Cardinal celebrates the great achievements of the Council: "All these documents have changed the face of the Church" "One must not confuse tradition with traditionalism."

"All these documents have changed the face of the Church"

60 Years of the Second Vatican Council

Cardinal Kasper speaks in an interview about the Council, the struggle over its interpretation, and its impact to this day.

Jan-Heiner Tück: We are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Council these days. As a young theologian, how did you experience John XXIII's announcement of the Council?

Cardinal Walter Kasper: I remember that evening vividly. It was January 25, 1959. I was sitting with a few colleagues listening to the evening news when the announcement came: Pope John XXIII had announced an ecumenical council in St. Paul Outside the Walls. It was a bombshell! The enthusiasm grew with each passing day, and with it, the expectations. No one could know where this momentum would lead.

Renewal from the Gospel

Tück: What intentions did the Pope have for the council?

Kasper: Initially, the word that stuck was aggiornamento, meaning the Church's modernization. But even at the official convocation of the council, the Apostolic Constitution Humanae salutis (December 25, 1961) made it clear: This was not about superficial adaptation. The Pope spoke of the Church's fundamental mission to proclaim the Gospel, but in light of the societal upheavals, he foresaw a crisis. Therefore, he urged attention to the "signs of the times" and the transmission of the life-giving energies of the ever-valid Gospel to the modern world. After the Council, his successor, Pope Paul VI, summarized the Council's fundamental concern in the spirit of John XXIII in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi (1975). The Church exists to proclaim the Gospel; that is its raison d'être, its reason for being. Renewal from the Gospel is the Council's mandate. Thus, evangelization became the guiding principle for all subsequent popes up to and including Pope Francis.

Tück: The initial euphoria for reform was followed by a certain disillusionment and uncertainty. Then, in Bologna, under the direction of Giuseppe Alberigo, the historical reconstruction of the "event" began, while at the same time the multi-volume theological commentary was being prepared by Herder. That was almost 20 years ago. How would you assess the situation today?

Kasper: In the realization of the reform intentions, two opposing directions clashed from the very beginning. One stemmed from the renewal movements between the two world wars: the Bible Movement, the liturgical movement, the patristic renewal, the active participation of the laity, and the pastoral revival in France. This was renewal rooted in the living spirit of the Gospel. The other direction focused on preserving the Gospel as it had been enshrined in the traditional neo-scholastic doctrine of past centuries. Thus, many compromise formulations were necessary in the conciliar documents to maintain the unity of the Church. However, when the momentum of renewal stalled after the Council and conservative forces gained ground, disappointment, resentment, stagnation, and protest ensued.

"The challenge is no longer modernity, but rather the complex and confusing postmodern era that questions modernity."

Tück: How do you see the current situation?

Kasper: A new generation has grown up that did not experience the enthusiastic awakening of the Council and remains largely indifferent to it. The challenge is no longer modernity itself, but rather the confusing post-modernity that questions modernity. In this spiritual emptiness, disorientation, and indifference, renewal from the Gospel is urgently needed; it is our only hope. But the questions are posed differently and, in the positive sense of the word, more radically; they go to the roots. The Second Vatican Council is history, and yet progress can only be made if we rekindle the embers beneath the accumulated ashes.

The Church is missionary.

Tück: The Council's corpus of texts comprises 16 documents. Which are the most important? And how are the documents interconnected?

Kasper: The most important documents are undoubtedly the four major constitutions: on the liturgy and liturgical renewal, on the Church, on revelation, and on the Church in the modern world. In addition, there are nine decrees and three declarations. The decree on ecumenism, the declaration on relations with non-Christian religions, especially Judaism, and the declaration on religious freedom are particularly important. Other decrees address internal church renewal, especially the role of the laity and ordained ministers, and so on.

The Church does not exist for its own sake. The Church is missionary by her very nature. All these documents have changed the face of the Church, especially in its liturgy. The Church has opened itself both inwardly and outwardly. The Church was to transform from a clerical Church into a Church of the People of God with the active participation of the laity. Outwardly, the Council opened many doors: for ecumenism, for dialogue with non-Christian religions, especially for the People of the First Covenant, and for missions out into the world. There is no turning back from this. Nor can we stop here. Karl Rahner said upon his return from the Council: The Council is only "the beginning of a beginning."

