What is the stenographer selection process


Shortened text from NStPr 60/4 (2012) 101-118

"Ne fiant plausus!" - For the minutes of the Second Vatican Council 1962–1965

Fifty years ago, in October 1962, the Second Vatican Council began in Rome. It is part of a long series of 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church since the 4th century, at which bishops from all over the Christian world came together, mostly under the chairmanship of the Pope, to discuss questions of faith and the relationship between Church and the world. The contributions to the debate and decisions were always very carefully documented so that the decisions made could be communicated to the whole of Christendom and faithfully passed on to future generations.

Historical review

Shorthand has been used in many councils since ancient times.1 ... The ... First Vatican Council of 1869/70 ... even fell into the prime of modern shorthand ... Two pairs of stenographers worked here at the same time, a team of stenographers and a team of auditors; The nine pairs of stenographers each recorded five minutes in the form that a stenographer recorded five to six words in shorthand in one line and then, after the colleague had filled in a line in his pad, continued to write in the next line. The dictation of the texts then took place vice versa, line by line. The speakers received the resulting print proofs of their speeches on the same day for review, so that the minutes of one day of the meeting were available the next day. Accordingly, the speeches were quickly published in the official acts of the Council and in some cases also in national translations.

In addition to the actual text of the speech, the stenographers recorded many other incidents such as applause, unrest, grumbling and heckling. In response to a rhetorical question from a bishop, the protocol notes whether the council fathers would agree that councils are superior to the pope: "Tumultus - Non, non, minime!" And also when the council president calls "tintinnabulum" to order with a bell this is logged.

Preparation of the minutes of the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council

90 years later, the commission for the preparation of the Second Vatican Council only provided for the recording of the verbal contributions on tape for the documentation of the deliberations of the council. Only the deliberations in the council hall, i.e. in St. Peter's Basilica, the so-called general assemblies (congregationes generales), not the deliberations in the commissions. The latter were committees set up according to the subjects of discussion, made up of bishops elected by the Council Fathers and bishops appointed by the Pope and in which experts also had the right to speak. In any case, this decision was taken on June 19, 1961 in a naive trust in the unlimited possibilities of technical development, which also permeates some Council documents.6 Only at the urging of Pope John XXIII. the use of stenographers was also prepared in late summer 1961, a good year before the beginning of the Council. That was even worth reporting to our association magazine:

According to press reports, the Vatican is looking for shorthand stenographers who are capable of entering into the negotiations for the forthcoming World Council, whose negotiating language will again be Latin.7

The choice of Latin was not as unusual back then as it appears today: the most common of the official liturgical languages ​​in the Catholic Church at that time was Latin. However, since there was hardly a stenographer who met the requirements mentioned, a special training for Council stenographers was inevitable, as was the case with the First Vatican Council. Aloys Kennerknecht was entrusted with this task, who had been teaching foreign language shorthand at the University of Mainz's International and Interpreting Institute in Germersheim since 1947. However, he did not fall back on the experiences of 1869/70, but worked together with Alphons Kloos and the theology student Albrecht Kronenberger to adapt the German standard shorthand used in Germany to the Latin language.8

Training of council stenographers

With regard to suitable stenographers, the situation was very similar to 90 years earlier. In the meantime there were parliamentary stenographers in the parliaments of all European democracies, but hardly any those who could write Latin speeches and also understood anything about theology. So it was decided again to train clergymen and seminarians from different countries especially for this task. It turned out to be an advantage that Latin was still used as the language of instruction in many church universities and theological faculties. A student at the Irish college at the time, Michael Smith [9], gives a nice report on the selection process and the training by Kennerknecht:

Towards the end of 1961 the rector of the Irish college asked me if I wanted to take part in the drafting of the official minutes or acts of the council, for which I would have to learn shorthand Latin. I was in my third year of theology at Lateran University and didn't need to be asked twice. A total of 42 students from the Roman seminaries were selected, the majority of them Italians. ... In addition to our normal courses at the university, we attended his lessons in the Vatican on most evenings. It was an interesting and challenging job. [10]

