Louvain Studies 28 (2003) 48-70

BOOK ESSAY

Mon journal du Concile Yves Congar and the Battle for a Renewed Ecclesiology at the

Gabriel Flynn

1. Introduction

When John XXIII summoned an ecumenical council in January 1959, it was recognized that a new climate was stirring in the Vatican.1 The announcement was greeted with excitement in the world at large. But most of the thought a council unnecessary. Even the Italian bishops dis- trusted what the Pope had decided to do.2 The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century had caused the church to assume a defensive position. The intellectual, industrial, and scientific revolutions of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively, had frozen the defensive posture into a fix- ture that injured the church and obfuscated its mission in the world. Pope John XXIII, guided by an innately astute assessment of the yearnings within both the Church and the wider society, sought to restore the Church’s mission of service to the world, a task of gargantuan proportions, as the inexorable march towards secular humanism in the West continued to gather momentum. John XXIII, the pope beloved of Catholics and of many Protestants, was nothing if not a real- ist. He knew that without a general council of the Church, his ambitious plan for ecclesial renewal would almost certainly founder. If all over Europe aggior- namento had come to symbolize bringing the Church up to date, the hoped for

1. Henri Daniel-Rops, The Second Vatican Council: The Story Behind the Ecu- menical Council of Pope John XXIII, trans. Alastair Guinan (London: Harrap; New York: Hawthorn, 1962) 12. 2. Owen Chadwick, The Christian Church in the Cold War, The Penguin History of the Church, 7 (London: Penguin, 1992) 116. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 49 renewal, epitomized in this term, also engendered suspicion and opposition in certain quarters. The summoning of an ecumenical council inevitably led to a fierce battle between conservatives and progressives at the highest level in the Church. At stake was a true reform of the Church and its liturgy, its relation- ship with the modern world, its ecumenical relations with the other Christian Churches and with other world religions, as well as the continued renewal of Roman Catholic theology. Without the contribution of Yves Congar (1904- 1995), one of the most influential minds at Vatican II, the process of renewal initiated there would have been seriously impeded, and the battle for a “real council,”3 a council capable of substantial reform, might not have been fully realized. The true story of that battle has, for the first time, been revealed to the wider world with the publication of Congar’s long awaited conciliar diary, Mon journal du Concile (2002), edited and annotated by Éric Mahieu. Within the compass of this article I cannot, of course, discuss at length the influences that shaped Congar’s character and career. Nor, in an essay devoted to his con- ciliar diary in particular, can I undertake to assess other factors that had a bear- ing on the elaboration of his most important theological goals. But at the same time I am convinced that a correct understanding of the nature and significance of Congar’s diary is not possible without some knowledge of the man, his char- acter and vocation, and his substantial role at Vatican II; and I want at least to make it easier for the reader to consider sympathetically his of theologiz- ing, and his interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. From the outset, Congar regarded his vocation as being “at once and by the same vein, priestly and religious, Dominican and Thomist, ecumenical and ecclesiological.”4 Following his ordination on 25 July 1930, Congar was appointed professor of fundamental theology at Le Saulchoir, the Dominican faculty of theology in Paris. Congar taught at Le Saulchoir from 1931-1939 and from 1945-1954. By the end of the 1930s, he had become one of the leading theologians of the French church. He became well known, in the first instance, because of his theological conclusion to a survey on unbelief conducted by La Vie intellectuelle. The other reason that accounts for the emergence of Congar was the launch, under his direction, of the Unam Sanctam collection by Éditions du Cerf. Marie-Dominique Chenu, his colleague and mentor, saw in this new collection “one of the most beautiful fruits of our theology at Le Saulchoir.”5 Congar’s intellectual endeavors were enriched by his association with Action

3. Yves Congar, Mon journal du Concile (hereafter Journal), edited and annotated by Éric Mahieu, 2 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 2002) I: 4 (end of July 1960). Unless otherwise stated, translations from the French are mine throughout. 4. Yves Congar, Une passion: l’unité, Foi Vivante, 156 (Paris: Cerf, 1974) 14. See Yves Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946-1956), edited and annotated by Étienne Fouil- loux and others, 2nd ed. (Paris: Cerf, 2001) 20. 5. See Étienne Fouilloux, “Frère Yves, Cardinal Congar, Dominicain: itinéraire d’un théologien,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 79 (1995) 379-404, p. 386. Chenu is cited here by Fouilloux who does not give the source of his reference. 50 GABRIEL FLYNN catholique, a highly respected lay organisation in Belgium and France, as well as with the French worker-priests.6 Following the ravages of the Second World War, during which Congar was a prisoner of war (1940-1945),7 and of his exile from Paris (1954-1955), a result of the restrictive measures taken against lead- ing Jesuit and Dominican theologians in the wake of Pope Pius XII’s (12 August 1950),8 Congar was eventually allowed to return, not to Paris, but to Strasbourg in December 1955. This serendipitous transfer was due to the sympathetic intervention of Jean Weber, Bishop of Strasbourg. Congar immediately recommenced his work which he describes as “that of an inner renewal, ecclesiological, anthropological and pastoral.”9 He was named a Consultor to the Theological Commission in preparation for the Council on 20 July 1960, and then a at the Council itself, thus ending a painful period of intellectual and spiritual exile.10 Congar’s contribution to the renewal of the Church at the Second Vatican Council cannot be properly appreciated without reference to his personal suf- ferings, which he bore with patience and courage. Congar describes, in stark terms, his response to the sufferings he endured at the hands of Church author- ities in the period before the Council. He writes: “I only succeeded in over- coming all this, both spiritually and at the level of ordinary human sanity, by complete resignation to the Cross and by being reduced to nothing [rien].”11 Congar’s sufferings were, however, not without purpose. His commitment to truth and to the Church ensured an exceptionally respectful reception for his views among the Fathers of the Council.12 Pope John Paul II has praised Con- gar for his immense contribution to the work of Vatican II.13 Timothy Rad- cliffe, former Master of the Dominican Order, in his sermon at Congar’s Requiem on 26 June 1995, paid tribute to his contribution to the Coun- cil and to the renewal of the Church in the context of his physical and spiritual sufferings. Radcliffe spoke of four moments of grace in Congar's life: the friend- ships he formed during World War II in the concentration camps of Colditz and

6. See Yves Congar, “Dominicains et prêtres ouvriers,” La Vie spirituelle 143 (1989) 817-820. 7. See Yves Congar, “Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.,” trans. Ronald John Zawilla, Theology Digest 32 (1985) 213-216, p. 214. 8. Pius XII, False Trends In Modern Teaching: Encyclical Letter (Humani Generis), trans. Ronald A. Knox, rev. ed. (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1959). 9. Yves Congar, Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. by Philip Loretz (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966) 44. Chrétiens en dialogue: contributions catholiques à l’œcuménisme, Unam Sanctam, 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1964) LVI. Following the initial citation, the page numbers of works in the original language will be given in round brackets. 10. Journal, I: 3 (end of July 1960). 11. Congar, Dialogue between Christians, 43 (LV). 12. M.-J. Le Guillou, “Yves Congar,” Bilan de la théologie du XXe siècle, ed. Robert Vander Gucht and Herbert Vorgrimler (Paris: Casterman, 1970) II: 791-805, p. 795. 13. John Paul II, “Télégrammes du Pape Jean-Paul II à Mgr Jean-Marie Lustiger, et au P. Timothy Radcliffe,” Documentation catholique 92 (1995) 690. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 51

Lübeck; membership of the Dominican Order; participation in Vatican II; and the hope of seeing perfect unity among Christians. In these moments of grace for Congar, Radcliffe says, it is possible to observe the mystery of suffering trans- formed into communion.14 A consideration of how Vatican II became a cata- lyst for the theologians, especially the French and Germans, who had worked for the renewal of ecclesiology in the difficult period before the Council, would reveal that Congar’s contribution to ecclesiology is at the heart of the renewal in Roman Catholic theology. As regards Congar’s role at the Council, I shall dis- cuss it briefly in the next section.

