contact for four hundred years of a mainly ecclesiastical kind in Germany. Our national antipathy to Roman Catholicism (it is surely that) is racial. I heard from Schlink again how much has been amicably discussed between the two sides in the past quarter-century. Very great strides in the clarification of the problems of justification and sanctification have been made, so that, as Schlink says, they can no longer be said to constitute a major obstacle, at least at the academic level.

I suggested that it was up to all of us, if we expected great things from the Romans at the Council, to be able to show tokens of reform ourselves. What programme of domestic reform, with the ultimate union of Christendom in mind, had the Evangelische Kirche? Schlink did not seem to understand the question. [. . .]

He commented on the ignorance of the Curia cardinals of the main issues in oecumenical discussion. It was a tragedy that the primacy of Peter had been made juridical as well as pastoral, otherwise it might have been a rallying point for divided Christendom. He is a very stimulating and friendly man, and it is a great pleasure to have his companionship here. He paid high tribute to the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury at New Delhi⁹³ and asked me to convey his respects and good wishes to him, which I hereby do.

OLD CATHOLICS

I was sorry to hear Willebrands say that they might have difficulty in inviting Observers from the Old Catholics. [. . .] I suggested that they might ask an observer from the Old Catholics and could reasonably stipulate in the invitation that the observer would not be a priest who had been under the Roman obedience. I should hope they would have the tact to choose such a one in any case.

CARDINAL MONTINI⁹⁴ ON THE COUNCIL

What this Cardinal says is always news. The speech indicates the limits of what we may expect from the Council, as Montini is on the left wing. His points were, inter alia:-

1. a. To understand the Council you must have a clear doctrine of the Church as a divine institution.

2. b. A full understanding of Peter's position among the Apostles, as revealed, is also essential. The Church is one, and essentially hierarchical in structure, grouped round Peter.

3. c. The decisions of the Council will show God the Holy Ghost in action in this generation.

4. d. The main object of the Council is to cleanse the bright robe of the Church from everything which defiles it.

5. e. The 1st Vatican Council dissolved in a hurry and its findings are incomplete. There have been those who have doubted whether another council would ever be necessary. Now they have had their answer.

6. f. When the Council is over it will be clear to all the world that Christ's promise to the Church to be with her always, is still coming true.

With the exception of para (e) this is disappointing, but his friends say that Montini feels obliged to make a ‘safe’ speech from time to time.

[. . .]

Report No 38.      May 20th, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

MY BOOK

I mention this item first as being the cause of, and the occasion of an apology for, the long gap in these reports. This has been written in about six weeks in between attempts to do my two usual jobs, and must therefore show signs of haste. But the 36,000 word MS went off to David Edwards three days ago. It will appear in September. It is to be published in the British Commonwealth by S.C.M.⁹⁵ and the U.S. by Morehouse, and is to be called ‘Looking at the Vatican Council’. It carefully disclaims any official status.

[. . .]

THE COUNCIL

[. . .]

There has been much speculation about the length of the Council. The majority opinion in Rome seems to believe that there will be two sessions, the first Oct–Dec 1962 and the second after Easter 1963, not before it as previously conjectured. But these prognostications may prove to be ‘famous last words’. There are undoubtedly forces in various parts of the world who want to do battle in this matter and to keep the Council (or sub-Commissions) sitting until its work is done, however long this may be.

One slightly disturbing rumour (coming straight from Cardinal Cicognani) is that the first (pre-Christmas) session will be quite considerably occupied with ceremonial sessions, canonisations etc. and that this more important work will be done at the second. This seems to me to bear on the question of observers, which is still difficult. If this is true it is clearly not going to be worth the while of an eminent delegate to sit through a lot of such things, when his presence would be more important at later sessions, when weightier matters were being transacted. Willebrands is away at the moment, and I shall have to discuss this carefully with him and with Cardinal Bea as soon as possible.

[. . .]

Report No. 39      31st May, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

CUBA

I was surprised to find that communist Cuba sends an Ambassador to the Holy See. It was said of him that the only thing he knows is that he doesn't know which leg he is standing on.

[. . .]

Report No. 40      3rd June, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

COLLEGIO BELLARMINO

This is the Jesuit post-graduate house of studies. The former principal was Fr. C. Boyer, head of the Foyer Unitas. He has now retired and has been replaced by Fr. Furlong, a young Irish-American Jesuit who is a great improvement on his predecessor.