Whether now 4011, 42 as recalled by Smith, or 43 clerics12 - They came from 14 different countries: Egypt, Ceylon, Germany, England, France, India, Ireland, Italy - made up the largest group with 22 clerics - Mexico, Austria, Paraguay, Rwanda-Urundi, Spain and the USA. In addition to Smith, Vf. Has so far been able to identify the following people by name as Council stenographers:

  • Giancarlo Atzei from the Diocese of Cagliari, most recently Vice Chancellor of the Curia there;
  • Roger Duprez from the diocese of Lille;
  • Helmut Krätzl13who only worked as a stenographer for the first session in 1962,14 later auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Vienna;
  • Reinhard Lettmann, later Bishop of Münster;
  • Ferdinand Staudinger, 1964–2006 Professor of Biblical Studies of the New Testament at the Philosophical-Theological University in St. Pölten,
  • from the North American College, Priest William K. Leahy of the Diocese of Philadelphia and the seminarian Kenneth Buhr of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles;
  • from the Collegium De Propaganda Fide Gerald E. Bensmann (from Anna / Shelby County) from the Diocese of Memphis - only the first three sessions - and Michael D. Beatty (1938-2011) from the Archdiocese of Cincinnati;
  • John Fitzsimmons (1939-2008) from the Diocese of Paisley / Scotland and
  • Antonio Giustetto IMC († 2002), who as a missionary in Kenya wrote a handbook for Kisuahelian shorthand, which was first introduced in the commercial school for girls he founded and then also in many state schools in Kenya.


In addition to the training, an important point was of course the technical equipment of the council hall. Instead of around 774 participants as at the First Vatican, St. Peter's Basilica now had to be prepared for over 2,500 Council Fathers, all of whom were to have their own seat with a desk. In addition, appropriate technical equipment had to be provided: 42 floodlights were installed, as well as 68 loudspeakers and 37 microphones: 24 for the Council Fathers and 13 for the Council Presidium and the Pope and - with regard to liturgical practices - for the organ and the choir. There were also five tape recorders, two of which were running. One tape went straight to the archive, while the other was available to the stenographers. Just like the workstations of the Council Presidium, the workstations of the stenographers were also equipped with table lamps: Thanks to the acoustics and lighting and the accompanying tape recorders, there were good working conditions for the stenographers who sat at tables next to the papal altar in St. Peter's Basilica and in offices in the immediate vicinity of the Council auditorium were able to transfer their shorthand notes in longhand.

The General Secretary of the Council, Archbishop Felici, had great respect for the stenographers. This was expressed in the fact that before the opening of each day of the session he recited a Latin poem that he himself had often written shortly beforehand, so that the 37 stenographers that were left of the 43 could be present when the council on October 11, 1962 met for the first time in St. Peter's Basilica.

Logging and its difficulties

The Motu proprio "Appropinquante Concilio", issued on August 6, 1962, in which Pope John XXIII laid down the rules of procedure for the Council, also contained provisions in Chapter VI, Art. 15, § 12 for the stenographers, which were called tachigraphi:

The speeches and decisions of the Council Fathers are recorded in writing by the stenographers; They also hand over their longhand notes to the General Secretariat for the preparation of the official written report.16

To record the speeches, the system of rotations common in most parliaments around the world was used: two stenographers wrote at the same time for 10 minutes each before they were replaced by the next couple, and each then transmitted 5 minutes of the 10 minutes with the help of the shorthand the other and the tape recorder on their own. A number of difficulties arose here, however: The council stenographer Reinhard Lettmann reports that a tiny misunderstanding was enough to throw the stenographers off course. That was also due to the fact that the bishops pronounced some terms differently depending on their origin. The Americans would have spoken of 'laibärtas' instead of 'libertas', while the Spaniards made no distinction between v and b: "Did you mean" vivere "or" bibere ", live or drink?" [17] In his review of the At that time, Lettmann cites the above-mentioned circumstances as the reason why the shorthand recording of the debates in the council hall was broken off during the second session in autumn 1963. [18]

Here, however, one can rightly ask whether there are any other reasons why shorthand logging was discontinued. The death of the previous Pope, John XXIII, represents a significant turning point. on June 3, 1963, on whose initiative the use of stenographers declined. But before we go into questions of content, we should first look at whether there was a qualitative difference to the First Vatican Council from a formal point of view.