2. Congar at the Council

The Second Vatican Council, arguably the most important event in the his- tory of the since the Protestant Reformation, is certainly at the zenith of twentieth century ecclesiology. The Council marked the beginning of a new and important phase in Congar’s theological career. The success of his ecclesiological program is nowhere more apparent than in its impact on the teaching of the Church at Vatican II. The far-reaching program of ecclesial reform executed at the Council is the de facto consummation of Congar’s whole previous theological œuvre. Congar placed himself entirely at the disposition of the Council in which he saw the possibility of the achievement of one of his dearest wishes, a reform of the Church without injury to its unity which would facilitate a presentation of the true face of the Church to the people of the twen- tieth century.15 In an entry in his diary on 15 August 1960, Congar writes: “I wish to offer myself loyally to serve to the best of my ability as part of the Coun- cil opened by John XXIII under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.”16 The theological objectives of Congar and of other reforming theologians were realized at Vatican II.17 In characteristic fashion, Congar considered that it was better to work wholeheartedly within the Council than to criticize it from without. Gradually, he became deeply engaged in the preparation of some of the most important council documents. Perhaps a few words should be said about Congar’s role in the drafting of texts as he describes it in Mon journal du Concile. To prevent any misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that Congar added a very useful note in the diary, “Sont de moi,”18 to indicate precisely his part in the genesis of the Council’s documents. I do not want to discuss this question, impor-

14. Timothy Radcliffe, “La mort du cardinal Yves-Marie Congar: homélie du P. Timothy Radcliffe, O.P.,” Documentation catholique 92 (1995) 688-690, p. 688. 15. See Fouilloux, “Frère Yves,” 397. 16. Journal, I, 20 (15 August 1960). 17. Klaus Wittstadt, “On the Eve of the Second Vatican Council (July 1-October 10, 1962),” History of Vatican II. Vol. I: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo, English version ed. Joseph A. Komonchak (Maryknoll, NY/Leu- ven: Orbis/Peeters, 1995) 405-500, p. 457. 18. Journal, II: 511 (7 December 1965). 52 GABRIEL FLYNN tant as it is. What I want to do is to indicate succinctly Congar’s contribution to the composition of texts because of its relevance to the present discussion. In the diary, Congar provides a precise description of his part in what was undoubtedly the most important aspect of the Council’s entire enterprise. He says that he worked on , especially the first draft of many num- bers of Chapter I, and on numbers 9, 13, 16, and 17 of Chapter II, as well as on some specific passages. In De Revelatione, he worked on Chapter II, and on number 21 which came from a first draft by him. In De oecumenismo, the pre- amble and the conclusion are, he says, more or less by him. Likewise, in the Dec- laration on Non-Christian Religions, the introduction and the conclusion are, he says, more or less his. In Schema XIII , he worked on Chapters I and IV. He wrote all of Chapter I of De Missionibus, while Joseph Ratzinger contributed to number 8. In De libertate religiosa, Congar says that he co-oper- ated with the entire project, and most particularly with the numbers of the the- ological part, and on the preamble which was entirely his own. Congar notes that the drafting of De Presbyteris was undertaken by three scholars: Joseph Lécuyer, a professor at the Lateran University and subsequently head of the Holy Ghost Congregation; Willy Onclin, a priest of the diocese of Liège and profes- sor of at the University of Louvain; and, of course, Congar himself. Congar indicates that he reworked the preamble of De Presbyteris, as well as num- bers 2-3, while also writing the first draft of numbers 4-6, and revising numbers 7-9, 12-14 and the conclusion, of which he compiled the second paragraph.19 In an appendix to the second volume of Mon journal du Concile,20 Mahieu presents a series of valuable recapitulative chronological tables indicating, in full, Congar’s substantial role in the elaboration of conciliar schemata during the preparatory phase, and at the sessions of the Council. Included in the appendix are precise details of his participation in official meetings of various commissions and sub-commissions during the preparatory period and at the Council itself, as well as the involvement of Congar and of other experts in workshops orga- nized by the French bishops during the conciliar sessions. Congar’s presence at a certain number of informal meetings of bishops and of experts, or of experts alone, is also outlined. It may be said, of course, and I have argued the point elsewhere, that it was affectivity in his approach to the Church, together with his commitment to its reform, that inspired Congar’s unflagging service at Vat- ican II.21 When treating of this matter in a letter written in 1985, on the occa- sion of his eightieth birthday, Congar alludes to the enormity of the work:

19. Journal, II: 511 (7 December 1965). See note 22 below. Bernard Dupuy, “Préface,” Journal, I: III-XXIV, p. XXIII. Dupuy, who succeeded Congar as professor of fundamental theology at Le Saulchoir in 1960, presents an incisive, uniquely informed assessment of Congar’s diary. 20. See “Participation du P. Congar à l’élaboration des divers schémas conciliaires: Tables chronologiques récapitulatives,” Journal, II: 561-571. 21. See Gabriel Flynn, “The Role of Affectivity in the Theology of Yves Congar,” New Blackfriars 83 (2002) 347-364; “Le rôle de l’affectivité dans la théologie d’Yves Congar,” La Vie spirituelle 157 (2003) 73-92. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 53

I worked on many conciliar commissions. I do not think that I had more than two days rest in the four conciliar sessions of three months each. The work was enormous: I was on the theological commission presided over by Cardinal Ottaviani, where we laboured unceasingly, always in Latin; the Commission for the Missions, a great grace in my life; the Commission for the Clergy, for the decree on priests, , in which I was responsible for not a few texts. With the Secretariat for Christian Unity I worked hard on the decree on ecumenism, on the declaration on religious freedom, which demanded a great deal from us, and on the text on non-Christian religions. I also had a part in other things, more or less, but in none more than in the famous Gaudium et spes (The Church in the Mod- ern World) which issued simultaneously from the commissions on theology and the laity. It was an enormous structure, since each com- mission had thirty members and at least as many periti.22 The 7 December 1965 was an historic day in relations between East and West. In a moving ceremony at St Peter’s Basilica, more than nine hundred years after the tragic events of the Great Schism, traditionally dated to 1054, the text of the abolition of the mutual excommunications between and Constan- tinople was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. The old anathemas were simultane- ously nullified by the ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (1886-1972). On that memorable day, when the texts of the Second Vatican Council were promulgated by the Pope, Congar, fully cognisant of the historic nature of the moment, makes a poignant entry in his diary, one which denotes his own stupendous contribu- tion to that Council: A large number of bishops congratulate me, thank me. It is in large measure my work, they said. Looking at things objectively, I have done a lot to prepare for the Council, to elaborate, to articulate ideas that were adopted by the Council. At the Council itself, I worked a lot. I could almost say: “Plus omnibus laboravi” [“I worked more than all,” I Corinthians 15:10], but this would undoubtedly not be true: to think of Philips, for example.23 It may also be worth pointing out that Congar’s contribution to the Coun- cil was lauded, on more than one occasion, by Pope Paul VI. Congar recounts how, at a private audience on 8 June 1964, Pope Paul commended him for his service to the Council: “The Pope congratulates me and thanks me for my faith- fulness and for my service, especially in this moment of the Council when things