I was asked to lunch and to address the students afterwards. This was one of the most rewarding experiences of the whole expedition. They were very frank and open accepting all my thrusts with apparent good humour, asking interesting questions and openly criticising the Vatican on many of the same lines as we should. The most remarkable thing was the keenness about ‘grades of doctrine’. They seemed to be for conciliar government of the Church.

[. . .]

Report No 41.      6th June, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL COMMISSION

[. . .]

Technical and Organisation

The Council will be held in the nave of S. Peter's, in front of the Confessional in a special structure called the ‘Aula Conciliaris’. 100 yds x 22 yds. The basilica will still be in use for public functions. The Aula will be surrounded by wooden walls some 12 feet high. The Pope's desk etc. will be under the baldachino. There will be a portable altar. And on the altar will be a copy of ‘the Gospel’ (presumably the New Testament), the same copy as was used at Vatican I. There are two ‘tribunes’ (rather like small stands at a football match) one behind the main seats at each side, giving a view of the whole assembly. Is this for the guests? Or perhaps the press?

CENTRAL COMMISSION MAY 3RD–12TH.

The commission had a further ‘group of sessions’ at the beginning of May, of the proceedings of which the following are the chief points:

Theological

The important ‘schemata’ on the doctrine of the Church were examined. The necessary role of the Church in human salvation was defined as being that ‘a man cannot be saved without belonging to the Church, ether in fact, or in implicit intention (ex voto implicito), that is by desire’.

A letter of the present Pope to the Chinese cardinal Tien-Chen-Sin, 1961, has now become a locus classicus, in which he states that you cannot belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors to the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pontiff, successor of S. Peter.

The text of the report defines ‘in voto’ as covering those who would form part of the Church if they could, but who are out of reach of its actual ministrations, but also those who ‘through actual grace make an act of sincere love towards God. In such an act there is implicit a desire to belong to the Church if they know of it’. But in that case where do we come in!

Liturgical

There is no doubt that much consideration has been given to proposals for a fixed liturgical and calendar year, including of course a fixed date for Easter, though how far the proposals are likely to prevail in the Council it is impossible to tell. It was said that no step would be taken without ‘full consideration of the separated brethren’.

I regret that that is all which has so far come across to me from the May meeting of the Central Commission. Willebrands confirms that there is not much more to know. His comment on the last paragraph of 2 as above was that ‘you don't depend on the votum sacramenti at all, because you have the res. Yours is an altogether different, and better, case’.

The Commission meets again June 12th–20th.

SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS⁹⁶

The visit of the Society to the Pope in March got a lot of publicity in the R.C. press in England. The head, Fr. Simmons, delivered an unwise discourse at Pusey House which had headlines in the Catholic Herald and the Universe.

I asked these people to be careful before they went, but it is difficult to anticipate how undiplomatic people can be. They are open to censure on at least four points.

1. a. They represented us here as being very keen to open up again the question of Anglican Orders. I have always understood it to be my duty to represent a certain indifference in this matter.

2. b. They asked Willebrands, Cardinal Bea and the Pope ‘what they ought to do in their situation’ (i.e. for the most part as being Papists inside the Church of England). Willebrands told them it was not his duty to resolve their personal conflicts and certainly not to give them advice about their priestly lives, for which they should look to their own hierarchy.

3. c. They asked what ‘condition’ would be required for a ‘uniate’ church.⁹⁷ They were told that the question of a ‘uniate’ church did not arise. I wish such people would tell Rome what we expect them to do, rather than ask vice-versa.

4. d. They gave a general impression of ineptitude, confusion and indiscipline.

All this is a pity. I do hope we can discourage unofficial conversations as much as possible.

JEWS AT THE COUNCIL

The Observer of 27.5.62 said that there is ‘a chance that Jewish observers might be present at the Council’. There is of course no truth in this.

[. . .]

Report No 42.      20th June, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

THE WALDENSIANS

At a lunch party yesterday I overheard a remark which implied what I had already heard rumoured, that of 42–5 students in the Waldensian seminary in Rome some ⅓ are ex R.C. priests. I have not had time to verify this.

[. . .]

MESSAGE TO THE COUNCIL

Professor Schlink was anxious to know if the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to send any kind of formal greeting with the observers to the Council. If so, could he give some indication of whether it will be formal, or have some content? I said I thought that if any went at all it would be formal. We were sending a memorandum on Mixed Marriages. Schlink never seems to know what the Lutherans will do.

[. . .]

CARDINAL GODFREY

I had a conversation with this prelate a few days ago. The exchanges were courteous but formal, but in answer to his question I was able to say that my reception everywhere here had been most friendly, leaving him to infer, if he wished, that it was not entirely so in England.

