September 2004 Print

Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara

The Suggestions of the American Bishops For the Preparation of Vatican II

Contrary to what has happened with o many other aspects of Vatican II, very little research has been done on the American participation in the Council. In particular, little attention has been given to the conduct of the American Conciliar Fathers before and during the Council, and even most of the scant txisting literature does no more than select facts and insights to defend the particular, modernist vision of their authors. Rejecting such an approach, I will present here some conclusions that can be drawn from examining the actual vota submitted by the American Bishops immediately prior to the Council, a research that is the required foundation for the examination, in future papers, of their behavior and of their evolving positions during the Council itself.

The goals of the Council, when it was announced on January 25, 1959, were the good of souls and a correspondence of the new pontificate of John XXIII to "the spiritual exigencies of our times." In principle, this Council, as the previous ones had been, was to be both a doctrinal affirmation and an ordinance of ecclesiastical discipline. According to the Pope, though, it was also to be a time of renewal, to clarify thoughts, to strengthen religious unity and to revive Christian fervor. There was, further, to be an appeal to "separated communities," "to follow Us in this search for unity and grace." According to the Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, published on June 29, 1959, the Council would be a demonstration of truth, unity and charity that would serve as an invitation to the separated brethren to seek and find the unity willed by Christ.

It is crucial to note that, as the date of the Council approached, the aims of the Pope in regard to the Council altered, and their full extent became clearer, moving away from the originally stated ones towards others that were more charismatic and ecumenical, in the modernist sense of the word. Adding to the confusion, the Roman Curia resisted this charismatic drift on the part of the Pope.

It was during the ante-preparatory stage of the Council, which ran from May 17, 1959, Pentecost, until June 5, 1960, Pentecost again, that the Pope made the decision to send out to all the future Fathers of the Council a letter soliciting their desires and suggestions concerning the upcoming Council. The letter specifically requested input from the Bishops regarding doctrine, discipline of the clergy and of the faithful, the problems faced by the Church of today, and whatever else might come to their minds. Many of the Bishops' responses followed this exact order.

 

Interpretive Guidelines

Letters went out to 217 American Bishops, and 150 answered–70%. It is interesting to note the speed of response. The original due date was to be September 1, 1959. But it was extended twice–first to February 1960, and finally to Easter of 1960. Worldwide, most of the answers had arrived by October 1959. Many of the earliest appear to be perfunctory and have little thought or concern behind them. But some of the late ones are the most important, in view of the actions of their authors during the Council itself. The delay in some of these responses does not appear to have been due to disinterest, but rather to a desire to see what their colleagues would suggest. In America, 71% of the responding Bishops had done so by the original due date. A few of the American Bishops entered in possession of their dioceses in late 1959 and early 1960, and thus answered late. Only 7% responded after the final due date: Easter, 1960. But Cardinal Ritter and Bishops Wright and Primeau–all three, major movers at the Council–were in this tardy group.

Before examining the specifics of the American Bishops' responses, let us note that there is some divergence of opinion concerning the relevance of these responses.

The vast majority of historians of the Council assume that the "new theologians," on the eve of the Council, simply articulated the concerns common to the whole Church, and that their doctrinal and disciplinary solutions were demanded throughout the Church. As the American Bishops of the time are considered by these historians as "conservative," theologically "behind the times," upholding an "immobile, triumphalistic and rationalistic view of the Church,"¹ their vota are judged to have been conformist, dry, a heterogeneous catalogue of requests of minor moment,² completely removed from the reality of the Church in their day. It can be proven that this was not so. But, on the other hand, we cannot go to the other extreme and simply assume that their vota present a perfect, mirror image of the state of the American Church before the Council.

Moreover, we should not forget that they were Bishops answering to a Roman consultation, men whose previous dealings with the Roman Curia had been usually difficult and sometimes conflictive. They were uncertain about what was expected from them–much more because, shortly after the initial contact, the communications and declarations of curial officials seemed to contradict the Pope's increasingly explicit declarations regarding the "charismatic" scope and aims of the Council. As they were unwilling to take unnecessary risks, some of their answers were very cautious, and some others referred to problems, but carefully abstained from suggesting solutions.