22. Congar, “Letter,” 215. Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar, ed. and introd. Bernard Lauret, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1988) 14. Entretiens d’automne, 2nd ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1987) 22. Congar indicates that he also worked on Lumen Gentium no. 17 and on the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church no. 7 concerning the interpretation of the Catholic “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” Avery Dulles, “The Essence of Catholicism: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives,” The Thomist 48 (1984) 607-633, p. 633. 23. Journal, II: 510 (7 December 1965). 54 GABRIEL FLYNN must be expressed in a new way.”24 Finally, Congar recalls how the Pope alluded to the work that he and other theologians had done in his first encyclical, Eccle- siam Suam.25 This official recognition is testimony to the deep esteem in which Congar was held by Paul VI. I am aware that the foregoing remarks do not amount, of course, to a proper discussion of Congar’s contribution to the texts and achievements of the Second Vatican Council. A full analysis of Congar’s influence at that Council would be premature, in the first instance because the history of the Council is still incomplete.26 Furthermore, it would be technically impossible, at present, as the ordering of Congar’s archives has not yet been concluded. Our discussion, nonetheless, elucidates the principal elements of Congar’s considerable contri- bution to Vatican II. I conclude, therefore, that Congar’s diary and correspon- dence indicate clearly his indispensable role in the drafting of the Council’s texts. On the difficult question of who is the most influential mind of the Coun- cil, no satisfactory answer, I think, can as yet be given. If, however, we bear in mind Congar’s capacious work at all levels of the Council’s proceedings, the intense interest in and respect for his contribution, and his unflagging pursuit of an organic co-operation and unity between the bishops and the theologians,27 without which the Council would not have been possible, we can safely say that his pre-eminent service and fidelity there remained unsurpassed. It may be objected, of course, that the question assumes illegitimately that there was a sin- gle dominant personage at the Council. It cannot be disputed, however, and I think that the impartial reader of Mon journal du Concile will not deny the verac- ity of my claim, that Congar’s conception of his competence and influence as a theologian of the Council was modest and moderate. A somewhat lugubrious entry in his diary of the 12 October 1963 expresses this sentiment precisely: “I was too timid, especially in the preparatory period, but also since. I am happy to express my thought, but I do not defend it.”28 When treating of this matter in a subsequent entry on 7 December 1965, Congar alludes to the role of spir- ituality: “My spirituality had an effect on me in the sense of a certain timidity. In fact, I led all my life in the line and the spirit of John the Baptist, amicus Sponsi [‘friend of the spouse,’ John 3:29].”29 An observation of an historical nature is in place here. At the Council the previously powerful and dominant group of conservative Roman Curia theologians

24. Journal, II: 115 (8 June 1964). 25. Congar, “Theology in the Council,” American Ecclesiastical Review 155 (1966) 217-230, p. 220. “La Théologie au Concile: Le ‘théologiser' du concile,” Vérité et Vie 71 (1965/66) 1-12, p. 4. See Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam: The Paths of the Church (New York: America Press, 1964) par. 33. 26. See note 17 above. 27. See Journal, I: 136-137 (21 October 1962); 177 (31 October 1962); 280 (30 November 1962); 325 (9 February 1963); 465-466 (12 October 1963). Journal, II: 110 (6 June 1964); 191 (10 October 1964); 510 (7 December 1965). 28. Journal, I: 466 (12 Octorer 1963). See Journal, I: 84 (23 November 1961). Journal, II, 510 (7 December 1965). 29. Journal, II: 510 (7 December 1965). MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 55 were ultimately obliged to give way to the more progressive reforming theolo- gians who were predominantly from the German and French speaking coun- tries.30 Some of these reformers, whose writings had been subjected to various restrictive measures, were among the periti at the Council and exercized a great deal of influence on the drafting of conciliar documents. After the Council certain of these authors were elevated to the . Thus it is possible to observe a certain evolution, not unfamiliar to historians, by which those who at one point were isolated or even rejected come to exercize great influence on the course of events.31 In the succeeding sections of this article, I propose to discuss how Mon journal du Concile contributes to our knowledge of the history of the Council, its theology, and the process of formulating con- ciliar documents, as well as providing fresh insights into the personalities of its most influential participants. This consideration gives rise in turn to a not uncontroversial issue, one to which no easy solutions can be found, namely, the tension in post-conciliar theology between the priesthood of all believers and the ordained priesthood.

3. Mon journal du Concile: An Historical Evaluation

The diary provides an original, perhaps unique contribution to our knowl- edge of the history and proceedings of Vatican II. It gives particular insights into the thought and hopes of the and bishops, the theologians and observers of the Council. The diary describes the politics and the spirituality of individuals, as well as of powerful groupings of bishops and of theologians at the Council. It goes without saying that the diary supplies a profoundly personal account of the most important period of Congar’s life, a kind of soliloquy with God, but also a dialogue with the Church and the modern world. The Coun- cil, as a matter of fact, was a catalyst that facilitated a reunion of the Church and the world, the former having rather a lot of catching up to do with the lat- ter, in a relatively short period of time! Before proceeding any further, it is important to bear in mind the follow- ing points. First, there is nothing new in the diary regarding Congar’s thought that has not already been seen in his previously published works. It may be argued, of course, that the diary sheds light on certain nuanced questions in Congar’s thought, as well as on pivotal issues debated at the Council. It would, however, be untrue to say that the diary is in any way a theological treatise. Second, Congar says he kept a diary only on special occasions, notably when he was involved in important historical events: the first world war, the crisis of 1954,