In order to be able to react adequately to the different pronunciation of Latin by the Council Fathers, stenographers from many different countries were employed at both Vatican II and Vatican II. However, since the nationality of the speaker could not be taken into account when dividing up the rotation, the First Vatican had planned a pair of revisionists (turno di riscontro) in addition to the turno di riscontro, which did not write a specific time, but an entire speech each - i.e. French auditors, for example with a French speaker, English auditors with an English speaker - and the couple who went out each gave their notes with them. On the basis of this, any doubtful cases could then be clarified or gaps filled.

Another problem with the Second Vatican Council seems to have been caused by the Latin adaptation based on the principles of the German unified shorthand. [19] The German unified abbreviation is not primarily created for a language like Latin with a two-syllable basic structure of words, numerous different endings and consonants ...

Difficulties in shorthanding Latin are in particular the diverse endings, which - in contrast to modern languages, in which the position of the sentence in connection with verbs and conjunctions often determines the case - are of extraordinary importance for the logical function of nouns and adjectives in the sentence structure. Likewise, diverse series of consonants with upstroke t lead to unsightly typefaces.

Even the dominant dictum in shorthand didactics in Germany, to avoid all longhand elements when recording in shorthand, may have something of its own from a fundamental point of view, but in this special situation, in which those who do not know shorthand, it would be a demanding task in less than a year had to be prepared, took a back seat to a more pragmatic approach. Because everyone who has learned the German unified abbreviation knows that the internalization of this script and the corresponding automation can hardly be mastered in less than a year.

Likewise due to the German thoroughness is probably also the close reference to the collation process common at the time. In this special case of the Council, in which no "high-performance stenographers" were used, the alternating or stenodigraphic [20] line by line recording chosen by Marchese at the First Vatican was again a more pragmatic approach with regard to the result.

No thought was given to other practical questions beforehand either; because there does not seem to have been any formalization of the categorization of expressions of approval. In the minutes drawn up by the stenographers there is next to Plausibility for general applause the designation Plausus in aula. For partial applause are found Quidam Fathers chats (8th CG, see ASCV I / 1 530) and Plausus quorundam Patrum (9th CG, see ASCV I / 1 570). At the beginning of the second session, the applause no longer makes any quantitative distinction. Here it usually just says Plausibility, but also partly again Plausus in aula.

Cancellation of shorthand logging

With the discontinuation of the original task at the beginning of the second session, the number of council stenographs fell to 1521 and later on 1222 - Too small a number to promptly create edited verbatim minutes of the approximately three-hour meetings with calls and differentiated expressions of applause. Instead, three stenographers were assigned to each day of the meeting, who compared the speeches with the previously submitted manuscripts, noted the sequence of speakers and special occurrences, and noted in the text where deviations from the manuscript were made. Each team of three then had until the evening of the following day to create a transcript using the tape recorders equipped with foot switches. Most of the minutes of the 168 meetings that took place in the autumn of 1962 to 1965 are based on transcripts.

