A Roman Catholic Woman Priest

Pope John XXIII acknowledged in his encyclical letter Pacem in terries of 1963 that Human Rights are important for the integral development of man and society and the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution Gaudium et Spes of 1965 finally pointed “out to the world the importance of the respect for, and the protection of, human rights” (Köck, Heribert Franz. 2018. “Human Rights in the Catholic Church with regard also to the General principle of Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination.” In Revision of the Codes. An Indian-European Dialogue, edited by Adrian Loretan and Felix Wilfred, 97–130. 110. Wien: LIT Verlag).

Köck sounds very affirmative on the Roman Catholic’s Church recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). He will be more critical when looking at the systematic discrimination of women, men and queer withing the Roman Catholic Church concerning central Human Rights. The Roman Catholic Church tries to get away with her discrimination of women, men and queer pointing at a supposed privileged status that decides which Human Rights are recognized and which are not recognized. This distorted hermeneutic concerning the UDHR is explicitly prohibited by the UDHR itself.

For a correct interpretation of the UDHR, we must bear in mind and assess that Article 30 of the UDHR proclaims that no interpretation of the Declaration must lead to a “destruction of any of the rights or freedoms” of the UDHR (“Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, www.un.org/en/documents/udhr). Other important hermeneutic principles for interpreting are spelled out in the 1993 Vienna Declaration:

“All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural system, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms” (“Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,” United Nations, www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx).

The Human Rights of the UDHR on the universal level are legally protected by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of 1966 (Köck 2018, 101). Some take the United Nation Vienna Declaration on Human Rights in 1993 as the beginning of the rule of Human Rights law for a world order (Leher, Stephan P. 2018. Dignity and Human Rights. Language Philosophy and Social Realizations. 32. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group).

By admonishing the States regarding their human rights performance, the Roman Catholic Church got confronted with the contradiction that in her own sphere the Church is dispensing herself from compliance with Human Rights (Köck 2018, 112–113). Article 2 of the UDHR proclaims that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. The right not to be discriminated “goes beyond what the Church would consider acceptable freedoms” (Köck 2018, 111). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights based on the prohibition of discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy (ibid.). The Vatican opposed together with member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, with Russia and China a draft Declaration of LGBT rights that was being discussed in the United Nations General Assembly (ibid.). The Roman Catholic Church meets criticism in- and outside the Church for continuing in the twenty-first century her opposition of LGBT rights and for not having learned her lesson from her opposition to freedom and democracy in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century (ibid. 112).

The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that everyone has the right freely to choose his or her profession and the right freely to choose his or her personal status (ibid.: 116). Yet, “the Church denies persons who are married the right to choose the profession of an ordained minister; and the Church denies ordained ministers the right to marry and to found a family” (ibid.). The Church claims the right to determine the rules for admission to the ordained ministry (ibid.). Köck argues from the Christian perspective that any profession, be it sacred or profane, is based on a vocation by God; and everyone has to follow her or his vocation and her or his vocation has to be respected by the State and the Church (ibid.). The Church cannot regard the vocation to the ordained ministry as a special vocation and therefore the Church cannot restrict the right to free choice of a profession with discriminating regulations. Since the vocation to the ordained ministry—as any vocation—comes from Go’d, the Church may regulate with competence the exercise of the ordained ministry but must not reject the legitimate interest of the individual to follow her or his vocation to the ordained ministry (ibid.: 117). Being married and living a family life is a Human Right (Article 16 UDHR) and cannot therefore be denied to ordained ministers. Human rights must not “be limited by regulations either of the State or of the Church” (Article 30 UDHR) (ibid. 118). Not to exercise the right to marry is a legitimate way of life for ordained ministers “but the mandatory celibacy for ordained ministers is a violation of the human right to marry” (ibid.). Celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church; it is not a doctrine. The clergy of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Byzantine, always had and still has the option of marrying. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches always had an optional celibacy for clergy, both have a celibate episcopacy, meaning that only celibate priests can become bishops that is the upper hierarchy remains celibate (“Celibate and Married Clergy,” St. Sophia Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/resources/celibateandmarriedclergy). Rome always cultured a high sense for maintaining power. Rather than letting the Greek-Catholics of the Ukraine go away in the eighteenth century to the Orthodox Churches, the pope granted the clergy of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church optional celibacy and restrained from mandatory celibacy for the priests.

