Commentary Gaudium et Spes Part I

Part One of Gaudium et Spes is titled “The Church and the Human Vocation” and consists of four chapters that run from Gaudium et Spes 12 to Gaudium et Spes 45.

Gaudium et Spes 11 is a kind of statement of aims and is titled “Responding to the Promptings of the Spirit”.

Archbishop Garrone had proposed the title “The Church and the Human condition” for the first part of scheme XIII during the redaction of the text for Arricia (Moeller, Charles. 1968. “Die Geschichte der Pastoralkonstitution.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 242–279. 269. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). The first chapter of the first part of scheme XIII was titled “The Vocation of the Human Person”, but the redaction group changed the title to “The Dignity of the Human Person”. The other chapters of part one of scheme XIII kept their titles from Arricia until the final constitution Gaudium et Spes (ibid). The second chapter is titled “The Human community”, the third chapter is titled “Humanity’s Activity in the Universe” and the fourth chapter is titled “Role of the Church in the Modern World”.

I do not know why Garrone had suggested the title “The Church and the Human Condition” for the first part of Gaudium et Spes. The Archbishop of Toulouse, France, was certainly acquainted with the thoughts of the French mathematician, philosopher and Catholic Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) and his famous description of the human condition. Pascal writes in number 397 of his Pensées “The greatness of man is great in that he knows himself to be miserable. A tree does not know itself to be miserable. It is then being miserable to know oneself to be miserable; but it is also being great to know that one is miserable” (Pascal, Blaise. 1958. Pensées. 99-100. Translated by W.F. Trotter. Global Grey). In 1933 André Malraux wrote the novel “The Human Condition” and the expression condition humaine was frequently used in easy feature articles[i]. The existentialists Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre described the dark and empty sides of the human condition without mercy, fought Nazism and denounced injustice. In 1958 Hannah Arendt published one of her major theoretical works “The Human Condition” (ibid). We must mention the Catholic educated woman existentialist and feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. In the fall of 1965, the young US American theologian Mary Daly traveled to Rome to the Second Vatican Council and found herself annoyed watching the celibate male rituals of power and pomp. Daly returned to the US, studied Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex (De Beauvoir 1949), a vigorous criticism of Catholic ideology and practice, and in 1968 published The Church and the Second Sex, “one of the first monographs in the field of Catholic feminist theology” (Coblentz, Jessica, and Brianne A. B. Jacobs. 2018. “Mary Daly’s The Church and the Second Sex after Fifty Years of US Catholic Feminist Theology.” Theological Studies 79 (3): 543–565. 543, 546). Daly’s criticism of sexism in the Roman Catholic Church has persisted as a major concern in the US Catholic feminist theology for fifty years and continues to persist as a major concern (ibid. 557–58).

I am sure that Garrone had null understanding of The Second Sex. I am quite sure too, that Garrone did not follow the atheism of the existentialists or the philosophy of pluralism of Hannah Arendt, who respected the differences of women, men and queer. Arendt confronted the challenge of affirming that everyone is unique in his or her uniqueness, and of acting together in spite of our differences. Hannah Arendt was thinking of the process of peace as an inner dialogue with a particularly demanding dialogue partner. She was quite aware that “judging politically with respect to an ever-changing spectrum of possible standpoints are all challenging practices we confront in the common world” (Robaszkiewicz, Maria. 2018. “Hannah Arendt: Challenges of Plurality.” Paderborn University). Did Garrone take the expression condition humaine from André Malraux? I do not know. I do not know either who changed the title from human condition to human vocation and I do not know the arguments for this change.  The expression human condition speaks of characteristic thinking, feeling and acting of women, men and queer. Philosophers, sociologists, and scientists of cultural studies use the expression of human condition. The expression vocation is of traditional Christian usage and describes, “A divine call to undertake a particular activity or embrace a particular stage of life on behalf of God or the community” (P Holland, Paul D. 1987. “Vocation.” In The Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, 1087–1092. 1087. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press). The change of the title of the first part of Gaudium et Spes from “The Church and the Human Condition” to “The Church and the Human Vocation” illustrates the imbalance of the whole text of Gaudium et Spes that at times describes human nature, society and the world, and at times proclaims the Christian faith to the world.

Chapter One:  Gaudium et Spes 12 – 22

Gaudium et Spes 12 is titled “Women and Men in the Image of God”.

Gaudium et Spes 12,1 is an outstanding example for the Council’s proud anthropocentrism, “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown”. There is no conscience for an ecological crisis, for climate change with its catastrophic consequences, and for the responsibility of humanity for the conservation of creation. The Anthropocene has begun, but the Second Vatican Council does not take care of the endangered creation. (See my Posting “Anthropocene”).

Gaudium et Spes 12, 2 affirms “Endowed with light from God”, the Church “can offer solutions” to the problems of man, “so that man’s true situation can be portrayed, and his defects explained, while at the same time his dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged”. Remembering Gaudium et Spes 3,2, we are empowered to claim that the women, men and queer of this earth do not really need the acknowledgement of the Roman Catholic Church for their “dignity and destiny”. For Gaudium et Spes 3, 2 affirmed that a “Godlike seed” has been sown in every man and women of humankind and that their conscience testifies to “the Law engraved in their hearts” (Romans 2, 12–16). Theologically speaking, women, men and queer are therefore very well capable of portraying and explaining their defects and assessing their dignity and destiny. This is important, because Gaudium et Spes 12 does not affirm the equal dignity of women, men and queer.

Gaudium et Spes 12, 3 gives the answer to the question “What is man?” with the Church’s teaching on divine revelation,

“For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created "to the image of God," is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures (Genesis 1:26, Wisdom 2:23) that he might subdue them and use them to God's glory (Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 17:3-10) "What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet (Psalm 8,5-7).”          (Gaudium et Spes 12, 3).

Gaudium et Spes 12, 4 professes “But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning ‘male and female he created them’ (Genesis 1,27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others, he can neither live nor develop his potential”.

Gaudium et Spes 12, 5 professes with Genesis 1, 31 “that Go’d saw that all he had made was very good”. Since Go’d created women, men and queer and not only women and men, and believing in Genesis 1, 31, Catholics are allowed to profess that we are all created good, women, men and queer. This is not the teaching of Gaudium et Spes 12, but it follows from reading Gaudium et Spes at the light of Gaudium et Spes 3, 2 that professed a “Godlike seed” in each and every woman, man and queer. Genesis 1, 31 speaks of God as a male, “he saw that all he had made was very good”.

Today we accept that there is no predictor for Go’d, and therefore no gender. there is a development in history concerning the way we speak of Go’d. Jews do not even pronounce the word Go’d; they speak of Yahweh. This profession of Yahweh, Go’d, the One, the Only is also part of the history of speaking of Go’d.

In the Hebrew Bible, the concept Go’d develops with the history of Israel.  Within the history of Israel the Hebrew Bible describes, describes and describes anew predications of Go’d showing what they mean. Monotheism developed in Israel and was not Israel’s first choice. Until the exile, monotheism was a faith of a minority in Israel as we have learned from polytheistic archeological evidence (Crüsemann, Frank. 2007. “Altes Testament. Hebräische Bibel.” In Bibel in gerechter Sprache, edited by Ulrike Bail, Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Janssen, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch and Luise Schottroff, 27–28. 28. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus). Gradually monotheism advanced, as we learn from the prophets who accuse Israel of worshipping false idols and foreign gods, and until the exile in Babylon (597–539 BCE) the faith in the Queen of Heaven was of great importance to Israel as Jeremiah 44 documents (ibid). Only during exile, foreign gods and divinities were principally denied existence and Isaiah 43, 10 professes Yahweh alone is Go’d and Yahweh declares “No god was formed before me, nor will be after me” (ibid). The last redaction of the Hebrew Bible gave the Hebrew Bible the final form, and most books of the Torah found their final form between the fourth and second century BCE, and the earliest texts that were integrated into the Hebrew Bible have no date earlier than ninth or eighth century BCE (ibid).

