Rocco whispered his tweet on reaction to Bishop Quinn’s call for changes. I know I’m behind the times; I didn’t know one could post memos on Twitter with more than 160 characters. Seems a bit unfair to me.
Speaking for myself, I’d probably disagree with most of Bishop Quinn’s points. As for Vatican III, I’d prefer a more proactive Church. I’m hoping for a Church on its feet as challenges and problems arise, and not waiting to convene a Council to discuss items it could have been addressing a century or two prior. I know a few of my readers adore 1545-1563, and even label it “ecumenical.” But it wasn’t. Not in the sense of 325 or 381. Or even 431, 451, 553, 680, or 787.
The ideal is that Christians get talking and especially listening before things get to the crisis points of heresy or schism. In one sense, calling a council to address a crisis is starting from square one of failure–the failure to nurture relationships and maintain dialogue. In that sense Vatican II was superior in tone to any other. There was no theological crisis yet surfaced within the Church (though we know that Europe had already been in something of a decline for decades).
In retrospect, it would have been great had Vatican II’s encuentro with the times been accomplished decades earlier. Who knows? Maybe even to spare the planet a world war or two?
Even more recently (and with hindsight), I’d have hoped to instill a missionary impulse for discipleship and evangelization right after the closing ceremony in December 1965. Even when I was being schooled in the 80’s, we weren’t discussing Evangelii Nuntiandi a whole lot. My sense is that it eclipses every post-conciliar document yet out there. But who knew?
At some point, Bishop Quinn’s talking points will surface in a doscussion on theology and practice. And we will eventually resolve them. We might even resolve them well, but only if we can pay attention to the schooling we’re all receiving today.