Excluding women from the ordained ministry is also discrimination (ibid.). According to the first Article of the UDHR all human beings are endowed with the same dignity, freedom and rights. The principle of equal treatment demands that equals are treated equally and unequals unequally. The Churches of the Reformation and the Old Catholic Church demonstrate this equal treatment of women and men concerning the ordained ministry (ibid. 119). The fact that Jesus Christ was a man does not exclude women from representing him, salvation does not depend on the sex of the Savior. For acting “in persona Christi” it is required to be a human being (ibid.). From the fact that Jesus has chosen only men for the twelve Apostles does not follow that “he wanted this tradition continued at different times, under different circumstances and in different cultural environments (ibid. 119–120). Paul had affirmed in Galatians 3, 26–28: “For all of you are the children of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus, since every one of you that has been baptized has been clothed in Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female—for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Holy Scripture, divine revelation asserts the equal dignity, freedom, and rights of the Christians. It is the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church that positive divine law that is founded and found in revelation, does not and cannot contradict natural divine law that is embodied according to the Roman Catholic Church in creation and corresponds to the nature of human reason and free will (ibid. 108). The Roman Catholic Church is not yet ready to accept Human Rights as the valid expression of natural divine law. The Roman Catholic Church for the moment being does not stop the discrimination of women by excluding them from the ordained ministry although in recent history she has shown flexibility on the matter. When the bare existence of the Church is threatened, as it was under the Communist dictatorships of the puppet regimes of the former Soviet Union in Eastern Europe after World War II, the Roman Catholic Church was very well capable of adapting to that situation of suppression and persecution. With the consent of the Roman authorities, Catholic bishops had ordained to the ministry not only married men but also a few women.

Felix Maria Davidek (1921–1988) was ordained priest on July 29, 1948, in Brno, former Czechoslovakia. In 1952, he was arrested and sentenced to fourteen years in prison for high treason for his resistance to the restrictions of the Communist regime on the Church. Davidek had organized underground theological studies because he recognized the importance of empowering the future underground priests spiritually and intellectually. On October 29, 1967, he was consecrated a bishop with Vatican approval and started ordaining priests, including married men. Davidek was blessed with intelligence, inner freedom and the free spirit living according to his convictions. He is one of these rare and precious persons with an inquiring mind who dare to live the Christian experience and trust the Holy Spirit. In 1970, he called a synod that was attended by about sixty people, “including various clergy, among them a few bishops and order sisters, and lay people” (Eliasova, Magdalena. 1999. “Women can be Priests. Bishop Felix Davidek of Czechoslovakia.” New Women New Church Autumn 1999, 7–8. 7. www.womenpriests.org/vocation/bishop-felix-davidek-of-czechoslovakia). Davidek was convinced of the necessity of ordaining women and argued with the letters of Saint Paul and the need of the underground Church. He was further convinced that the service of women for sanctification of the world was needed by mankind (ibid. 8). His vision of equal rights for women in the Church is a vision of justice (ibid.). The issue was discussed with considerable controversy at the synod and a vote showed that only half of the people present thought the ordination of women to be the right thing to do (ibid). Davidek’s underground Christian community split over the dispute. A few years later, some women received the diaconate and at least one woman was ordained to the priesthood (ibid.). The Vatican never denied that the ordination had taken place, but after 1989 denied any women ordained the right to perform priestly duties (ibid.).

