Jan-Heiner Tück: These days we are commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. How did you, as a young theologian, experience Pope John XXIII’s announcement of the Council?
Walter Cardinal Kasper: I still remember well the evening when it was announced. It was January 25, 1959. I was sitting together with a few colleagues listening to the evening news. Then the announcement was made: Today, Pope John XXIII has proclaimed at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls that an ecumenical council will take place. It was quite a surprise! The enthusiasm grew day by day, along with our expectations. No one could foresee where this new dynamic would lead us.
Renewal from the Gospel
Tück: What were the Pope's intentions with the Council?
Kasper: Initially, the word aggiornamento – bringing the Church "up to date" – stuck in everyone’s mind. However, already at the Council’s official convocation, the Apostolic Constitution Humanae salutis (December 25, 1961) made clear that this was not about a superficial adaptation. The Pope spoke about the Church’s foundational mission to proclaim the Gospel and, in light of rapid social transformations, foresaw an upcoming crisis. He therefore urged the Church to attend to the "signs of the times" and to communicate the life-giving energies of the ever-valid Gospel to the modern world. After the Council, his successor, Pope Paul VI, summarized its basic intention – very much in the line of John XXIII – in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi (1975). The Church exists to proclaim the Gospel; that is its raison d’être. Renewal from the Gospel – this was the Council’s mandate. Thus, evangelization became the guiding theme of all subsequent popes, up to and including Pope Francis.
Tück: After the initial wave of enthusiasm with respect to reforms, a certain disillusionment and uncertainty set in. In Bologna, under the direction of Giuseppe Alberigo, the historical reconstruction of the "event" began, while at the same time the multi-volume theological commentary was being produced at Herder. That was nearly 20 years ago. How would you evaluate the situation today?
Kasper: From the outset, two currents collided in the implementation of reform. One stemmed from the renewal movements between the two world wars: the biblical movement, the liturgical movement, the patristic ressourcement, the active involvement of the laity, and the pastoral renewal in France – renewal from the living spirit of the Gospel. The other current was concerned with safeguarding the Gospel as it had been expressed in the traditional neo-scholastic teaching tradition of recent centuries. Therefore, many compromise formulations were necessary in the documents of the Council in order to safeguard the Church’s unity. But when, after the Council, the dynamic of renewal stalled and conservative forces grew stronger, disappointment, discontent, stagnation, and protest followed.
Tück: How do you assess the situation today?
Kasper: A new generation has grown up that never experienced the Council’s enthusiastic momentum and is largely indifferent to it. The challenge today is no longer modernity but the postmodern condition that questions modernity itself and is marked by fragmentation. Amid spiritual emptiness, disorientation, and indifference, renewal from the Gospel is urgently needed; it is our only hope. But the questions are posed differently and, in the positive sense of the word, more radically – they go down to the roots. The Second Vatican Council is history, and yet we can move forward only if we rekindle the embers beneath the ashes that have accumulated.
The Church is missionary
Tück: The Council’s textual corpus comprises 16 documents. Which are the most important, and how are they interconnected?
Kasper: The most important documents are without doubt the four great constitutions: on the liturgy and liturgical renewal, on the Church, on revelation, and on the Church in the modern world. To these are added nine decrees and three declarations. Particularly important are the decree on ecumenism, the declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions, especially Judaism, and the declaration on religious freedom. Other decrees address internal ecclesial renewal, especially the role of the laity and the ecclesial offices. Finally, there is the decree on the mission activity of the Church, which should encourage us in a new way. The Church does not exist for its own sake. By its very nature, the Church is missionary.
All these documents have changed the face of the Church, especially in the liturgy. The Church has opened itself both inwardly and outwardly. The clergy-centered Church was to become a Church of the people of God, with the active participation of the laity. Outwardly, the Council opened many doors: for ecumenism, for dialogue with non-Christian religions, especially with the people of the First Covenant, and for mission in the world. There is no going back behind this. Nor may we stand still. Karl Rahner said, upon returning from the Council, that the Council was only "the beginning of a beginning."