Some of the remaining clergy, originally designated as stenographers, turned to other challenges - many, like Pope John XXIII. Not at all expected that there would be more than one session - from then on, others were mainly used as a kind of usher, as "assignator locorum", and had to collect the Council Fathers' voting cards for final votes, for example.23

The Italian shorthand historian Giulietti, in his report on the stenographers at the council, citing the head of the session service, Msgr. Emilio Governatori, justifies the rejection of a shorthand transcript, interestingly enough, with the fact that a tape transcript is completely sufficient because the council, unlike other assemblies run in perfect order; Incidents, interruptions, unrest, insults and riots are unimaginable; The President of the Council could prevent exceeding speaking times or misconduct by speakers by switching off the amplification system and recording devices at the push of a button.24 This seems to be a very semi-official announcement that in no way corresponded to the reality of most previous councils, including that of the Second Vatican Council. Rather, it is intended to justify the non-involvement of the Council stenographs and their minutes in the administrative processes and planning of the Council leadership ex post.One of the stenographers, Helmut Krätzl, himself speaks of the fact that "the organization at the council ... was almost chaotic."25

This is also clear from another aspect that has been criminally neglected, although this is of great importance for the authenticity of verbatim transcripts: While at the First Vatican, the proofs of the speeches were mostly sent on the same day to the speakers who wished it to be corrected , there was no such procedure at the Second Vatican Council. It is also inexplicable that the actual minutes were only published ten years after the end of the council, when, to use a metaphor from theology, "all masses were sung" or the most serious reforms following the council had already been implemented the impression that Pope John XXIII wanted to record the council meetings in shorthand was an unloved child for the council's leadership.After the death of this Pope in June 1963, i.e. after the first and before the second session, there was no longer any reason to stick to the shorthand protocol, so it is not surprising that it was discontinued when the first opportunity arose.

Consequences of canceling shorthand recording

In particular, the authenticity of the minutes of the First Vatican Council in 1869/70 has been debated in the literature for decades. On the other hand, the minutes of the General Assemblies of the Second Vatican Council are only very rarely quoted, and to my knowledge they have never been subjected to a critical examination.

First of all, the break between the minutes drawn up by stenographers who were taking notes and pure transcripts of the verbatim minutes of the General Assemblies of the Council, which were reproduced in the files published from 1970 to 1978 for the four conference periods of the Council,26 Easy to understand: From the beginning of the 2nd session, no differentiations of applause are recorded in the minutes - no wonder, since differentiations of the applause can not be discerned with a record created only from tape - and from the middle of the 2nd session no more applause at all. To a certain extent, both are conditioned; for only on very rare occasions will all the Council Fathers have applauded. The fact that there was still applause can be seen, on the one hand, from the incumbent President's remarks during the session Ne fiant plausus! [Please don't clap!], on the other hand, from countless press reports.

In retrospect, however, it is definitely worth taking a look at the printed protocols. In particular in comparison to contemporary representations and recently published diaries of Council veterans, in addition to the question of applause, many other formal and content inconsistencies appear that are ignored in the minutes or presented one-sidedly. Thus, the minutes are still important today in a completely different way than the documentary: They can be used to show how an inadequate formal procedure, in this case a documentation that is based on mere tape or manuscript transcripts and does not appear until ten years later, leads to content-related imbalances.

Insufficiency of the published protocols

While the text of the minutes deals with circumstances accompanying the speech such as applause, expressions of displeasure, acclamations, etc., it is at the same time meticulously recorded to what extent the speech given deviates from the speech manuscript, which is usually to be submitted a few days in advance according to the rules of procedure: italics and the footnote "Deest" The passages in the text that are missing in the submitted speech manuscript are usually shown. Conversely, deviations from the manuscript or omitted text passages are documented in detail in the footnote after the statement "in textu scripto tradito". This even goes so far that even thoughts that are no longer presented due to exceeding the speaking time are documented in the footnotes. Anyone who knew about this procedure could, as it were, perpetuate their opinion in double length in the minutes, once in the transcribed speech and once in the footnotes. Unfortunately, even in theological works, it is not so rare that the text of the manuscript is quoted without pointing out that the corresponding words were never uttered in the council hall.

