Version classiqueVersion mobile

Le Concile Vatican II et le monde des religieux

 | 
Christian Sorrel

L’événement conciliaire. Préparations et réalisations

« Your influence and advice will be called on copiously’ »

Abbot Christopher Butler, osb, and the English at the Council 1

Alana Harris

Texte intégral

  • 1 Grateful thanks are due to Rev Dr Peter Phillips, Diocese of Shrewsbury archivist (and biographer o (...)
  • 2 Valentine Rice, Dom Christopher Butler, the Abbot of Downside, Notre Dame (In), University of Notre (...)
  • 3 Downside Abbey Archives and Library (hereafter DAAL), Bath, Butler Papers (Correspondence with Engl (...)
  • 4 Dwyer to Butler, 2 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 1).
  • 5 Dominic Aidan Bellenger, « Butler, Basil Edward (Christopher Butler) (1902–1986) », rev. Oxford Dic (...)

1As part of a twenty-four part series entitled Men who Make the Council, Harvard academic Valentine Rice offered in 1965 a character portrait of Dom Christopher Butler who had the distinction of being the only non-Bishop lauded for his influence on the theological proceedings of Vatican II2. In his representative capacity as president of the English Benedictine Congregation, Butler also came to exercise profound authority amongst the Anglophone contingent in Rome, as my title – taken from a 1962 letter from Bishop Dwyer of Leeds – makes clear3. Elected to the reconstituted Central Theological Commission in December 1963, which overhauled the curia-produced preparatory schemata for the Council, Dom Butler played a pivotal role in many of its key constitutions such as Dei Verbum, De Oecumenismo and Schema XIII (which would become Gaudium et Spes) on nuclear deterrence. Yet Butler’s « influence and advice » has remained – as Bishop Dwyer also observed in his letter – largely « en coulisse » in existing histories of the Council4. This is nowhere more obvious than in part he played in guiding conciliar reflections on the Blessed Virgin Mary and Council Fathers’ decision to embed them within a chapter in Lumen Gentium principally, it is said, at his instigation5. Following a brief biographical introduction to the Englishman adjudged a twentieth-century successor to John Henry Newman, and a whirlwind overview of the theological controversies surrounding an updated Mariology, this paper draws upon archival material from Downside Abbey and the Archdiocese of Westminster to excavate the essential but unacknowledged contribution of this English religious to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

A brief biographical sketch of Dom Butler

2Basil Edward Butler was born on 7 May 1902 in Reading, England, the third of six children to an Anglican wine merchant and his schoolteacher wife. His intellectual gifts were apparent from the outset and he went up to St John’s College, Oxford on a scholarship, taking a triple first in classics and theology. He held a tutorship at Keble College Oxford in 1925 and was in formation for Anglican ordination, before proceeding to teach classics at Downside school (attached to the Benedictine monastery) while contemplating his conversion to Catholicism. He left the Church of England in 1928 and entered Downside Abbey the following year – taking the name in religion of Christopher when he was ordained in 1933. He was headmaster of the school from 1940, and then elected abbot of the community from 1946 for the next twenty years.

3Attending the Council as president of the English Benedictine congregation, Butler’s fluency in Latin and wide theological learning (particularly of Scripture and the Church Fathers) gave him great authority, as well as an independence from local episcopal concerns. In Britain, he was a well-known and popular personality through his frequent appearances (and breadth of knowledge) as an invited guest on the BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme, Any Questions? and his regular contributions in the Catholic and wider British press.

4At the Council’s conclusion, Butler was appointed auxiliary bishop to Cardinal John Heenan (Archbishop of Westminster) in December 1966 and from 1970-1981 served as co-chairman of the English Anglican-Roman Catholic Committee (as well as, latterly, its international counterpart ARCIC). With these duties he combined extensive academic publications, membership of the editorial board of the New English Bible and he was appointed assistant to the pontifical throne in 1980 (under Pope John Paul II). He died on 20 September 1986 and is buried at Downside Abbey, where his personal papers are also held (in addition to the University of Durham).