Wittgenstein affirmed, “The way you use the word ‘God’ does not show whom you mean – but, rather, what you mean” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. Culture and Value. 50e. Edited by G. H. von Wright, translated by Peter Winch. Oxford: Blackwell). In order to constantly remind my conscience of the fact that I am trying to clarify what I mean when speaking about the Only One, whom nobody has ever seen, I use the sign “Go’d” to show with the help of the comma what I want to say. Since Jews, Christians and Muslims profess Yahweh Go’d as the One and Only, there is no difference in Yahweh and there is no difference between women, men and queer who are created with a “Godlike seed” concerning their dignity, freedom and rights.

Reading Genesis, we must bear in mind the historical and socio-cultural circumstances of patriarchal traditions that heavily impacted the scriptural authors. Dei Verbum 12, 2 affirms “For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another”. Effective historical awareness has to assess that “the historical settings in which the Scriptures took shape were patriarchal” (Nussberger, Danielle. 2019. “Catholic feminist thought.” In The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, edited by Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe, assistant editor Thomas L. Humphries, 833–849. 837. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Therefore, “we have to assess the absence of women’s voices in the communication of God’s word” (ibid), but we have also to assess that the scriptural authors pictured Yahweh Go’d as a male powerful patriarch in the image of patriarchy and not in the image of Go’d. Unfortunately, it is true for “scriptural formations and reception” that “man’s subordination of woman heavily impacted how women were portrayed in the Bible and how and why later women were uninvolved in the public, authoritative reception of biblical faith” (ibid). Discrimination of genders is still part of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Sadly, the “unfortunate absence of women’s voices in the communication of Go’d’s word” continuous (ibid) together with the unfortunate absence of queer’s voices. Thus, male supremacy and suppression of women appear as self-evident, unchangeable socio-cultural realities from Genesis to the Second Vatican Council. In Gaudium et Spes 9, 3 there was some awareness for discrimination, “women claim for themselves an equity with men before the law and in fact”. Yet, the Second Vatican Council has no interest in joining full heartedly the feminist movement against the discrimination of women, men and queer in order to do away with the socio-cultural oppression of women, men and queer within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council was not aware of the possibility that the social organization of society with the suppression of women by men evolved in history, developed in history and therefore underlies the changes of history. In other words, patriarchy was not the first organizing principle of women, men and queer in the history of humanity. Evidently, the Council Fathers do not want to follow the threefold commandment of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22, 37–40; Mark 12, 29–31; Luke 10, 25–28) and do not want to realize love by stopping to discriminate women, men and queer within the Roman Catholic Church. In the age that fights for the end of gender discrimination, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church might well follow the course of human history on gender equality and discover that its history of gender discrimination is part of the history of humankind. I am no archeologist, and I cannot decide on the discussions of the archeologists on the thesis of their colleague Dean Snow of Pennsylvania State University. Snow analyzed hand stencils found in eight cave sites in France and Spain and by comparing the relative lengths of certain fingers, “determined that three-quarters of the handprints were female” (Hughes 2013). The thesis of Snow is interesting for me because it suggests a male bias within anthropology. Not only Catholic bishops and popes suffer from the male bias that women cannot enjoy equal rights, freedoms and dignity within the Roman Catholic Church. Do we find gender bias within the sciences of nature and humankind too and did patriarchal anthropology dominate the 19th century? Archeologists suggest that women were as strong and stronger than men and hunted animals together with men in the Stone Ages (ibid). In the Stone Ages, women and men lived in an egalitarian way; they treated each other as equals. “The Neolithic burial site showed no clear sign of gender inequality” (Kasulis, Kelly. 2017. “The 2,500-year-old roots of gender inequality.” Boston Globe, March 4). Everything changed in the Bronze Age, “inequalities became obvious: Males were buried with more riches, and female skeletons became significantly shorter, likely because of childhood malnourishment” (ibid). At about 2,500 BCE, men started fighting other men and protected their weaker women who stayed home caring for the children. Men achieved dominance over women, patriarchal structures governed the societies and cities, and religion became patriarchal. The Jewish religion is one expression of this change to patriarchal dominance and the Christians are heir to this tradition. The Christians did not preserve the egalitarian message of Jesus Christ and constructed a church with patriarchal structures. In 2000 CE, times are changing again, and women and men fight for the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer. If the Roman Catholic Church remains a patriarchal society of male celibates, she blocks the age of Human Rights.

Gaudium et Spes 13 is titled “Sin” and describes sin from the Christian perspective, “Often refusing to acknowledge God as his beginning, man has disrupted also his proper relationship to his own ultimate goal as well as his whole relationship toward himself and others and all created things” (Gaudium et Spes 13, 2). Gaudium et Spes 13, 2 and 3 profess liberation from sin according to the faith in Lord Jesus Christ.

Gaudium et Spes 14 is titled “On the constitution of humanity”.

Gaudium et Spes 14, 1 defends the fundamentally positive Christian view of the body-soul unit that constitutes woman and man “man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day”. According to the Christian faith “the very dignity of man postulates that man glorify God in his body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart” (Gaudium et Spes 14, 1).

Gaudium et Spes 14, 2 professes the – Jewish, Christian and Muslim – faith that man “plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart (1 Kings 16, 7 and Jeremiah 17, 10), awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God”. I do not know what the Council Fathers intended to say when referring to 1 Kings 16, 7 that speaks of the wrongdoing of King Baasha before the eyes of Go’d. The sentence “The word of Yahweh was delivered through the prophet Jehu” (1 Kings 16, 7) refers to “the word of Yahweh” by a speech-act of a prophet. That means, that the revelation of Go’d is a communication by the prophet Jehu. It is “in his own heart” that Jehu finds the word of Yahweh, just as every woman, man and queer finds Go’d in her or his heart, “God, Who probes the heart” (Jeremiah 17, 10). Gaudium et Spes affirms that Go’d is in our hearts and cites Jeremiah. We have to remember that the Hebrew expression leb describes not only heart as an organ, but includes the predications feelings, character, mind, morale, conscience, intention, understanding, interior, self, or life. 

Gaudium et Spes 15 is titled “Dignity of the Intellect, of Truth, and of Wisdom”.

Gaudium et Spes 15, 1 affirms the faith-sentence that man “by his intellect surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind”. The statement is quite strong that women, men and queer “share in the light of the divine mind”. This statement is a necessary complement to the faith-sentence in Gaudium et Spes 3, 2, a “Godlike seed” has been sown in every man and women of humankind and that their conscience testifies to “the Law engraved in their hearts” (Romans 2, 12–16). Since speaking is an important capability of the intellect, women, men and queer are capable of speaking about what they perceive as a “Godlike seed” and what they think in the hearts of their conscience. Gaudium et Spes 15,1 simply hails the progress “in science, technology and the liberal arts, but does not link the intellect to conscience. The predication “Intellect must be linked to conscience” claims that women, men and queer are capable of responsibility for their social choices. Rather of responsibility for creation, Gaudium et Seps 15, 1 at the same time exaggerates the capabilities of the intellect, that “can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable”, and restrains the intellect’s capabilities, “though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened”.

Gaudium et Spes 15, 2 describes the capability of wisdom as “a quest and a love for what is true and good” in the “invisible realities” of the world.

Gaudium et Spes 15, 3 confirms the necessity for human wisdom for “humanizing” the discoveries of man. Further, there is the claim that people in poor countries often show more wisdom than rich people. We are not given a predictor that would describe “humanizing”, nor are we given a predictor for understanding the “wisdom” of the poor.

Gaudium et Spes 15, 4 professes “It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan”. There is a refers to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 17, 7–8 to legitimate the above faith-sentence, “the Lord filled human beings with knowledge and intelligence and showed them what was good and what evil. He put his own light in their hearts to show them the magnificence of his works”. These two verses are not cited in the text of Gaudium et Spes, and indeed, they sound a bit different than Gaudium et Spes 15, 1-3., but they fit perfectly into the logical development of every number of Gaudium et Spes: First there is a description of what modern man is capable of and does, second there is a description of what Go’d does according to Christian faith.