Tück: The renewal of the liturgy, the ecumenical opening, the dialogue with Judaism and other religions, and the recognition of religious freedom and freedom of conscience were sharply criticized after the Council. Traditionalists accuse the Council of "neo-modernism" and "breaking with tradition." What is your response to this accusation?
Kasper: I cannot agree with this accusation in any way. Tradition should not be confused with traditionalism. Tradition is a living process in which the Holy Spirit continually leads us into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13). Tradition is Spirit-led growth and maturation in understanding the truth of the Gospel, grounded in Sacred Scripture and living tradition. If one studies the texts of the Council carefully, one can see that they are well grounded in Sacred Scripture, rooted in the Church Fathers, and that they integrate previous teachings of the Magisterium. There is no trace of "neo-modernism" or "breaking with tradition," but much of a tree with growing rings.
A pastoral Council
Tück: In order to advance the dialogue with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, the thesis has been repeatedly put forward that Vatican II was "merely a pastoral council" and did not define any dogmas. In particular, the decrees and declarations are said to be of little binding nature, and Walter Cardinal Brandmüller has just once again called Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae as "outdated." What is your assessment?
Kasper: It is true that the Council did not proclaim any formal dogmas or formal doctrinal condemnations. Yet there are, as every theology textbook explains, different degrees of magisterial authority. A teaching formally confirmed by the Pope and the entire episcopate, even if not formulated as a dogma, carries a high degree of binding force, with internal gradations. Reception within the Church also matters. Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae have become highly significant; they are not outdated, on the contrary, they should be deepened and continued theologically. The argument that the Second Vatican Council was "merely a pastoral council" can only be met with a smile. There is no pastoral theology without doctrinal foundations, and no doctrine without pastoral and spiritual implications. Thus, the term "Pastoral council" should not be considered a downgrading but an upgrading, because it affirms that the Council did not indulge in speculative theology, but addressed essential matters for the Christian life of today.
Tück: In parts of German-speaking theology circles, the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes is considered particularly important. Here, the Church is situated in the modern world. Some have called it a "second constitution on revelation" and have elevated the "signs of the times" in late modernity to "sources of revelation." Would you agree?
Kasper: The great importance of Gaudium et spes is beyond question for me. But it cannot be read in isolation, and individual sentences certainly cannot be taken out of context. The Pastoral Constitution must be read in conjunction with the other constitutions, especially the Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei verbum. Dei verbum clearly and unambiguously states that no new public revelation is to be expected beyond Jesus Christ, his death, his resurrection, and the sending of the Holy Spirit (Art. 4). Gaudium et spes does not contradict this; on the contrary, it corresponds to it. It does not say in any way that the "signs of the times" are an additional source of revelation; rather, it clearly and unambiguously states that the "signs of the times" must be interpreted in the light of the Gospel (Gaudium et spes, Art. 4) – and not vice versa. They are not a source of revelation, but an aid to interpreting the source, which is the Gospel, in relation to the concrete situation.
Tück: The changing understanding of gender is one sign of the times that sharply divides opinions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered". Many believe this needs to be revised and demand that the diversity of sexual orientations – including polyamorous and bisexual relationships – should be recognized as God's will in creation. How can the Church address this group with respect without abandoning the foundations of theological anthropology?
Kasper: Indeed, we should not and cannot abandon the fundamental understanding of Christian anthropology. It tells us that beyond all historical and cultural change, all human beings are created by God in his image and therefore every human being possesses inviolable dignity (Gen 1:27). We should therefore respect and honor people, both men and women, who have a different sexual orientation; contemptuous speech or even punishment and discrimination are therefore not acceptable. In pastoral counseling, these people should be treated with respect, and the counselling should help them to accept themselves in their respective uniqueness and to understand that they are loved by God.