In examining the vota, therefore, it is more accurate to say that they reflect, to a great extent, the real, concrete problems of the local churches at that time. Nonetheless, a dissonance, a discrepancy is also noticeable, for America and the American Church of the late 1950's were rapidly changing. The Bishops were becoming increasingly aware of it, and were scrambling to keep pace and find solutions to their new problems.

 

A Changing Catholicism

The American Catholic Church today is a shadow of what it was in the 1950's. At that time, the Church in America appeared to be in a healthy, flourishing condition judging from all the standard external indicators: membership, conversions, Mass attendance, collections, institutions, priestly and religious vocations. I do not need to tell you about the state of Catholicism in America today. But Vatican II is not the sole reason for this downfall. A revolution was building up in the 1950's, and there were omens of the catastrophic collapse to come. Vatican II did not inaugurate the upheavals, "merely baptized and advertised movements that had been underway for years."³ As Massa says, "In the era of Catholic triumphalism, major players in the Catholic story were gleefully, if unconsciously, laying dynamite to the foundations of [American Catholicism]."⁴ In that time, the intersecting intellectual and social trends were already setting the stage for the undermining of the Catholic Church in America. I would like to examine briefly some of these major trends.

 

 

The first that needs to be mentioned is the aftermath of World War II. During this war, citizens of the United States had experienced a level of cohesion that was unprecedented in their history. There was a pervasive feeling that, whatever their internal differences might be, they were all Americans, united to fight a common enemy. Americans who had not fought in the armed forces had suffered, at home, food rationing, gas rationing, and shortages of materiel critical to the war effort. Hollywood, serving as a domestic propaganda machine, enforced and perpetuated this feeling of a united America in which any differences between citizens were secondary to their identity as Americans fighting a war against Evil embodied by the Germans and Japanese. Americans fighting overseas were united by their common experiences of combat. Domestic differences such as class, race, gender, and religion were subordinated to the war effort. This new cohesion did not evaporate after the end of the war. It was, in fact, reinforced and perpetuated by the next major trend: the population shift in America from the city to the suburbs.

The post-war economic boom resulted in the federal government extending low cost federal mortgage insurance, low interest rates for loans, and tax incentives. The federal interstate highway system was begun. The new money in the economy and the new mobility created by roads linking the nation expedited a population shift to the suburbs. Once Americans had relocated to the suburbs, a new social dynamic was created. People belonging to groups that had never before had much contact with each other were suddenly shopping in the same stores, working in the same buildings, sending their children to the same schools, and recreating at the same facilities. Until this point, Protestants, Jews and Catholics had lived near to and socialized only with others of their same Faith. But in the suburbs, there was a blend of Italian, Polish, or Irish Catholics with European

 

 

 

Jews, Baptists, Methodists. Religious differences gave place to an increasingly strong identity as suburban Americans. This shift of identity was aided by the view that the Soviet Union was, like the sword of Damocles, hanging over a peace-loving America and world. Many Catholics came to view their Protestant or Jewish neighbors as admittedly of a different religion, but still believing in God. The Soviets did not even believe in God. They were the really bad guys. The thinking became that the only way that the American way of life could be preserved was by God-fearing Christians–even of different religious denominations–sticking together against the atheist Communists. This mixing led many Catholics to lose the sense of belonging strictly to a Catholic community.

Until the late 1950's, Catholics had known a self-contained urban Catholic social structure made up of their parish, parish hall, school, convent, and other Catholic organizations. But with the suburban diaspora, the Church faced a new dilemma: either to replicate the traditional structure in each new suburb that sprang up–which was financially and logistically impossible–or to find a new model that was more flexible, less tied to "brick and mortar," and more dependent on an increased lay participation.

For the suburban dispersion caused a change in the relationship between priests and laity. Middle-class, professional Catholics came to assume increasingly greater responsibilities in tasks like organizing parishes, negotiating for land, or reviewing building plans. These tasks had previously been handled by their pastors. Catholics still instinctively looked to the parish as the center of their social lives–which were given more attention than ever before with an increase in affluence. Priests who were spending less and less time performing executive functions were spending more and more time as recreation directors, "team leaders" and "coordinators."⁵ These new, unfamiliar demands revealed the limitations of average priests–they had never been trained as social directors. A steady erosion of priestly prestige led to a growing inclination on the part of the laity to question their priests' advice on moral matters. To put it bluntly, the American clergy were losing control of their parishes and their parishioners.

