Coyle, T. William

English

University of Dayton

Marian StudiesVolume 37 Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh NationalConvention of the Mariological Society of America heldin Tampa, FLA.Article 221986American Influence on Conciliar DecisionRegarding BVM SchemaT. William CoyleFollow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studiesPart of the Religion CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marian Library Publications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in MarianStudies by an authorized editor of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu, mschlangen1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationCoyle, T. William (1986) "American Influence on Conciliar Decision Regarding BVM Schema," Marian Studies: Vol. 37, Article 22.Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol37/iss1/22Appendix VII AMERICAN INFLUENCE ON CONCILIAR DECISION REGARDING BVM SCHEMA* Members of the Mariological Society of America had, I be-lieve, a decisive influence on the Second Vatican Council's teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am Father T. William Coyle, a Redemptorist who has been a member of the Mariological Society for most of its years of exis-tence. In 1963, I was teaching Dogmatic Theology at the Re-demptorist Seminary at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin; one part of my course was the Mariology section. In 1963 also, I accompa-nied a newly ordained Redemptorist Bishop to the Council as his theologian, Bishop Thomas William Murphy, C.Ss.R. A classmate of mine, he was ordained priest in 1943 and was named bishop in 1963 .:.._bishop of a newly created diocese of Juazeiro, in the State of Bahia, Brazil. About October 9, 1963, I called an "exploratory" meeting of the English-speaking periti and theologians attending the Council to discuss the feasibility of meeting weekly to share in-formation about Council matters. Ultimately it was decided to continue with the meetings, if they were approved by the Amer-ican hierarchy. The approval was obtained. For the program on the next week I scheduled Father Eugene Maly and myself to discuss the, then separate, Marian schema, De Beata Maria Vir-gine (the Batie text). Father Maly, the editor of The Bible To-day, had given a talk at the Mariological Society's meeting in 1962 on "Virginity in the New Testament." He was asked to dis-*Notes from remarks offered by Rev. T. William Coyle at the flrst discussion during this 1986 Convention which analyzed Chapter 8 of Lumen gentium. XXXVII ( 1986) MARIAN STUDIES 266-269 1Coyle: American Influence on Conciliar DecisionPublished by eCommons, 1986American Influence on Conciliar Decision 267 cuss the schema in "the light of that topic. I dealt with the schema in the light of the teaching of theologians. Some of the American bishops attended that meeting. About October 22, Cardinal Meyer of Chicago asked Father Barnabas Ahern, C.P., to draw together a panel of American pen"ti and theologians to address the weekly meeting of the American bishops on the evening of October 28 at the North American College. This was, I believe, the first time a national hierarchy had invited its theologians as a group to give input or background on a Council document. Father Ahern asked Father Maly, Father Godfrey Diekmann, O.S.B., and myself to constitute the panel, along with himself. We met for lunch on October 24 to divide the material: Father Ahern, on the general background of the schema and the Old Testament; Father Maly, on the New Testament; Father Diek-mann, on the Fathers and Tradition; myself, on the teaching of the theologians. We agreed that we would urge the rejection of the current schema and favor its incorporation into the docu-ment on the Church, because some of the shortcomings of the Marian schema could be more easily modified if it were going to be entirely reworked to fit into the Church schema, rather than if the Marian text were just to undergo a piecemeal amending. On Monday evening at about 5:00p.m., the four of us were allowed into the meeting of the American Bishops; following our presentation, some discussion, and a question-and-answer period, we were to leave. Cardinal Carberry (then Bishop of Laf-ayette, Indiana) said, "These talks were some of the best we have heard during almost two years of the Council. I would like to ask the Fathers to make copies available to all of us." This was greet-ed with applause. Mter about forty minutes of answering ques-tions, the four of us left the assembly. None of the rest of the American group were allowed to attend the meeting this first week; in the following weeks all were invited to attend, while a select panel made the presentation. We stayed for the entire ses-sion each time, unless it concerned administrative matters. On Tuesday morning, October 29, the vote was taken on whether the doctrine on the Blessed Virgin Mary was to be treat-ed in a separate schema or whether the document was to be re-2Marian Studies, Vol. 37 [1986], Art. 22https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol37/iss1/22268 American Influence on Conciliar Decision worked as a part of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. The vote was 1,114 for inclusion in the Church document to 1,074 favoring a separate document. Archbishop Binz shook my hand at the Bar Jonah coffel! bar and said, "Congratulations, Bill. You won the election." There can be little doubt that the presentations by the theolo-gians had brought about a shift of more than twenty votes on the part of the American bishops. Cardinal Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore in his autobiography, A Blessing of Years, states, "As a result of their talks and the discussion that followed, most of us were convinced that it [the doctrine on Mary] should be includ-ed in the Constitution on the Church" (p. 155). Monsignor Vincent Yzermans in his bookAmencan Participa-tion in the Second Vatican Council (Sheed and Ward, 1967), af-ter reporting the results of the vote, writes: · Observers attributed the results of this vote to the presentation which four American scholars had made before the regular weekly meeting of the American hierarchy on October 28. Their presenta-tion succeeded in convincing a good part of the American hierarchy to vote in favor of incorporating the Marian schema into the schema on the Church. If they had ~ot had the opportunity of making this presentation, perhaps the forty-vote difference in the voting would have resulted in favor of a special Marian decree .... One American bishop called the presentation made by this panel "a masterful job." Another American prelate, commenting on the closeness of this vote, made this observation: ... Another factor in the successful vote was the excellent job done by the panel at the meeting of the United States bishops yesterday afternoon. I am convinced that a number of the Unit-ed States bishops would have voted with the conservatives if they had not had the benefit of the presentation made by this panel on the subject of Mariology .... I feel quite sure that at least twenty votes of the United States bishops were switched as are-sult of that meeting (pp. 25-26). Michael Novak in his book The Open Church (Macmillan, 1964) writes: 3Coyle: American Influence on Conciliar DecisionPublished by eCommons, 1986Amen"can Influence on Conciliar Decision 269 The previous night [to the voting on the Marian schema], four American experts had addressed the American bishops at their weekly meeting .... These talks, and the men who gave them, made such an impression on the American bishops that after-ward many of the latter told the scholars that they now intended to vote for the inclusion of the treatment on Mary in the schema on the Church (p. 200). A part of the discussion on October 28 dealt with the Mary-Church relationship. This had been the theme for the 1958 con-vention of the Mariological Society of America. Some of the in-formation from that session of our society, especially the paper of Father Cyril Vollert, S.J., was brought into the discussion. T. WilliAM COYLE, C.SS.R. Queen of Peace Retreat House Fargo, North Dakota 4Marian Studies, Vol. 37 [1986], Art. 22https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol37/iss1/22

American Influence on Conciliar Decision Regarding BVM Schema

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=marian_studies

American Influence on Conciliar Decision Regarding BVM Schema

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Dayton