When one goes further and compares radical gender theories with Christian anthropology, two conflicts arise. First, Christian anthropology affirms the wonderful unity of body and soul and therefore sees a problem in the strict separation of sex and gender. It cannot fully endorse demands for so-called "gender reassignment" or "transition" in the name of self-determination. Second, Christian anthropology teaches that God created humanity as male and female, and thus affirms a binary and complementary structure of the sexes, unlike some radical versions of gender theory. Therefore, it is theologically questionable whether deviations from the two sexes – often based on self-identification – can be regarded as a "given reality of creation" that must simply be accepted. As far as I know, both points remain contested even within the relevant sciences. Since I am not an expert on these issues, I leave further discussion to the relevant experts and stick to the positions of Christian anthropology that have proven themselves in cultural history.
The Popes and the Council
Tück: Let us look now at the pontificates after the Council: John Paul II (1978 – 2005) affirmed precisely what traditionalists put into question. He emphasized freedom of religion and conscience, thereby challenging the communist regime in Poland. He also decisively took up ideas from Nostra aetate and improved relations with Judaism through impressive gestures and by speaking of an unbroken covenant. Internally, the results have been rather mixed for many. What is your view?
Kasper: John Paul II was a great pope and a personality with great charisma. He rendered outstanding services in the realization and practical implementation of the Council in matters of liturgy, canon law, ecumenism, and relations with Judaism. He also made great progress and sent powerful signals in matters of peace and reconciliation between Eastern and Western Europe, as well as cultural and social issues. In his "mea culpa," he clearly distanced himself from practices in church history that were not in accordance with the Gospel and contributed to the rehabilitation of individuals, including theologians, who had been unjustly condemned. On issues of moral theology, church reform, and the ordination of women, he took strict positions that did not please everyone, but which have not yet been reevaluated by church authorities, which is why I do not wish to pass final judgment. Anyone who attended his funeral could witness the immense esteem he enjoyed far beyond the Catholic Church. I, too, am personally deeply indebted to him.
Tück: His successor, Benedict XVI (2005-2013), provided important theological teachings with his encyclicals and speeches. In his Christmas address in 2005, he advocated a "hermeneutic of reform" for the interpretation of the Council, guided by an interplay of moments of continuity and discontinuity. How do you assess this initiative?
Kasper: We have known each other for over fifty years and met at every stage of our respective lives. Pope Benedict was without doubt a major theologian who also offered many spiritual impulses. In his conciliar hermeneutics and his "hermeneutic of reform," he defused tensions in the debate, though he did not provide the definitive conclusion. He rightly emphasized that, amid historical changes, the identity of the one Church of Jesus Christ through the centuries must be preserved. He rejected the notion that Vatican II created a "new Church." He was rather hesitant and cautious when it came to questions of church reform. However, when dealing with the abuse crisis, he initiated a fundamental change against considerable resistance, though he understandably could not bring it to completion. His theological and spiritual impulses continue to have an effect and will continue to do so.
Tück: In his Christmas address, Benedict rejected Peter Hünermann’s comparison of the Second Vatican Council with a constituent national assembly. How do you evaluate that comparison?
Kasper: I also consider this comparison to be unfortunate. Due to its own constitution, the Church has its own synodal and conciliar structures; it can learn from the respective monarchical and democratic forms, but it cannot simply adopt them. The Second Vatican Council neither sought a constitutional role nor can it be compared to a national assembly due to the universality of the Church.
Tück: Pope Francis (2013 – 2025) – the first pope who did not participate in the Council himself – made mercy the motto of his pontificate and brought the peripheries to the center of pastoral attention. How do you assess his vote for an inclusive and synodal Church?
Kasper: Pope Francis was the first pope who came from the southern hemisphere, or as he said, from the other end of the world. This enabled him to bring the problems, but also the many positive impulses of the southern hemisphere, especially the problem of poverty and justice, as well as the importance of the peripheries, to the attention of the universal Church. Above all, the biblical message of God's mercy was decisive. He provided new impulses by emphasizing care for the earth as the common home of all people and the brotherhood of all human beings. In doing so, he also entered into dialogue with moderate Islam and the indigenous peoples of Latin and North America and Asia.
