Loading ...
Those well acquainted with the history of the Second Vatican Council know that the Council fathers threw out the magnificent work of the Preparatory Commissions, which were headed mainly by members of the Roman Curia. I have been reading through the reports issued by the Vatican Council Press Service and published in L’Osservatore Romano on the discussions of the Central Preparatory Commission.
May, 1962
“The Commission then examined a schema of constitution presented by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Theological Commission, on the esteem of virginity and chastity, on the dignity of marriage and family duties.”
The report then summarizes the contents of the discussion, from which I quote:
The matter in question is not only perpetual virginity but also that complete chastity which must be practiced by youth before marriage and by those who live for one motive or another outside of marriage. Speaking to doctors in 1948, Pius XII said: “The principle is inviolable. God alone is master of life and of the integrity of man, of his members, his organs, and his potencies, especially those which associate him with his creative work.”
It is true that according to certain theories it would be almost impossible for young people - especially in today’s world - to practice purity. These theories are inadmissible by the Church, which affirmed again in Pius XII’s words: “We declare today to educators and to youth itself that the divine commandment of purity of soul and body holds without weakening for present day youth. It also has the moral obligation and, with the help of grace, the possibility of keeping itself pure.”
Modern life, without doubt, multiplies invitations to evil by such distractions as beauty contests, spectacles, billboards, songs, illustrated magazines, beaches, places of vacation, promiscuity, and certain forms of sport. This is why the Church never ceases to recall to each one the principles of prudence, conscience, and responsibility, and the rights and duties of liberty, and the obligation of vigilance and precaution on the part of parents, educators, and civil authorities. This is also why the Church points out as dangerous and condemns as erroneous all theories that are then translated into practice concerning the cult of movie stars, naturalism, the so-called sexual education, pansexualism, and certain injurious aspects of psychoanalysis.
Something got lost on the Council floor, eh?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Something got lost indeed. Contrast the attitude expressed by the preperatory commission interesting bit of news:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/01/23/20060123wachooterspriest.html
Isn’t springtime great?
Where did you find such reports? Are they in Latin only or translated into English?
“Preparatory reports: Second Vatican Council,” Translated by Aram Berard, S.J.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965
I am lost on your article. Are you saying the Second Vatican Council encouraged unchastity, promiscuity, liberal media, and other evils? I think this article needs further elaboration.
In any case if it’s another poor stab at Vatican II I must say that the Council marvelously discerned the fact that the media could and should be utilized by Christians for good and *not* evil!
It is merely a fond historical gaze at the nature of the Council that had been prepared, and which had a decidedly less progressive bent. I’ll follow up with some more about the preparatory commissions in future days.
I highly doubt a change in style by the Second Vatican Council would effectively curb modernism and all other evils associated with the secular culture. Didn’t Mary at Fatima state that the errors of Russia would be spread throughout the world if her requests for prayer and conversion were not followed?
Johnboy316, please read the Book of Ezechiel 3:17-21. We should remember that the ultimate purpose of evangelization, apologetics, and instruction is not to effect change in people’s status or behavior on earth. Rather, it is the salvation of souls, starting with oneself. Regardless of how much the Council Fathers really could have alterred Western civilization by means of stronger language, that rebuke at the very least would have constituted several major spiritual works of mercy on their part (instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing the sinner). And without spiritual works of mercy no one (well, among adults anyway) gets into Heaven. So there was cause to speak out, there was an opportunity in which to do it, and they missed it. That’s not to judge anyone’s soul; I don’t know what their rationale was for not adopting the schema in question. I just want to point out that the ultimate goal of Christianity (up to and including ecumenical councils) is not to affect others’ behavior, it is to save one’s own soul.
About the Fatima message, do I dare ask if you think the conversion has been effected?
That’s interesting. Now I did read that Pope John XXIII stated in the opening address to the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council that they should “use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity.” He also stressed that the Second Vatican Council was in fact pastoral and not doctrinal. Perhaps these inklings from Pope John XXIII really in fact give a more positive bent to the style of the Second Vatican Council.
In any case you believe the Council should have basically condemned all sorts of evils. Well it is unnecessary because the Church has ALREADY condemned all those evils. Which is why Pope John XXIII emphasized the Council was not doctrinal (as were most every Council up to that point in history) but pastoral (how to aquaint the Gospel to the present day). To conclude that this effectively means to curtail saving souls is to me a clever “spin” on your part…
I think it’s pretty widely known that the Fatima message has not been heeded (ie, think of world war II, sufferings of JPII, Russia is not converted).
It is not spin. I am not saying that the Council Father curtailed the saving of souls (a point on which I was not clear). I am saying that your comment regarding the probably inefficacy of the proposed schema is not valid, or at least it does not seem valid to me. It is sometimes useful to reprove sinners regardless of the probability of success or failure in eliciting a favorable result. There may have been prudential reasons for abandoning the schema; I do not know. However, God made it clear to Ezechiel that the prophet should care more about speaking out — as God wanted — than about necessarily succeeding.
So I am not even criticizing the Council Fathers’ choice, since I do not, and cannot, know their reasons. I am faulting your comment about inefficacy, as I do not see how that is particularly relevant.
I meant that your comment does not seem to be a valid defense of your position, which, as I see it is, “the abandonment of the schema affected nothing anyway.” Correct me if I am misinterpreting you.
“I highly doubt a change in style by the Second Vatican Council would effectively curb modernism and all other evils associated with the secular culture” meant exactly that with the understanding that modernism and secularism have been previously condemed by previous popes however society in general obviously didn’t heed it (including those outside the Catholic Church) and it is quite obvious modernism and secularism were already rooted in the culture but “blossomed” forth over a period coinciding with the Second Vatican Council and thereafter. Which is why I believe and many others that the nonsense after Vatican II was not a direct result of the Council but rather the deeply rooted errors of modernism and secularism.
“Didn’t Mary at Fatima state that the errors of Russia would be spread throughout the world if her requests for prayer and conversion were not followed” meant that the results of not heeding the message were in my opinion the errors of modernism and secularism.
Looking back at this list, I’m simply amazed. I’m afraid that I find in it some support for my concerns about mixed bathing:
Modern life, without doubt, multiplies invitations to evil by such distractions as beauty contests, spectacles, billboards, songs, illustrated magazines, beaches, places of vacation, promiscuity, and certain forms of sport.