30. See Joseph Comblin, “La théologie catholique depuis la fin du pontificat de Pie XII,” Bilan de la théologie du XXe siècle, I: 479-496, p. 479. 31. Giacomo Martina, “The Historical Context in Which the Idea of a New Ecu- menical Council Was Born,” Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives Twenty-Five Years After (1962-1987), ed. René Latourelle (New York: Paulist Press, 1988) I: 3-73, p. 22. 56 GABRIEL FLYNN and Vatican II. Mon journal du Concile is the last and the most important of Congar’s three principal diaries. In the first, Journal de la guerre 1914-1918, one discovers a gifted and intelligent child, already cognisant of world events. The second diary, Journal d’un théologien (1946-1956), provides an account of the highly restrictive measures taken against Congar and his most influential col- leagues by Church authorities during the difficult period 1946-1956. There is one further point which can be alluded to briefly. Although Congar occasion- ally refers to personal and family affairs in his conciliar diary, such intimate or spiritual matters are entirely secondary. This point is clearly illustrated in an entry on the eve of his mother’s death: “I am keeping this small diary as a wit- ness [témoignage]. I do not incorporate the expression of my intimate sentiments into it.”32 Or again, on 30 November 1963, he writes: “I leave outside of this diary that which concerns my family and my mother. I note here only that which concerns the Council.”33 In writing the diary, therefore, Congar always writes as a theologian of the Council. It will be seen that the diary is not an attempt either to provide a complete historical record of the events to which he was a witness, still less to offer a full personal biography. It is worth noting how Congar elucidates this point. In an entry in March 1964, he writes: “I would like, at the end of this notebook, to express my opinion on a point. In fact, I am writing – if not for History!!! – then at least so that my witness [témoignage] may be fixed [fixé].”34 From its inception in 1960, when he was nominated a Consultor on the Council’s Preparatory Commission, Congar knew that he was drafting the diary as an historical source pro futuro. A careful writer, therefore, he meticulously reread the whole text of the diary before a typed copy was made for the archives of the Dominican Province of France. Congar wisely intended the diary for pub- lication only after the year 2000, a clear indication of his respectful concern for all the protagonists of the Second Vatican Council. The diary was, however, sub- sequently placed at the disposal of official historians of the Council before that date. Not surprisingly, it is of enormous interest to ecclesiastical historians since, among the various diaries of Vatican II,35 Congar’s provides the most compre- hensive day by day record of the Council’s proceedings. Perhaps a word should be said at once about what may be garnered from the diary concerning Congar’s obdurate, normally disputatious character. Such knowledge is directly relevant to the present enquiry since, as history demonstrates, councils of the Church are no place for the fainthearted, and Vatican II was certainly no exception.

32. Journal, I: 573 (26 November 1963). 33. Journal, I: 574 (30 November 1963). 34. See Journal, II: 53 (March 1964). 35. See Alberto Melloni, “Les Journaux Privés dans l'Histoire de Vatican II,” in Marie-Dominique Chenu, Notes quotidiennes au Concile: Journal de Vatican II 1962- 1963, ed. with an Introduction by A. Melloni (Paris: Cerf, 1995) 7-54. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 57

Congar’s “Acid” Temperament in the Service of the Church at the Council Congar’s nephew Dominique Congar, in his Foreword to Mon journal du Concile, candidly describes the petulant personality of his eminent uncle: “Even if certain of his expressions are a little ‘acid', we had long since been made accus- tomed to this by the uncle!”36 This observation is perfectly understandable. But before I make some brief remarks on the subject of Congar’s mulish tempera- ment, I wish to point to an indisputable fact, one to which his friends unhesi- tatingly testify, that Congar possessed a deeply Christian character. If his life’s experiences engendered a certain acerbity in critical writing and in public debate, it must be remembered that he possessed virtues of charity, prudence and for- titude. Without these cardinal virtues, increasingly foreign to the contemporary mind, Congar would not have overcome the trials to which he was subjected in the pre-conciliar period. And I think that he would almost cer- tainly not have contributed, in the phenomenally fecund manner in which he did, to the renewal of the Church at Vatican II. It should not be forgotten, of course, that Congar was a theologian of outstanding ability and intelligence. Furthermore, he was imbued with a profoundly practical spirituality. Now, it seems to me, and I shall develop this point later, that Congar used his rather antipathetic nature to full advantage in the execution of his objectives at the Council. In saying this, however, I do not mean to portray him in a negative light. I feel, therefore, no hesitation in including a depiction of Congar as the “theologian of service” at Vatican II. And I think I can indicate briefly how this assertion can be substantiated a posteriori by reference to the diary. The diary, in fact, unwittingly presents Congar as a true servant of the Council and of the Church, in possession of a rare gift, one often lacking among intellectuals and experts, and not always in evidence at the Council – that of detachment from one’s own ideas and projects in the service of a higher ideal. That ideal, inspired by Congar’s profound love of the Church, and one for which he worked untiringly at the Council, is nothing other than a true reform of the Church without injury to its unity. Congar’s bitter experiences at the hands of the Roman Curia and its censors, in the period before the Council, showed him what needed to be reformed in the Church. The diary refers to the malaise which seriously hampered the Church throughout much of its history, articulated at the Council by Émile De Smedt, bishop of Bruges, under three headings: a spirit of triumphalism, clericalism, and juridicism.37 Whatever contributed to the abuse of power in the Church, whether falsifying the interpretation of history in order to protect the “prestige of the Church,”38 or obstructing the work of genuine Catholic scholarship,39 Congar insists that all such unethical practices must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and ultimate reform.

36. Dominique Congar, “Foreword,” Journal, I: I-II, p. II. 37. See Journal, I: 285 (1 December 1962). 38. Journal, I: 55 (12 March 1961). 39. See Journal d’un théologien (1946-1956), 181-190, 194-198, 402-404. 58 GABRIEL FLYNN

That Congar considered himself a servant of the Church is clear from the guiding principle he adopted to govern his work at the Council: “As a prag- matic rule, I have taken this one: to do nothing except that solicited by the bishops. IT IS THEY who are the Council. If, however, an initiative bore the mark of a call of God, I would be open to it.”40 This important principle demonstrates that the office of teaching is the domain of bishops rather than of theologians. Congar’s adoption of such a modus operandi does not mean that he failed to pursue creative initiatives at the Council, or that he lacked political astuteness. On the contrary, I shall argue that his political expediency is immediately evi- dent to perceptive readers of the diary. Let us examine this claim with an open mind. Congar’s political adroitness may be illustrated by alluding to the follow- ing points. First, and perhaps most important, his close association with the Belgian deputation and, above all, with Gérard Philips who became assistant secretary to the Doctrinal Commission in December 1963, indicates a shrewd political acumen. His liaison with the Belgians was, in fact, of para- mount importance for the ultimate success of Congar’s work at Vatican II. Since his contribution to the Council lay primarily in the theological domain, co- operation with the Belgian deputation was essential, because of their theologi- cal pre-eminence, their political dexterity and their militancy in Council debates,41 factors which gave them a position of unparalleled dominance at Vat- ican II. But I leave aside this question for the moment, in order not to inter- rupt the line of thought. There is a second point which may be referred to briefly. Congar’s decision to reside at the Belgian College during the meetings of the Theological Commission, when that college was the centre of work for that commission,42 is further evidence of his political dextrousness. It is worth noting that Congar was unable to reside at the Belgian College during the three conciliar sessions of the Council because, as he points out, the only available rooms there were occupied by Belgian bishops.43 He, nonetheless, maintained a close liaison with the Belgians throughout the entire period of the Council,44 and in particular during the second session, when the Belgian College was once again the centre of theological work.45 The Belgians were both efficient and effective which is why, as Congar observes, the theologians came to them “to attempt to have this or that passed.”46 Finally, Congar’s assiduous commitment to a spirit of rapprochement between bishops and theologians at the Council indicates a level of political adeptness above many of his contemporaries.47

40. Journal, I: 177 (31 October 1962). 41. Journal, II: 56 (March 1964). 42. Journal, I: 1 (6 July 1967). 43. Ibid. 44. Journal, II: 53 (March 1964). 45. See Journal, II: 54 (March 1964). 46. Ibid. 47. See Journal, I: 101-102 (16 or 17 September 1962). MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 59

