Vatican too little, but not too late? Forty years after Vatican II, U.S. CATHOLIC readers enthusiastically support its reforms. But quite a few are concerned that some in the church are trying to turn back the clock.

"AS POPE JOHN XXIII SAID, OUR role is to tend the garden, not guard the museum. We re spending too much time moving deck chairs while the ship founders." Eugene Mastrangelo of North Beach, Maryland summarizes well the sentiments of respondents to U.S. CATHOLIC's Reader Survey on the Second Vatican Council: The reforms were a great idea and have done much to renew the church, but unwillingness to take the next necessary steps are putting the gains of the past 40 years in danger.

"Vatican II still has the potential for God's Spirit to work wonders in our broken world," says Arlene Walters of Moneta, Virginia. "But I sense a circling-of-the-wagons mentality in the news from Rome. It's time to open a few more windows for fresh air."

Daniel Welter, a Chicago-area deacon, agrees. "The potential and promise of Vatican II has yet to be fulfilled because those in power (especially in Rome) are afraid to trust the people and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The people are ready for the real reforms of Vatican II. Why isn't the hierarchy?"

More than 230 others responded to the survey, many sharing similar frustrations, with a much smaller number expressing dissatisfaction with the council's reform agenda. Overall our readers were nearly unanimous in their appreciation for the council, with 95 percent of respondents saying Vatican II has been "extremely positive" (74 percent) or "somewhat positive" (21 percent) for them in their lives as Catholics. Many said that without the council they probably either wouldn't be Catholic or that they wouldn't be as involved in their parishes as they are.

"Vatican II saved the church for me," says Bob Taylor of East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. "I felt like I was really a practicing Catholic after the council, not just a spectator."

"If not for Vatican II, I could easily picture myself in a different Christian community," says Alice Wych of Naperville, Illinois. "Vatican II brought the church into the 20th century--but I'm not sure it's ready for the 21st."

Only two of our 239 respondents said the council was "extremely negative," while seven responded "somewhat negative." Ninety-three percent say the council was the biggest thing to happen to the church in their lifetime, although several point out that the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States was a close second.

Much to celebrate

Among the council's reforms, readers single out Vatican II's treatment of the role of the laity in the church for praise.

"The best outcome of Vatican II was a fresh look at the laity in the church--a recognition that the laity is the church," says Joan Luebbert of Cincinnati, Ohio.

"Drawing the people into 'being church' was a blessing," says Jeanie Munsch of Hays, Kansas. "We feel more committed to being a part of a faith community where we can voice opinions."

Readers also describe a renewed sense of the laity's share in the church's mission through their common Baptism, as well as the opening of roles in liturgy, education, and parish administration formerly reserved to clergy and religious.

Vatican II was "an awakening of the sense of the laity as a priestly people in worship and in ministry," says Father Gerald Feierfeil of Sioux City, Iowa.

Maureen Frawley of Yardley, Pennsylvania says she "would never have had the opportunity to teach theology. My role in the church would have been very different if not for Vatican II."

Permanent deacons and their wives also noted that without Vatican II, these married men never would have been able to minister in this capacity.

Prayer and the people

When it comes to the council's most obvious reforms--those of the liturgy and sacraments--respondent after respondent praised the effects, especially the use of the vernacular and the more active role of the assembly.

"Those of us interested in the liturgical movement of the 1940s and '50s saw our dreams come true," says Barbara Beyer of Richmond Heights, Ohio.

"The best thing to happen because of Vatican II was the revision of the liturgy: use of the vernacular, music for the congregation, and expanded reading of the Bible," says Hugh Taylor of East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. "The liturgy is much more meaningful now that I understand what is going on and have a part in it."

Somewhat paradoxically, however, many readers noted that what they missed most about the pre-Vatican II church was its ritual and pageantry, especially as embodied in Catholic devotional life and Gregorian chant.

"I miss the Latin Mass," says one Kenmore, New York reader, noting that she also approves of the changes to the liturgy. "I appreciated going to Mass anywhere and participating fully."

Some readers feel the rich Catholic culture of the past has been lost and needs to be recovered.

"It would be nice if all churches had a Latin Mass once a year so our children could experience it and better understand the history and heritage of our faith," says Barbara Gazdik of Underwood, North Dakota.

"These things made us unique as Catholic Christians," argues Kathy Pryor of Kent, Washington.

Many readers, though supportive of the liturgical reforms, point out that there was rarely enough explanation for the changes; several remember feeling confused and disoriented.

"The reforms were good ideas," says Barbara Beyer of Richmond Heights, Ohio, "but carrying them out was clumsy or obstructed by bishops or pastors much of the time. Hardly anything was well explained."

"I expected more adult education and sermons explaining why things were changed," says Rosemary Kodger of North Olmsted, Ohio.

Others, though, had good experiences during the transition.

"When I was 19, my parish offered small faith-sharing groups to discuss the documents of Vatican II," says Jan Grover of Export, Pennsylvania. "We were all ages, from 18 to 70, and we talked about the church and our place in it. That was a really exciting time to be Catholic."

