During the Council I was fortunate to be teaching graduate theology in Washington, D.C. It was a creative, exciting time of hurriedly translating the documents from Rome and  the commentaries of the theological experts and bishops that helped formulate those documents. Text and commentary provided the initial contextual understanding of what the Council was saying namely that change had to occur in our reading of the bible, in our relationships to other Christians and religions, in our relationship to contemporary ideas, peoples and the world, in our understanding of the consecrated life, in our understanding and living of our baptismal life, in our involvement with social justice and economic equality, and, of course, in our spiritual life. For us theologians we had to move beyond the propositional view of faith and all those grades of certainty given to those propositions such as de fide definita and sententia communis – labels and propositions we memorized to pass our exams. Now belief was understood in its historical, scriptural, and lived contexts.

  This initial understanding came alive in my participation in what was then called a “floating parish” composed of young, highly intelligent lay men and women (many in recent contact with the Catholic Worker movement) and an experienced, knowledgeable liturgist Robert Hovda. It was indeed a “new” liturgy that we thoughtfully and joyfully celebrated, critiqued, and passed on to those outside our “parish” for their usage.

I lived that “Vatican II” long after it was over – I probably still do. Two other events enabled me to understand how it was received and contextualized among real people: 1) the Lilly Foundation gave me a two year grant to research how and why the Diocese of Rochester, NY, changed between 1954 and 1993; 2) I spent an equal amount of time helping one of the bishops write his biography.

Aside from this research, my travels throughout the United States and Canada enabled me to experience how unique this diocese was in how the documents of Vatican II were professionally implemented.  The culture of this diocese enlivened and used modern managerial techniques to bring the initial contextual understanding mentioned above into the life of every member of the diocese. Professionalization meant that one had a position in diocesan and parish organizations based on demonstrated knowledge and skills, not automatically because of ordination.  Equality among all the faithful was especially evident through those women’s voices heard from the pulpit, dedicating their lives to social justice and advocating for ordination. Every baptized person  had a voice through parish councils that were carefully formed, adequately equipped for service, and present in all the parishes; the Diocesan Synod was attended by representatives of all its parishes and programs who had before them polling results of all the Catholics in the diocese. Meetings, both official and unofficial, with other Christians and faiths were encouraged by the bishops and evidenced in signed covenants and an office of ecumenism and interfaith.  Charles Curran was a member of this diocese and never lacked for official and vocal support by its bishops. These are some of the ways this diocese provided a living context for what was understood as Vatican II.

At least four constant pressures upon the diocese brought Vatican II to a close: Humane Vitae, Catholics United for the Faith’s normative voice among the Roman Curia; Rome’s  demand for global uniformity and  a new bishop (Jan., 2014).

An idea, an event, and a religion stay alive only if there are people who understand it, believe in it, and work tirelessly for it. It is always more than the written word. The contexts within which the word is heard are essential to its understanding. “Vatican II” was such an idea, event, and religious reality. Many worked very, very hard to keep their vision of “Vatican II” alive. At the same time there were some who worked to destroy it. At this writing officially it is dead in the diocese and any of its remnants are being meticulously eliminated.

Nostalgic experience is many times an exciting, transcendent pulling back, via imagination, to a time we believe existed, but never did.  The nostalgic experience of some people blind them to building a future church because, like Lot’s wife, their gaze is frozen on the past.  Normally we claim that those who opposed Vatican II are nostalgic. But those who advocate for the Vatican II  I have described  are also nostalgic for a context that no longer exists. It’s over! The context has changed. The world we live in today is not that of the past.  Maybe a new ecumenical and interfaith event is necessary which, while including the words of Vatican II, would create a new context.