"One must not confuse tradition with traditionalism."

Cathcon:  A Council would be inconceivable without the second wave of modernism fostered by de Lubac and Co.  When tradition is excluded as it most deliberately was, you beget traditionalism.

Tück: The renewal of the liturgy, the ecumenical opening, the dialogue with Judaism and other religions, but also the recognition of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, have been subject to sharp criticism since the Council. Traditionalists accuse the Council of "neo-modernism" and a "break with tradition." What is your response to this accusation?

Kasper: I cannot agree with this accusation in any way. One must not confuse tradition with traditionalism. Tradition is a living process in which the Holy Spirit continually leads us anew into the whole truth (John 16:13). Tradition is a Spirit-guided growth and maturation in understanding the truth of the Gospel, grounded in Sacred Scripture and living tradition. If one studies the Council's texts carefully, one can see that they are all biblically sound, rooted in the teachings of the Church Fathers, and incorporate the Church's earlier Magisterium. There is nothing of "neo-modernism" or a "break with tradition" here; rather, much of it resembles a tree with growing rings.

A Pastoral Council

Tück: To advance the dialogue with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, the argument is repeatedly made that the Second Vatican Council was "merely a pastoral council," that it did not define any dogmas. In particular, the decrees and declarations are said to have little binding force; Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has just once again described Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae as "outdated." What is your assessment?

Kasper: It is true that the Council did not proclaim any formal dogmas or formal condemnations of doctrine. However, as can be read in any theological textbook, there are different degrees of binding force. Accordingly, a teaching formally confirmed by the Pope for the entire episcopate, even if it is not explicitly formulated as dogma, has a high degree of binding force, within which there are further gradations. The reception within the Church is also significant. The two documents Nostra aetate (on non-Christian religions) and Dignitatis humanae (on religious freedom) have acquired great significance; they are not obsolete, on the contrary, they should be theologically deepened and further developed. The argument that the Second Vatican Council was "merely a pastoral council" is laughable. There is no pastoral care without a dogmatic foundation, and no dogmatics that does not also have pastoral and spiritual consequences. Thus, the term "pastoral council" is not a devaluation, but a clear endorsement, because it confirms that this council did not proclaim theological speculations, but rather hit the nail on the head and said something essential for Christian life in our time.

"The great significance of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes is beyond question for me. However, it cannot be interpreted in isolation, and certainly not individual sentences can be taken out of context."

Tück: In some German-speaking theologians, the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes is considered particularly important. It is seen as situating the Church in the world today. It has been called a "second constitution on revelation," and the "signs of the times" in the accelerated world of late modernity have been elevated to "sources of revelation." Would you agree with this assessment?

Kasper: For me, the great importance of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes is beyond question. However, it cannot be interpreted in isolation, and certainly not individual sentences taken out of context. The Pastoral Constitution must be read in conjunction with the other constitutions, especially the constitution on revelation Dei Verbum. This constitution states clearly and unequivocally that no new public revelation beyond Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and sending of the Holy Spirit is to be expected (Art. 4). The Pastoral Constitution does not contradict this; on the contrary, it corresponds to it.  She says nowhere that the "signs of the times" are an additional source of revelation; rather, she states clearly and unequivocally that the "signs of the times" must be interpreted in the light of the Gospel (Gaudium et spes, Art. 4) – and not the other way around. They are not a source of revelation, but an aid to interpreting the source, which is the Gospel, in light of the specific situation.

"Indeed, we should not and cannot abandon the fundamental tenets of Christian anthropology."

Tück: The recoding of gender relations is one of the signs of the times that divides opinions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered." Many consider this in need of revision and demand that the diversity of sexual orientations – including polyamorous and bisexual relationships – be recognized as a divinely willed reality of creation. How can one treat those affected with respect without abandoning the foundations of theological anthropology?