Gaudium et Spes 16 is titled “Dignity of Moral Conscience”.

Linda Hogan, who teaches ecumenical theology at Trinity College, Dublin, exposes the difference between the two parts of Gaudium et Spes 16. The first part of Gaudium et Spes16 describes conscience as obeying the objective moral law that the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church defines (Hogan, Linda. 2004. “Conscience in the Documents of Vatican II.” In: Conscience, edited by Charles E. Curran, 82–89. 84. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press). We shall see that the Gospel does not allow to verify the claim to obedience to an “objective moral law”, on the contrary.

The second part of Gaudium et Spes 16 considers conscience as the voice of Go’d in the inners of women, men and queer that encourages them to realize the good (ibid). Sanders affirms Hogan’s analysis looking at the editing process of number 16 Gaudium et Spes. He comments that the first part of Gaudium et Spes 16 stems from the first text of scheme XVII and mirrors the traditional teaching, whereas the second part of Gaudium et Spes 16 had been proposed by Bernard Häring (Sander, Hans-Joachim. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et spes.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 4, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 581–886. 732. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The first part of Gaudium et Spes 16 claims “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience, when necessary, speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged”. The Council legitimates this claim to obedience to the law in one’s conscience with a reference to Romans 2, 15-16. The reference does not include Romans 2, 14. Romans 2, 14 contradict the claim of obedience to the law in one’s conscience, and therefore it is logical that the Council omits this verse from its reference to Romans helps describing the context on Paul’s theology of conscience.

Romans 2, 14 says, “So when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are law for themselves”. When Paul speaks of “the Law” he speaks of the Pentateuch, or the Law of the Jews. The Gentiles, that is the non-Jews and non-Christians, do not have this Law, but nevertheless behave “as the Law commands”. This behavior is caused “through their own innate sense”, but not through obedience. The Gentiles have their own moral law, “they are law for themselves” (Romans 2, 14). The relation of the conscience of a Gentile person to her or his moral law is called “bearing witness”, it is not obedience (Romans 2, 15).

The Gentiles “can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defense … on the day when, according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges all human secrets” (Romans 2, 15–16). Gaudium et Spes 16 claims “to obey the law is the very dignity of man”. Romans does not speak of dignity as reward for obedience, “…Not; that faith is what counts, since, as we see it, a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the Law tells him to do” (Romans 3, 27a-28).

Man will not be judged by the Law, “according to the Law he will be judged” (Gaudium et Spes 16). The Gentiles are judged by “their own conscience” and by their own “considerations” (Romans 2, 15). When we are talking about sin and justification, we have to respect that Paul testifies to one judge, that is “Go’d, through Jesus Christ”. Further, the state of affairs of that judgement are not known to man, they are “human secrets” (Romans 2, 16). Women, men and queer sustain their dignity by obeying to themselves and to the law of their consciences, and Christians are justified by faith in Go’d and Jesus Christ who are merciful. Martin Luther led the Christians to Paul’s understanding of Go’d’s justifying gace that is faith. The Church fathers followed a different biblical path describing the work of conscience, long before any positive legislation on moral behavior was to be followed.

The Church Fathers interpreted Romans 2, 14–16 with the help of the narrative of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4, 1–16) and argued that the law of conscience indicates man his duties and faults before all positive legislation and independent from all legislation (ibid. 77). Cain and Abel lived long before any revelation of the Law at Sinai and long before known codes of laws.

The old narratives of the Hebrew Bible are more complicated than modern interpreters want to recognize. The fact that the narrative of Cain and Abel still attracts women, men and queer authors of the 21st century CE testifies to the condensed human energies that speak from Genesis. In 2012, Jeanne Safer publishes a book on the deadly relationship of Cain and Abel and the dark side of life (Safer, Jeanne. 2012. Cain’s Legacy. Liberating Siblings from a Lifetime of Rage, Shame, Secrecy and Regret. 8. New York: Basic Books). After thirty-eight years of work as a psychotherapist, author and lecturer she writes on a neglected problem. She documents, “At least one-third of the adult siblings in America suffer serious sibling strife like mine” and “these brothers and sisters feel secret shame, rage, guilt, resentment, alienation, contempt, or, worst of all, more cold indifference than a stranger could ever evoke” (ibid. 2). Safer starts the biblical investigation into sibling strife with Cain and Abel (ibid. 20). She blames God, because he “sets a terrible – and much imitated – example for all human parents”. Safer claims that both siblings “needed and deserved recognition for their hard work” (ibid). Instead, God blames Abel “failing to acknowledge that Cain has any reason to be angry in the first place and warning the son He rejected about the potential for sinning that His own unfair treatment has enflamed rather than assuaged. Instead of helping Cain manage his justified anger and avert disaster, He shows no empathy and offers nothing but threats and blame. God says: ‘Why are you incensed, and why is your face fallen? For whether you offer well, or whether you do not, At the tent flap sin crouches’” (ibid. 21). Safer bases her biblical exegesis “on the translation of the Torah by Robert Alter, The five Books of Moses (Norton: New York 2004)” (Safer 2012, 255).

Safer apparently cites from Genesis 4, 6–7a. Why does she not cite the whole verse Genesis 4, 7? Why does she not cite Genesis 4, 7b too, where God still addresses Cain before his murdering of Abel “You can still master the longing in you”? The author of Genesis 4, 1 – 16 makes Go’d affirm that Cain has the capability of mastering his anger. So why does Safer blame Go’d? Go’d very clearly acknowledges that Cain has anger, Go’d tells Cain that his anger comes from “not doing right”, the Hebrew text does not speak of “offering” as the translation of Alter does, but of “doing right” (Genesis 4, 6) and “not doing right” (Genesis 4, 7). Go’d does not only warn Cain “about the potential for sinning” (Safer, Jeanne. 2012. Cain’s Legacy. Liberating Siblings from a Lifetime of Rage, Shame, Secrecy and Regret. 21. New York: Basic Books), He assesses that Cain has the capability of mastering his inner longing to kill Abel because of his anger. The author of Genesis 4, 7 documents that Cain is confronted with his liberty, his capability for social choices, his freedom to deal with his inner conflicts and angers, or not to master them. The author makes Go’d really look like a counselor who knows when to respect the freedom of the counseled for making their own social choices. The author of Genesis 4, 1 – 16 describes Go’d not only as a counselor who leaves the decisions and their consequences to the counseled. Go’d engages with fratricide Cain who “is permitted to marry, have a son, and found a city in the land of Nod, becoming a patriarch in his own right, whose descendants become the founders of music and toolmaking” (ibid. 22).

Where does the anger of Cain come from? It is true, that Safer stands in the line of many exegetes who interpret that Cain is angered because Go’d did not “regard” the offering of Cain. Safer cites Alter’s translation of Genesis 4, 4b and 5a “The Lord regarded Abel and his offering, but He did not regard Cain” (ibid. 20). It is true, the author of Genesis 4, 1 – 16 tells us that Yahweh did not regard the offering of Cain. Safer’s question is legitimate “Why couldn’t He, as a benevolent father, notice, accept and appreciate Cain as well as Abel?” (ibid.). A benevolent father should appreciate and love all his children equally. Did the author of Genesis 4, 1–16 and the authors of Genesis in general describe Go’d as a benevolent father? We use Abba, father for Go’d in the Old-Aramaic, Midrash and Haggadic literature (Schattner-Rieser 2013). There are 20 recurrences of the use of the expression father for Go’d in the Old Testament (2 Amos 7,14; Isaiah 63, 16; Psalms 68,6; 89,27; 103,13; etc.). During the Hellenistic period in Jewish literature, the use of the name Father for Go’d enjoys growing popularity. In the time between the Testaments, we find in the literature 50 times Abba used for God. See especially the Book of Tobit and The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach. In the New Testament there are 261 recurrences of the name Father for Go’d (ibid).