But there is still more to say concerning these parishioners. Not only had they changed their physical environment, but their intellectual environment was changing. The G.I. Bill of 1946 provided college tuition support to World War II veterans: 2.2 million veterans enrolled just between 1945 and 1949. Now, Catholic veterans were able to attend expensive secular colleges. This democratization of higher education produced a sizeable class of Catholic professionals "ready and willing to share in the suburban American dream of tolerance and affluence."⁶

 

 

 

This new, educated generation of American Catholics abhorred the intellectual Catholic "ghetto." Those who thought seriously about their Faith and studied it were influenced by French intellectual trends. They read lay philosophers and theologians like Maritain, Gilson, Bloy, Bernanos, Claudel and Mauriac. The liturgical movement took the form of an escape into "monasticism." The most famous examples of this were Thomas Merton at Gethsemani and Virgil Michel and Godfrey Diekmann at St. John's. The French intellectual influence also took the form of lay movements and "worker-priests" committed to social action. Since many institutions of higher learning were full of professors with at least socialist ideas and the American conscience was starting to be pricked by the civil rights movement, there were many arenas to which socially active Catholics could turn their attention.

They blamed American Catholic intellectual backwardness on clerical anti-intellectualism. The problems of building and operating a church/convent/ school complex required that priests be skilled in business. Those who were successful in business advanced to the episcopate. Study, teaching, and academic pursuits became less valued than ensuring that the doors of Catholic institutions remained open. Religious instruction was increasingly turned over to nuns who were working with children. In spite of the nuns' efforts, what most of the laity took with them from this instruction into adulthood was a tenuous, childish grasp of doctrine, a strict discipline and a femininely sentimental piety.⁷ Changes were taking place in the realm of higher education, as well. To destroy the "ghetto" and move into the American intellectual mainstream, Jesuit universities like Georgetown, St. Louis and Loyola had shifted control to lay-dominated boards of trustees to escape control of the Order's superiors. Promising seminarians were given specific fields of study and sent to the best secular universities to obtain doctorates. By the mid-1950's, the Jesuit universities had attained academic respectability, but there was no longer anything distinctively Catholic or Jesuit about them.

More than in Europe, the intellectuals' discussion was a thing bred in the rarefied air of academia–but that debate was finally seeping down through seminaries, universities and lay movements, into a new generation of clergy and highly educated laity, a new generation for whom their Church started to appear as an institution lagging behind the times.

 

The Bishops' Suggestions

If the number of suggestions concerning a topic is an indicator of its immediacy in the minds of the American Bishops, then three general headings capture the main concerns of the Bishops: 1) pastoral concerns; 2) the place, role and authority of Bishops; and 3) the formation and ministry of clergy. Comparatively, only 1% of the proposals referred to ecumenism, 0.8% explicitly proposed religious liberty, and only one proposal referred to the new ecclesiology.

Some of the proposals have an implicit reference to the questions of the time, such as desegregation and the human rights movement (requests to address racism and reassert the equality of men), the anti-Communist crusade (requests to condemn Communism and refute the theories at its base), the "Boston heresy case" (requests to explain the extent of the axiom "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), and the space program (Cardinal Cushing's request to examine the possibility of intelligent life in other planets).

 

Pastoral Concerns

The area of pastoral concerns includes liturgy, discipline, and the role of the Church in the world.

 

Liturgy

Nineteen percent of the American Bishops' proposals dealt with the liturgy. The main theme running through most of these proposals was simplification: simplification in almost everything. There was a pastoral desire to simplify ceremonies in a way that would lead to better understanding and greater participation of the faithful.⁸ These goals were to be obtained by making adaptations in the liturgy to the mentality of modern man and, in particular, to the conditions of modern life in America. It is crucial to note, however, that in the minds of the American Bishops, this simplification was not meant to affect the dogmas of the Church or the substance of the sacred rites. This mindset also betrays another characteristic of American Catholicism. Americans–and their Bishops–tend to be a pragmatic people, focused on action. There is a tendency to separate the realm of ideas from the realm of everyday action. Americans, on the whole, find it easy to believe one thing, but do another. They are illogical, yes–but they are not lying.