Mariology at the Second Vatican Council

  • 6 Melissa Wilde, Vatican II. A Sociological Analysis of Religious Change, Princeton (NJ)- Woodstock, (...)
  • 7 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, Maryknoll (NY), Orbis (...)
  • 8 Ibid, p. 97.

5Designated in a sociological study of Vatican II as « the toughest fight of the Council »6, the debates around the preparatory schema De Beata Maria Virgine were intensely « passionate » and often personal in the concurrent assessment of foremost historians of the Council, Alberigo and Komonchak7. Indeed the Jesuit peritus Karl Rahner remarked contemporaneously that in the heated theological discussions that ensued, « people were talking of a battle for and against the Madonna8 ». The gauntlet had been thrown down by Croatian Franciscan and founding President of the Pontifical International Marian Academy, Father Charles Balić, who prepared and published in 1962 a lengthy schema as an alternative to the preparatory document. Alongside expanded restatement of the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, this document canvassed controversial issues such as Mary’s perpetual virginity and death as well as the problematic titles of Mediatrix Gratiarum (Mediatrix of Graces) and Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church). Strong misgivings were voiced from a variety of quarters during the intersessional and ahead of the start of the second session of the Theological Commission, a number of alternative submissions were made – including the « Butler Document », as will be explored in more detail.

  • 9 Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, Collegeville (Minn.), Liturgical Press, 2012, p. 359.
  • 10 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 95-96.
  • 11 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 2/3, 24 October 1963, p. 338-342.
  • 12 Ibid, p. 342-345.
  • 13 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 98.

6Convening on 9 October 1963 to discuss De Beata and the proposals, the division evident in the Theological Commission was a foreshadowing of that which would follow in St Peter’s aula in the weeks following. Celebrated by Yves Congar in his Council journal as a victory for « the soundness of Mariology cured of its maximalist cancer9 », members voted 12 to 9 (with two abstentions) that the conciliar reflections on Our Lady should be included, as a chapter, within a broader document on the Church. What followed was a strong traditionalist reaction on the Council floor, with a flurry of pamphlets and documents by Balić and some of the Oriental bishops, to which Abbot Butler responded with what Alberigo and Komonchak described as « a well-balanced note », advocating the combination of solemnly defined Marian doctrines with insights on Mary’s nature and role from Scripture10. The choice was put before the Council Fathers on 19 October 1963, with opening interventions by Cardinal Santos advocating a separate schema11, while Cardinal König endorsed incorporation within the ecclesiological discussions12. When the vote was taken, a narrow majority of 1114 endorsed incorporation within De Ecclesia, while 1074 favoured the composition of a separate Marian schema13. The matter was referred to a sub-commission that eventually, and after much redrafting, presented Chapter 8 within Lumen Gentium for the endorsement of the Council Fathers on 21 November 1964.

The English Hierarchy and Marian Epilogus

  • 14 Letter from Derek Worlock to John Carmel Heenan, 23 July 1963, 1 (DAAL, A3ii).
  • 15 Ibid.

7Eighteen months earlier, at a meeting in London to discuss the position of the English Hierarchy on a number of issues that would arise in the second conciliar session, Abbot Butler voiced his serious concerns about De Beata which he roundly condemned as « not in tone with the spirit of the Council as expressed in the First Session last year14 ». Drawing upon extensive discussions with the noted Marian expert and peritus René Laurentin, Butler reiterated their mutual concern that the proposed text extended papal definitions and eschewed an irenic tone. He communicated Laurentin’s recommendation that the entire text be re-written and integrated into the broader schema De Ecclesia15.

  • 16 Aidan Bellenger, « Bishop Christopher Butler, Mary and the Church », in William Mcloughlin, Jill Pi (...)

8Delegated with this task by his fellow Bishops, Butler undertook to produce a draft with the aid of his fellow Downside monk Dom Ralf Russell16 and he outlined in a covering memo, under the heading « The Right Orientation », what he thought should be the guiding principles of the text. As he forthrightly explained:

  • 17 Christopher Butler, « Schema De Beata Maria Virgine », n.d., 2 (Diocese of Westminster, London (her (...)

