Bouyer var fra starten av med i den nye internasjonale teologiske kommisjonen, der problemene ser ut til å ha vært at de nok gjorde grundig og godt arbeid, men at det de hadde produsert så ble fullstendig ignorert. Slik skriver han:
Let’s now move on to my experience of the International Theological Commission. Early on, my impression was quite favorable. But it ended in an even worse disappointment. With few exceptions, the selection of members truly represented this field’s strongest minds and the best workers that the Church then had in her service.
From the outset, the organization of Mork was beyond comparison with that (if any) of the other commissions I had sat on until then.
The pope asked us to reflect upon certain current issues, such as priestly ministry or theological pluralism in the Church. We produced a few «digests,» at the very least, of the most serious contemporary research on such topics. Joseph Ratzinger’s clearness of views, his wide knowledge, and his intellectual courage as well as his penetrating judgment distinguished themselves especially—as well as his humor, which was so full of kindness; he was, however, nobody’s fool.
… Nevertheless, our commission—naturally a born object of resentment from the Holy Office’s entire staff—had no Secretariat but that of that Congregation. The result was soon made manifest: all the documents we ever produced were simply filed in padlocked cabinets, from which it was out of the question that they should ever be taken out.
For this situation to come to light, Balthasar had to have an audience with Paul VI on the eve of the Episcopal Synod that had been assembled to discuss the priesthood. The pope complained that our Commission hadn’t yet provided him with the slightest report on the question. «How so?» answered Balthasar; «I was entrusted with the final version of the text myself; once it was fine-tuned and adopted by a plenary meeting, it was entrusted to the Holy Office months ago!»
Paul VI, indignant, named Balthasar and his main collaborators as Synod secretaries. Still, the report was not, for all that, placed in the pope’s hands until it was the bishops’ turn to work on the issue. The same, or worse yet, applied to the report on the justification and limits of theological pluralism, which was so important in the post-conciliar situation and which was principally Ratzinger’s work with help notably from Balthasar, Sagi-Bunid (a congenial Yugoslavian Capuchin), and myself. It had involved considerable work on our part and had been unanimously approved by our colleagues after the final revisions. Yet, it would never have seen the light of day unless, years later, Cardinal Ratzinger had taken it upon himself to publish it under his personal responsibility.
When I realized the situation, I resigned and gave the pope the reasons why.