[. . .]

OBSERVERS

You will have received the invitations. The Secretariat regret that they can give no information about the duration of the Council, or about the nature of the Sessions. Italian papers carry the rumour that the Russian observers will not come. Willebrands knows nothing about this. What about the expenses of the other English observer? I hope adequate provision is being made for these. Ought we to start the ball rolling on June 25th at the R.C. Committee of C.I.R.? No doubt this has been thought of. Willebrands says that the observers will come at their own expense, though the Secretariat will help them find accommodation if required.

[. . .]

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION

The final meetings are now being held and Schemes for the regulation of Clerical Manpower and Toleration have been under further discussion. The news bulletins give no information whatever, and it is now a common joke that ‘never before in the history of the Church have so many words of so many people said so little’. Willebrands was at dinner last night and asked if I had picked up any crumbs of information. I said none, except that I was able to quote the epoch-making first sentence of the Report on Studies and Seminaries, which was that ‘The word seminary derives from the Latin word seminarium’, which, for what it is worth, I hand on to you.

It is said, however, that there is a great struggle ensuing on the issue of Toleration and Freedom. They seem mainly preoccupied under this head with the freedom of scholars from the restrictions of the Holy Office.

Report No 43.      28th June, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

[. . .]

THE EASTERN CHURCHES

Father Thijssen,⁹⁸ a Dutch ecumenist of very wide sympathies, and a member of the Unity Secretariat, came to see me here a few days ago. He said that the Patriarch of the Melchites had recently given his opinion that if the Roman Church meant business about unity, it should withdraw the Latin Patriarch from Jerusalem and leave the field to the Orthodox.

[. . .]

Report No 44.      4th August, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

THE CENTRAL COMMISSION AND UNITY

The Commission was finishing its work as I left Rome at the end of June. Its sessions were wound up as usual by a visit from the Pope himself. His Holiness congratulated the Commission on their work and said that their work was completed. It now remained to the bishops throughout the world to read and pray over their findings, and to be ready to translate them into workable guidance for the life of the Church. The gospel of S. John should continue to show the pattern of high priestly activity which it was the Church's age-long role to fulfil in the world. This activity led up to the high-priestly prayer for unity.

THE COUNCIL PRESS OFFICE

At the end of the meetings the Press Office issued a statement which was widely commented on in the press, as follows:

1. On the question of the union of all believers in Christ, there is need for great caution in order to avoid giving way to impulses which may be generous without being enlightened and to avoid the dangers of religious indifference, inter-confessionalism and compromise.

   The result of such errors would be the possible aggravation rather than the cure of the present state of things.

   The so-called ecumenical irenicism (peaceful relations between the churches) is, in fact, something quite different from the real unity desired and recommended by Christ.

   The word ecumenicalism, as normally used today by non-Catholics and particularly by Protestants, indicates a form of understanding – almost a federation with equal rights – of all Christian churches.

   According to this theory the churches must consider themselves equally guilty as regards divisions and no Church can presume to be the only true Church of Christ, but only a part of it.

   The future Church, which would thus be the result of the union of the different churches of today, would not be the same as any Church now existing, but would be a completely new Church.

This is not a statement of the Central Commission but a scholium⁹⁹ or midrash¹⁰⁰ stuck in by the reactionary people who are in charge of the office. The international press reports regarded it as a sign that the forces of reaction were really on top all the time.

My reaction is that we must expect the die-hards to show their hand from time to time and must never forget that they are always in a majority. But it is a dwindling majority and the fact that they have to use these sudden methods to assert their opinions shows that they realise they are under heavy fire.

I have never let it be supposed that the Church of England thinks there will be radical changes in the Roman Catholic ecumenical attitude at the Council. I tend to say, perhaps rather patronisingly, that we are pleased with the progress they have made though we are under no illusions about the further distance still to be travelled.

[. . .]

THE POPE: PERSONAL

It was confidently reported in Rome that the Pope was not going to Castel Gandolfo,¹⁰¹ but they have proved false and he is now up there. But he has had an old tower on the top of the Vatican Hill renovated with a view to living there during the summer for longer periods than his predecessors.

It was also reported (and I have heard it again in this country) that the Pope was to have an operation in July, though I have seen no press reports of it.