Conservative though he was in doctrine and theology, he focused the Council’s aspirations for reform. By a combination of courage and wisdom, and with the aid of his “Belgian friends,”48 Congar prepared the way, step by step, for the return at the Council, after centuries of defensive isolationism, of the dynamic of openness in the Church’s relations with the world. If, along with his obvious political astuteness, we bear in mind Congar’s willingness to take risks,49 his commitment to truth, and his abiding concern to construct an essentially pastoral ecclesiology,50 we can understand how he came to be regarded in his day as an innovator. The diary, in fact, reveals the thought and work of a modern, advanced thinker, who patiently pursued real- isable goals at Vatican II.51 It is worth noting how, in the portrayal of his work as a Consultor at the Council, truth is resplendent: “After all, I have nothing to lose, and I must do my duty. One must always say what one knows or believes to be true. I will be frank therefore, and I will strive to be evangelical [évangélique].”52 Similarly, Congar’s real gift of patience,53 his innate opti- mism,54 and a remarkable capacity for work, meant that he was ideally suited to the role he assumed at the Council. As regards his understanding of the part played by the Belgians, I shall defer, until the end of this piece, my analysis of that subject. For the present, I want to consider the battle for the Second Vatican Council.

The Battle for the Second Vatican Council It has already been stated emphatically that there was a battle for the Coun- cil. I shall be concerned, first, to indicate how Congar records the events of that battle in Mon journal du Concile, and, second, to consider his part in it. I can- not, within the confines of this paper, discuss at length the part played by all the parties in that struggle. I want, nonetheless, to show that the battle for the Council was, first and foremost, a battle for a renewed Church engaged in dia- logue with the modern world and, therefore, free of the old isolationist mental- ity. The genesis of that battle lies, in fact, at the heart of the itself. According to Congar, the origin of the conflict is to be found precisely with Pope John XXIII. This is a point of considerable importance. But I do not think that it would disturb Pope John. It can hardly be denied that, following the announcement of the Council, the Pope wished to avoid any actions which

48. Journal, II: 33 (2 March 1964). 49. See Journal, I: 255 (22 November 1962). 50. See Journal, I: 43-44 (17 November 1960). 51. See Dialogue between Christians, 44-45 (LVI-LVII). Journal, I: 403 (29 Septem- ber 1963). 52. Journal, I: 20 (end of July 1960). See Yves Congar, “Reflections on Being a Theologian,” trans. Marcus Lefébure, New Blackfriars 62 (1981) 405-409, pp. 405-406. 53. Journal, I: 466-467 (12 October 1963). 54. Journal, II: 145 (18 September 1964). 60 GABRIEL FLYNN might contribute to alienating the Roman Curia. Congar states his contention without dissimulation: We also carry in this council the weight of this original sin commit- ted by John XXIII, of having conceived the commissions of the Council in the same way as the Roman Congregations. He not only made the presidents of these congregations commission presidents (preparatory, then conciliar), but he conceived the commissions of the council in a style similar to the Congregations. […] This original sin continues to weigh heavily. The Pope has been unable to remedy it. He has not resolved the true question posed by the presidency of a [Paolo] Marella (who proceeded without uniting his commission), of a [Giuseppe] Pizzardo (imbecile), of an [Alfredo] Ottaviani (partisan and too cunning without having much skill).55 As Congar indicates, these were problems to which no easy or quick solu- tions could be found. It is true to say, I think, that Congar’s ecclesiology and that of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, though founded on the same “spirit of communion,” nonetheless manifested significant differences of emphasis. Congar was, par excellence, the man of ideas, the harbinger of reform, while the Popes of the Vatican Council were more practical and pastoral. Supporters of the aggiornamento, John XXIII and Paul VI were concerned, above all, to shepherd the Church without detriment to its peace and unity. In the diary, Congar repeats the assertion that John XXIII read Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église in 1952.56 If it is true that Pope John discovered there the intuition for a council of the Church, along with a vision for ecumenism, it must equally be asserted that it was the Pope’s own intuitive propensity for praxis which ensured their realisation in reality. I agree, therefore, with the assessment of Henri Daniel- Rops that “Vatican II will truly be the council of John XXIII. […] A man of realistic leaning, more disposed to the making of practical decisions than given to abstract speculation.”57 The Council’s structure and personnel did eventually undergo significant changes. The critical factor, as history commonly demonstrates, is not that change occurs but how it occurs. This point can be made clearer by consider- ing Congar’s assessment of the contribution of one of the Council’s youngest the- ologians. I refer to the Swiss Hans Küng. That Congar respected Küng is not in question. He met with him. He held discussions with him. He acknowledges his obvious intelligence, his commitment to truth, and his work ethic.58 And he even attempted, though unsuccessfully, to exert a moderating influence on some of Küng’s more radical proposals at the Council.59 It should be pointed out, of course, that Congar refers to what he clearly regards as certain less felicitous

55. Journal, I: 585 (3 December 1963). 56. Journal, II: 441-442 (19 October 1965). 57. Daniel-Rops, The Second Vatican Council, p. 155. 58. Journal, II: 336 (23 February 1965). 59. See Journal, I: 101-102 (16 or 17 September 1962). MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 61 features of Küng’s personality. He expressly says that Küng was “extremely critical,”60 “impatient,”61 “always very radical,”62 and, even goes so far as to describe him as “a revolutionary type.”63 In the diary Congar records two impor- tant events which I want to discuss briefly because of what they contribute to our knowledge of Küng, of Paul VI, of Congar, and of the latter’s part in the battle for a renewed Church at the Council. The first happening of note concerns Congar’s response to Küng’s plan to hold a meeting of theologians in Rome to discuss the four dogmatic schemata, which Küng and his colleagues at the University of Tübingen viewed as entirely unsatisfactory. Küng, together with many German theologians, wanted the Council to begin with more practical schemas. Congar, characteristically enough, held tenaciously to the view that the theologians should address themselves only to the bishops. He formally advized Küng against his proposed course of action, and declined to participate on the grounds that if the integralist theologians (intégristes) were not also invited,64 the impression would be given, firstly, that the theologians wished to dictate to the true Council of the bishops and, sec- ondly, that a majority plot was being weaved, with the inevitable difficulty of a reaction.65 In a revealing response to Congar given in September 1962, Küng, having consulted with Karl Rahner, indicates that in the latter he had found a more willing collaborator.66 Then, in February 1965, the diary provides an enlightening insight into some of the Council’s most powerful protagonists, and how they regarded each other. In a second scene, relevant to our discussion, we are given a view of the angst of Pope Paul VI. In response to an unfavorable review of the Council by Küng, and a call by him for a reform of the Curia, Congar presents the comments of Paul VI based on a résumé of Cardinal Jan Willebrands of Utrecht: The Pope was a little upset and disappointed. He said: Küng is young; I hoped he would have been able to be a theological leader for the future. But he is without love. He will not be able to be that. I find this remark profound. Küng is critical. He loves the truth, but does he have compassion for men? Does he have the warmth and the measure of love?67