Kasper: Indeed, we should not and cannot abandon the fundamental tenets of Christian anthropology. It tells us that, beyond all historical and cultural change, all people are created by God in his image, and therefore every person possesses inviolable dignity (Genesis 1:27). We should therefore respect and value people, men and women alike, who have a different sexual orientation; contemptuous talk, or even punishment and discrimination, are thus excluded. In pastoral counseling, one should help such people to accept themselves in their individuality and to know that they are accepted by God as such. If one goes further and compares the statements of radical gender theories with Christian anthropology, then two points of conflict emerge: On the one hand, Christian anthropology upholds the wonderful unity of body and soul and therefore sees the separation of sex and gender as a problem. It cannot, therefore, unconditionally agree to the demand for so-called "gender-affirming measures" or "transition" in the name of self-determination. On the other hand, Christian anthropology states that God created humankind as male and female, thus advocating, unlike some radical forms of gender theory, a binary, complementary gender structure. It is therefore theologically questionable whether and to what extent gender variations that deviate from the two sexes—which arise not least through self-attribution—can simultaneously be understood as a given "reality of creation" that simply needs to be accepted. To my knowledge, both points of this conflict remain controversial even within the relevant academic disciplines. Since I am not an expert in these matters, I will leave further discussion to the relevant specialists and adhere myself to the positions of Christian anthropology, which have proven their worth in cultural history.

The Popes and the Council

Tück: Let us look at the pontificates of the post-conciliar period. Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) reaffirmed precisely what the traditionalists question. He emphasized freedom of religion and conscience, thereby shaking the communist regime in Poland. He also decisively embraced the impulses of Nostra aetate and improved relations with Judaism through powerful gestures and talk of the covenant remaining unbroken. Domestically, however, the assessment of his achievements is rather mixed for many. What is your view?

Kasper: John Paul II was a great pope and a charismatic figure. He made significant contributions to the realization and practical implementation of the Council in matters of liturgy, canon law, ecumenism, and relations with Judaism. He also made considerable progress and set powerful examples in matters of peace and reconciliation between Eastern and Western Europe, as well as in cultural and social issues. In his mea culpas, he clearly distanced himself from practices in church history that were not in accordance with the Gospel and contributed to the rehabilitation of individuals, including theologians, who had been unjustly condemned. In matters of moral theology, church reform, and the ordination of women, he took firm positions that were not universally popular, but which have not been officially decided by the Church to this day, which is why I do not wish to offer a final judgment. Those who were present at the liturgy on the occasion of his death could witness his high standing far beyond the Catholic Church. I, too, owe him a great deal personally.

"Rightly so, Benedict XVI considered it important to uphold the identity of the one Church of Jesus Christ throughout all the centuries, despite all historical changes, and to revive the notion of a new Church created by the Second Vatican Council."

Tück: His successor, Benedict XVI (2005-2013), provided important theological impetus with his encyclicals and speeches. In his 2005 Christmas address, he championed a "hermeneutics of reform" for interpreting the Council, guided by an interplay of continuity and discontinuity. How do you assess this initiative?

Kasper: We knew each other for over 50 years and encountered each other at every stage of our lives. Pope Benedict was undoubtedly a significant theologian and also provided many spiritual insights. In his hermeneutics of the Council and in his "hermeneutics of reform," he defused the debate, but he did not have the final say. Rightly so, he considered it important to uphold the identity of the one Church of Jesus Christ throughout the centuries, despite all historical changes, and to reject the notion of a new Church created by the Second Vatican Council. In matters of church reform, he was rather hesitant and cautious. However, in dealing with the abuse crisis, he initiated a fundamental change despite resistance, a change which, understandably, he was then unable to complete. His theological and spiritual impulses continue to have an impact and will continue to do so.

Tück: In his Christmas address, Benedict rejected Peter Hünermann's comparison of the Second Vatican Council to a constituent national assembly. How do you assess this comparison?

Kasper: I, too, consider this comparison unfortunate. Due to its own inherent nature, the Church has its own synodal and conciliar structures; it can learn from the respective monarchical and democratic forms, but it cannot simply adopt them. The Second Vatican Council neither aspired to a constituent role, nor, given the universality of the Church, can it be compared to a national assembly.

Tück: Francis (2013-2025) – the first pope who did not personally attend the Council – made mercy the guiding principle of his pontificate and placed the peripheries at the center of pastoral attention. How do you assess his commitment to an inclusive and synodal Church?

