Cardinal Pell claimed in The Swag autumn issue that the application of the Vatican II reforms in Holland emptied the churches.[i] What a disappointing assertion! In the period following the council the Dutch churches were packed to the doors. It was not the council reforms which emptied the Dutch churches. It was the deliberate superimposition of anti-conciliar bishops by the small but politically influential curial group in the Vatican. Rome fractured the Dutch episcopacy – and the Dutch church.
Sunday parish Mass in Holland was a highlight of my first trip to Europe in early 1971. Active participation, beautifully prepared music performed by highly talented young adults on classical instruments and an intensity of attention from the congregation were its hallmarks. The experience was living proof that Vatican II had enlivened the Church.
The Dutch had a head start because they were major contributors to the council’s documents through their bishops led by Cardinal Alfrink. Edward Schillebeeckx was one of the cardinal’s advisors. Furthermore the renowned Dutch Catechism, commissioned by the Dutch bishops, was largely written before the council. It was finally published in 1966. The Dutch church was arguably the most dynamic in Europe.
The Dutch bishops set up a national Pastoral Council in 1967. This caused friction with the Vatican. Besides the bishops and clergy it included highly qualified professional laity as well.[ii] That was one of the objections of the Roman curial opponents – laity had an equal vote. The Pastoral Council continued the discussion on institutional reform that had not been addressed by the council. For example they criticised Humanae Vitae in 1969 and voted for optional celibacy for clergy in 1970. On these issues they were asserting opinions which were already widespread and hot issues in the Church and have remained so ever since.
Many older Australian priests will remember this friction between the Dutch hierarchy and the small, but influential, old guard in the Vatican. They thought that the reform would continue. After all, the reform vote at the council was almost unanimous: Gaudium et Spes – 2307 yes / 75 no; Lumen Gentium - 2151 yes / 5 no; Nostra Aetate – 2221 yes / 80 no. These priests looked to the Dutch church to lead the whole church further along the reform path which the council had begun. How naïve. It was not to be. The small “no” group had some powerful central positions in the Roman curia. They persuaded Pope Paul VI to reaffirm the sinfulness of contraception despite his own commission’s advice to the contrary.
The resolve of the Dutch bishops to keep the reform going confronted the Roman curial resolve to bring them to heel. The ace up the Roman sleeve was the Holy See’s power to appoint bishops. They split the hierarchy by appointing known dissenters from Vatican II to Dutch dioceses as they became vacant.
Adrianus Simonis was appointed to Rotterdam in 1970 and Joannes Gijsen to Roermond in 1972. Similar appointments followed. In 1983 Bishop Simonis was appointed to the Archdiocesan see of Utrecht.
Fr Schillebeeckx had this to say about the Pastoral Council and the episcopal appointments:
"The pastoral council was beyond doubt a great event for the Netherlands. It went beyond Vatican II and provoked reaction. For example, Monsignor Simonis opposed it with all his might. Still a student at Rome at the time of the Council, he was against Vatican II and the Dutch bishops. After Vatican II, in the Netherlands there were to be some nominations of bishops opposed to conciliar openness. Simonis and Gijsen were nominated bishops of Rotterdam and Roermond respectively, at the time of the storm over the pastoral council, to combat all new ideas and break up the internal unity of the conference of bishops. They argued for restoration and took every possible opportunity of openly criticizing the pastoral council. Little by little, under pressure from Rome, other bishops fell silent, but in the parishes things went on as before. The break with Rome became increasingly marked. Priests and faithful no longer understood their bishops and increasingly parted company with them. So, there was not only friction with Rome but above all disunion within the Dutch church. That was the drama of those days."[iii]
This cynical use of political power resulted in reversing the reform and wounding the parishes. It was the reversal of the Vatican II reforms which emptied the Dutch churches. It was so effective that it became match practice for its wholesale use throughout the world by Pope John Paul II.
31 July 2011
we have different belief, but we have one God.. it Jesus Christ.
Posted by: jobs online | September 16, 2011 at 02:44 AM
I follow you VIA GFC and I love your blog!
Posted by: supra footwear uk | December 24, 2011 at 01:58 PM