If the authors of Genesis and the Pentateuch did not describe Go’d as a father, it is logical that Go’d does not behave like a good father. Has anybody in Genesis or in the Torah or in the New Testament ever seen Go’d, ever regarded Go’d? If nobody ever has seen Go’d, how can Cain see that Go’d does not regard? Cain is “very angry and downcast” (The New Jerusalem Bible), he is “incensed and his face is fallen” (Robert Alter). Does the author of Genesis 4, 1–16 make us believe that Go’d has not regarded the offering of cain or does the author tell that Cain was tortured by his thoughts that the Lord does not regard his offering? Does the wrongdoing of Cain consist in the fact that he expected Go’d caring for his self-esteem and integrity, so that he is allowed to retreat from his own capability to procure for his integrity and feelings of happiness? Did Cain offer, not because he was thankful, but because he wanted to be rewarded? Did Cain prefer the satisfaction of being rewarded by Go’d to the satisfaction of being happy without any reason and expressing thankfulness for this gift? 

Antiquity considered conscience as participation in cosmic reason or in the divine mind, which governs the universe. The Roman statesman and lawyer Cicero and the philosopher Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, considered conscience as divine. Following philosophical terminology, the Church Fathers called conscience a natural law or eternal law, an incorruptible law and the law of the heart (ibid). According to the Aquinas the first principle of practical reason of natural law or eternal law is “do good and avoid evil (Aquinas I-II, q. 94, ad 2 Latin: Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et malum vitandum)” (ibid. 78). Aristotle and the Aquinas deduced concrete moral norms from the first principle of practical reason but they did not call these positive norms and rules natural law or eternal law. Later Church authorities did not respect the distinction between the divine law of conscience and the positive laws of legislation and used to prescribe rules and norms to the Christians for their moral behavior. Luther protested this disrespect of the liberty of faith and fought against the religion of justification by works. Due to the protest of protestant theologians, the Council Fathers decided not to use the terms “natural law” or “eternal law” in Gaudium et Spes and this ecumenical dialogue affirms the freedom and dignity of the human person referring to the biblical picture of “the image of Go’d” in Genesis 1, 26-27 (Moeller 1968, 274). Saint Ignatius, a contemporary of Luther, did not dare to protest against the moral norms of the Roman Catholic Church in his Spiritual Exercices (Loyola, Ignatius de. 1987. Ejercicios espirituales, introduced and annotated by Candido de Dalmases, S.I. Santander: Sal Terrae). In 1956, Karl Rahner interpreted Saint Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercices as containing a “doctrine of individual guidance by the Holy Spirit and of individual ethics”. Rahner presents a method of empowering the individual’s freedom and encourages to make use of one’s liberty and freedom of conscience and religious experience (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church. 10,12. London: Burns & Oates).

The second part of Gaudium et Spes 16 starts affirming “Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (Matthew 22, 37-40; Galatians 5, 14) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships”.

The second part of Gaudium et Spes 16 turns away from the above ethics of obedience and conserves the precious Christian teaching from the time of the Church Fathers “Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” and preserves the old Christian principle that the “erring conscience is not losing its dignity” (Delhaye, Philippe. 1963. La Conscience morale du Chrétien. 75. Paris: Declée 75). 

Gaudium et Spes 16 develops the Law of the Spirit that is love “In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor”, but the Council Fathers do not dare to include self-love in the Law of the Spirit. Gaudium et Spes 16 legitimizes only a twofold commandment of love by referring to Matthew 22, 37–40 and to Galatians 5, 14.

Matthew clearly testifies to Jesus Christ speaking of the threefold commandment of love, love for God, for the neighbor and for yourself, “Jesus said to the Pharisee, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it; You must love your neighbor as yourself. On theses two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets.’” (Matthew 22, 37-40). Paul demands from the Galatians to fulfill the commandment from Leviticus 19, 18 “You must love your neighbor as yourself”.  Gaudium et Spes and the Second Vatican Council have a problem with self-love.

In Galatians 5, 13–14, Paul links liberty to love “After all, brothers, you were called to be free; do not use your freedom as an opening for self-indulgence, but be servants to one another in love, and the whole of the Law is summarized in the one commandment: You must love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19, 18)”.

Gaudium et Spes 17 is titled “The Excellence of Freedom”.

Gaudium et Spes 17 affirms “Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness”. This affirmation of freedom corresponds with the description of freedom as a choice and the realization of freedom as a social choice. This affirmation corresponds to the philosophy of freedom. Gaudium et Spes 17 further assesses freedom as a possibility-condition of dignity “man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice”. According to the method of Philips to turn from philosophy to faith-sentences and to speak “in the light of Christ”, Gaudium et Spes 17 speaks of an “authentic freedom” that is freedom as “an exceptional sign of the divine image within man” and of the faith-conviction that “authentic freedom” is a gift from Go’d. Theologians call this gift grace. The use of the predictors gift and grace by theologians does not really correspond with the use of the predication gift in ordinary language. When we speak of a gift, we are usually capable of identifying a giver and a taker of the gift. In the case of faith-sentences, there is no way of identifying an individual giver as Go’d as we identify a person who makes a gift. If we would try to say how Go’d is and would for example asses that Go’d is a giver, we would express the inexpressible. Wittgenstein says in Tractatus 6.522 “There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. Side-by-side-by-side edition, version 0.42 (January 5, 2015), containing the original German, alongside both the Ogden/Ramsey, and Pears/McGuinness. London: Kegan Paul. Wittgenstein 1922; translation by Ogden/Ramsey).

The gift shows, I receive the gift of faith, and I am able to react to this gift and express my thankfulness. We have to be clear that receiving the gift, realizes a social choice. A social choice presupposes the freedom to choose, my dignity, and my rights, that is my integrity. The Aquinas and Christian tradition formulated that speaking of grace presupposes having spoken of nature. First, there is an awareness of my integrity then there is my awareness of the mystical. First, there is self-consciousness, and then there is the experience of the mystical. Wittgenstein says in Tractatus 6. 44: “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is” (ibid). Wittgenstein talks about the fact that the world exists and his reaction to this fact.

Gaudium et Spes 17 concludes “Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil” and refers to 2 Corinthians 5, 10. Reading 2 Corinthians 5, 10 we see that the text does not speak of Go’d at the judgement seat. 2 Corinthians 5, 10 speaks of Jesus Christ “For at the judgment seat of Christ we are all to be seen for what we are, so that each of us may receive what he has deserved in the body, matched to whatever he has done, good or bad”. The justice of Jesus Christ is mercy and forgiveness of sin, as the Gospel testifies telling from his encounters with sinners and his teaching of forgiveness. See the three parables of Go’d’s mercy, Luke 15, 1-32, that are the parable of the lost sheep, of the lost drachma and of the lost son (the prodigal) and the dutiful son. The risen Jesus Christ appears his Apostles, and calls them to be witnesses to Jesus Christ, his suffering and resurrection and to his proclamation of turning in his name to a new way of life in forgiveness of sins for (Luke 24, 47–48).

The faith in Jesus Christ as savior is my faith in Jesus Christ as original forgiver. The Swiss philosopher and protestant theologian Lytta Basset wrote on the capability of forgiveness and the empowerment for forgiving (Basset, Lytta. 1995. Le pardon oncilio. De l`abime du mal au pouvoir de pardonner. Genève: Labor et Fides).  She does not consider Adam and Eve, that is humankind as narrated in Genesis 2–3, as victim of the satanic serpent (ibid. 173). I like the picture that women, men and queer are victims of evil that they encounter right at birth (ibid). “Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned” (Genesis 2, 8). First, Go’d gives a garden (Hebrew: gan) that is protection for women, men and queer. The Hebrew verb ganan translates as to protect (ibid. 104). The garden that protects and gives security is no paradise (Greek: paradeisos) as the Septuagint translates (ibid. 204). The garden serves to produce food and not as a projection for fantasies of undisturbed well-being and happiness (ibid). In the garden, there are trees and in the middle of the garden there are two trees. One is “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2, 9) and this means that good and evil exist in the garden well before Adam and Eve (ibid). The other tree in the middle of the garden is the tree of life (Genesis 3, 9 and 22). The mystery of life and the mystery of evil and good exist contemporarily (ibid). In Genesis 2, 15 we read, “Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it”. There is not the slightest hint in Genesis 2, 15 that man was realizing his task (ibid. 225).