A new vision of God

Though many readers feel the loss of pre-Vatican II religious expressions eroded Catholic identity, many are still pleased that Vatican II opened the door to dialogue with other Christians and other religions. Several respondents express relief that they no longer feel they have to believe that all non-Catholics are prime candidates for damnation.

"I experienced more acceptance of other Christians, of other religions, and of people of good will," says John MacKenzie of Brandon, Manitoba.

If not for the council "other world religions would still be unknown to us and we to them," says Sister Janice Mankowski of Grand Rapids, Michigan. "Dialogue has been a good thing--a strength."

This openness to others, many felt, was rooted in a new way of understanding God. Confidence in God's love replaced fear of punishment in the spiritual lives of many Catholics.

Without Vatican II, "I'm not sure I would have the deeply ingrained understanding that Jesus loves me no matter what," says Colleen Kuhl of Dubuque, Iowa.

Vatican II "explored God as a God of love, not primarily as a God of anger and punishment," says one Chicago reader, who saw in the council's teaching a "balancing emphasis on Jesus Christ as the Resurrection and the life."

Paulette Fordan of Ellensburg, Washington sees this vision of God reflected in God's people as well: "We now have a kinder, gentler church."

What got lost

Despite their praise of many of the reforms, some readers wonder if Catholicism hasn't been watered down a bit since the 1960s; many lament the state of catechesis, arguing that youth are leaving the church because they haven't been given enough to hold on to.

"CCD classes were watered down," a New Jersey reader says. "Children have grown up without knowing the faith."

As evidence several cited the decline in priestly and religious vocations since the 1960s. Before Vatican II "a vast number of young people gave public witness to their faith by joining religious orders, and many others seriously considered it before choosing other vocations," Dorothy Way of Devon, Pennsylvania points out.

Others miss the simpler, clearer faith of the past that helped people distinguish easily between right and wrong. Pre-Vatican II Catholicism provided "a feeling of certainty about how to be a good Catholic," according to Franciscan Sister Elise Horihan of Rochester, Minnesota.

"I miss the traditions: the sense of 'specialness' that we had as Catholics growing up," says I. J. Campbell of Roseville, Michigan.

A Cedar Rapids, Iowa reader, though, acknowledges that pre-Vatican II Catholicism's black-and-white approach to life often left people out. Because of "the simplicity of many things, some people were put 'outside the camp' so to speak."

Other readers regret one unintended consequence of the council in particular: polarization. Brother Gary Smith, F.S.C. of Manitowoc, Wisconsin expresses the concern of many readers: "The church has become divided into liberals, moderates, and conservatives, all being vocal with their issues."

Not far enough?

Still, readers seem willing to continue forward with the work of reform. In fact, while 39 percent of respondents say the conciliar reforms were just about right, many of those, including Frank May, a deacon from Titus, Alabama, added "for the times" to their answers.

"I believe that [Vatican II] went both far enough and too far. It all depended on the pastor's interpretation," says a Chicago reader. "For me it was just about right."

Nearly half (48 percent), however, say the reforms didn't go far enough, while only 4 percent said the council went too far.

"Vatican II was a good start in opening the church to the promptings of the Holy Spirit," says Doris Hand of Fullerton, California, "but we need to keep our church open."

"I expected more empowerment of the laity after Vatican II--especially women," adds Jan Shiplett of Milton, Florida.

A majority (58 percent) also say that Vatican II has yet to be fully implemented; 17 percent say the reforms have stalled.

"The in tended reforms of Vatican II went much deeper into the life of the church than we have experienced," argues Father Feierfeil. "We have changed ritual and rewritten rules but have not yet had the new Pentecost of Pope John XXIII's vision."

An Amarillo, Texas reader insists the church has taken "giant steps" backward. "It is becoming increasingly difficult to be a thinking person and a Catholic at the same time," she says.

Father Francis Baiocchi of Hartford, Wisconsin expresses frustration that Vatican II didn't lead to "a permanent reform movement in the church."

A few readers, Ann Danby of Quincy, Massachusetts among them, felt Vatican II had taken unfair blame for the troubles of today's church, including the sex abuse crisis. "Only with truth comes healing, and the truth would not have come out without the openness Vatican II introduced."

Work in progress

Readers offer many suggestions for reenergizing the reforms. First on the list of many respondents is a further expansion of the role of women in the church. Though many women express joy in exercising liturgical and parish ministries, they also are disappointed that women have yet to be ordained as deacons and priests.

"The sad fact of women's second-class citizenship in the church wasn't addressed at Vatican II," says Theodora Briggs Sweeney of Horsham, Pennsylvania. "Is our Baptism different from that of men, that we are qualified for only six of the seven sacraments?"

Kathleen Morris of Edmonds, Washington agrees. "I hope that the church can see how truly wonderful women are and that women can lead. Our church needs to be open to all its members."

A majority are also frustrated that the church has yet to ordain married men, a development they expected from the reforms of the council.

"I love some of our new deacons," says a Texas reader. "Many would make excellent priests--but they're married!"

Readers also feel that fuller participation of the laity in church decision-making is an unfulfilled mandate of Vatican II. Ruth Zemek of Phoenix, Arizona suggests a continued need for a "reduction of the top-down mentality" among church leaders.

