The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.These are the words of Pope John XXIII in his opening address for the Second Vatican Council in 1962 (the official title of the declaration is "Gaudet Mater Ecclesia"). It should be apparent that what he wanted, and what actually happened, are not the same thing. He said the purpose of the Council was to "...transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion..." If that had actually happened, where would be we today? The SSPX might never have been formed! The catechetical disaster of the 70's, 80's, and 90's might never have happened! The vast number of liturgical abuses of the 50's and 60's might never have taken root and been grandfathered in! What a world that would be.
Alas, however, it was not to be. Here we stand, struggling with all the doctrinal error, abuse, immorality, and compromise that has escalated over the last 40 years. Pope John XXIII essentially said, "don't change any doctrine, just figure out how to communicate it better" and what happened was almost the exact opposite. Many proclaimed doctrine changed, and most of the rest communicated the truth quite poorly. Think of the deeply heretical "catechism" published by the Dutch Bishops in 1966. Pope Paul VI spoke against it, but did not accomplish eradicating it (and I will not comment on how much effort he put into that task). People tried to change the truth. Even Bishops came out and admitted that they did not hold to Catholic dogma. They did not use such words, of course, but they did say things like "the Church doesn't teach that anymore" (as though that were possible).
I know that there are some who have said that Vatican II should not have happened in the first place. It had one intent, was seemingly "hijacked" in the middle, and ended up without a clear direction for the future. When various Bishops came back, they seemed to have given a "personal interpretation" to the documents and directives (quite a "protestant thing" to do, but then many of them did say that they wanted things more protestant in the Church). This leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems that occurred with what John XXIII and Paul VI wanted from the council was that they did not have all the Bishops on board with them.
Let me describe it another way. Imagine a priest who has a good idea for a parish (like restoring the tabernacle to its proper position in the center of the chancel). Imagine also that his Bishop is behind him one hundred percent. Should he move forward with it? Many may say yes. I would put a qualifier on it: he should not move forward until he has his people with him on it. You can make a small division into a big division if you press an issue prematurely; every clergyman should know this. It is possible that John XXIII thought he had that when opening Vatican II. I cannot say what Paul VI thought, but it should have been clear that he did not have that by the end of Vatican II.
Add into that mix the media influence (which Benedict XVI lamented) and you have a perfect setting for discord. In essence, I would say that the Church's Second Vatican Council although it intended to be pastoral in its focus, it failed. What failed was that it was not pastoral in its implementation. What would have happened if Paul VI had insisted on unity before ending the council? I suppose it is possible that it would still be going on today (Rome really knows how to drag things out!). Better, however, to have likemindedness (especially among clerics) than to allow for errors to be fostered.
Hindsight is 20/20, and I am not sure that what I have said is even that. I do know, however, that the manner in which truth is implemented is vital in its reception. I learned that from reading the documents of Vatican II! Yet, the manner in which the truth of God was sent out in the late 60's and early 70's was not very pastoral. Bishops who clearly disagreed with the authoritative documents (and John XXIII's desire "not to change any doctrine") were allowed to disseminate their errors. Many who did so were not even called to account for it or ever disciplined.
What can we learn from this? Only time will tell, but we are reaping the fruits of this lack of pastoral care. At the very least, let us learn what real pastoral care is. It is not to stand idly by and allow error to be taught. It is not to hide the hard truths and talk only about nice things. It is not to do nothing when sin is happening right in front of us. We should have learned that long before all the recent scandals (and maybe they happened precisely because we did not learn it!). May God have mercy on us.