The origin of suffering, of life and of death remains a mystery of Go’d (ibid 173). I agree: To separate from the other because of my suffering, to encapsulate myself in guilt or to isolate the other in her or his guilt does not heal my pain and agony (ibid). Basset professes the healing conviction that Go’d never succumbs to the temptation of separating from women, men and queer (ibid). Basset defines Go’d’s omnipotence as forgiveness, as indelible capability to embrace all women, men and queer, be they good or bad, as the indelible capability to exclude nobody, to leave nobody outside and to never lock away sense (ibid. 467). Basset is right that women, men and queer despair because they cannot experience all including forgiveness (ibid). My faith that Christ is our Savior who restores by forgiveness is a gift of Go’d. I want to be absolutely clear about being conscious to experience forgiveness as that which is given, as mystical following Tractatus 6. 44 “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is” (Wittgenstein 1922; translation by Ogden/Ramsey). Having the experience of forgiveness is an experience I can testify to from my personal experience of meditating and prayer. Speaking of my experience makes sense and shows what I mean. It is nonsense to use the predictor omnipotence for Go’d for saying something how Go’d is. Speakers who assess predictors about Go’d, do not say anything concerning how Go’d is. Therefore, I call these predications how Go’d is nonsense. The sentences of the speakers who say how Go’d is, do make sense, they are not senseless, because I can understand them according to the rules of language. According to the rules of logic, I cannot give something a predictor that is not part of the world. Therefore, I call a predictor for Go’d nonsense. Professing the faith that with Go’d there is indelible forgiveness, and peace is a testimony to an experience. Speaking of omnipotence as predictor for an experience of what I believe is Go’d’s presence, makes sense and is logically ok, if I profess my faith-experiences as that it is. It is logically ok too, to call that, that is, the mystical. Calling that, that is mystical, shows what I mean; it does not say how the mystical is but what I mean. I am not able to judge if Lytta Basset speaks of personal experiences of indelible forgiveness or claims a predication on how Go’d is. Basset does not reflect on the difference between personal experience and a predication on how Go’d is (Basset 1995).  Tractatus 6, 45 “The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its limitation as a limited world”. The predication of omnipotence for Go’d in the sense of a capability that had never begun and never ends would be nonsense. A predication of a cause that is outside the world is not possible for women, men and queer, and would be nonsensical. “What we cannot think, that we cannot think: We cannot therefore say what we cannot think” (Tractatus 5. 61). The mystical shows itself and it is indeed inexpressible because we cannot think beyond the limits of the world. Saying Go’d is “the first cause” that caused the world, claims something that is outside the world. The Second Vatican Council does not claim something that is outside the world; the Second Vatican Council affirms that Go’d is invisible (Dei Verbum 2), Go’d is unthinkable, Go’d is unspeakable. Using the word “Go’d” we cannot show whom we mean, because Dei Verbum rightly affirms that Go’d is invisible. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum professes Jesus Christ as the revelation “of the invisible God”. “Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (Colossians 1;15, 1 Timothy 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (Exodus 33:11; John 15:14–15) and lives among them (see Baruch 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself” (Dei Verbum 2). Revelation cannot be separated from history; revelation takes place within a history of men and women.

Dei Verbum 11 claims three affirmations concerning inspiration and gives three references for their legitimation: “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him” is the first claim and the first reference is to Pius XII and his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The second claim is that “they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them.” The references for the claim that Go’d acted “in” the chosen men who composed the sacred books are Hebrews 1,1, “At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors in the prophets” and Hebrews 4,7, God “saying in David so long a time afterward”. The references that Go’d speaks “through” man are 2 Samuel 23,2, “The spirit of Yahweh speaks through me, his word is on my tongue” and Matthew 1,22, “the Lord had spoken through the prophet”. There is no word of Go’d as the author of the Scripture in number 11 of Dei Verbum, but there is a clear affirmation of the powers and abilities of the chosen men who composed the sacred books. Finally, they are called “true authors”.  Papal encyclicals speak until 1920 CE of the authors of the Scripture as “instruments” or “secretaries” of Go’d, and Go’d was called author of the Scripture (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 3, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 766. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). The claim that Go’d is the “principal author” of the Scripture is no longer made in Dei Verbum (ibid. 767). Thanks to Go’d there has been an evolution of Catholic teaching on inspiration. Inspiration describes the faith-claim that the authors of the Sacred Scriptures got help from the Holy Spirit when writing the Gospel.

Gaudium et Spes 18 is titled “The Mystery of Death”.  The Council Fathers present the “desire for higher life which is inescapably lodged in his breast”, that is in the breast of man, as an empirical fact (Gaudium et Spes 18, 1). In reality “the desire for higher life is not inescapably lodged” in the breast of women, men and queer. I doubt that all women, men and queer desire a never-ending life on earth and I doubt even more that all women, men and queer on this earth desire “a higher life” that is a life beyond the body. If women, men and queer rebel against death, as Gaudium et Spes 18, 1 claim, it is not because they bear In themselves “an eternal seed which cannot be reduced to sheer matter”. Hardly Gaudium et Spes 17 defends the excellence of freedom as “an exceptional sign of the divine image within man”, when Gaudium et Spes 18, 1 takes away that freedom and claims that women, men and queer do not have the choice of accepting death or rebelling against death with faith in eternal life.

In Gaudium et Spes 18, 2 the Council will affirm the “Christian faith” that after death man “is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Savior”, Christ is our Savior who “restores” and does not condemn.

The affirmation from Gaudium et Spes 18, 2 “Hence to every thoughtful man a solidly established faith provides the answer to his anxiety about what the future holds for him” restricts peace and salvation to the “thoughtful” and the faithful. We have to notice that a woman, man or queer who does not have faith in Go’d cannot simply be qualified as unthoughtful. Gaudium et Spes 19–21 try dealing with atheism in a less discriminating manner.

Gaudium et Spes 19 is titled “Kinds of Atheism and its Causes”.

The first sentence of Gaudium et Spes 19, 1 “The root reason for human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God” does not respect the dignity of atheists.

Gaudium et Spes 19, 2 describes as atheist the denial of Go’d, the denial of the possibility of speaking about Go’d, the ignorance of Go’d and some more. As causes of atheism Gaudium et Spes 19, 2 affirms “a violent protest against the evil in this world”, and undue demands to obey divinized commandments.

Gaudium et Spes 19, 3 affirms that “believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism”; all of a sudden, the Christian women, men and queer get again the attention of the Council Fathers, because they “are deficient in their religious, moral or social life” and therefore cause atheism. The Council Fathers do not prove the courage for self-criticism; suddenly, they hide within the mass of Christians.

Gaudium et Spes 20 is titled “Systematic Atheism”.

Gaudium et Spes 20 identifies the protest against “any kind of dependence on God” and the realization of personal freedom as causes for this systematic atheism. Atheism “anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation” that religion would impede. The Council describes a state-atheism that oppresses the “religious education of the youth” but does not name the Communist regimes as these suppressors of religious liberty.

