Was Vatican II a Pastoral or a Doctrinal Council?

Some people believe that Vatican II was a pastoral council, therefore it must have taught no doctrine. That view leads to comments, such as:

Vatican II… was not a doctrinal council… The Fathers at Vatican II explicitly referred to it as being pastoral instead of doctrinal. (“Can the Ordinary Magisterium Err? – Part 2”)

Remarks like that raise a question. Does the pastoral character of Vatican II really preclude it from having doctrinal implications?

1. What Does ‘Pastoral’ Mean?

The word pastor is the Latin word for “shepherd.” To be pastoral is to do the activities which involve shepherding a flock, i.e., guiding, nourishing, protecting, etc.

Jesus frequently used analogies of shepherds and flocks (e.g., John 10). So, it has become traditional to talk of “pastoral activity” as what the Church DOES to support its members. That idea is particularly clearly expressed in St. Gregory the Great’s (d. 604) medieval classic The Book of Pastoral Care.

The DOING of pastoral activity is logically distinct from the BELIEVING of doctrinal teachings. However, in reality, the issues are invariably intertwined. People typically DO what they BELIEVE, and they BELIEVE in what they DO.

The interrelationship of pastoral and doctrinal matters can be seen in historical statements made by popes and councils. For example, in 1846 Pope Pius IX said:

In accordance with your pastoral care, work assiduously to protect and preserve this faith. Never cease to instruct all men in it, to encourage the wavering, to convince dissenters, to strengthen the weak in faith. (Qui Pluribus 20)

Pope Gregory XVI even identified the denouncing of heretics as an example of pastoral activity, when he said in 1840:

For despite your… pastoral denunciations, you are obliged to tolerate in your dioceses these men spreading heresy and unbelief. (Probe Nostis 2)

A similar linkage of pastoral actions and doctrinal communication can be seen in the words of Vatican I, which stated in 1870:

To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world. (Pastor Aeternus 4.3)

2. What Vatican II Meant by ‘Pastoral’

Vatican II distinguished between a pastoral activity which is orientated to members of the Church, and other types of activities which are orientated towards non-Christians and towards non-Catholics. It stated:

Thus, missionary activity among the nations differs from pastoral activity exercised among the faithful as well as from undertakings aimed at restoring unity among Christians. (Ad Gentes 6)

The Council also made it clear that pastoral matters typically involve the application of doctrine to concrete situations and issues. It stated:

The constitution is called “pastoral” because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express… Church… teaching on man, on the world… and on man’s relations to his fellow men. (Gaudium et Spes, footnote 1)

The Council cited some examples of pastoral activities, such as “teaching doctrine.” It stated:

The hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine. (Apostolicam Actuositatem 24)

It is unsurprising that Vatican II linked pastoral and doctrinal matters, as that was the practice of the Church prior to the Council. It also reflected a wider understanding which can be seen in contemporaneous documents, such as the 1971 General Catechetical Directory (GCD) which stated:

Pastoral action must be promoted in the area of Christian doctrine and Christian culture. (GCD 97)

3. What Made Vatican II a Pastoral Council?

When Pope John XXIII (d. 1963) opened Vatican II he noted that there was no need for a Church council to simply repeat the teachings of Church doctrine. That was because members of the Church would already know, or could easily look up, statements of doctrine.

Pope John XXIII said that the purpose of Vatican II was to do something different, which he expressed in the following (Latin) words:

One of the things which Pope John XXIII thought that “our times required” was a change in the tone of how the Church expressed itself. He made that point clear in the following comment:

In our time… the… [Church] prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than severity. She wants to come to meet current needs, showing the validity of her doctrine rather than renewing sentences. (Speech, 11 October 1962)

Pope John XXIII thought that the goal of achieving a different tone was to be achieved by re-expressing the traditional terminology of the Church’s teaching (the “deposit of faith”) in a language which was “pastoral.” Thus, he urged the Council to express itself

by adhering to the norms and requirements of a teaching of a predominantly pastoral nature. (Speech, 11 October 1962)

The idea that the pastoral orientation of Vatican II was meant to include a “change of tone” can be seen in contemporaneous understandings of the Council. For example, in 1966, Joseph Ratzinger (who would become Pope Benedict XVI in 2005) wrote,

“Pastoral” … [does]… not mean nebulous, without substance, [or] merely “edifying”. Rather what was meant [by Pope John XXIII] was positive care for the man of today who is not helped by condemnations… [He] needs to hear what is true, not just what is not true. (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Session 1.3)

4. Vatican II Also Had a Doctrinal Intent

If the intention behind calling Vatican II a pastoral council involved a desire to change the tone of the Church’s language, then there is no logical reason why the Council cannot have also intended to teach doctrine.

