Is It Possible To Find Out How Bishops Voted At V2 ?
#1
For a long time I've wondered who the 8 Bishops who voted against Nostra Aetate were, or the 4 who voted against Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the 70 who opposed Dignitatis Humanae, etc, but so far I haven't been able to. I thought it might have been by secret ballot, but this link appears to show names on the ballots http://www.papalartifacts.com/portfolio-...n-council/
Reply
#2
You might be able to find a copy of the minutes of the Council at an academic library. Saint Louis University in Missouri has them. I would imagine those would show the record for votes.
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church -- which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity." -Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Reply
#3
The massive Acta Synodalia Sancrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vatican II gives some insight here. As I recall it took up about 4 full shelves in the reference section of the library at Catholic University of America. I happen to have a few PDFs of some of the volumes.

In the first one you have exemplars of the attendance card and a ballot like found in the link. The seat number, name and diocese or place of jurisdiction was on the top. In the middle of the ballot were the punch card holes to identify the ballot and then three boxes to mark : Placeat (Yes), Non Placet (No), Placeat juxta modum (Yes, but only with reservation). There is a place the Council Father signed the ballot as well. The ballot was marked with a special pencil containing a magnetic graphite, so the machine would be able to read it.


In here you find things like the individual suggestions of Fathers for amendments of the texts, along with the votes for all the different amendments and the various speeches given and wishes expressed by the various Fathers. However, you never fine the the individual Fathers listed with their voting record. 

While the ballots were not secret and the data could have been made (and perhaps exists somewhere), it was not published in the official acts of the council.

That said, Vatican II has been called the "Council of the Media" as the liberals used the media to manipulate the agenda. That means many Fathers would have spoken about their votes and wishes. Archbishop Lefebvre, for instance, said that he voted against certain documents, even if afterward he signed them after the Pope had approved them, so in many cases if you looked at the speeches and personal testimony of the Fathers you could work out some of the votes.

What is striking in certain cases is the not the number of Non Placeat votes, but the number of null votes. For instance on 10 Nov 1965 there were a number of votes on amendments to the schema which became Ad Gentes. When voting on § 8-9 of the First Chapter, 2,128 Father cast votes. 2,083 votes "placeat" and 11 voted "non placeat". There were 34 null votes, which means 34 Father did not follow the instructions. In fact of these 27 were votes "Placeat juxta modum" which was an invalid vote for this part of the voting. The Fathers could only vote "Placeat juxta modum" on the whole chapter, not on individual sections. On the individual sections it was either Yes or No.

Some of the proposed changes were significant, some pedantic. For instance one Father objected to "Ministratio igitur eorum" and preferred "Eorum igitur ministratio". 

Others were more significant. Two Fathers objected to the whole of the section of what became Gaudium et Spes on marriage calling it "theologice immaturum, aequivocum et reticens in quibusdam essentialibus remanere" ("sophomoric theology, ambiguous, and staying reticent concerning certain essential things") and and 20 other Fathers joined them in this objection. They were told in response that the session was about correcting words and ideas and that this objection was too general and the Fathers could vote down the chapter later if they felt it was so, noting that the commission that prepared it did borrow some words like "amoris" from Pius XI's Casti Conubii. Twenty Fathers also insisted that the chapter define the primary end of marriage as procreation to avoid ambiguity, and they were told in response that "technical language is not fitting for a pastoral text."

In the same session on marriage, 17 Fathers proposed the condemnation of the growing sexualization of advertising as an attack on the family. They were told by the commission that this text "cannot address every evil of our time" and that this problem was already dealt with in other places which spoke of the "socio-psychological conditions" of modern communications.

Plenty of other very interesting anecdotes can be drawn out, and quite honestly, it's pretty clear that the commissions who were taking these suggestions had an agenda from their replies.

The signatures are given for the documents, but as we know that doesn't necessarily relate to votes. Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the Non Placeat votes for Dignitatis humanæ and yet signed the document in the end, he says, because the Pope had signed it, so a signature does not necessarily indicate approval. At least one of those people did not approve it and yet signed it, probably more.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)