On October 13, 1995, Ludmila Javorová told Georg Motylewicz and Werner Ertel that she had been ordained to priesthood by Davidek (Ertel and Motylewicy 1995). This was the first published account of her ordination to priesthood. Ludmila Javorová served as Davidk’s Vicar General being responsible for keeping the diocesan records for posteriority. She said that one of the principal reasons for the ordination of women to the ministry was that in women’s prisons nuns and other inmates had to die without priestly support or the sacraments. It was also clear to Davidek that women understand women much better than celibate male priests are able to. For the sacrament of reconciliation confidence is essential and women would confide problems to a woman they would not confide to a male pastor (ibid.). Javorová tells her visitors that her male colleagues in office met her with mistrust and never invited her to preside a celebration of the Eucharist. She cannot count on solidarity from her male colleagues, she does not get payment of any kind for her work in the underground Church. Pope John Paul II never answered the letter Ludmila sent him together with the documentation of the life of the underground Church (ibid.). Nevertheless, she is sure of herself and of her vocation to priesthood, but she also assesses the fact that her male colleagues internally cannot cope with women priests: The two thousand year old tradition of a male church cannot be changed overnight (ibid.). Ludmila Javorová had found inner peace. After everything she has gone through there was no bitterness in her (Johnson 1998).

There are parallels between Javorová and Florence Tim Oi Li, the first woman Anglican priest who was ordained in Macao during the Second World War (Pongratz-Lippitt 2001). Both grew up in committed Christian families and from a very early age felt their vocation to dedicate their entire lives to God and the Church. “Both were ordained priests in exceptional circumstances, expressly to administer the full sacraments to people who would not otherwise have been able to receive them. And both were ordained by bishops who foresaw the need to ordain women in special circumstances” (ibid.). There are also differences between the cases and lives of Javorová and Florence Tim Oi Li. Since 1968, the Lambeth Conference, the worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops, has been discussing women’s ordination in a non-exclusive way and in 1975, Church of England’s General Synod took first steps to ordaining women with a vote that there is "no fundamental objection" (Bingham 2015). In 1994, first women priests were ordained and in 2005 Synod begins the process of considering women bishops and on January 26, 2015, the Rev. Libby Lane was consecrated as Bishop of Stockport (ibid.). After almost a century of campaigning for women to hold leading positions in the Church of England, the love and respect of women and the liberating message of Jesus Christ finally succeeded.

Ludmila Javorová’s claim that the position of women in the Catholic Church’s office depends on her position in a given culture is still valid (Ertel, Werner, Georg Motylewicz. 1995. “Ludmila Javorová.” Kirche Intern 9:11, 18–19. Translated by Mary Dittrich. Wijngards Institute for Catholic Research. http://www.womenpriests.org/vocation/ludmila-javorovaacute). We must bear in mind that there are very differing cultures concerning the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer. We find for example the extreme decision of the Latvian Lutheran Church of 2016, where two-thirds of the 337 synod members voted in favor of changing the church constitution and only allowing men to be ordained from now on (Pongratz-Lippitt, Christa. 2001. “A priest called Ludmila.” The Tablet, October 6. https://ecumenism.net/2001/10/a-priest-called-ludmila.htm). This decision sharply contrasts the practice of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). The LWF nurtures a culture of free discussion and institutionalized exchange on the participation of women in the ordained ministry and leadership of the Churches. An example of this reflection process is the gender baseline assessment on the participation of women in the ordained ministry and in leadership functions and decision-making processes in the LWF member churches (Neuenfeldt, Elaine and Maria Cristina Rendon. 2016. “Introduction.” In The Participation of Women in the Ordained Ministry and Leadership in LWF Member Churches, edited by the Office for Women in Church and Society, Department for Theology and Public Witness, 2–5. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation – A Communion of Churches. https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/dtpw-wicas_women_ordination.pdf). Information on the situation of women is assessed, theological arguments are exchanged and decisions prepared (ibid.).

