116 JAMES RAMON FELAK
Ministry’s opposition to granting it full independence, its opera-
tion was not halted until June 1974.
In its short six-year existence, the seminary at Olomouc made
important contributions to the Catholic Church in Moravia. Over
one hundred students completed their theological education there
and went on to priestly vocations, including a number of impor-
tant Moravian leaders and teachers in the Church. The influence
of the Second Vatican Council was discernible. Teachers at the in-
stitute displayed a sincere interest in the Council and in new ideas
regarding ecumenism and modern theological impulses.34
A key feature of the Czechoslovak aggiornamento was the fact
that laypeople, including women, were able to study theology at
Olomouc during the first two years of the institute’s existence in
a critical and modern atmosphere.35 Nevertheless, Olomouc was
no conciliar paradise. Certain topics (such as clerical celibacy) and
behaviors (going to the cinema) were off-limits, and the spiritual
formation of the clergy followed a traditional model.36
An important way in which Vatican II made itself felt in
Czechoslovakia from 1965 onward was via liturgical reform.37 Un-
like most of the other Church reforms, this one began in early 1965
when the Statewide Liturgical Commission was set up. Czechoslo-
vakia’s bishops issued a pastoral letter on liturgical reform along
with a directive on March 7, 1965, the First Sunday of Lent. The
letter—addressed to clergy—supported folk singing at Mass, the
liturgical training of believers, the introduction of the vernacular
into the liturgy, and the adaptation of liturgical space. The direc-
tives included a simplified rite and changes and additions to the
- Balík and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 289.
- Poisl, “Obnova Cyrilometodějské bohoslovecké fakulty v Olomouci a vliv II.
Vatikánského koncilu na teologické vzdělání,” 143. - Ibid., 144–45.
- For a discussion of liturgical reform, see František Kunetka, “Liturgická
reforma II. Vatikánského a její realizace v moravských diecézich,” in Koncil a česká
společnost, 148–65.