Closely linked to this desire for simplification was the pressure for increased use of the vernacular. Some bishops suggested its use in the Mass and sacraments for the instructional parts and the interventions by the faithful, but even among these, the Canon and the sacramental forms were most specifically excluded. Some Bishops suggested the vernacular be adopted in the Breviary, to alleviate the burden for priests. But it must be noted that only one–Bishop Schulte of Indianapolis–specifically argued for the ecumenical benefits of the use of the vernacular. All the rest seemed to have seen the increased use of the vernacular as a way of improving the understanding and participation of the faithful.

Although five Bishops explicitly opposed its extension, Mclntyre (Los Angeles)⁹ and Paschang (Grand Island)¹⁰ explicitly said that the majority of their clergy did not want it. Condon (Great Falls)¹¹excluded it for the Mass, but approved for the Breviary. O'Hara (Philadelphia) and Nold (Galveston-Houston)¹² also opposed.

Several Bishops demanded the codification of liturgical laws, to unify the liturgical celebrations by simplifying the differentiations and eliminating the conflicts. Again, this type of suggestion betrays a reduced understanding of the liturgy. In it can be seen a view of the liturgy as simply a disciplinary question without a close or real relationship to the dogmas of the Faith.

 

Discipline

Seventeen percent of the Bishops' proposals dealt with discipline. Particularly, 25% of the Bishops requested that the Code of Canon Law be reviewed, updated and simplified. Beyond this wide appeal, there were other, more varied requests in the area of discipline.

Concerning marriage impediments, Bishops Sweeney (Honolulu),¹³ Greco (Alexandria),¹⁴ O'Hara (Philadelphia),¹⁵ Fletcher (Little Rock)¹⁶ and Casey (Lincoln),¹⁷ requested that "mixed religion" be made diriment¹⁸ because of the danger of perversion of the Faith for the spouse and children. It was also requested that the procedures surrounding marriage impediments be simplified and greater authority be granted to Ordinaries to decide in marriage cases. In this request there was, of course, an implicit intent to gain greater independence from the Roman Curia. This implicit intent is not hard to discern in some of the other disciplinary requests that follow.

There were other requests for the Index to be simplified and that the Bishops be granted greater authority in granting dispensations; that rules on fast and abstinence, Sunday rest and servile work be eased, in order to correspond to modern life; and that the obligation of the Breviary be eased for priests in the ministry, either by noticeably reducing it, or allowing the use of the vernacular, or increasing the readings while reducing the psalms, perhaps with the intention of allowing it to be used also as spiritual reading. Strangely enough, Bohachevsky (Philadelphia)¹⁹ and Senyshyn (Stamford),²⁰ Bishops of Byzantine rite, required that the Breviary should be made obligatory for the Orientals.

Apparently, the American Bishops were already feeling a shortage of priests. Some requested the extension of the permission for each priest to celebrate two or three masses on Sundays and holy days of obligation. There was also a request for the extension of the privilege of the portable altar, due to the different places where priests had to celebrate Mass in America. Others requested changes to be made in the legislation regarding the reception of sacraments by the faithful of Oriental rites in the Latin rite due to the absence of sufficient clergy and churches of their rites.

An interesting indicator of the relationship between Rome and the American Bishops is the request of seven Bishops for the establishment of some efficient and speedy means of communication between the Holy See and the Ordinaries. This request was prompted by the fact that they had received notice of the new regulations for the Vigil of the Assumption from the secular press, and only later–after it was too late to make an announcement to the faithful–from the Holy See.²¹

 

 

Bishop William Joseph CONDON
	7 Apr 1895	Born	Colton, Washington
	14 Oct 1917	Ordained Priest	Priest of Spokane, Washington
	5 Aug 1939	Appointed	Bishop of Great Falls, Montana
	18 Oct 1939	Ordained Bishop	Bishop of Great Falls, Montana
	26 Oct 1939	Installed	Bishop of Great Falls, Montana
	17 Aug 1967	Died	Bishop of Great Falls, Montana

 