Report No 45.      11th August, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

THE BISHOP OF RIPON¹⁰²

The Bishop came to stay with me here last week and we had a very pleasant time discussing the prospects. He had read my reports and most of the published literature concerning the Council. I am glad that the Bishop feels able to put a good deal of time in at the Council, and if necessary to do a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing. Even so it is not going to be easy to ensure that he is there if required at short notice if a vital question should come up suddenly. He will be there for most of the first session. It is a great relief to think I shall be no longer alone on this assignment. I am informed that Dr. Grant,¹⁰³ the American observer, is a New Testament scholar, largely responsible for the New Testament in the R.S.V.¹⁰⁴ It is difficult to predict how the Council will work out in practice for us. I imagine that our team would need to be able to spot an error, if one were made, e.g. in their statement of what was the Anglican belief about the sacrifice of the Eucharist, or to give a quick definition of it if called for! Perhaps we had better take Cross's Dictionary into the observers’ box with us daily and hope for the best!

OBSERVERS AT THE COUNCIL

In a recent letter Willebrands refers to my position at the Council. He says it would be best to regard me as ‘a fourth Anglican observer, if the Archbishop agrees’. May I say that he does?

[. . .]

ROMAN SLACKNESS

A reliable source recently quoted said that ‘in the archdiocese of Liverpool, where there is a great tradition of home visiting, only 54% of the Catholic population made their Easter duties last year’.

THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL

This has now been circulated to R.C. bishops throughout the world. There are 119 booklets with 2,060 pages – which makes even a Church Assembly agenda look small.¹⁰⁵

[. . .]

At the First Vatican Council, there were only four preparatory commissions, and the projects of two of them, on religious orders and on Eastern churches and missions, never came up for debate. Papal infallibility, the outstanding topic then, was not submitted originally by a preparatory commission but was introduced by a group of bishops when the Council was already in session.

[. . .]

JEWISH OBSERVER

In spite of Willebrands’ firm denial of this possibility to me, R.C. papers carry news of the appointment of a Jewish observer.

Report No 46.      31st August, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

MY RETURN

I propose to return to Rome on Sept. 17th and then have an opportunity to go on to Greece, which is irresistible [. . .]

ECUMENICAL ACTIVITY IN HOLLAND

In January of this year the Dutch R.C. episcopate issued a directive concerning the limits of fraternisation. The main points were:-

1. a. There should be many more meetings for mutual study

2. b. There should be meetings from time to time for lectures on neutral territory which can be addressed by authorised agents of both parties

3. c. There can be no objection to occasional use of churches for this kind of function, or for elementary mutual prayer. This should always be plainly shown to be exceptional rather than normal

4. d. There should be much more common activity in social matters.

I am told that this encyclical was being translated into Italian, but was withdrawn.

HANS KÜNG

This man's book¹⁰⁶ has swept the world and made the deepest impression. It is believed to have made a major contribution to the preparations for the Council. In a recent article in a German magazine he said that it would be ‘morally irresponsible’ for the Council to define any further Marian dogmas.

CARDINAL BEA AT HEYTHROP

Fr. Corr came here to give a (confidential) report of the meeting. He said that those who were of a more ‘liberal’ mind were very pleased with it. It was obviously staged to give the Cardinal a chance to say that the Pope wanted a more liberal spirit in these matters. There was no message from Cardinal Godfrey, but a specially intimate one from the Pope was read. The Cardinal said that the ‘polemic mentality must be played down’. Admittedly the bishops must be careful. Too precipitate action would arouse the mistrust of clergy and laity. More objective study of non-Catholic points of view must be undertaken in seminaries. There is no time later. To refuse all discussion of Catholic truth with others suggests that it will not stand up to closer examination. There should be much more cooperation in matters where the faith is not affected.

Fr. Corr said that the meeting was by no means entirely behind the Cardinal. There were those who said openly in discussion that ‘it is impossible for those who work outside England to know the situation we have to face here’. But Fr. Corr said that the number of sympathisers was very much greater than he would have thought possible. There is no doubt that much progress has been made.

Bishop Rudderham of Clifton¹⁰⁷ is said to have melted considerably in the last few years. The Heythrop talks are to be published.

MIXED MARRIAGES

Fr. Corr, at my request, put the Roman case about mixed marriages after reading the relevant passage in my book. It was based on the Israelite duty to preserve their people from marrying ‘outlandish women’ and their being pulled away to strange gods, and on S. Paul's advice of caution in the case of New Testament marriages.

I argued very strongly indeed against their basing any case on the comparison of us with Phoenician women or Corinthian debauchees. I think he saw the force of this. It was very surprising that he could have been so naïf as to mention this, even if he thought it. I must find out how far this is prevalent in manuals of instruction.