Vatican II itself made that point, when it stated in the first paragraph of Dei Verbum (DV):

This present council wishes to set forth (proponere intendit) authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on. (DV 1)

The Council’s intentions can also be seen in the Latin of the first footnote in Gaudium et Spes, which ascribes a “doctrinal intent” to the whole of the second part of that document. (The relevant words are highlighted in bold capitals below.)

What these texts show is that despite being a “pastoral council,” Vatican II also intended to teach doctrine.

5. Vatican II Did Teach Doctrine

As well as stating an intention to teach doctrine, Vatican II also showed itself on several occasions to be actually teaching doctrine.

For example, consider the following remarks in Lumen Gentium (LG):

This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine… (LG 67)

This Sacred Council… basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that… (LG 14)

This Sacred Council proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful… (LG 18)

This Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine… (LG 18)

Elsewhere in Lumen Gentium the Council referred in looser terminology to “expounding doctrine” (doctrinam exponens) and to “presenting… doctrine” (proponere doctrinam). For example:

Wherefore this Holy Synod, in expounding the doctrine on the Church… It does not, however, have it in mind to give a complete doctrine on Mary. (LG 54)

In some places the Council is clearly repeating the doctrine of previous Church teaching. This occurs, for example, in Chapter 1 of Ad Gentes, which is entitled “Principles of Doctrine” (de principiis doctrinalibus). That chapter presents a summary of the doctrinal basis for the Church’s two thousand years of missionary activity (Ad Gentes 1–9).

However, in other places, the Council makes it clear that it is adding a new element of interpretation, or a new application to previous Church teaching. For example, in Gaudium et Spes it makes the following comment about the Church’s previous teaching on economic matters:

This sacred council intends to strengthen these principles… and to set forth certain guidelines. (GS 63)

Perhaps one of the clearest remarks is made in Dignitatis Humanae, where the Council stated:

The council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society. (DH 1)

In another text Vatican II made a comment which seems (prima facie) to settle a long-running theological disagreement about whether priests and bishops are essentially different, or whether they merely have different roles. The Council said:

The Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred. (LG 21)

Statements such as these show that Vatican II both taught doctrine, and it also claimed to be teaching doctrine.

6. Commentary on the Council

Further confirmation that Vatican II taught doctrine is provided by the understanding of those who participated in the Council.

Perhaps the clearest example can be seen in the words of Pope Paul VI. In his 1965 closing speech at Vatican II, he unambiguously stated that the Council had “authoritatively taught doctrine.” (In the Latin text of his speech he used the word doctrina, but that is not always reflected in English translations, as the words in bold capitals show below.)

Pope John Paul II (d. 2005) also participated at Vatican II. Commenting in later years he said that

the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms. (Fidei Depositum 1992)

He also spoke of Vatican II as

…the Council, which has given us a rich ecclesiological doctrine. (Address, 27 February 2000)

In a particularly pointed remark, the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops directly addressed the inappropriateness of trying to drive a wedge between the pastoral and doctrinal aspects of Vatican II. The synod stated:

It is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. (Synod Final Report 5)

Speaking in 2012 Cardinal William Levada made essentially the same observation, when he said:

Rather than pastoral or doctrinal, we should say of the Council that it was pastoral and doctrinal. (Quoted from “Vatican II Was First-Class”)

7. Doctrinal or Dogmatic

The evidence that Vatican II was pastoral AND doctrinal is so clear that a question must inevitably arise as to why anyone might think differently.

Indulging in a little speculation, I wonder if the question of whether Vatican II was “pastoral or doctrinal” is actually a misstatement of the very different question of whether Vatican II was “pastoral or dogmatic.”

Contrasting “pastoral OR dogmatic” has been a significant point of contention among those who refuse to accept all the teachings of Vatican II. Pope Paul VI directly referred to it in his 1976 letter to Marcel Lefebvre (d. 1991), when he wrote:

You cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. (Letter, 11 October 1976)

He repeated the distinction on other occasions, such as when he said:

Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. (General Audience, 6 August 1975, cited from “Quotes on the Teaching Authority of Vatican II”)

Although it makes little, if any, practical sense to ask if Vatican II was “pastoral or doctrinal” (see section 1), it asks a very serious question, with serious implications, to ask whether Vatican II was “pastoral or dogmatic.”

This is because “doctrines” can be optional, but dogmas are compulsory. For example, the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix of all graces is an optional belief which some Catholics hold, and others do not hold. But dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are not optional.

This means that the question of whether Vatican II was “pastoral or dogmatic” is the question of whether it is compulsory for Catholics to believe (all of) the claims of Vatican II. That is an interesting question, which is worth exploring. It is the question of whether Vatican II has “supreme authority” in the Church. (See: “Does Vatican II Have Supreme Authority?”).

However, the question of whether Vatican II was “pastoral or doctrinal” is a far less interesting question, especially when there is so much evidence which shows that the Council was both pastoral AND doctrinal.