The Schema should answer Pope John XXIII’s requirements for the Council. This means a Pastoral Import, not developing a Marian theology but presenting a doctrine useful to animate Christian life and spiritual action. This involves an accentuation of Mary’s function in the Church: her obedience as “servant of the Lord”, her link with the Scriptural “poor of the Lord”, her evangelical example, less insistence on her privileges as glories but rather as gifts of God, seeing her as the perfect model of what is to be promoted in the Church and among Christians17.

  • 18 Christopher Butler, « De Ecclesia – Epilogus » « To replace Schema De Beata Maria Virgine » (Latin (...)

9The Latin draft produced – christened the Epilogus – was peppered with scriptural references and marked by a profound engagement with the patristic Fathers such as Augustine, Irenaeus, as well as theologians beloved of the Eastern Churches such as John of Damascus and Cyril of Alexandria18. The draft was then duly sent by Monsignor Derek Worlock (private secretary to the Arch-bishop of Westminster) to each Diocese for evaluation and comment, with the hope that it could be submitted to the Vatican with the full weight of the entire English and Welsh Hierarchy behind it.

  • 19 Letter from Cyril Conrad Cowderoy to Derek Worlock, 17 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Corresp (...)
  • 20 Letter from Mons. Whitty (Liverpool) to Derek Worlock, 14 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Corr (...)

10Butler’s draft attracted unqualified support from four bishops, with the Bishop of Southwark describing the treatise as uncontroversial and « extremely well done in itself. It is, I think, a document which could be a credit to the English Hierarchy… . [and] the abbot seems to have combined very adequately a scriptural and traditional approach19 ». Monsignor Whitty of Liverpool concurred, praising « the approach through the Bible and the Fathers, as seen in Newman’s “Letter to Pusey” and in “Our Lady and the Church” by Hugo Rahner… [as] more attractive without jeopardising any of the Catholic Teaching on the B. Virgin20 ». The most extended, glowing commendation was received from Bishop Pearson (auxiliary to the Bishop of Lancaster) who observed:

  • 21 Letter from Thomas Pearson to Derek Worlock, 16 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence (...)

It is very beautiful. It is entirely scriptural. […] The balance of scripture is important. […] It seems idle to me to try to strike a balance between maximalists and minimalists. […] It [is] more positive and show [s] that the real status of Our Lady is in a properly developed doctrine of the Church. Since the Church is Christ those are real Christians whose life most approximates to His ideal. And that puts Our Lady in a category apart etc. etc. etc. All this seems to be admirably adumbrated in the proposal of Abbot Butler as the right approach for a new schema21.

  • 22 Letter from James Cunningham to Christopher Butler, with annexed of extended notes, 20 August 1963  (...)

11Yet not all the English bishops agreed, with opposition from the outset expressed by the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle and his consultation with a theological expert throughout drafting, so as to incorporate more of the Greek Fathers and Byzantine sources22. In a slightly less academic vein, and writing as a spokesperson for those with a different theological and devotional emphasis, Bishop Foley of Lancaster outlined their concerns:

  • 23 Letter from Brian Foley to Derek Worlock, 1 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 195 (...)

b) We think that the extraordinary place occupied by Our Lady in Catholic theology, her altogether unique position requires separate treatment in a separate Treatise. If, however, the Treatise De Beata Virgine Maria should be merged with another, we feel it would more fittingly be merged with the Treatise De Verbo Incarnato. The effort to insert it into the Treatise De Ecclesia is ingenious but not made without an evident forcing of the facts23.

  • 24 Typed note from John Heenan (Archbishop of Liverpool), n.d. (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence (...)