60. Journal, I: 465 (12 October 1963). 61. Journal, I: 466 (12 October 1963). 62. Journal, II: 498 (30 November 1965). 63. Journal, I: 465 (12 October 1963). 64. See Yves Congar, “Mentalité ‘de droite' et Intégrisme,” La Vie Intellectuelle 6 (1950) 644-666; “Comment l'Église Sainte doit se renouveler sans cesse,” Irénikon 34 (1961) 322-345, p. 345. Congar was concerned to protect the irreformable elements in the Church from hasty or violent reformers as well as from the false purity of the inte- gralists. 65. Journal, I: 101-102 (16 or 17 September 1962). 66. Journal, I: 102, note 1 (16 or 17 September 1962). 67. Journal, II: 336 (23 February 1965). 62 GABRIEL FLYNN

This expression of concern for Küng is also a trenchant critique of him. But it points to a more serious problem for Congar and for the Council. In attempting to steer a via media, between, on the one hand, the Curia and cer- tain extreme right-wing elements at the Council and, on the other, the more rad- ical theologians, including Küng and Rahner, Congar was forced to engage in a relentless battle. Inevitably, he was on the front lines of that battle. Unlike his Belgian coun- terparts at the Council, who surprisingly had escaped the tendentious tongs of the Roman censors, Congar says that it was impossible for him to avoid the finger of suspicion. This is his point: The Belgians dare. They were not rebuked. They do not have the feeling of being watched, like us. I am convinced that this plays a major role. Personally, I have never, I have not yet emerged from the apprehensions of a man, suspected, sanctioned, judged, discriminated against.68 Now, in a comment about the atmosphere in the dining hall at the Bel- gian College, Congar provides a perceptive insight into the lines of battle at the Council: At the Belgian College, the meal was passed by commenting in great detail on the incidents of the day in a manner resolutely distrustful and hostile towards the Anticollegial party [les Anticollégiaux] and, in general, the members of the Curia.69 Congar and his “Belgian friends”70 were, in fact, a formidable force in the battle for the Second Vatican Council. I shall return to this subject later. For the present I want to show how Congar regarded some of his principal opponents at the Council. Among his most formidable adversaries were Cardinal , President of the Preparatory Theological Commission and, during the Coun- cil, of the Doctrinal Commission; Sebastian Tromp, Secretary to the Doctrinal Commission; and Monsignor Pietro Parente who was named a member of the Doctrinal Commission at the end of the first session of the Council. Congar criticizes Tromp for his “fascist temperament,”71 but not without recognising his considerable intellectual abilities, both of which, Congar says, he used to dominate the Commission. In July 1960, Parente, who was associated with the condemnation of Chenu, is referred to by Congar as “the fascist, the Mono- physite.”72 But it is for Cardinal , Prefect of the Congrega- tion for Seminaries and Universities, that he reserves his most vitriolic criticism. According to Congar, “neither truth nor theology belong to Pizzardo.”73 He was

68. Journal, II: 56 (March 1964). 69. Journal, II: 191 (10 October 1964). 70. Journal, II: 53 (March 1964). 71. Journal, I: 69 (23 September 1961). 72. Journal, I: 7 (end of July 1960). 73. Journal, I: 52 (12 March 1961). MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 63 condemned for the abuse of the power of office, and described in uncompli- mentary terms as “an imbecile” and one “appreciated as such by all.”74 At a can- did meeting with Ottaviani on 30 November 1962, Congar says that the Car- dinal seemed surprised that the Preparatory Commission had not invited him to assist, in any way, in the preparation of texts.75 Given Congar’s brilliance and exceptional capabilities, this was hardly an auspicious moment in the history of Vatican II. I think that the reader will find that Congar’s assessment of his adversaries, and indeed of others at the Council,76 was harsh, even excessive. In this regard, two points should be noted. First, Congar never lost the combative side of his nature which he acquired during his youth in his native Ardennes, a border region in Northern France, whose Spartan-like inhabitants had long since become accustomed to the harshness of war, and where the lines of demarcation between frankness and brutality remain ever obscure. Second, there was a clear evolution in his views of many of his “opponents.” For example, in the course of the Coun- cil, Congar came to appreciate better the theological skills of Parente, and could speak to him as “friend to friend.”77 He even wrote an essay in his honour in 1967.78 Ottaviani is also seen in a more favourable light. In the old Cardinal’s willingness to adjust to the new situation after the Council, Congar sees “a cer- tain nobility of the old faithful servant.”79 As a conclusion to this discussion, I want to point out that Congar’s constant but hidden opponent at Vatican II was fatigue. His diary is full of references to serious health problems which, though they impeded him, they never halted his progress towards the achievement of his ultimate goal. What is perhaps most striking, given the multifarious tensions between the Popes and the theologians, among the theologians themselves, and between its various organs,80 is that the Council succeeded, and succeeded magnificently. Perhaps the victory was won because, as Paul VI notes, charity was “as [the] soul of the Council.”81 I wish to conclude this section on a positive note by alluding to Congar’s assessment of the Council given on 12 October 1963, an assessment which indicates his obvious political mastery and a broad liberality in his vision of the Church: We must see where we are coming from, the ground that has been covered. In a year, we have substituted Philips for Tromp, [Bernard] Häring and [Johann] Hirschmann for [Ermenegildo] Lio, [Basil C.] Butler for [Charles] Balic´, etc. etc. Everywhere, the Ecclesia is in the

74. Journal, I: 51 (12 March 1961). See Journal, II: 30 (1 March 1964). 75. Journal, I: 280 (30 November 1962). 76. Cardinal John C. Heenan of Westminster, for instance, is summarily rebuked as one who “speaks a lot to say a little.” See Journal, I: 278 (30 November 1962). 77. See Journal, I: 349 (11 March 1963). 78. See Journal, I: 6, note 4 (end of July 1960). 79. Journal, II: 459 (30 October 1965). 80. Journal, I: 258 (25 November 1962). 81. Journal, II: 389 (14 September 1965). 64 GABRIEL FLYNN

process of relegating the Curia to its place. You must also see what was possible and what is possible. The Catholic Church is ALSO made up of Ottaviani and of Parente, of Tromp and of the Archbishop of Bénévent [Raffaele Calabria]. Küng takes nothing else into account except the exigency of the facts, the texts, and what they impose as questions and as answers. He says: Ottaviani is not in the least a the- ologian, he knows nothing of the problems posed by the texts and the actual studies, he must be replaced. Very well, but, in fact, he was there! And replaced BY WHOM? […] Küng would also have us elim- inate lots of “experts,” strangers to the science or rather to the actual theological disciplines. Very well. But, as we wait, they were there and they are still there.82 Mention has already been made of the contribution of the Belgian dep- utation at Vatican II. And it will, I hope, become clear in the course of the next section of this article how and why they played an indispensable role, which permits one to speak of the Vatican Council as “the first Council of Louvain.”83

The Role of the Belgian Theologians at Vatican II: ‘Primum Concilium Lovaniense, Romae habitum’ The Belgian deputation was small, five or six members in all. Included were Philips, Albert Prignon, Rector of the Belgian College, André Charue, Bishop of Namur, Onclin, Charles Moeller and Gustave Thils, professors at Louvain, and, of course, the indomitable Léon-Joseph Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels. The Belgians’ strategy was as simple as it was effective. They would meet in advance, decide on a course of action, and then work together to win support for it, by effectively neutralising objectors. Their influence per- vaded the whole Council. As Congar rightly observes: “The Belgians are not numerous: 5 or 6, but they are EVERYWHERE.”84 They came to occupy impor- tant positions on the Theological Commission, and exercised a commanding role in the Biblical Sub-Commission, where they effectively dominated every- thing. Since this Sub-Commission controlled biblical citations, it also exercised a last control on the texts, with the power to modify, and even to re-introduce something. As Congar comments: “By all accounts, it had a control over all the work. This control was exercised sometimes, by reference not only to Rome, but to Louvain. It is a last means by which the Belgians, closely united and in solidarity, act upon the tenor of the texts.”85