Tück: What do you regard as the most important legacy of his pontificate?
Kasper: Perhaps his most important legacy is that he addressed the issue of synodality in the Church, thereby making an important and promising contribution to the further development of the Second Vatican Council and its teaching on the communio structure of the Church and the culture of dialogue within the Church. In doing so, he left his successor with a construction site that is still unfinished, and the new Pope Leo XIV is determined to continue building on it.
Synodality and the episcopal office
Tück: There are different views on what the synodal embedding of the episcopal office should look like. In Lumen gentium, the Second Vatican Council not only strengthened the episcopal office, but also emphasized the common priesthood of all believers. After the abuse crisis and the systemic cover-up of crimes, the episcopal office has come under considerable pressure. In Germany, the establishment of a synodal council – later called a synodal conference – was proposed, one that would not only advise bishops but share decision-making authority. Is this a legitimate development of the Council’s affirmation of lay involvement, or does it risk undermining the episcopal constitution of the Church?
Kasper: The episcopal structure is essential to the Catholic Church and was clearly affirmed by the Second Vatican Council. Since the Council, however, the relationship between the episcopate and the common priesthood of all believers has become a perennial issue, which is now to be clarified within the framework of synodality. The abuse crisis, which revealed the failure of many bishops, is an additional impetus to address this question. To avoid misunderstandings, in Germany the term "synodal council" is no longer used; instead, the term "synodal conference" is now used, which has existed in a more informal form since the Würzburg Synod. To what extent this conference will participate in decision-making or deliberation remains to be clarified and depends on Roman approval. With a good culture of dialogue, this juridical distinction is not overly decisive. Synodality means journeying together toward consensus, not power struggles with mutual outvoting. The Council found a beautiful expression for this: a unique Spirit-given harmony between pastors and faithful (Dei verbum 10). In constant conflict, we will fail; only together our voices will be heard again in the world.
Discussion on religious freedom
Tück: The Council wrestled with the recognition of freedom of religion and conscience. The American bishops in particular – supported by the work of John Courtney Murray SJ (1904-1967) – strongly advocated for this. Today, there are voices in the USA who in particular are reinterpreting Dignitatis humanae and promoting a post-liberal or even neo-integralist position. These voices have an influence even in American politics. How do you assess these developments?
Kasper: I used to travel frequently to the United States, though not in recent years. Much has changed in the society and the Church there, and I do not wish to interfere. However, when you think of the Pilgrim Fathers, who played a decisive role in shaping the Constitution of the United States and who, ten years before the French Revolution, spoke for the first time of God-given human rights and erected a huge Statue of Liberty at the entrance to New York for new arrivals, and when I also think of the multicultural, multireligious, and multidenominational composition of the US population, I cannot imagine how a postliberal or neo-integralist model, whatever precisely one means by it, could take hold. But this is for Americans themselves to decide.
A Third Vatican Council?
Tück: Your colleagues in Tübingen, Hans Küng and Norbert Greinacher, called for a Third Vatican Council even before the turn of the millennium. Would the time be right for it today?
Kasper: It is highly likely that there will be another council before the end of the world. At the moment, however, I don't think the time is right. Not only the Church, but the world as a whole is in the midst of a profound process of transformation. At the beginning, I spoke of the difficult transition from modernity to a still rather undefined postmodernity. Many things first have to grow and mature. In the Church, among many other things, we must first patiently determine what synodal structures should look like in concrete terms; only then can the Pope convene a council as a universal synod. It will not be a Third Vatican Council, perhaps in terms of location, but not in terms of form and subject matter. It is not just a matter of retrospectively clarifying some of the unresolved issues of the Second Vatican Council. If a new world order emerges, that is, unity and diversity in a digitally connected but presumably multipolar world, then many new problems of unity in diversity will arise for the universal Church, which were different in the bipolar world of the 1960s of the Second Vatican Council. Renewal from the Gospel will once again become urgently relevant.
Translation: Justin Arickal