12Similar sentiments were also expressed in detailed typed comments forwarded by the Bishop of Liverpool, John Carmel Heenan – who was of course to be translated to the Archdiocese of Westminster a month later. In faint praise, his letter opened « I agree with everything in this Epilogus, but it is inadequate ». It continued: « There must be two additions: a) the necessity of devotion to Our Lady for the fullness of the Christian Faith; b) The rightness of addressing prayers to Our Lady. Unless these points are given clear mention (it is not enough to say that Mary has been semper invocat) a pastoral and ecumenical tract becomes an apology for the Catholic position. We should never even seem to “play down” Our Lady24 ». In pointed comments that critiqued an implicit over-emphasis on the ecumenical reception of the document, Archbishop Heenan continued:

  • 25 Ibid.

It is a mistake to under-emphasise the Protestant dislike of the whole Catholic attitude to Our Lady. See e.g. “Some thoughts on the 2nd Vatican Council” by Karl Barth (Ecumenical Review, July 1963)… Barth is one of the most friendly and intelligent of the separated brethren. But he is unable to disguise his suspicion of the Virgin Mary. We must remember that Our Lady was one of the chief objects of the Reformers’ hatred. It would be a poor service to ecumenism if we were to disguise the place Mary has in the spiritual life of priests and people in the Church of Rome. It is excellent to counter the ravings of certain Catholic Mariologist. But we must make it quite clear that Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary is not in any way to be attenuated by the Council25.

  • 26 See Peter Phillips, « Abbot Christopher Butler at the Second Vatican Council », unpubli-shed paper (...)

13Referencing a prominent continental theologian, while also mobilising assessments of a distinctive English Catholic history and vibrant contemporaneous piety, the man who would go on lead the English delegation at the second session (and who some claimed only narrowly trumped Abbot Butler for this top job) poured cold water on the draft submission26.

  • 27 Letter from Christopher Butler to Derek Worlock, 27 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspond (...)
  • 28 Letter from Derek Worlock to Brian Foley, 27 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 19 (...)

14Responding to these comments on 27 August 1963 from Downside Abbey, Abbot Butler communicated his readiness to « try to satisfy Archbishop Heenan’s point about the rightness and need of prayers to Our Lady », but added: « I realise that not all the bishops will feel able to back the draft, but I hope enough will append their blessing to it to compel the secretariat to take notice of it27. » A more fulsome response to these criticisms – which he attempted to soften with the opening caveat that they were « written “off the cuff”… and hurriedly » – was directed at the Bishop of Lancaster on the same day28. Enumerating the ecclesiological and ecumenical concerns paramount throughout this theological reflection, Abbot Butler was direct and unequivocal:

  • 29 Letter from Derek Worlock to Brian Foley (quoting directly from Abbot Butler’s response), 27 August (...)

There is no question of “playing down” Our Lady and my draft explicitly mentions the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There is, on the other hand, no doubt at all that (i) the separated Eastern are “put off” by our dogmatising about Our Lady – they like it all vague and “mystical”; (ii) the separated Westerns have grave difficulties, partly emotional and “prejudiced” by their own past, on this subject. There is hope of getting them to accept Our Lady because they come to accept our doctrine of the Church and her defining authority; there is little chance of getting them to accept the Church because they come to accept our doctrine of, and devotion to, Our Lady. So the whole thing becomes a question of “ecumenical approach” – the more so since, as far as we are concerned, there is no need for this Council to say anything about Our Lady – unless, which I should most strongly deprecate, a new mariological definition were in view. […] The new [view] today is not just for a theology of ecumenism, but for an ecumenical general theology (I agree with Fr Charles Davis on this29).

  • 30 Natalie K. Watson, « Davis, Charles Alfred (1923-1999) », rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biogra (...)
  • 31 Letter from Brian Foley to Derek Worlock, 31 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 19 (...)
  • 32 Letter from Brian Foley to Christopher Butler, 3 September 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 25).

