Catholic discussion of Vatican II is about more than a Council. It is also about the legitimacy of different ways of being Catholic. The question most recently debated — whether the Council represented a change in Catholic teaching and life from what had gone before — invites a judgment on change subsequent to the Council.
The question about teaching is complex. But Vatican II certainly did mark a break with the past in one significant respect: namely, in the way in which the documents it generated addressed their audience.
In contrast to previous Councils which were generally called in times of crises to offer authoritative resolution of disputes about faith, Vatican II did not set out to define faith through clear statements of unacceptable positions or to legislate in the face of abuses.
Its address was less magisterial than pastoral in the sense that the account it gave of faith and its tone was encouraging. It was designed to attract the Catholic audience and to model ways of reflecting on faith and living it.
Changes in forms of address are not insignificant. They shape subsequent reflection about faith by encouraging distinctive emphases and metaphors and imagining the relationships between speakers and hearers in distinctive ways. The generally pastoral and conversational rhetoric of Vatican II encouraged participants to reflect on their inherited tradition, and to listen to and take one another seriously.
It was designed not to end discussion but to begin and to deepen it. But it presupposed that both parties were knowledgeable and grounded in faith.
Vatican II primarily addressed Catholics. But its change of address inevitably also affected relationships with the broader society. The Vatican Council itself modelled this conversation in its document, Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World). This broke new ground. And it became the focus of controversy about the Council.
The then Fr Jozef Ratzinger shared his reservations about the document very early. He criticised it for seeking an imagined common ground for conversation instead of speaking boldly out of Christian faith. He believed this approach unlikely to persuade non-Christians.
He also found its presentation of current social issues to be superficial and ungrounded, reaching into areas where the Church had no competence. His own understanding of how conversation with the secular world should be conducted can be seen in his Encyclicals which work out of deep theological reflection to comment on such issues as the economic order and the role of government.
Benedict's form of address is consistent with that of Vatican II, but not uniquely so. He is right to insist that Catholic conversation about faith won't go far unless it is based in commitment and familiarity with the tradition. In conversation we must reach out from whom we are and what we know, and not simply accept our conversation partners' perspective.
He is also right to criticise the identification of the spirit or philosophy of Vatican II with the unqualified endorsement of principles of non-discrimination, of individual choice, or of a consequentialist ethic.
But these qualifications do not rule out the address adumbrated in Gaudium et Spes where Catholics engage with others on public issues and seek a shared language. This presupposes in Catholics a deep understanding of their tradition and a commitment to follow Jesus. Like other participants in the conversation they will commend their proposals less by argument than by the match between what they advocate and the generosity of their lives.
Conversation of this kind also implies that its participants will be open to learn from others and will be led to question their own presuppositions.
Participants in the debates about Vatican II can be grouped according to their attitudes to the forms of address it employed. There are those who distrust the pastoral and open address of Vatican II even within the Church, regarding it as corrosive of Catholic truth and authority.
Others regard it as legitimate within the Church provided that it is anchored to a firm commitment to the Church and acceptance of authoritative teaching. This seems to be Pope Benedict's position.
Others, including myself, wish to adapt this address for the broader society, again on the basis of a commitment to Christ within the church. And finally some believe Catholic conversation within and outside the Catholic Church should not be constrained by commitments to church life and discipline.
If four football teams ran out on to the field on Grand Final day, one might expect confusion until the rules of engagement were clarified. We should not be surprised by the debate about the legacy of Vatican II.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.