Gaudium et Spes 21 is titled “The Attitude of the Church Towards Atheism”. Gaudium et Spes 21, 1 confirms that the Church “has already repudiated and cannot cease repudiating” atheism. Gaudium et Spes 21, 2 assesses that the Church is “conscious of how weighty the questions are which atheism raises” and Gaudium et Spes 21, 3 repeats the teachings of the Council on conscience, death and eternal life. Gaudium et Spes 21, 4 remembers the human condition and Gaudium et Spes 21, 5 proposes “The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of the Church’s teaching as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members”. Gaudium et Spes 21, 6 encourages the collaboration with atheists “for the rightful betterment of this world”. Gaudium et Spes 21, 7 proclaims that the Church speaks to the world with the light of the Christian faith. Moeller notes that the Council Fathers understood the whole Constitution Gaudium et Spes as their answer to contemporary atheism (Moeller 1968, 273).

Gaudium et Spes 22 is titled “Christ the New Man”.

Every single chapter of part one of Gaudium et Spes ends with a catechesis on Christian faith. So, Gaudium et Spes 22 ends presenting Christological, prophetical and Paschal aspects of the Christian faith (ibid).

Gaudium et Spes 22, 1 proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ insisting on the faith that Jesus Christ is one of us, celebrating with us, dying with us and rising through the power of Go’d.

Gaudium et Spes 22,2 professes, Jesus Christ is "the image of the invisible God" and refers to Colossians 1,15.

Gaudium et Spes 22,3 proclainms, the Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ is the mystery of Easter for us all.

Gaudium et Spes 22,4 counts 7 references to the Gospel assuring the Christian man the same gift of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ had received.

Gaudium et Spes 22, 5 affirms Go’d’s universal will for salvation for everybody including atheists, that is “for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way” and refers to Lumen Gentium 16. As far as my reading capability, I was not able to find in Lumen Gentium 16 a word on atheists.

Chapter Two: Gaudium et Spes 23–32 “The Community of Mankind”.

Gaudium et Spes 23 is titled “The Council’s Intention”.

Gaudium et Spes 23, 1 claim that “the growing interdependence of men one on the other” that characterizes the modern world, “demand a mutual respect for the full spiritual dignity of the person”.

Gaudium et Spes 23, 2 announces that the Council Fathers will deal with human society according to the Encyclicals Mater et Magister and Pacem in terris of Pope John XXIII and according to the Encyclical Ecclesiam suam of Pope Paul VI.

Gaudium et Spes 24 is titled “Communitarian Nature of the Human Vocation: God’s Design”.

The first sentence of Gaudium et Spes 24, 1 claim “God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. I doubt that the Council Fathers were aware of the second sentence of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 that proclaims, all human beings “are endowed by nature with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. Article 1 of the UDHR and Gaudium et Spes 24, 1 claim a “spirit of brotherhood”, but they differ in the reason given for this claim. The UDHR speaks of reason and conscience justifying the claim for treating each other in a spirit of brotherhood. Gaudium et Spes 24, 1 speaks of the faith in Go’d as reason to do so. The UDHR proclaims Human Rights believing in “the nature” of all human beings, Gaudium et Spes 24,1 claims that all human beings treat each other in a spirit of brotherhood believing in Go’d. There are different beliefs at work in the UDHR and in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, yet they share the claim of the second sentence of Article 1 of the UDHR. Unfortunately, the “spirit of brotherhood” of Gaudium et Spes 24, 1 does not include the proclamation of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer that makes up the first sentence of the UDHR.

Gaudium et Spes 24, 2 affirms, “love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment” and cites the threefold commandment of love from Scripture “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.... Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13,9–10; 1 John 4, 20)”. The Council Fathers are not aware of fact, that Paul gives testimony to the  threefold commandment of love. The greatest commandment of Jesus Christ, the Lord and savior is threefold and not twofold.

Gaudium et Spes 24, 3 refers to Luke 17, 33, “Anyone who tries to preserve his life will lose it; and anyone who loses it will keep it safe“, without citing the verse or explaining the context of Luke 17, 33 in the Gospel of Luke or in the Synoptic authors. Yet, this context is of importance.  Luke 17: 23–24; 26–27; 33; 34–35; 37 we find again in Luke 21, 5–38 (Bovon 2009, 165). We find in the so-called Synoptic Apocalypse (Luke 21, Matthew 24, Mark 13) an eschatological discourse of Jesus Christ (ibid). In Luke 21, 5–38 the people listen with sympathy to Jesus but soon they will turn away from him. In Luke 17, 22–37 and in the following parable Luke 18, 1–8, Jesus speaks to the disciples. In Luke 17, 22–37 Jesus speaks of the Day of the Son of man, or as we understand today, the Day of the Daughter of man, he speaks of recognizing with faith Jesus Christ as the sign of Jonah within the history of everyday life.

Luke 18, 1–8 narrates a parable to understand prayer and assess one’s integrity as the way for the individual woman, man and queer to get empowered to realize the just world of Go’d by doing justice. “Then he told them a parable about the need to pray continually and never lose heart” (Luke 18, 1). Jesus encourages to sustain one’s integrity – never losing one’s heart and not to despair – by praying and meditating. The Greek verb egkakein literally means not to enclose oneself with negative and bad experiences. Luke shows Jesus insisting on the necessity of the conjunction of prayer and integrity for the individual woman, man and queer disciple. The experience of integrity and the experience of faith in Jesus Christ as the Lord and savior are given, we are becoming aware of them in our consciousness.

Gaudium et Spes 24, 3 ignores that the Lord is giving himself for us. Faith professes Jesus Christ the giver of integrity and life. Further, Gaudium et Spes 24,3 reverses the relation and claims, “Man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself”.

Gaudium et Spes 25 is titled “Person and Society: Interdependence”.

Gaudium et Spes 25, 1 speaks about the connectedness of individual and social life.

Gaudium et Spes 25, 2 uses the term socialization but struggles with its description.

Gaudium et Spes 25, 3 acknowledges the influence of social, economic, cultural, etc. circumstances on the decision making of the individual, but does not speak of structural sin. Instead, sin is understood as a matter of the individual that may resist sinning by “strenuous efforts and the assistance of grace”.

Gaudium et Spes 26 is titled “The Common Good”.

Gaudium et Spes 26, 1 pleads for accepting the imperative for global mutuality “Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family”.

Gaudium et Spes 26, 2 assesses that human dignity rightfully claims Human Rights. Many rights of the UDHR are addressed, even “the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family”. The Council Fathers are not aware of discriminating the Catholic faithful who want to found a family and at the same time have access to priestly ordination.  Women are not allowed to get ordained anyways, although they had worked as apostles of Jesus Christ like Junia (Romans 16, 7).

Gaudium et Spes 26, 3 claims a social order that enables the realization of Human Rights and duties and “requires constant improvement”.

Gaudium et Spes 26, 4 professes “God’s Spirit is not absent from this development. The ferment of the Gospel too has aroused and continues to arouse in man’s heart the irresistible requirements of his dignity”.

Gaudium et Spes 27 is titled “Respect for the Human Person”.

Gaudium et Spes 27, 1 claim “everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self”. Without presenting a validity-condition for this claim, the claim is not credible and the universal range of validity of the claim is irreal. The claim is irreal and not biblical. There is no neighbor, there are women, men and queer and by relating to them in mutual interactions of social realizations of dignity, I will be capable of answering the question of Jesus “whom did you make your neighbor” (Luke 10, 36). Gaudium et Spes 27, 2 repeats the irreal claim “to make ourselves the neighbor of every person”. How do we qualify claims that we cannot comply with anyway? Jesus is realistic and at the same time salvific by identifying “one of the least” with himself “As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me” (Matthew 25:40). The Council Fathers cite Matthew 25, 40 but do not understand that the individual woman, man and queer is the validity-condition of the claim of Jesus and not the whole of humanity.

Gaudium et Spes 27, 3 denounces “whatever violates the integrity of the human person” and “whatever insults human dignity” giving many examples but does not denounce the violation of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. Not only murder, hunger and “selling of women and children are supreme dishonor to the Creator” but all discrimination of women, men and queer.