[. . .]

PREPARATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL

There is to be a world-wide novena for the Council from Oct. 1st–8th and Cardinal Godfrey has suggested Sept. 21 as a special day of penitence in England. When Cardinal Bea was in England he made two television films which will be put out just before the Council. This is no doubt part of the carefully arranged propaganda programme being staged by the Romans as a build-up for the Council. Are steps being taken to see that they don't have the field to themselves? I know that Guthrie Moir of Associated Television has asked for a copy of my book for review purposes, but what about the B.B.C.?

[. . .]

Report No 47.      2nd October, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

ARRIVAL

This report is sent from Rome, at which I arrived from Athens on Oct. 1st. I expect to be here until the first session of the Council dismisses, about December 10th.

[. . .]

Report No. 48      6th October, 1962

________________________________________________________________________________

THE APOSTOLIC LETTER ‘MOTU PROPRIO, APPROPINQUANTE CONCILIO’ OF SEPT 14TH

The Church's mission to the world is three-fold, to teach, to sanctify and to govern (the text quoted is Matt.28.19). With this end in view the following regulations are announced:-

1. a. Public Sessions The Pope will preside at these and the fathers of the Council will vote. These will be of a formal kind and will be sessions to which all business will eventually be submitted.

2. b. General Congregations. It is in these that most of the work will be done and the general business of the Council transacted.

3. c. Conciliar Commissions. These are departmental, specialist commissions to which people will be nominated according to their competence. They will only meet ad hoc and will consider questions referred to them. They correspond to the ten preparatory Commissions, except that the Secretariat for means of publicity has been fused with the Commission for the laity.

4. d. The Secretariats

   1. 1. for the Union of Christians

   2. 2. for technical matters

   3. 3. For organisation

   continue as before, except that of course only bishops are now members.

5. e. Ten Cardinal Presidents have been nominated to take the chair at various meetings. They represent a good selection from our point of view. Only one Italian and a very good sprinkling of liberals.

6. f. The Observers

   They will be able to be present at Public Sessions and General Congregations except in special cases which, in the opinion of the Council of Presidents, would be better held in camera. They could sometimes be present at the Special Commissions, by permission of the respective presidents. They may report to their respective communities on the work of the Council, but are under secrecy as regards any other communication.

7. g. Language

   Latin only in the public sessions and general congregations. ‘Readers, interpreters and translators will be at the disposal of the Fathers to facilitate their use of the Latin tongue’. In the Commissions vernacular is permitted. A current joke in Roman circles is that an amiable American bishop, tackled by his clergy about the severe encyclical ‘Veterum Sapientia’ on the use of Latin said, ‘Ah, well, you know, Summus Pontifex locuta est;¹⁰⁸ so we must obey.’

8. h. Voting. A two thirds majority is necessary in all voting. But the Pope has a complete veto.

1. 1. PREPARATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL

   The fever of expectation, as may be imagined, is steadily mounting. The press delegates and publicity hounds are moving in and the tempo is increasing. The observers are arriving. Dr. Grant and the Archdeacon of Colombo¹⁰⁹ arrived on the 4th and the Bishop of Ripon on the 8th. Arrangements have been made for our preliminary meetings as a team of observers. In this we have the very ready help of the Minister to the Holy See and of the English and American chaplains.

   A little light relief has been afforded by the discovery in S. Peter's of two time-bombs, near the specially constructed Aula conciliaris. They were rendered harmless, and S. Peter's has now been sealed off.

2. 2. The rest of the items of this report are the result of my first visit to Mgr. Willebrands on returning.

[. . .]

THE ORTHODOX

I gave an account of as much of my visit to Athens as seemed discreet. Willebrands did not seem to question that the Orthodox position was difficult. But he said they were always hard to deal with. They had still not replied officially to his approaches [. . .].

He was very keen that I and everyone else should know that the Roman Church had never received invitations to Rhodes¹¹⁰ and therefore had not refused them. It was widely rumoured that they had, but that was not true. I suppose he must be right about this?

THE BAPTISTS

The Baptist World Alliance had declined invitations. But Dr. Jackson,¹¹¹ the negro president of the Southern Baptists, U.S.A., had decided he would come, on the strength of a casual invitation issued by the Pope in a private interview. He had held a great press conference, disassociating himself from the decision of the Baptist World Alliance and had left America. Since writing this we learn that Dr. Jackson has arrived and has been received as a guest but not as an observer.