Bishop William Joseph CONDON
	18 Mar 1890	Born	Frederickstown, Missouri
	11 Jun 1915	Ordained Priest	Priest
	29 May 1937	Appointed	Bishop of Leavenworth. Kansas
	21 Sep 1937	Ordained Bishop	Bishop of Leavenworth. Kansas
	20 Jul 1946	Appointed	Archbishop of Indianapolis, Indiana
	3 Jan 1970	Resigned	Archbishop of Indianapolis, Indiana
	3 Jan 1970	Appointed	Titular Archbishop of Elicroca
	17 Feb 1984	Died	Archbishop Emeritus of Indianapolis, Indiana

 

The Church in the World

Sixty-one proposals–or 12%–addressed the question of the Church in the world. This category of proposals can be divided into three great sections.

The first section is the relationship between Church and State. Proposals on this topic included requests for greater detail in the explanation and definition of the relationship between Church and State, especially in pluralistic societies like America. In general, they were excessively cautious in their suggestions in this matter, noticeably Cardinal Ritter of St. Louis, in view of the position he took in the Council.²² A few were nonetheless very explicit in their request. Cardinal Gushing (Boston) and Schulte (Indianapolis) judged that the relationship between Church and State has to be adapted to the present historical situation–which is very different from the French Revolution.²³ Bishops Schulte and Alter (Cincinnati)²⁴ proposed the American model of separation, stressing that it is not and does not favor indifferentism.

There were also related questions concerning religious liberty in modern, pluralistic societies. Bishops Alter²⁵ and Dearden (Detroit)²⁶ requested the Council to explain the Catholic notion of freedom of conscience. And more explicitly, Bishop Schulte proposed the determination of the civil right to religious liberty, and Bishop Alter, the total abstention of the State in religious matters.

The second section concerns modern errors. The American Bishops addressing this topic indicated that modern errors were to be opposed and some asked that they be explicitly condemned. Those to be condemned included Communism, colonialism, imperialism, racism, evolutionism, existentialism, and the modern false notion of freedom. Cardinal Meyer of Chicago went even to the extreme (in view of his later positions in the Council) of proposing a new edition of the "Syllabus Errorum."²⁷

The third section can be described as war and peace. Some Bishops requested that special consideration be given to the considerations of a just war in the atomic age and to the Catholic doctrine regarding pacifism and objection of conscience.

 

The Role of Bishops

As we have already noted, the American Bishops expressed a desire to escape the excessive centralization of the Church and to lessen their dependence on the Roman Curia. Several Bishops requested the re-definition of their place and role within the mystery of the Church. They wanted an increase of their authority over religious–particularly in the area of schools–and an extension of their right and authority to oversee lay movements.²⁸

The Roman Curia was transparently criticized. Bishop Schulte (Indianapolis) explicitly proposed to consider decentralization.²⁹ Bishop Gorman (Dallas) requested the formation of an international commission meeting regularly in Rome.³⁰ But it should be noted that nowhere is it apparent in the requests of this nature that the Bishops were demanding to act collegially in the post-conciliar sense.

Bishop Schenk (Crookston)³¹ pointed out to what seemed to be curial pressure on the Pope, as the aim of the Council seemed to have shifted from the problem of union with "separated brethren" (as the Pope had proposed) to the internal affairs of the Church (as it appeared from curial communications).

 

Formation and Ministry of Clergy

Several Bishops addressed the problem of vocations. Some of the suggestions to ease the lack of priests included accepting permanent married deacons,³² the acceptance of priests who had attempted marriage and repented,³³ and the acceptance of convert, married, ex-Protestant ministers.³⁴

Concerning the formation of priests, several Bishops indicated a need to update the seminary curriculum by making it relevant to the needs of the present times. These changes included the exposition of modern errors–rather than a focus on the heresies of centuries past,³⁵ and giving priests a working knowledge of modern sciences, literature and administration, apart from giving them a better spiritual formation in the seminaries.

 

Other Concerns

In general, the American Bishops did not seem to be concerned so much with ecumenism. When it was mentioned, it was expressed as a return to the Catholic Church. We should notice, however, that there were some signs of what was to come. There were suggestions of exemption from certain ecclesiastical laws as incentives to return to the Church,³⁶ the suppression of priestly celibacy,³⁷ the restoration of Scripture to its central place in the life of the Church as an incentive for Protestants to return.³⁸ Three Bishops³⁹ opposed the definition of new dogmas, especially Marian dogmas, because they would be obstacles to ecumenism.