Gaudium et Spes 28 is titled “Respect and Love for Enemies”. Gaudium et Spes 28, 1 claims respect and love, understanding and dialogue as principles for dealing with persons “who think, or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters”. Gaudium et Spes 28, 2 refers to Luke 6, 37–38, Matthew 7, 1–2 and Romans 2: 1–11; 14: 10–12, “God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone”. Gaudium et Spes 28, 2 claims the love of the enemy and refers to Matthew 5:43–44.

Gaudium et Spes 29 is titled “Essential Equality of All and Social Justice”.

Gaudium et Spes 29, 1 claim in the name of Go’d the creator of all, of Jesus Christ the redeemer of all, and “because of the divine call and destiny” of all “the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition”. The Council Fathers do not claim the complete equality of dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer; instead, they still reserve legitimation for some discrimination.

Gaudium et Spes 29, 2 claim “respect to the fundamental rights of the person”, condemns “every type of discrimination”. The second direct mentioning of women in the whole document describes some forms of discrimination “Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men”. The right to divorce, the right to artificial birth control, the right to abort on her social choice are not mentioned, and discrimination continues within the Roman Catholic Church where women are not allowed to the offices of the hierarchy of the Church.

Gaudium et Spes 29, 3 affirms a few rights of the person, but not all. Only the violation of these rights threatens social and international peace and human dignity. The Council prescribes the world a limited range of Human Rights and continues ignoring the UDHR.

Gaudium et Spes 29, 4 demand from the institutions of the world that they realize the rights of the persons and even “spiritual aims”, but again the Council speaks only of the rights that the Council is willed to grant and does not include all rights and liberties of the UDHR.

Gaudium et Spes 30 is titled “Need to Transcend an Individualistic Morality”. Gaudium et Spes 30, 1 argues for a social ethics for the needs of society that “a merely individualistic morality” does not recognize. Gaudium et Spes 30, 2 speaks of modern man and “a new humanity”.

Gaudium et Spes 31 is titled “Responsibility and Participation”.

Gaudium et Spes 31, 1 claim “Above all the education of youth from every social background has to be undertaken, so that there can be produced not only men and women of refined talents, but those great-souled persons who are so desperately required by our times”.

Gaudium et Spes 31, 2 affirms that “the service of the human community” and “human freedom” are crippled by hunger, poverty and by the self-satisfied rich.

Gaudium et Spes 31, 3 claims conditions that “allow the largest possible number of citizens to participate in public affairs with genuine freedom” in order to work for the well-being of “coming generations”. Democracy is not mentioned and is not defended. Sander thinks that the Council had to recognize that the Roman Catholic Church has to deal with many forms of governments that are not democratic; and out of thoughtfulness for the Christians who live in dictatorships and had to fear repressions, the Second Vatican Council does not insist on democracy as a human right (Sander 2005, 750).

Gaudium et Spes 32 is titled “The Word made Flesh and Human Solidarity”.

Gaudium et Spes 32, 1 starts with references to the people of Go’d in Lumen Gentium 9 and to “His People” in Exodus 24, 1–8.

Gaudium et Spes 32, 2 speaks of Jesus living a normal social life with his people. There is no reference to Lumen Gentium 12, 2 “the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God”.

Gaudium et Spes 32, 3 professes that Jesus Christ in his public life preached and realized love. The Council refers to the Gospel of John “Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15,13)” and testifies that the Apostles preach that “the human race was to become the Family of God, in which the fullness of the Law would be love”. The Council Fathers do not dare to speak of the Law of love, that is the Law of the Spirit.

Gaudium et Spes 32, 4 claims that after death and resurrection Jesus Christ by giving the Holy Spirit founded the Church of faith and love as “His body”, the mystical body of Christ.  

Gaudium et Spes 32, 4 ignores that the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels “make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles” as Dei Verbum 21 professes. Only Lumen Gentium 52 and 62 remember that the Holy Spirit was with the Virgin Mary, that is before there was death and resurrection of Jesus. Throughout Lumen Gentium there are 47 recurrences of the Holy Spirit and all of them refer to baptized Christians.

Gaudium et Spes does not take notice of the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible. The prayer of psalm 51 implores “God, create in me a clean heart, renew within me a resolute spirit, do not thrust me away from your presence, do not take away from me your Holy Spirit” (Psalm 51, 10–11). Wisdom 1, 5 affirms “for the Holy Spirit of instruction flees deceitfulness, recoils from unintelligent thoughts, is thwarted by the onset of vice”. Wisdom 7, 22 professes that within wisdom “is Spirit, intelligent and holy” that is participating in Go’d and working in the world. Isaiah meditates on the history of Israel with Yahweh who praises the House of Israel saying, “my people will not betray me” (Isaiah 63, 7). A few verses later, Isaiah documents that the people had rebelled against Yahweh “and vexed his holy Spirit” (Isaiah 63, 10), only to remember once more Go’d’s forgiveness and Isaiah rhetorically asks, “Where was he who put his holy Spirit among them, whose glorious arm led the way by Moses’s right hand?” (Isaiah 63, 11–12). The Septuagint assesses in Daniel 4, 8, 9, 18; Daniel 5,12 and Daniel 6,4 that the Holy Spirit was in Daniel.

The Council Fathers were not ready to assess full heartedly that the Holy Spirit resounds in the Hebrew Bible.

Chapter Three:  Gaudium et Spes 33–39 “Humanity’s Activity in the Universe”.

Gaudium et Spes 33 is titled “The Problem”.

The first sentence of Gaudium et Spes 33, 1 affirms “Through his labors and his native endowments man has ceaselessly striven to better his life”. The Council Fathers do not present any empirical evidence for man’s endowment, temper, or nature working for a better life.

Gaudium et Spes 33, 2 affirms that the Church guards the Holy Scriptures “to add the light of revealed truth to mankind’s store of experience, so that the path which humanity has taken in recent times will not be a dark one”.

Gaudium et Spes 34 is titled “Value of Human Activity”.

Gaudium et Spes 34, 1 naively affirms that the globalized activities of the world community correspond to God’s will, for “by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth”. I doubt that subjection of anything would laud God, least the subjection of creation to man. A few years after the Second Vatican Council, in 1968 “the Club of Rome was created to address the multiple crises facing humanity and the planet”[ii]. In 2020 the Club of Rome counts 100 members, notable scientists, economists, business leaders and former politicians who react to the world’s situation that “decades of exponential consumption and population growth have come to imperil the earth’s climate and life-supporting systems, while reinforcing social and economic inequalities and impoverishing billions globally” (ibid).

Gaudium et Spes 34, 2 naively affirms with the usual lack of empirical evidence “men and women are performing their activities in a way which appropriately benefits society”.

Gaudium et Spes 34, 3 affirms “Christians are convinced that the triumphs of the human race are a sign of God’s grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design”. Writing in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am ashamed of the naïve and wrong assessments of Gaudium et Spes. The patriarchal narrator of Genesis testified with a more intelligent and realistic judgement about human life than the Council Fathers of the 20th century CE, “By the sweat of your face will you earn your food, until you return to the ground, as you were taken from it. For dust you are and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3, 19).

Gaudium et Spes 35 is titled “Regulation of Human Activity”.

Gaudium et Spes 35, 1 platitudinizes to please pope Paul VI, “A man is more precious for what he is than for what he has” without describing what man is.

The correspondence claimed by Gaudium et Spes 35, 2 between “the divine plan and will” and “the genuine good of the human race” remains empty because there are no descriptions of validity-conditions and of the range of the claim to validity.

Gaudium et Spes 36 is titled “Rightful Autonomy of Earthly Affairs”.

Gaudium et Spes 36, 1 affirms that there is no necessary contradiction between “human activity” and faith.

Gaudium et Spes 36, 2 seems to affirm a real autonomy of worldly affairs, “If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must be gradually deciphered, put to use, and regulated by men, then it is entirely right to demand that autonomy”. There is no contradiction between science and faith “a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith”. From the point of view of the faith it is coherent to claim that the created and the creator cannot contradict each other.