Kasper: Pope Francis was the first Pope to come from the Southern Hemisphere, or as he put it, from the other side of the world. This allowed him to bring the problems, but also the many positive impulses, of the Southern Hemisphere – especially the issues of poverty and justice, as well as the importance of the peripheries – to the table of the universal Church. Above all, the biblical message of God's mercy was paramount. He gave new impetus by emphasizing care for the earth as the common home of all peoples and the fraternity of all humankind. In doing so, he also initiated dialogue with moderate Islam and the indigenous peoples of Latin and North America and Asia.

Tück: What do you see as the most important legacy of his pontificate?

Kasper: Perhaps his most important legacy is that he addressed the issue of synodality within the Church, thereby making a significant and forward-looking contribution to the further development of the Second Vatican Council and its doctrine of the communio structure of the Church, as well as the culture of dialogue within the Church. He thus left his successor a work in progress that remains largely unfinished, and on which the new Pope Leo XIV is determined to build.

Synodality and the Office of Bishop

Tück: There are differing views on what the synodal integration of the office of bishop should look like. In Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council not only strengthened the office of bishop but also emphasized the common priesthood of all the faithful. In the aftermath of the abuse crisis and the systemic cover-up of offenses, the office of bishop has come under considerable pressure. As a remedy, the initial approach in Germany was to establish a Synodal Council, which would not only advise the bishops but also participate in decision-making. Is this a legitimate continuation of the Council's vision of greater lay participation—or do you see a danger here of undermining the episcopal constitution of the Church?

Kasper: The episcopal structure is essential to the Catholic Church and was clearly emphasized by the Second Vatican Council. Since the Council, however, the relationship between the office of bishop and the common priesthood of all believers has become a recurring issue, which is now to be clarified within the framework of synodality. The abuse crisis, which exposed the failings of many bishops, provides an additional impetus to address this question. To avoid misunderstandings, in Germany the term "Synodal Council" is now used instead of "Synodal Conference," a term that has existed in a more informal form since the Synod of Würzburg.

The extent to which this conference is to participate in decision-making or consultation seems to me to be not yet fully clarified and also depends on the still-necessary approval from Rome. With a good culture of dialogue, this legal distinction is not so important, by the way. Synodalism means working together toward a consensus, not arguing against each other in power struggles and outvoting one another. The Council found a good way to express this by speaking of a unique, Spirit-inspired harmony between leaders and the faithful (Dei verbum, Art. 10). In constant conflict against one another, we will lose; only in cooperation can we make our voice heard anew in the world.

Religious Freedom under Discussion

Tück: The recognition of religious freedom and freedom of conscience was a point of contention at the Council. The American bishops, in particular, championed this cause—supported by the work of John Courtney Murray SJ (1904–1967). Today, particularly in the USA, there are voices reinterpreting Dignitatis humanae and advocating for a post-liberal or even neo-integralist position. These voices have an influence that extends into American politics. How do you assess these developments?

Kasper: I used to travel to the United States frequently, but I haven't been there for quite some time now. Much has changed in society and the Church there, and I don't want to interfere. When you think of the Pilgrim Fathers, who significantly shaped the United States Constitution and were the first to speak of God-given human rights ten years before the French Revolution, and who erected a huge Statue of Liberty at the entrance to New York for newcomers, and when you also consider the multicultural, multireligious, and multidenominational composition of the US population, then I can't imagine post-liberalism or neo-integralism, whatever one understands by those terms. But that's something the Americans themselves must decide.

A Third Vatican Council?

Tück: Your Tübingen colleagues Hans Küng and Norbert Greinacher called for a Third Vatican Council even before the turn of the millennium. Is the time ripe for it today?

Kasper: It is highly likely that there will be another council before the end of the world. At the moment, however, the time does not seem ripe to me. Not only the Church, but the world is in the midst of a profound transformation process. I spoke at the beginning about the difficult transition from modernity to a still rather undefined postmodernity. Many things first need to grow and mature. In the Church, among many other things, we must first patiently clarify what synodal structures should look like in concrete terms; only then can the Pope convene a council as a universal synod. It will not be a Third Vatican Council, perhaps in terms of location, but not in form or subject matter. It is not only a matter of retrospectively clarifying some of the unresolved problems of the Second Vatican Council. If a new world order emerges—that is, unity and diversity in a digitally networked but presumably multipolar world—then the universal Church will face many new challenges of unity in diversity, challenges that were different in the bipolar world of the 1960s and the Second Vatican Council. Renewal through the Gospel will then become newly relevant.

Source