The Roman Catholic Church evidently lags behind their sisters and brothers of the Reform and still blocks any effort for change in the direction of women participation in the ordained ministry and leadership of the Church. Neuenfeldt and Rendon introduce theological arguments of the Christian faith. They cite from the LWF Document Episcopal Ministry within the Apostolicity of the Church—The Lund Declaration 2007, concerning the LWF’s communion view on the ordained ministry:

“(36.) Through baptism persons are initiated into the priesthood of Christ and thus into the mission of the church. All the baptized are called to participate in, and share responsibility for, worship (leitourgia), witness (martyria) and service (diakonia). Baptism by itself, however, does not confer an office of ordained ministry in the church. (37.) The ordained public ministry of word and sacrament belongs to God’s gift to the church, essential for the church to fulfill its mission. Ordination confers the mandate and authorization to proclaim the word of God publicly and to administer the holy sacraments” (Neuenfeldt and Rendon 2016, 4).

Canon 204 §1 of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church assesses that the Christians constitute “the people of God”, yet concerning participation and responsibility for “the mission which God has entrusted to the Church” Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church insists on institutionally discriminating the faithful:

“The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each” (Canon 204 §1 Canon Law).

The legal wording of this discrimination says, “in accord with the condition proper to each” and Canon 204 §2 says how this discrimination works. The institutional discrimination of the Christian lay faithful from the mission of the Church is based on the exclusion of the lay people from the government of the Church:

“This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him”.

The basis of all discrimination follows from Can. 207 §1:

”By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons”.

The Lund Declaration of 2007 of the LWF makes it very clear that the ordained public ministry of word and sacrament is a gift of God to the whole church:

“The ordained public ministry of word and sacrament belongs to God’s gift to the church, essential for the church to fulfill its mission” (Neuenfeldt and Rendon 2016, 4).

The Church is made up of all baptized faithful and therefore the ordained public ministry is open for all Christian women, men and queer. All baptized Christians participate and take responsibility for the mission of the Church. The exclusion of lay Christians from the ordained ministry of the Church constitutes the discrimination of the equal dignity of the faithful. Basing the exclusion of lay Christians from the government of the Church on the discrimination of the principle of equality violates again the dignity, freedom and equal rights of all faithful women, men and queer.

From the point of view of Christian faith, women, men and queer are not only equal based on their baptism in Christ. The Holy Scripture, the divine institution of the Word of Go’d, clearly shows the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer on their way to embrace faith in Jesus Christ.

Peter had to learn “that the gift of the Holy Spirit should be poured out on gentiles too” and he baptized the Roman centurion Cornelius and his entire house (Acts 11, 45-48). The Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip to receive baptism (Acts 8, 36). There is no social choice without freedom and if there is no freedom then there is no dignity. It was a social choice of Paul to accept baptism from Ananias (Acts 9, 19). We confess Jesus Christ as the Lord who lived, was crucified and raised to heaven on the basis of the social choice of speech-acts, our faith-sentences and confession-sentences are expressed with dignity and freedom and Christians respect this right to freedom and dignity concerning faith convictions and world-views.

All women, men and queer who turn to the faith in Jesus Christ confess Jesus Christ as a social choice, as a realization of their dignity, freedom and right to believe. Since Go’d calls all women, men and queer to believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord, all women, men and queer are equal in dignity, freedom and rights to make their social choices. Call this equality of dignity, freedom and rights divine natural law and call the Scriptures divine positive law you will not find in the Holy Scriptures a violation of Go’d’s justice and mercy.

Who is man to discriminate who is called by Go’d to justice and given Her mercy?