Many point out the need for greater collegiality between the pope and local bishops. "I would like to have seen a 'reform' back to empowering local clergy and laity to nominate their bishops," said Greg Moore of Ontario, California.

Readers, however, felt it important not to get stuck at Vatican II, whether its reforms were fully implemented or not. A majority (56 percent) agree that the church needs to confront issues that Vatican II couldn't, from stem cell research to youth violence. The seriousness of these problems led 51 percent of respondents to call for a new council.

Final judgment

Overall, despite the work as yet undone, more than 90 percent of respondents say the church is in better shape after the council, more prepared to deal with the difficulties of the modern world, more relevant to people everywhere.

"The documents of Vatican II have given us a foundation still useful for dealing with problems facing the church today," says Rita Berg of White Pigeon, Michigan, "if we would only use them."

Christina Ross of Bartlett, Illinois sums up the feelings of many of our readers: "The Spirit of Vatican II took our eyes up off the floor in repentant prayer to look at each other face to face, disciple to disciple, heart to heart. And what did we find? Community, grace, service, compassion, hope. We found Christ in one another."

RELATED ARTICLE: Time for an upgrade?

Though 51 percent of our readers feel the need for another ecumenical council (with 33 percent disagreeing), both groups fear that a new council might actually roll back the work of Vatican II.

"We need a council that would carry forward the spirit and reforms of Vatican II," says Judy Beaumont of Fort Myers, Florida, whose parents were part of the Christian Family Movement before Vatican II, "but I fear that under the present leadership a council agenda would undermine and undo some of the best changes in the church over the past 40 years."

Brother Harold Eccles, C.F.X. of Hinche, Haiti believes a premature council could be disappointing. "I'm not opposed to Vatican III, but I'm not sure that we in the trenches have finished our work," he says. "Good councils don't initiate change, they affirm what the Spirit has been doing in the People of God."

Susan Scott of Chanhassen, Minnesota quips, "Unfortunately, Vatican III might turn into Trent II!" Humor aside, many who argue that another council , should be postponed for a bit think that Vatican still needs time to be fully implemented.

Both groups, however, are clear in what they think the church needs from a new council. Gary Houchens of Bowling Green, Kentucky speaks for many when he names for discussion "the status of women (especially ordination), optional celibacy for priests, and greater involvement of the laity in decision-making."

Ann Seborowski of Langhorne, Pennsylvania suggests "an agenda addressing worldwide social justice issues." Laura Gonzalez of Santa Rosa, California names "poverty and the gap between those with and those without and the rampant amoral capitalism that has such a grip on us" as issues needing attention.

Other readers, including Maureen Sloan of St. Helens, Oregon, think "the gap between laypeople and church government on issues such as birth control and divorce and remarriage" should be discussed.

Readers also agree that any new council needed a broader group than just bishops involved. "Women need to be actively recruited and a wide spectrum of thought considered," says Marlene Malenda of Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Some readers, including Betsy Reifsnider of Sacramento, California, are ready to get started: "I think the Holy Spirit is calling us to open up the windows again."--Bryan Cones

AND THE
SURVEY SAYS ...

1. The church is better today
because of Vatican II:

agree      91%
disagree    6%
other       3%

2. In my life as a Catholic,
Vatican II has been ...

74%   Extremely positive.
      It helped me deepen
      my faith and become a
      more active Catholic.

21%   Somewhat positive.
      Life as a Catholic is
      richer because of it.

 3%   Somewhat negative.
      It was a difficult adjustment,
      and I miss some
      of the pre-Vatican II
      church.

 1%   Extremely negative.
      It ruined the church!

 1%   Other.

3. The reforms of Vatican II:

48%   Didn't go far enough.

37%   Were just about right.

 4%   Went too far.

11%   Other.

Representative of "other":

"The changes were a foundation
for the complete reform of the
church. If they had been allowed
to flower, love (not fear) would
be the rule of the church."

4. It's time to stop reminiscing
about Vatican II and focus
on the issues facing today's
church.

agree      56%
disagree   24%
other      20%

Representative of "other":

"If reminiscing does not help us
to move forward and allow the
Holy Spirit to change us, it is a
waste of time."

5. The reforms of Vatican II:

58%   Are still waiting to be
      fully implemented.

22%   Have been implemented
      for the most
      part.

17%   Have stalled.

 3%   Other.

Representative of "other":

"Unfortunately the reforms seem
to be heading for a systematic
dismantling, and they were
never fully implemented."

6. It's time for a Vatican III.

agree      51%
disagree   33%
other      16%

Representative of "other":

"If it would move us forward,
great. As it stands now, I fear it
would be more of a retrenchment.
Still, the Spirit is at work."

These results are based on survey
responses from 239 U.S. CATHOLIC
readers and website visitors.

Join the conversation--online.

In addition to a sample of subscribers, all are invited to respond to U.S. CATHOLIC'S monthly Sounding Board survey at www.uscatholic.org.

This month, join U.S. CATHOLIC readers as they consider the church's teaching on sex before marriage.

BRYAN CONES, associate editor of U.S. CATHOLIC.