Danzalan, Jeremy A

BSIT-2A

“Second Vatican Council”

The teaching of the Council was influenced by the liturgical, biblical, and
ecumenical movements that originated in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, despite the
fact that its announcement came as somewhat of a surprise. Within Catholicism, there
was also a growing theological movement that drew from the Bible and writings from the
Church Fathers that were produced in the first 600 years or so of the Church's existence.
This was a method of regaining the Church's Tradition's original sources without the
accumulation of later teaching, which could sometimes be distorted due to historical
circumstances that are no longer relevant. The Council gained confidence as it went along
by initially rejecting texts created by the Vatican bureaucracy Curia, which upheld the
status quo, and then creating and honing texts that gave the Church new life and gave
both Catholics and other Christians a reviving sense of hope. The Second Vatican
Council 1962‒65 is widely regarded as the most significant event for the Catholic Church
since the Reformation in the 16th century. Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican
Council to update the Church and restore the unity of all Christians. Some in the Church
were fearful of possible changes, but the majority of Catholics welcomed the opportunity
of change; the opportunity to take down barriers and grapple with the challenges facing
the world. Hope and joy, not fear and alarm, characterized the discussions and outcomes
of the Council. This Council was all about renewal, which means restoring something to
its original state. This wasn't an attempt to recreate the Church's appearance from the
second century, but rather a return to its origins in determining what was most crucial to
the fulfillment of its mission. The bishops made an effort to demonstrate how the
traditional teachings were still applicable and even necessary in today's society. In the
past, the Church had advocated for making Catholicism the official religion and for all
people to be Catholic. It also taught a legalistic morality that centered on following rules.
The bishops at Vatican II did not advise people to disregard church authority, but they did
acknowledge that, in the end, people must cultivate their own consciences in addition to
simply adhering to the church's rules. Furthermore, they argued that governments should
defend everyone's rights rather than work to advance a particular religion. It was a
significant change. In the past, the Church had taught a legalistic morality that revolved
around doing as you were told, held the belief that everyone had a duty to be Catholic,
and that governments should make Catholicism the official religion.
 The bishops at Vatican II certainly did not advise people to disregard church
authority, but they did acknowledge that in the end, people must cultivate their own
consciences rather than merely adhering to the church's rules. Additionally, they argued
that governments should defend everyone's rights rather than work to advance a particular
religion. These were major adjustments. Within reasonable bounds, the Second Vatican
Council upheld everyone's right to be free from state coercion in matters of religion. This
has been interpreted by some as contradicting the Church's earlier emphasis on the state's
obligations to recognize truth and stifle error in matters of religion. In the ongoing
discussion, it is possible to pinpoint four specific issues that have made it harder for many
people to answer the pertinent questions. The Church is still figuring out what Vatican II
means nearly 50 years after it was completed because it covered so much ground. That
work has been difficult and is not without its detractors. Some people believe that the
Council diminished the true meaning of being Catholic, even though it made the Church
more accessible and participatory. They note that Catholics raised after Vatican II appear
to be less focused on traditions like novenas and the Stations of the Cross, and some
appear to rely on their own consciences to the point where they overlook or disbelieve the
Church's teaching that it represents the most accurate representation of God's will. like Fr.
Pius XII's statement in Ciriesce, according to Dr. Marshner, had already provided the key
to understanding that the State's duty to suppress moral and religious error is limited. Pius
XII taught that despite being a real duty, suppressing moral and religious error was not
the Catholic State's primary standard of conduct, according to Marshner. He clarifies his
point by quoting Pope Pius XII. It must be subordinated to higher and more general
norms which, under certain circumstances, permit, and may even show that the best
choice for promoting the greater good is, the tolerating of error. Thus, Pius XII
established what Marshner refers to as a must-do law of toleration, which teaches, in
essence, that when the Church informs the State of errors on the part of its citizens, then
if repression of such errors would harm the common good, the State will have a genuine
right to tell the clergy to carry out their own evangelical mission to immunize the faithful
and stop asking the police to solve their problems for them. Finally, Dr. Marshner claims
that all Vatican II does is "add another must-do law of tolerance," which he expresses in
this way: "To the exact extent that those holding a religious error nonetheless profess
something rationally defensible and practice what is morally inoffensive, they enjoy
immunity from civil penalties by virtue of which the State has a second ground for telling
the Church that it cannot justly use its force against them.". He is quick to point out that
this does not nullify the State's duty, right, and ability to safeguard supernatural truths.
Instead, the right to religious freedom that every person has simply required that the
State's decisions be made in light of harmful natural consequences rather than in light of
actual supernatural error. This, in my opinion, is how the Second Vatican Council's
development of the doctrine on religious freedom came about, and it is entirely consistent
with the Magisterial.