Emmy Silvius, an Australian Catholic woman, documents the claims for justice in the institutions of the Roman Catholic Church:

“In Germany 1.8 million Catholics signed a petition in December 1995 asking that ordination be open to married people and women, that sexuality is celebrated as a gift, that the laity participate in the selection of bishops and that married people be consulted and included in teachings about sexual morality. Shortly after, five hundred thousand Austrian Catholics added their signatures to the petition. In that same period Archbishop Maurice Couture of Quebec promised to take the results of a clergy-laity synod asking to reopen the question of women's ordination to Rome” (Silvius, Emmy. 2011. “Is Our Institutional Church Unjust?” Women’s Ordination Worldwide. January 1. http://womensordinationcampaign.org/articles/2014/2/16/is-our-institutional-church-unjust-by-emmy-silvius).

In the USA, there is a growing group of Catholics calling for the full participation of all baptized Catholics in the life of the Church. They seek women's full inclusion at every level of decision making in the church from Rome to the local parish (ibid.). These Catholics keep the discussion open and realize their duty to express what they believe as Jesus has taught; they take up the challenge to create an environment for honest exchange “where the truth can be spoken in love” and establish “a Catholic culture where questions about the participation of women are acceptable and even welcomed” (ibid.).

It is true; there are numerous Catholic reform movements at national and international level. These movements lack the support of most of the priests, the bishops and of the pope that is of the men who exercise the power in the Church. Lay women, men and queer “want their experience to be heard, honored, integrated and absorbed; they want their church to be affirming to all and welcoming to all those currently excluded” (ibid.). Looking at the Roman Catholic Church in this world, we have to say that we find reform movements calling for equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer in the Roman Catholic Church predominantly in the rich countries of the Western liberal democracies and not in the poor countries of Latin and Central America, Africa, and Asia. There are few Indian Catholic women who claim from their priests and bishops a process of listening that is not condemnatory or dictatorial. The gender gap on justice is global and we must take into consideration the situation of Catholic women, men and queer from a global perspective. The question of justice in the Roman Catholic Church is linked to the question of justice in the whole world. In poor countries, where women rarely have access to a college or university education and are not intellectually prepared, empowered, and motivated to claim their equal dignity, freedom and rights there will hardly be awareness of personal integrity, dignity, freedom and rights. Theologically educated women, men and queer we find increasingly in the rich countries. They are empowered to claim “a development of more adequate theology that speaks to matters of sex and sexuality, open and honest dialogue, wherein disagreement should not be feared. They want a church that looks for genuine healing and not just sustenance, a church that will look for remedies. And they want a spirituality that is reflected in rituals and celebrations that encourage and celebrate life while specifically addressing the stresses and strains of modern living” (ibid.). What about women, men and queer living in poor countries?

The Catholic Church is called to institute a culture of openness and love and respect for the equal dignity, liberty, and rights of all members, poor and rich. She not only has the obligation to stop excluding women from the ordained ministry, but it is also the obligation of the Catholic Church to work for stopping any discrimination of women in society and in the Church all over the world (Köck 2018, 120).

The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law of 1983 presents an order that is “far from the legal values characteristic for modern society” (ibid. 126). We remember that the modern state under the rule of law—as designed for example by Rousseau in the eighteenth century—gradually was developed in the nineteenth century and that the State under the rule of Human Rights law is a very young practice of humanity (Leher 2018, 91–97). This is no excuse that the Roman Catholic Church does not accept the Human Rights of the UDHR and does not abide by the rule of Human Rights law (Köck 2018, 120). Concerning Church government, the Roman Catholic Church thus violates the right to freely take part in the decision-shaping and decision-making in the Church. This concerns a process that would respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all Catholics choosing officeholders, and the participation in legislative and administrative responsibilities and offices (ibid.). The Roman Catholic Church is very much obsessed by the power question and misses the growing frustration and resignation of millions of Catholics who turn away from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolute monarchy that does not care to respect the Human Rights of their women, men and queer. Her autocratic structures of absolutist government are incapable of preserving the common good of her members who consequently challenge the legitimacy of this monarchic government and in growing numbers turn away from the Church as institution.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Pope claim the exclusive right to govern the Church to the exclusion of all others and refusing accountability to anybody (ibid. 121).

