LAUSR

they; Yves Congar would write that he “was genuinely in awe” of the Polish bishops (142). Lay journalists, both from Poland and the emigration, also played an important role at the Council and especially in its interpretation for the Church at home. The Primate was unsuccessful in his attempt to control his delegation or the dissemination of Council news by the independent weekly Tygodnik Powszechny. For all the recognized authority of Wyszynski, it was Wojtyła who became the effective spokesperson of the bishops at the Council and “worked the hardest of any bishop to give the fruits of Vatican II concrete form on Polish soil” (187). Ironically, Kosicki argues that “the immediate consequences of the Council were . . . overwhelmingly negative” for churchstate relations due to discord between the Communist Party and the episcopate, and the episcopate and the laity (193). An important finding is the diversity of the Council’s impact in these countries. Of course there were parallels in the contest between the Communist Party, the police, and the episcopate for influence on the laity, the introduction of the vernacular liturgy, and the role of Polish, Czech, Hungarian, and Croatian theologians who conveyed the ideas of the Council to their countrymen. There is surprisingly little in this volume on contacts between the nations, among the bishops, Catholic laity, and officialdom, to which the Council might presumably have given occasion. This would be a worthy area for future research.