15In the language of « playing down », there was a barbed reference to Archbishop Heenan’s response, as well as the alignment of his position with the liberal peritus Charles Davis – the other English priest identified as an theological authority before leaving the priesthood in 196630. On receipt of this letter, Bishop Foley responded to the secretariat at Westminster thanking Abbot Butler for his comments, humbling demurring: « I do recognise the force of what he says and his great knowledge and study of these things makes him an authority whom one would naturally want to follow31. » Writing to Abbot Butler directly on 3 September 1963, Bishop Foley was outwardly deferential, prefacing his remark by acknowledging that he « respect [ed] your great knowledge and study of these matters and my own very meagre learning besides » while continuing to voice his misgivings. In a very English response, he stubbornly insisted that the draft « does not fully account for the particular place that She [Mary] has in Catholic life », insisted upon the « difference in Her power of intercession » and referenced « Belloc’s letter to Chesterton about this ». As he concluded, « you will say that this is “feeling” not theology. But it is more than that; it is the accumulated experience of all and each of our people who have come to accord to Our Lady accordingly a more than the Saints’ share in the redemption32 ». The Bishop of Lancaster, in the historic recusant heartland of the north of England, invoked the sensus fidelium to counter the scholarly convert’s document bristling with footnotes, citations and concern for ecumenical sensitivities.

  • 33 Letter from Derek Worlock to Vatican official, 13 October 1963 regarding the approval by the Englis (...)
  • 34 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 62.
  • 35 Yves Congar, My Journal…, p. 368.
  • 36 Ibid., p. 414.
  • 37 Il Tempo, 27-29th October 1963, cited in Giuseppe Alberigo, Josepha. Komonchak (eds.), History of V (...)

16Despite these political and theological wranglings throughout its preparation, Archbishop Heenan finally agreed to endorse the draft and « the Butler » document was presented to the General Secretariat with 102 Episcopal signatures attached33. The document had already been widely distributed and discussed within progressive circles, such as Elchinger’s « Conciliar Strategies » Friday group where it formed a major agenda item on 10 October 1963 amongst influential theologians such as Rahner, Ratzinger and Daniélou34. Congar recorded in his diary that it was « a fine text » and that he hoped it would be approved « without discussion35 ». Indeed Congar sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to have it included for discussion at a meeting of the Theological Commission on 7 November 196336. The draft schema also brought Abbot Butler to the attention of the conservative press, with the Italian daily Il Tempo mounting an ad hominem attack and accusing the Abbot of Downside of disregarding the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption37.

  • 38 Vincent Nichols, « Worlock, Derek John Harford (1920-1996) », rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Bi (...)
  • 39 Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 4 November 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 31). Five docum (...)
  • 40 See the discussion of these intricacies by Laurentin and Besutti, cited in Giuseppe Alberigo, Josep (...)
  • 41 Yves Congar, My Journal…, p. 532.
  • 42 Ibid, p. 533-534.
  • 43 Ibid, p. 541.
  • 44 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 371.
  • 45 To Irenaeus and John Damascene within Chapter 8 De Ecclesia.

17Express traces of the « Butler document » disappear after the conciliar vote and with the convening of the drafting sub-commission in November. Nevertheless glimpses of Butler’s continuing influence and, on occasions, direct interventions in the production of the final chapter remain in the archival record. In a letter in early November 1963 between Butler and the Archbishop of Westminster’s private secretary, Derek Worlock (himself a noted ecumenist and later Archbishop of Liverpool38), there is reference to a « conflatio » document produced in all likelihood with the Bishops of Chile who had also produced a separate, ecumenically minded schema for consideration39. Composition of the new chapter was entrusted to Father Balić and the Belgian theologian (and commission secretary) Gérard Philips, who were charged with achieving harmony between the two Mariological tendencies. In the early months of 1964, Philips managed to incorporate many of Laurentin’s suggestions into Balić’s text40, and a fifth redaction was finally presented to the Doctrinal Commission in March 1964 (of which Butler was a member). When debated there on 1 June 1964, Balić sought to re-introduce the title Mater Ecclesiae, and Congar records the « good interventions » by Dom Butler and Karl Rahner, and the vote of 23 to 20 to ensure that « the introduction of a new and very doubtful title was avoided41 ». The following day, Butler countered Balić’s suggestion for an express mention of the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that « we have not been given the task of echoing all the words of the Pope » and the need for a « mode of expression accessible to Protestants42 ». While Abbot Butler vociferously resisted reopening of the question of Mary as Mediatrix on 3 June 196443, supported by Gérard Philips who judged its inclusion contrary to the sub-commission’s intention, the « liturgical » solution offered and its incorporation with other less titles was adjudged the best compromise possible44. While the resulting chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium retains just a few (but important traces from an ecumenical perspective) of « the Butler epilogue », chiefly patristic references45, the Abbot of Downside’s intellectual input – albeit « en coulisse » as Bishop Dwyer foresaw – is palpable when examining his influence and actions at the heart of the conciliar event.