82. Journal, I: 465-466 (12 October 1963). 83. Journal, II: 53 (March 1964). 84. Journal, II: 53 (March 1964). See Albert Prignon, “Évêques et théologiens de Belgique au Concile Vatican II,” Vatican II et la Belgique, ed. Claude Soetens (Ottignies, Belgium: Quorum, 1996) 141-184. 85. Journal, II: 56 (March 1964). MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 65

The Belgian delegation at the Council was marked by important distin- guishing features which must be alluded to here. First, it consisted, for the most part, of secular priests rather than religious, a factor which contributed to the excellent working relationship between the Belgian periti and their bishops. Sec- ond, the Belgian bishops, in contrast with their French counterparts, by work- ing with their experts ex aequo, ensured an effective contribution to the Coun- cil’s proceedings. Third, the Belgian periti, who were largely graduates of the University of Louvain, gave that university a major influence on the course of the Council – a fact that is clearly expressed by Congar, though not without a little acidity: They all come from Louvain and refer to Louvain. They know each other, are often course comrades and are on familiar terms with each other. They are coherent and have the same references. THEY HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE COMPETENCE OF THEIR OWN; whoever comes from Louvain is sacred [sacré]. That goes just to Magister dixit [the Master said]. […] From the moment one of theirs, and above all a Louvainist, said something, they all take it seriously and refer to it. What [Lucien] Cerfaux said is a little above the word of the Gospel…86 Congar notes that Louvain was the only university outside of Rome to exercise an effective influence on the movement of the Council, a fact which stands in sharp contrast with the French Catholic Institutes which, he says, con- tributed “practically nothing.”87 Fourth, the Belgian contingent, without being homogeneous, worked harmoniously and loyally together. In Congar’s words: “if one is there, they all are.”88 The last point which I wish to make concerns the pre-eminent position of Philips. His contribution to the Council is best described by Congar who writes: “The theological centre is Msgr Philips. […] Without any doubt, Msgr Philips is the no. 1 artisan of the theological work of the Council.”89 Although he was helped by many others in the difficult task of framing the texts, Congar, nonetheless, bestows on Philips the singularly com- plimentary appellation “the father.”90 In Congar’s view, Philips succeeded because of his intellectual gifts, his serene character, his linguistic skills, and his loyalty. But it was his lack of guile that won him the admiration and respect of all, including Ottaviani and Tromp.91 Our historical assessment of Congar’s concil- iar diary can perhaps be fittingly brought to a close by mentioning some out- standing issues in his thought which may perhaps help to render the latter more easily intelligible.

86. Journal, II: 54 (March 1964). Lucien Cerfaux, a priest of the diocese of Tournai and professor of New Testament at the University of Louvain, was nominated an expert at the Council in 1962. 87. Journal, II: 57 (March 1964). 88. Journal, II: 54 (March 1964). 89. Journal, II: 55-56 (March 1964). 90. Journal, II: 465 (7 November 1965). 91. Journal, II: 55 (March, 1964). 66 GABRIEL FLYNN

Some Outstanding Issues in Congar’s Theology In the first place, I think it is worth raising the question whether Con- gar, in developing the main elements of a renewed theology of the laity within which Action catholique exercises an important role, and in attempting to over- come clericalism and authoritarianism in the priesthood and the Church, con- tributed to a possible diminution in importance of the ordained priesthood vis-à-vis the lay state. To suggest that Congar’s theology may contribute to a diminution of the ordained priesthood is easy enough; to substantiate such a view in a way that is sufficient to convince doubters is more difficult. This assertion might, nonetheless, be proven with a study of worship,92 of the ordained priesthood, and of its relationship to the priesthood of all believers in Congar’s theology. Consider the priesthood. In a synthesis of his notion of Church and priesthood, written in 1947, Congar expresses complete opposi- tion to the temptation to sacrifice the pure spiritual apostolate of the priest to his role as head of the people. It has never been my purpose to make a radical contrast between two activities of the priest, any more than between two notions of the Church, as if they were irreconcilably opposed and we had to make an exclusive choice between them. The Church is at one and the same time a hierarchical society and a living body, institution and com- munity, made from above and constantly being made from below. Our function as pastors of souls embraces, with varying emphasis according to circumstances and vocations, an activity as head of the people and one of pure spiritual apostolate. What I precisely refuse to do is to let either of these activities be sacrificed to the other, and especially the second to the first. Yes, above all the second to the first. For that is the commoner temptation and the easier decline.93 Congar’s communitarian model of Church and worship places the minis- terial priesthood at the service of the priesthood of all believers. He sees the priesthood of the faithful as profoundly sacramental (Augustine), associated par- ticularly with baptism and Eucharist,94 while the hierarchical priesthood is at the service of the spiritual sacrifice of the People of God through the Eucharist. The offering of the spiritual sacrifice of the priesthood of the faithful, though

92. Yves Congar, “Institutionalised Religion,” The Word in History: The St. Xavier Symposium, ed. T. Patrick Burke (London: Collins, 1968) 133-153, p. 149; “Religion et institution,” Théologie d’aujourd’hui et de demain, ed. T. Patrick Burke (Paris: Cerf, 1967) 81-97, p. 96. 93. Yves Congar, Priest and Layman, trans. P. F. Hepburne-Scott (London: Dar- ton, Longman & Todd, 1967) 198; Sacerdoce et laïcat devant leurs tâches d’évangélisation et de civilisation (Paris: Cerf, 1962) 225. 94. Yves Congar, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of Laity, trans. Donald Attwater, rev. ed., with additions by the author (London/Westminster, MD: Geoffrey Chapman/Christian Classics, 1985) 223; Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat, Unam Sanctam, 23 (Paris: Cerf, 1953) 294. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 67 authentic, can only be sufficient, according to Congar, when consummated by the ministry of the ordained priesthood.95 In view of the teaching of Pope Pius XII,96 referred to by Congar, that the ministerial priesthood differs from the priesthood of the faithful in nature and not simply in degree, because it presents a new reality and not just a deepening of the baptismal character, it may be appropriate to note two points. First, while ministerial priests are priests of the community, their priesthood does not come from the community but from Christ, the head of the Church. For Congar, this is a significant point: It is very important to be clear on this point, especially if one is to emphasize – as it is desirable that we should – the union of the hier- archical priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful in a priesthood of the Church.97 Second, Congar warns against the danger of a single, obscure priesthood of the Church in which it is difficult to understand how the ordained ministry represents a special participation in Christ’s priesthood. An ecumenically sensi- tive point, this raises the difficult question of the recognition of Anglican orders.98 In response, Congar produced his Catholic formula on priesthood that is shared in by all sacramentally and by some hierarchically. In a complex but precise theological formulation of priesthood, Congar shows that ministerial priesthood cannot be defined without reference to the sacrifice of the faithful: One alone is priest, Christ, who is Alpha, Omega and the Way. Between Alpha and Omega, his priesthood is shared in sacramen- tally, with a view to the sacramental celebration of his sacrifice, (a) by all at baptism (confirmation), in order to join in that celebration; (b) by some, hierarchically, at ordination, in order to carry out that celebration.99 The ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful are united in Christ.100 Still, as early as 1953, when he wrote his famous Jalons pour une théolo- gie du laïcat, Congar was aware of tensions in his embryonic theology of the laity between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ordained priesthood.101 The question of priesthood is a far-reaching problem, and I must content myself with making the following relevant observations. First, it has been claimed