In the area of Mariology, 16 Bishops asked for the definition of Mediation. One asked for a definition of Co-redemption, one asked for a definition of the Spiritual Maternity, and one asked for the elevation of the Legion of Mary to the rank of Confraternity, based on the magnificent fruits it was bearing.

 

Conclusions

We can draw several conclusions from this examination of the vota of the American Bishops.

First, we can say that the American Bishops answered adequately the demands officially made by Pope John XXIII. Their vota seem to be in line with the stated goals of Ad Petri Cathedram: an increase of faith, moral renewal of Christian life, and the adaptation of ecclesiastical discipline.⁴⁰ The requests of the Bishops were, on the whole, realistic and focused on more urgent, immediate concerns than the esoteric doctrines being advanced by the "new theologians."

Further, we can surmise that the Bishops had the Faith and the desire to give their clergy the means to accomplish the mission of the Church with the least amount of hindrance possible. They did not respond to the secret "charismatic" desires of the Pope, which, as we have said, became clearer as the time for the Council approached. Their vota provide no major hints of the doctrinal revolution that would dominate Vatican II, and perhaps this is why so many modernist historians are so critical of their answers.

Secondly, we can say that the American Bishops were traditional in doctrine, but progressive in discipline and liturgy. They were obviously attached to Pope Pius XII's doctrinal texts Humani Generis, Mystici Corporis, and Divino Afflante Spiritu. They were aware of the changing conditions of America, but viewed them through a pragmatic lens, rather than a doctrinal one. They tended to view pastoral requests as somehow disconnected from doctrine. For instance, the question of religious liberty was not perceived as affecting ecclesiological doctrine, and the liturgy was seen more as a matter of pure discipline, preference, personal disposition, and local customs than a reflection of Church doctrine.

This disconnected understanding would lead to–and indeed encourage–practical adaptations, without raising questions of whether these adaptations would force a need to adapt dogma to practice, rather than the other way around. Paradoxically, this made some of the American Bishops' suggestions identical to those of the "new theologians," whose theories the Bishops either did not know or flatly rejected.

Finally, it will be evident for anyone who has read the history of Vatican II that the American Bishops changed their opinions during the Council. Even a superficial analysis of the American Bishops' interventions reveals that, at some points in the Council, they supported proposals that went directly against their original vota. I believe this is a more accurate analysis of what happened than the alternative assertion that the American Bishops lied when they sent in their vota.

Support for this view is provided by none other than Yves Congar, reporting what Pere Gy said, and agreeing with him: "L'atmosphere du Concile agit: des episcopats (USA par example ou Sud-Afrique) ont changé beaucoup deja en quinze jours."⁴¹ What was this "atmosphere of the Council"? According to Congar, it was characterized by dialogue with their peers and the abandonment of the isolation forced upon them by the Roman Curia. It gave the American Bishops "an awareness of theology that they never had before."⁴²Said another way, in the words of Bishop Mueller of Sioux City in a letter to a friend: "If you had told me two years ago that I would be voting 'yes' for some of the things I have been voting for this session, I would have told you you were crazy."⁴³

How could this schizophrenic response have come about? Being pragmatic "doers" with a deep-seated dislike for abstract theories that get in the way of action, the American Bishops were not used to seeing their concrete requirements reduced to the abstract principles behind them. But they also knew what their needs were, quickly became familiar with the theories behind the pastoral measures they supported, and supported the texts that established the doctrine that appeared to lead them to those solutions–even if this meant contradiction with their past suggestions and wishes.

Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara, a native of Argentina, was ordained in 1986 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since 1993 he has been teaching Moral Theology and Church History at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, MN. This article is based on the lecture given by the author at the Priests' Meeting held at Winona, on February, 2003. With thanks to Mr. Michael Rankin-Goshie, seminarian at Winona, for his assistance.