  • 46 Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 10 December 1963, 2 (DAAL, A3ii, fol. 33).

18Writing to Abbot Butler on 10 December 1963, Monsignor Worlock confided: « I hope that you were reasonably satisfied with the results of the [second] session. When analysed, the Pope’s [closing] speech seemed to me to pick up on every point of importance and I felt that we could return home happy with the success of our main interventions on “the Senate” [i.e. collegiality], Our Lady, and Christian Unity46. » In this telling piece of internal correspondence between the secretary of the English Hierarchy and Abbot Butler, the intellectual leadership and active endeavours of the Benedictine President are acknowledged and appreciated. The areas of « main intervention » Derek Worlock identified – Our Lady and Christian Unity – were unsurprisingly of paramount emotional importance to those from an English Catholic context, well-aware of Marian devotion as a chief point of Protestant differentiation and their need, as a minority, to engage (and later officially « dialogue ») with the Church of England. As this paper has explored, not all within the English Hierarchy agreed with Abbot Butler’s approach to these sensitive issues, but there was a clear consensus on his scholarly capabilities and diplomatic capacities in furthering the interests of the Anglophone bishops in the side-wings of the assembly. Through his presence and participation in the unreported theological politics of the Theological Commission, his contributions to the vibrant, exacting discussions at the informal « Conciliar Strategies » meetings, and his occasional intervention on the floor of the aula in St Peter’s, Abbot Butler’s « influence and advice » was widely appreciated amongst the Council Fathers. While little known now – he still awaits a full length, scholarly biography –, Abbot Butler may rightly be identified as the most important Englishman active at the Council.

Notes

1 Grateful thanks are due to Rev Dr Peter Phillips, Diocese of Shrewsbury archivist (and biographer of Christopher Butler), William Johnson (Westminster Diocesan Archive), Dr Tim Hopkinson-Ball and Dr Simon Johnson (Archivists at Downside Abbey Archives and Library).

2 Valentine Rice, Dom Christopher Butler, the Abbot of Downside, Notre Dame (In), University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.

3 Downside Abbey Archives and Library (hereafter DAAL), Bath, Butler Papers (Correspondence with English Bishops and Mgr Worlock, A3ii, folio 1), Bishop George Patrick Dwyer to Christopher Butler, 22 Oct. 1962, 2.

4 Dwyer to Butler, 2 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 1).

5 Dominic Aidan Bellenger, « Butler, Basil Edward (Christopher Butler) (1902–1986) », rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004.

6 Melissa Wilde, Vatican II. A Sociological Analysis of Religious Change, Princeton (NJ)- Woodstock, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 102-115.

7 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, Maryknoll (NY), Orbis, 1996, p. 95.

8 Ibid, p. 97.

9 Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, Collegeville (Minn.), Liturgical Press, 2012, p. 359.

10 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 95-96.

11 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 2/3, 24 October 1963, p. 338-342.

12 Ibid, p. 342-345.

13 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 98.

14 Letter from Derek Worlock to John Carmel Heenan, 23 July 1963, 1 (DAAL, A3ii).

15 Ibid.

16 Aidan Bellenger, « Bishop Christopher Butler, Mary and the Church », in William Mcloughlin, Jill Pinnock (eds.), Mary for Time and Eternity. Essays on Mary and Ecumenism, Leominster, Gracewing, 2007, p. 268-275.