95. Congar, “Institutionalised Religion,” 144 (92). 96. Pius XII, “: Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Sacred Liturgy November 20, 1947,” The Papal 1939-1958, ed. Claudia Carlen (Raleigh: Pierian, 1990) IV: 119-154. See Lumen Gentium, 10. 97. Lay People in the Church, 172 (222). 98. Ibid. See Anglican Orders: The Documents in the Debate, ed. Christopher Hill and Edward Yarnold (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1997). 99. Lay People in the Church, 173 (224). 100. Ibid., 118 (158). 101. Ibid., 216-227 (284-300). See 3rd ed., rev. with additions and corrections, 1964, 655-656. 68 GABRIEL FLYNN that there is ultimately no difference in Congar’s theology between the minis- terial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers.102 Such a view is incom- patible with Congar’s assertion that his theology of the priesthood places the Mass at the service of the unity of the Mystical Body.103 Moreover, the claim that there is no difference between the two priesthoods is difficult to sustain in view of the high value that he places on priestly celibacy.104 Congar, without return- ing to clericalism, gives full recognition to the role of the priest as the leader of the People of God.105 He makes an important distinction between the conse- cration of the priest’s life in the sacrament of ordination, which cannot be called into question, and some forms of sacerdotal status, examples of which he does not give, which are historical and, therefore, relative.106 What is called for is the preservation of the tension between priest and people, Church and world.107 Our study, nonetheless, indicates that certain unresolved tensions between the two priesthoods, evidence of an inadequate application on the pastoral plane, continue to manifest themselves in Congar’s theology of ministry. Second, while he nowhere says that he was against the essential distinction between the common priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood outlined in Lumen Gentium 10, it cannot be denied, however, that Congar was, if not anti- institutional, then at the very least anti-hierarchical. The question arises whether he had reservations regarding the Council’s stance on hierarchy articulated in Lumen Gentium. But on this subject, I shall conclude with making the follow- ing observation. Congar’s perceived neutrality on the question of the hierarchi- cal priesthood, a question on which he formulated his views with meticulous care, may ultimately be construed as a weak point in his ecclesiology. Conversely, the formula adopted by the Council Fathers in Lumen Gentium 10 is recognized at the highest level in the Church as a strong point in conciliar ecclesiology.108 Third, it can be clearly seen that the controversial question of the rela- tionship between the common priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood has dominated Catholic theology in the period since the Council, and continues to pose serious problems for the Church. The unresolved tensions between the two priesthoods tend to complicate relations between the laity and ordained priests, and are also a contributory factor in the current difficulties pertaining to the Church’s ecumenical relations.

102. Gerald F. Finnegan, “Ministerial Priesthood in Yves Congar,” Review for Religious 46 (1987) 523-532, p. 529. 103. Priest and Layman, 97 (116-117). 104. See Patrick Granfield, Theologians at Work (New York/London: Macmillan/ Collier-Macmillan, 1967) 261. 105. Yves Congar, The Church Peaceful (Dublin: Veritas, 1977) 27; Au milieu des orages: l’Église affronte aujourd’hui son avenir (Paris: Cerf, 1969) 32. 106. The Church Peaceful, 23 (26). 107. Ibid., 23-24, 28 (27, 32-33). 108. See Peter J. Drilling, “Common and Ministerial Priesthood: Lumen Gentium, Article Ten,” Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987) 81-99, pp. 83, 92, 97, n. 1. In the process of revision of Lumen Gentium 10, Philips contributed to its formation and Tromp may have had an influence on it. MON JOURNAL DU CONCILE 69

From what has been said it is evident that if there is something of an antin- omy in the understanding of the priesthood in post-conciliar Catholic theology, its origins can be discovered in the writings of some of the Council’s most influ- ential theologians. The crucial question with regard to the priesthood does not concern power, equality or participation. At issue is something much more pro- found, namely service.109 What is called for is a mutuality of service by both the common and the ordained priesthoods in the mission of Christ and of the Church to the modern world. I conclude, therefore, that what is required, is a “re-reception” of Vatican II, a claim already made by Congar elsewhere,110 and illustrated in Mon journal du Concile. Finally, it is important to recognize that Congar was a perceptive observer of persons, as evidenced by his obviously astute assessment of Msgr Karol Wojtyla, then a young bishop at the Council, as a man with a mission. He writes: “Wojtyla makes a very big impression. His personality imposes itself. It shines forth with a mysterious power, an attraction, a certain prophetic strength that is very calm, but indisputable.”111 The point of adding these remarks is to allude to certain outstanding strengths, as well as weaknesses, in Congar’s personality and in his theology.

4. Conclusion

In this article, my principal concern has been to offer an evaluation of Mon journal du Concile. The fulfillment of this task has necessitated an exami- nation of Congar’s character and vocation, as well as of his pre-eminent role at Vatican II. I have attempted, within the rather limited confines of this essay, to present what I view as the most important aspects of the history and theology of the Council, as they unfold in Mon journal du Concile. I have been particu- larly concerned to indicate the original contribution of the diary to our knowl- edge of Congar, and of other noteworthy personages at the Council. An impor- tant objective of this article has been the defence of the view that there was a battle for the Second Vatican Council and its renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. And in knowing the truth of this claim, I have endeavoured to illustrate the part played in that battle by Congar and his closest allies. It was necessary to examine the role of the Belgian deputation at the Council, and, in particular, of Philips, whom Congar revered, of John XXIII who nominated him a Con- sultor, and not least of Paul VI, who was perhaps his most powerful ally and friend. In the presentation of various outstanding issues in Congar’s thought, of necessity incomplete, I have been concerned to elucidate his approach to the

109. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Spouse of the Word: Explorations in Theology, trans. A. V. Littledale with Alexander Dru (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1991) II: 315-331. 110. See Congar, “Reflections on being a Theologian,” 408. 111. Journal, II: 312 (2 February 1965). 70 GABRIEL FLYNN complex issue of priesthood, a question I see as the great problem of Catholic theology in the post-conciliar period. To those who think that Vatican II is merely a subject of historical analysis, Mon journal du Concile can be of little but his- torical interest. But to those who think that the Council is also grounded in the lived experience of the Church and of the modern world, Congar’s conciliar diary will be a source of interest and inspiration.112

Gabriel Flynn is Co-ordinator of the MA in Spirituality Programme of the Mill- town Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin, Ireland. He is the author of Yves Congar's Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003). Address: 15, Hamilton Hall, Dunboyne, County Meath, Ireland.

112. I would like to thank Father Pierre-Marie Gy OP, of Le Saulchoir, Paris, for his valuable comments and assistance in the preparation of this article.