Likewise, the manuscripts of Council Fathers who had registered a speech but in the course of the deliberations refrained from delivering them - the "speeches on record" known from parliamentary practice in Germany - are put in a footnote after the statement "textus scriptus traditus "reproduced. In individual cases, this means that the minutes of pages only consist of footnotes.

Incidentally, the minutes do not only contain Latin texts: The statement by the Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop Joseph Maalouf, who will speak French in the third General Assembly, is also reproduced in French in the minutes, but a translation into the language of the negotiation is missing, as is the case with the French speeches of the Patriarch Maximos IV. Saïgh. At the same time, however, managerial remarks by the Council Presidium, which are introduced with "Audiatis", are reproduced immediately afterwards in the minutes in English, French, Italian, German and Arabic. It remains unclear, however, whether they were actually held in the Council auditorium point out that the German translations in particular are very bad and, in some cases, wrong in terms of content.

From the 3rd session there is even an example of a shorthand recording of an official pronouncement that was not printed in the minutes of the council, but which was recorded by one of the remaining stenographers and, via his estate, in the archives of the Catholic University of America arrived in Washington.27 At the beginning of the General Assembly on September 21, 1964, the Council President Tisserant criticized the Council Fathers for violating the rules:

Several Council Fathers have complained that some theological experts are giving lectures to encourage and spread certain tendencies. The same fathers have also complained that members of the Doctrine of the Faith Commission distributed leaflets opposing the reports currently being read. It is my duty to remember the rules which the Most Holy Lord gave us and which were communicated to the Council Fathers at the beginning of the session, and to urge them to be observed.28

After all, a serious violation of the rules of procedure of the council is recorded here, namely the inadmissible influence of the bishops' advisors on other bishops. Since the statements were broadcast via loudspeaker in the council hall, as the diary entries of other council participants show, it can hardly be assumed that they were not also recorded by the tape recorders that were running along with them. It is more likely that these statements were deliberately not included in the minutes of the council, in order not to encourage the criticism that was repeatedly expressed after the council that the advisors had bypassed the bishops in influencing the council's decisions in their favor.

Another example: According to the rules of procedure, the council presidium - similar to the presidium of parliaments - was obliged to be neutral. In the hot phase of the council in November 1963, however, the council moderators did not abstain from applauding the counter-speech to a procedural motion to the decree on ecumenism, which was of course highly controversial. Such applause or other expressions of approval or displeasure can usually not be heard on tape recordings; In order to record them, note-takers are required who can also quickly record more complex issues. In the transcript of the tape, however, this behavior contrary to the rules of procedure is not recorded in accordance with the general requirement not to record any more applause; however, there is clear evidence of this in the diaries of council participants and in contemporary press reports. Even the measures requested by the applicant from the Council Presidium to counter applause and displeasure by the Council moderators are contained in a completely different place in the files. At this point, the tape record devalues ​​itself.

Against this background, it is not surprising that the accusation of partiality against the Council Presidium appointed by the Pope - general secretary, president, moderators - that with the help of promoters and notaries for the establishment of the council archives as well as the storage of the files, which are recorded by scribes and Stenographers emerged, had to worry, not fell silent. Just recently, the Governatori secretary mentioned earlier discovered that documents had been manipulated in the council archives, finding aids had disappeared and some documents were not even recorded in them.29

No corrective for tendentious press coverage

In addition to these problems, which should be considered more on the historical level, the inadequate documentation of the meetings of the Second Vatican Council led to upheavals even then. This is the case, for example, when in the communiqués published by press agencies and also in the diary of the council, based on reports from the official news agency of the German-speaking bishops - KNA in Bonn for Germany, KIPA in Friborg for Switzerland, Kathpress in Vienna for Austria - was issued at the end of a session, applause is reported, [30] but these can no longer be verified on the basis of the minutes. It becomes particularly problematic when these press reports are biased or selective. For example, in the diary of the council, applause is explicitly mentioned when a speaker criticized the Roman Curia, but the applause received by the cardinal responsible for his defense speech is not mentioned.