17 Christopher Butler, « Schema De Beata Maria Virgine », n.d., 2 (Diocese of Westminster, London (hereafter AAW), Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963 c.1 (a)- (e), file c.1 (e), Abbot Butler’s Revised Epilogue – De B.V.M. 1963).

18 Christopher Butler, « De Ecclesia – Epilogus » « To replace Schema De Beata Maria Virgine » (Latin text), 1-5 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

19 Letter from Cyril Conrad Cowderoy to Derek Worlock, 17 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)). Support was also received from the Bishops of Menevia (John Petit) and Northampton (Thomas Parker). The Bishop of Salford (George Beck) and Bishop Craven (Auxiliary Bishop, Westminster) gave their support iuxta modum and the Bishop of Brentwood (Bernard Wall) sent comments – see Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 16 September 1963 ((DAAL, A3ii, folio 27).

20 Letter from Mons. Whitty (Liverpool) to Derek Worlock, 14 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

21 Letter from Thomas Pearson to Derek Worlock, 16 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

22 Letter from James Cunningham to Christopher Butler, with annexed of extended notes, 20 August 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 21).

23 Letter from Brian Foley to Derek Worlock, 1 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)). Curiously, despite his support for Abbot Butler generally, the Bishop of Leeds was not impressed by the alternate schema sufficiently « to make me want to put the weight of the Hierarchy behind it » – see Letter from George Dwyer to Derek Worlock, 25 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

24 Typed note from John Heenan (Archbishop of Liverpool), n.d. (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

25 Ibid.

26 See Peter Phillips, « Abbot Christopher Butler at the Second Vatican Council », unpubli-shed paper delivered at the English Benedictine History Commission on the Reception of the Second Vatican Council, Ealing Abbey, 1 May 2014, 28, fn 30 (with thanks to Rev Dr Peter Phillips, Shrewsbury Diocesan Archivist, for allowing me to consult a copy of this paper).

27 Letter from Christopher Butler to Derek Worlock, 27 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

28 Letter from Derek Worlock to Brian Foley, 27 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

29 Letter from Derek Worlock to Brian Foley (quoting directly from Abbot Butler’s response), 27 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

30 Natalie K. Watson, « Davis, Charles Alfred (1923-1999) », rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004.

31 Letter from Brian Foley to Derek Worlock, 31 August 1963 (AAW, Vatican Council II Correspondence 1959-1963, c.1 (e)).

32 Letter from Brian Foley to Christopher Butler, 3 September 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 25).

33 Letter from Derek Worlock to Vatican official, 13 October 1963 regarding the approval by the English, Welsh and Scottish Hierarchies and with the support of 50 Theological Commission members (DAAL, A3ii, folio 30). On the nomenclature « the Butler », see the letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 9 November 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 32).

34 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 62.

35 Yves Congar, My Journal…, p. 368.

36 Ibid., p. 414.

37 Il Tempo, 27-29th October 1963, cited in Giuseppe Alberigo, Josepha. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 387.

38 Vincent Nichols, « Worlock, Derek John Harford (1920-1996) », rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004.

39 Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 4 November 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 31). Five documents were considered in the re-drafting – « The Butler », Chile, Laurentin, Balić and one from Cardinal Suenens, see Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 9 November 1963 (DAAL, A3ii, folio 32). On the « Suenens amendment », see Marie Farrell, « Evangelization, Mary and the “Suenens Amendment” of Lumen Gentium 8 », in William Mcloughlin, Jill Pinnock (eds.), Mary for Earth and Heaven…, p. 145-155.

40 See the discussion of these intricacies by Laurentin and Besutti, cited in Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 371.

41 Yves Congar, My Journal…, p. 532.

42 Ibid, p. 533-534.

43 Ibid, p. 541.

44 Giuseppe Alberigo, Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), History of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 371.

45 To Irenaeus and John Damascene within Chapter 8 De Ecclesia.

46 Letter from Derek Worlock to Christopher Butler, 10 December 1963, 2 (DAAL, A3ii, fol. 33).

Auteur

King’s College, London

© LARHRA, 2019

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search