 

---

1. Novak, 326.

2. Fouilloux, 120.

3. Morris, 275.

4. Massa, 12.

5. Andrew Greeley, in Morris, 276.

6. Massa, 5.

7. Wills, 27.

8. Hayes (Davenport) in Acta el Documenta, 308.

9. Ibid., 364.

10. Ibid., 330.

11. Ibid, 334.

12. Ibid., 328.

13. Ibid., 340.

14.Ibid., 268.

15. Ibid., 406.

16. Ibid., 363.

17. Ibid., 361.

18. "A diriment impediment is a condition arising from either the natural law or Church law which prohibits and prevents marriage between persons so affected: it makes the marriage impossible or nullifies it" (Concise Catholic Dictionary (Kansas City, Mo.: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 116).

19. Ibid., 407.

20. Ibid., 407.

21. Meyer (Chicago), Connolly (Fall River), Condon (Great Falls), O'Brian (Heartford), MacNamara (Jolliet), Cody (Kansas City-St Joseph), and Schexnayder (Lafayette).

22. Acta et Documenta. 434.

23. Ibid., 279, 341.

24. Ibid., 296.

25. Ibid., 296.

26. Ibid., 312.

27. Ibid., 292.

28. O'Hara (Philadelphia) in Acta et Documenta, 405.

29. Ibid., 343.

30. Ibid., 307.

31. Ibid., 303.

32. Greco (Alexandria), Senyshyn (Stamford), Cushing (Boston), Fletcher (Little Rock), Connolly (Fall River), Garriga (Corpus Christi), Gorman (Dallas), O'Connor (Madison).

33. Bona (Green Bay) in Acta et Documenta, 335.

34. Greco (Alexandria), Bona (Green Bay).

35. MacNamara (Jolliet) in Acta et Documenta, 346.

36. O'Connor (Madison).

37. Greco (Alexandria).

38. Wright (Pittsburgh).

39. Shehan (Bridgeport), Keough (Baltimore), and Isenmann (Columbus).

40. Modernist historians complain about the lack of "charismatic originality" of the Bishops, because many of them followed, in the exposition of their vota, the order of subject matter given in the encyclical.

41. Congar, 1:144. "The atmosphere of tthe Council is working: the episcopates (of the U.S., for example, or South Africa), have already changed a lot in a fortnight."

42. Yzermans, 3.

43. Quoted in Novak, 326.

 

Bibliography

Acta et Documenta Concilia Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series I (Ante-praeparatoria). Vol.II: Consilia et Vota Episcoporum ac Praelatorum. Pars Vl: America Septemtrionalis et Centralis. Vatican City, 1960,

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticoni II. Appendix. Vatican City: 1983.

Les Enseignements de Jean XXIII. Presentation by Philippe Chenaux. Saint-Maurice: Editions Saint-Augustin, 2000.

 

American Bishops in Vatican II

ALBERIGO, Giuseppe. ed. Storia del Concilio Vaticano II: Vol. I: Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione: L'annunzio e la preparazione, gennaio 1959-settembre 1962. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1995.

CONGAR, Yves, O.P. Mon Journal du Concile. Vol. 1. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2002.

FOUILLOUX, Étienne. La fase ante-preparatoria (1959-1960). 1l lento avvio dell'uscita dall'inerzia. In: ALBERGIO, G., ed. Storia dei Concilio Vaticano II. Vol. 1 Bologna: Il Mulino, 1995.

HENNESEY, James, S.J. "A Comparative Study of American Participation in Vatican Councils I and II." In: Concilium, Vol. 17 (1966).

SIMOULIN, Michael SSPX. "Les vota des Éveques en réponse à  la consultation preparatiore au Concile Vatican II." In: Église et Contre-Eglise au Concile Vatican II. Actes du II^me Congres Théologique de SisiNono. Versailles: Courrier de Rome, 1996.

YZERMANS, Msgr. Vincent. American Participation in the Second Vatican Council. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1967.

 American Catholicism

DOLAN, Jay P. In Search of an American Catholicism: A History of Religion and Culture in Tension. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

MASSA, Mark S. Catholics and American Culture: Fulton Sheen, Dorothy Day, and the Notre Dame Football Team. New York: 1999.

MORRIS, Charles R. American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America's Most Powerful Church. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

WILLS, Gary. Bare Ruined Choirs: Doubt, Prophecy and Radical Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.