In the case of the 63rd meeting on November 8, 1963, this tendentious reporting [a. a. Cit. 149 f.] Today clearly verifiable on the basis of the minutes, since the corresponding meeting was still stenographed; However, it is a major shortcoming that the corresponding protocols were only published almost ten years later. For the time when the minutes were only drawn up on the basis of transcripts, however, one is completely dependent on secondary sources: in the diaries of council participants and observers, which have been published especially in recent years, there are numerous references to expressions of applause, [31] all of which are no longer noted in the minutes, but some of them are even qualified as frenetic etc. Here, the protocols no longer offer any regulation for any one-sided reporting.

Also the attempt by Cardinal Suenens von Mechelen, during the deliberations on the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium on September 16, 1964, to encourage the council hall to meet Pope John XXIII, who died a year and a half earlier. to beatify by acclamation is not documented in the files,32 although the tapes clearly show the mood in this direction.33

Finally, a disadvantage of certain speakers can also be seen in the fact that there was no procedure for the timely publication of their speeches. The bishops in particular, who came from South America and the missions, did not have the means and opportunities to disseminate or publish the positions they represented. And in retrospect it can be seen that the established news agencies, which were mostly subordinate to North American and European bishops' conferences, withheld many of the positions represented at the council from interested parties in the 1960s, although these often equal prophecies in view of the current crisis in the Catholic Church. In addition, their standpoints were only marginally dealt with in the history of the Council, if at all. Only now, 50 years after the council, has an Italian historian devoted himself to the concerns of these council fathers.34


First of all, it should be noted that the Second Vatican Council took place in the 1960s, a time when the parliamentary principle was far from being anchored in the form it is today. So it is not surprising that not all Council Fathers were familiar with parliamentary customs. Initially, they did not worry about drawing up lists of speakers, skilfully handling the rules of procedure, requests to interrupt or close the debate, making speakers unsettled by heckling etc. It was a question of some experts and bishops that this was an instrument of power quite consciously. This is exemplified by the testimony of Giuseppe Dossetti (1919-1969), one of the founders of the Democrazia Cristiana, the Italian CDU, so to speak, who had already attended the Constituent Assembly of Italy in 1946, was ordained a priest in 1959 and played the role at the Council of an expert. Right at the beginning of the council, on November 10, 1962, he expressed himself to his confidants as follows: “A successful struggle can only be achieved through the rules of procedure; I have always defeated the others this way! "35

Statements like these make it clear that the role that formal aspects - such as limitation of speaking time, extension of the deadline for submitting speech manuscripts and increasing the quorum for motions - play in the evaluation of substantive resolutions of the council has not been investigated enough so far. In particular, it should be asked whether the changes to provisions that were made to the rules of procedure of the Council at the beginning of each session and in part also during the session did not have even more far-reaching consequences than press work that was mainly carried out by interest groups , and a documentation of the council meetings which is unsatisfactory in some areas.


[1] Cf. A. Wikenhauser, The shorthand at the Synod of Constantinople in 448, in: Korrespondenzblatt 52 (1907) 161-170; ders., The shorthand at the robber synod at Ephesus in 449, ibid. 195–206; ders., Contributions to the history of shorthand at the synods of the 4th century AD, in: Archiv für Stenographie NF 4 (1908) 4–9, 33–39; ders., The steganography at the third general synod of Ephesus in the year 431, in: Korrespondenzblatt 57 (1912) 75-78; ders., The steganography at the fourth general council of Chalcedon in the year 451, ibid. 100-104; ders., The steganography at the Synod of Constantinople in 536, ibid. 132-135; ders., On the question of the existence of Nicaenic synodal protocols, in: J. Dölger (ed.), Konstantin der Große und seine Zeit: Festgabe für Konstantins-Jubilee 1913 for Anton de Waal. Vol. 1. Freiburg 1913 (Roman quarterly; Supplement 19), 122–142; ders., The notaries at the fifth general synod of Constantinople in the year 553, in: Korrespondenzblatt 58 (1913) 67; ders., The notaries at the Lateran Synod under Pope Martin I in the year 649, ibid. (1913) 68; ders., The notaries of the sixth general synod of Constantinople in the years 680–681, ibid. 68–69.