The Code of Canon Law speaks on the supreme authority of the Church in Canon 331:

“The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office, he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (John Paul II 1983).

When a Jewish lawyer questions Jesus about the law of the Spirit, about justice and the hope for eternal life and cosmic salvation (Luke 10, 25) Jesus asks the lawyer: “What is written in the Law” and what is your interpretation of it (Luke 10, 26)? The lawyer answers with Deuteronomy 6, 5 and Leviticus 19, 18: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10, 27). Jesus assesses the answer of the lawyer: “You have answered right, do this and life is yours” (Luke 10, 26). Luke makes Jesus narrate to the lawyer the parable of the Good Samaritan to make him understand that Go’d wants mercy and not a legal definition of “the neighbor” (Luke 10, 29–37). Jesus Christ’s Great commandment is love and not discrimination of women, men and queer. The pope and the bishops are bound to observe the commandment of love realizing a good governance and not discrimination by absolutist power. Facing this absolutist conception of power in the Roman Church, we must ask how the power in the Church should be adequately exercised (Köck 2018, 122).

Acknowledged principles of the social doctrine of the Church like solidarity, do not delegate and respect the decision-making processes at the local diocesan level of the Church. There are no independent courts in the Church that would resolve disputes between the lower and the higher level of Church and the centralist regime has the last word in any case (ibid.). In the Roman Catholic Church all legislative, administrative, and judicial powers are concentrated in one person, namely the pope and it is the pope who delegates some of his powers to the bishops (ibid. 123). To ensure that Human Rights are not violated in the internal affairs of the Church and possible violations or infringements are investigated, the Roman Catholic Church would need independent courts. They would have to be empowered to review all legislative and administrative acts of Church authorities, but it is clear for the moment that the Church is far from recognizing all Human Rights (ibid.).

This lack of recognition of the rule of Human Rights law also violates the rights of the Catholic women, men and queer to juridical rights within the Church as the right to fair proceedings and to a fair process (ibid.). No Catholic is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established within the Church. “Proceedings within the Church do not fulfil any of the criteria for a fair trial” (ibid. 124). The courts set up by canon law at the diocesan and the universal level do not assure the rule of law because “the pope may change or replace them at any time at his will with special tribunals and with special rules” (ibid.).

The parties in a Church trial are not permitted the principle of orality, they are not permitted “to submit their position in an unconstrained manner, to examine witnesses, to instantly react to any new aspect that might be brought into play and to remove any misunderstandings that may arise” (ibid.). The principle of directness is not granted, that is the very judges who hold the hearings are not the judges who decide the case and therefore the principle of the free appraisal of evidence is also violated because only those judges who have held the hearings are able to obtain a comprehensive view of the case (ibid. 125).

The reaction of the official Church to the numerous Catholic reform movements, national and international that have been encouraged by the Second Vatican Council has been altogether negative (ibid.). I agree very much with Heribert Franz Köck’s wise judgment: “We must not be deceived or, worse, deceive ourselves” that the Codex of Canon law will be revised soon. There is no pope who would promote with the help of his Roman Curia the rule of Human Rights law “covering the basic institutional and procedural aspects of the Church” (ibid.: 126–127). For the moment, the hierarchical power players of the Catholic Church, that is the priests, bishops, and the pope, have ensured to be able to reproduce their discriminating system of government by appointing office holders that consent and willingly continue to maintain the unjust system. One day, we shall overcome, and the priests and bishops will convert to a faith in Jesus Christ who loves all women, men and queer on the basis of their equal dignity, freedom and rights. How long this conversion process to this social choice for realizing equal dignity for all will take and if we shall see the realization of this process at all we do not know. Pope Francis’ shows of synodality are no contribution to the realization of the rule of Human Rights law within the Roman Catholic Church.