Skip to main content

Vatican II: The Pastoral Council

What does it mean to be "pastoral?" In a few words, it means to shepherd and to lead. When we say that Vatican II was a "pastoral Council," what do we mean? Well, let's say in summary that various new ideas, events, and the sins of mankind had so confused mankind, had so much taken their toll, that man no longer spoke the spiritual language with which Mother Church had grown accustomed to speaking. Somewhat distressingly, you could say that man, and even a large portion of the Church's children, were not spiritual people. Part of being a spiritual person is to believe and act as though God really has spoken and acted in Jesus Christ--also that it matters for my life--and to accept those whom Christ has sent.
It goes without saying that the successors to the Apostles, including the successor of Peter, can't give up on their mission, even when the "sheep" don't know who you are, won't listen, and are not even convinced or aware that we're supposed to go somewhere! You've got to go back to the beginning. Do you remember my 3 basic questions that everyone asks at some point? "Who is God? Who am I? What am I doing here?" When you study Christian anthropology, you are in essence trying to answer these questions. At the risk of being pedantic, anthropology is the study of what it means to be human. Christian anthropology is the study of what it means to be human in the light of God, who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word.
To skip ahead a bit here, it came to be discerned that things are so bad that we've got to start with the middle question: "Who am I?" Man still experiences his life, his feelings, his self-awareness. But on the whole, he isn't stopping to reflect on any of it; as has been said a few times, he's bouncing from thing to thing, looking for something, but he knows not what. But we were made for God. If you walk with a person, and guide him in examining himself in the hope of discovering his purpose, you'll bump into God sooner or later. Probably sooner. It does no good to say, "God says..." when people have no idea who God is, or why it matters. You don't discuss Plato with a man out of his mind; you have to keep him from hurting himself and others. That's pastoral. To do or say anything else is a waste of time. It's not as though the truth of Plato or John's Gospel has gone anywhere; it isn't helpful in the moment.
But to step out of the analogy for a second, people generally know that they are unhappy. They also know, even if they deny it or can't articulate it, that they need meaning and a purpose. To inquire about that isn't to waste time; it's to actually help the person who doesn't know. Has the truth changed? No. We've simply approached it from the person's perspective. That's pastoral. That's Vatican II.
Some people say that Vatican II is unclear as to its pastoral objectives, and that this lack of clarity has led to myriad problems in the Church. They say that clearer distinctions between dogmatic things and pastoral things would greatly help us. Some of them stop just short of the infidelity of rejecting the Council. I sense an inclination in that hope of clearer distinctions a desire to discover which parts of the Council one is free to ignore. I agree entirely that the dogmatic reaffirmations of Vatican II (for there was no new definition of dogma at Vatican II) are enmeshed with its pastoral thinking. That was the point. You need only read the first sentence of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to realize that the overriding concern of the bishops--and by extension, God--is to break down the wall between faith professed and life lived. A wall that should not actually exist. The truth that various ideologies and behaviors that culminate in what we call "modernism" are false is not in question. We are thankful that God in His wisdom chose to communicate its danger(s) to us in time past. In fact, once we learn to again speak the spiritual language with which our mother often speaks, we will be able to discern those things as well.
But let us realize that charity compels us to speak in the language of man, to befriend him, to understand his hurts, his concerns, indeed, his very life. It also compels us to help him find his better desires, to ask what they mean, and to follow them back to Christ and the Church. When our hearts are big enough to see the image of God in the people we know, we'll be wise enough to see the pastoral wisdom of Vatican II. It has been said that when a man looks inside himself truly, he finds God speaking to him and waiting for him. This is true.
Let us not waste time questioning the motives of our bishops and questioning their faith. Let us not chatter on about the factions of men who came into the Council, and speculate what nefarious influence they are exerting. Let us recall that the heart of the Council was the universal call to holiness, and this must include us as well. Do we understand the love of Christ? What does it mean for us? How must I be different because it is real and present to me in the Church by the Eucharist?
As troubled as we are, I do not say these are the worst days. Some desire to seek suffering, to proclaim these as the darkest days. I say that as long as Christ is with us, these are the brightest days we could know.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...