[6] On January 29, 1961, for example, PG Colombi wrote in the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, in which he portrayed the life of a meanwhile beatified stenographer of the First Vatican and later the founder of the order, that a small machine set up in the corner of a Saales, faithfully record every word of the speaker, the chairman of the meeting, every question and every interruption, and ends with the words: "Il magnetofono ha annullato l'opera validissima, sino ad ieri, degli stenografi." has made the work of stenographers, which was very valuable until recently, superfluous).

[7] NStPr 9/3 (1961) 88.

[8] See A. Kennerknecht / A. Kloos, Introductio in Stenographiam Latinam, Darmstadt 1962. - To what extent this was due to the work of Martin Günther, who in 1928/29 had designed a transfer of the standard shorthand to the Latin language, which was even recognized by the German Stenographers Association (see G. Ostermeyer, Dr. Martin Günther in retirement, in: NStPr 22 (1974) 71), could not yet be determined.

[9] Michael Smith, born on 6.Ordained priest in Rome in 1963, Auxiliary Bishop in 1983 and Bishop of Meath in 1990.

[10] German translation by author from D. Lane / B. Leahy, Vatican II: Facing the 21st Century. Historical & Theological Perspectives, Dublin 2006: "Towards the end of 1961 the Rector of the Irish College asked if I would be willing to become involved in the group that was to be entrusted with the task of compiling the official record or Acta of the Council . This would involve learning Latin shorthand. I was then in my third theology year at the college studying at the Lateran University and obviously I didn't need to be asked twice. In all, forty-two students drawn from the seminaries in Rome were invited to take part, the majority of them Italian. We had a German teacher who had devised his own system of Latin shorthand, Dr Aloys Kennerknecht. As well as following our normal course in the university we also attended classes most evenings at the Vatican. It was an interesting if demanding experience. "

[11] F. Giulietti, La stenografia nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il funzionamento, in: Rivista degli Stenografi 44 (1964) 73-76, here p. 74.

[12] N. N., Second Vatican Council. Priests shorthand the council, in: DStZ 70 (1962) 237–239, here p. 238.

[13] Helmut Krätzl (* 23.10.1931), studied theology in Vienna, ordained a priest in 1954, doctorate in theology in Vienna in 1959, postgraduate studies and doctorate in canon law in Rome, 1964 pastor in Laa an der Thaya, appointed in 1969 Ordinary Chancellor and in 1977 auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Vienna.

See the lecture on the 75th birthday of Bishop Reinhard Lettmann on March 9, 2008 in the Münsterland Hall; http://kirchensite.de/?myELEMENT=146922 [06/14/2008]. - Thankfully, S. Excellency Dr. Krätzl made the Kennerknecht textbook available to me from his documents and made a significant contribution to clearing up some open questions.

[15] Cf. A. Kennerknecht, Stenographiae Latinae: exercitationes, Frankfurt 1963.

[16] Motu proprio "Appropinquante Concilio", in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 54 (1962) 609-631, here 617: "Tachigraphi Patrum orationes ac disceptationes in Congregationibus generalibus scripto mandant; dein suas notas in communem scripturam translatas Secretario generali tradunt ut relationes scriptae officiales conficiantur. "

[17] Cf. Westfälische Nachrichten, special supplement "Time for Future" of November 8, 2006, 4.

[18] Against this background it can perhaps also be explained that according to the reports cited above [note 11 and 12] actually only a general report appeared on the shorthand protocol: R.-P. Limouzy, La Sténographie aux IIe concile œcuménique du Vatican, in: La vérité sténographique, April 1965; German translation: The stenography at the Second Vatican Council, in: Bayerische Blätter für Stenographie 98/8 (1965) 125–127. This is, however, a fairly free, in part slightly falsifying French version of F. Giulietti, La stenografia nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il funzionamento, a. a. O.

[19] See F. Giulietti, La stenografia nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il sistema, in: Rivista degli Stenografi 43 (1963) 95-98, who ascribes many liberal elements to this shorthand adaptation in addition to the spirit of the Gabelsberger shorthand, there it is not oriented too closely to linguistic structures.

[20] Cf. M. Klotz, Stenographie im Schwarzen Kabinett, in: NStPr 60/1 (2012) 1–12, here p. 12, note 38.

[21] So at least F. Giulietti, La stenografia nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il funzionamento, op. a. O., 75. He is talking about 4 French, 4 US-Americans, 3 Italians, 1 Spanish, 1 Lebanese and 1 Egyptian.

[22] See D. Lane / B. Leahy, et al. a. O .: "In the end the group became twelve ..."

[23] a. a. O., Lettmann is quoted as saying: "... first as a stenographer, later as usher in the council hall." : "The bishops sat in narrow blocks with up to 100 people in St. Peter's Basilica. Each block had a helper who distributed documents and collected the magnetic voting cards. I had the row of the oldest archbishops. I had to toast some and say: 'It time to break the line. '"[http://kirchensite.de/nc/aktuelles/nachrichten‑archiv/archivartikel/?type=98&myELEMENT=104593 / 16.08.2011] -

[24] Cf. F. Giulietti, La stenografia nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il funzionamento, op. a. Cit., 74.

[25] Letter from S. Ex. Dr. Helmut Krätzl from January 25, 2011 to Vf.

[26] Cf. Acta synodalia sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani Secundi (ASCV), Città del Vaticano, 25 vols., I / 1 (1970) –IV / 7 (1978).

[27] The shorthand transcripts from the 1st and parts of the 2nd session have in all probability been transferred to the Vatican Secret Archives; Later recordings were then probably no longer paid attention to, so that these transcripts could simply be taken away by the stenographer.

[28] J. A. Komonchak, On the way to an ecclesiology of the community, in G. Alberigo / G. Wassilowsky, History of the Second Vatican Council 1959–1965, Vol. IV 1997, 85 f. Footnote 243.

[29] Cf. P. Doria, Quanto Concilio ancora da studiare, in: Osservatore Romano of May 1, 2012.

[30] See, for example, W. Seibel / L. A. Dorn, diary of the council. The work of the second session, Nuremberg / Eichstätt 1964.

[31] The reports that the reading out of a relation to the schema of religious freedom, which was not supposed to be voted on, was applauded eight times in order to force a vote, are not reflected in the minutes (ASCV III / 8 (1976 ) 415-422), as well as the thunderous applause, according to reports, when the title of Mater ecclesiae was awarded to the Blessed Mother Mary in the church scheme (ASCV III / 8 (1976) 916).

[32] Cf. ASCV III / 1 (1973) 430-432.

[33] I am based here on the statement of the postulator of the beatification process of Pius XII., P. P. Gumpel SJ, which he gave to my colleague Dr. Michael F. Feldkamp has made. Archbishop Suenes' intention in this regard can also be found in a diary entry for October 1, 1964 in Y. Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, Vol. II, Paris 2002, 175. - General on the idea of ​​canonization Johannes XXIII: A. Melloni, La causa Roncalli. Origini di un Processo canonico, in: CrSt 18 (1997) 607-636.

[34] Cf. R. de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council. A previously unwritten story, Ruppichteroth 2011. - This work was recently published in the second edition with an extensive register of persons. For the first time, extensive translations of the Council speeches contained in the printed minutes are also being brought here.

[35] M.-D. Chenu, Diario del Vaticano II. Note quotidiane al Concilio 1962–1963, tr. It. Il Mulino, Bologna 1996, p. 101: “La battaglia efficace si gioca sulla procedura. È semper per questa via che ho vinto. "