Gaudium et Spes 36, 3 turns to intolerance again and claims that the negation of the world’s dependence on God is false.

Gaudium et Spes 37 is titled “Human Activity Infected by Sin”.

Gaudium et Spes 37, 1 affirms the banality that the Sacred Scripture speaks of temptations in connection with human capabilities and progress. Yet, it is true “the magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself”. This is a close to a condemnation of atomic weapons as the Second Vatican Council gets.

In Gaudium et Spes 24, 3 we had an allusion to the Synoptic Apocalypse (Luke 21, Mark 13, Matthew 24).

In Gaudium et Spes 37, 2 there is a direct reference to Matthew 24, 13, “For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested (Matthew 24, 13; 13, 24–30 and 36–43)”. From my perspective in 2020 CE, the reference to Matthew 24, 13 “but anyone who stands firm to the end will be saved” presents a salutary correction to the optimistic phantasies of the Council Fathers on the world. We had heard in Gaudium et Spes 34, 1 that the globalized activities of the world community correspond to God’s will, for “by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth”. The Parable of the darnel (Matthew 13, 24-30) and The Parable of the darnel explained (Matthew 13, 36-43) are convincing by their realism too.

Gaudium et Spes 37, 3 announces a shift from considering “human progress” to considering “sin”, without any explanation for this new interest for the reader.

Gaudium et Spes 37, 4 refers two times to The First Letter to the Corinthians. Paul addressed the Christians of the community in Corinth. The Council addresses women, men and queer who are not necessarily Christians. Why telling them about a necessity to get redeemed by the cross of Jesus Christ and why not simply assuring them the solidarity of the Christians? Chapter three is on human activity and the universe; it should treat the way Roman Catholic Christians relate to the world.

Gaudium et Spes 38 is titled “Human Activity: Its Fulfillment in the Paschal Mystery”.

Gaudium et Spes 38, 1–4 is a catechesis on Jesus Christ. Gaudium et Spes is the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern World. If I want to do Pastoral theology I have to take Paul as a model. He did not appear in Corinth or elsewhere and started a full-scale catechesis for his listeners. Instead, he began speaking of themes, that concerned everyday life of his listeners, that concerned their interests. “And so, brothers, I was not able to talk to you as spiritual people; I had to talk to you as people still living by your natural inclinations, still infants in Christ. I fed you with milk and not solid food, for you were not yet able to take it – and even now, you are still not able to” (First Letter to the Corinthians, 3, 1-2).

Gaudium et Spes 39 is titled “A New Earth and A New Heaven”.

Gaudium et Spes 39 speaks to the world as Jesus speaks to the disciples assembled in Jerusalem after his death and resurrection at the beginning of Acts. The Council Fathers proclaim the just world of Go’d that is already present in the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ.

It is true, in March 1962, Pope John XXIII agrees to the suggestion of Cardinal Suenens from Belgium, to focus the Council’s work on the inner constitution of the Church, ecclesia ad intra or the mystery of the Church, and on the relation of the Church and the world, ecclesia ad extra (Hünermann, Peter. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen gentium.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 263–583. 320. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).  Therefore, on could say, that the catechetic sentences of Gaudium et Spes concern the faithful Christians. If we follow the intention of Gaudium et Spes 2, we get the focus on the relation of the Church and the world. Gaudium et Spes 2 titles “The Council addresses all of humanity”. To be exact, we see that Gaudium et Spes presents a mix of addresses. In Gaudium et Spes 2, 1 the Council Fathers take the word and affirm they address themselves to the sons and daughters of the Church, to all followers of Jesus Christ and “to the whole of humanity”.

What are the Council Fathers going to tell the world? They tell the world, what Roman Catholic Christians do believe. In Gaudium et Spes 2, 2 the Council Fathers tell the world that they base their worldview on the faith in Jesus Christ as savior. The Council Fathers further assess that every Christian shares this faith in the salvation work of Christ that is sustained by Go’d’s love “so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and reach its fulfillment” (Gaudium et Spes 2, 2). Gaudium et Spes 2, 2 realizes the programmatic intention of Philips, the Belgian trusted theologian of Cardinal Suenens at the Council, to communicate to the world the message of Christ according to His instructions (Moeller 1968, 272).  Philip’s programmatic intention from January 1964 (ibid.), sounds to me like a missionary statement. Cardinal Suenens asked his preferred theologian Philips for collaboration on scheme XVII, as the later scheme XIII and the final document Gaudium et Spes was called in the spring of 1963, the so called second preparation of the Council (Philips, Gérard. 2006. “Carnet Conciliaire de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Traduction Francaise. Cahier XI and XII.” In Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires, edited by Karim Schelkens, 79–167. 110. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). (See my Post “Development of the text of Gaudium et Spes”).

There is nothing wrong, with proclaiming the Gospel to the world, but giving the modern world too many calories, the people will not be able to digest them properly and will start vomiting the rich food. And indeed, even Catholic faithful are not any more interested in studying the texts of the Second Vatican Council, because they cannot understand and take spiritual profit from them.

Chapter Four: Gaudium et Spes 40–45 “Role of the Church in the Modern World”.

Gaudium et Spes 40 is titled “Mutual Relationship of Church and World”.

Gaudium et Spes 40, 1 announces “we must now consider this same Church inasmuch as she exists in the world, living and acting with it”; everything the Council said about the dignity of the human person provides “the foundation for the relationship between the Church and the world, and provides the basis for dialogue between them”. The Council affirmed a limited definition of human dignity, and the dialogue between the Church and the world follows this limited definition that does not fight against any form of discrimination. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has no interest anyways getting an understanding of its discrimination of Catholic women, men and queer.

Gaudium et Spes 40, 2 does not reach awareness about the discrimination of women, men and queer within the Roman Catholic Church. The Council claims that the faithful “have a call to form the family of God’s children during the present history of the human race, and to keep increasing it until the Lord returns” without thinking about abolishing discrimination “during the present history” of the Church. On the contrary, Gaudium et Spes 40, 2 affirms with Lumen Gentium 8 and 9 the hierarchical structure of the Church and the absolutist government of the pope and his Roman Curia; the Church “has been constituted and structured as a society in this world by Christ” and “is equipped ‘by appropriate means for visible and social union’”. The Council Fathers do not realize the just world of Go’d that started with the healing and preaching of Jesus Christ, the Council Fathers do not dialogue with the world on the basis of the love they had claimed in Gaudium et Spes 27. In Gaudium et Spes 27, 1 for example, the Council Fathers wanted to treat everybody as “another self”, in Gaudium et Spes 40, 2 they ignore once more the dignity of the women, men and queer in the world.

Gaudium et Spes 40, 3 speaks of the “healing and elevating impact on the dignity of the person” of the Roman Catholic Church, without giving a validity-condition or a range of validity for the claim that the Church “can contribute greatly toward making the family of man and its history more human”. The educational system of the Roman Catholic Church around the world is a validity-condition for the above claim, but the Council Fathers do not bother to validate their claims with the work of hundreds of thousands of educators and teachers in Catholic institutions.

Gaudium et Spes 40, 4 affirm the respect “of Christian Churches and ecclesial communities” that work for the same humanization of the world, and appreciate the help “of individuals and from human society as a whole” for the humanizing labor.

Gaudium et Spes 41 is titled “What the Church offers to Individuals”.

Gaudium et Spes 41, 1 assesses that modern man – the Council does not speak of modern women, men and queer – claims “his own rights”. The Council does not use the term “Human Rights”. The faith reaction of the Council Fathers to the above claim to one’ “own rights”, that is to Human Rights, does not address Human Rights as the social realization of the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ. 

Gaudium et Spes 41, 2 affirms that every man thinks about the sense of his life and death and that “God’s spirit” works in man and continues with an instruction of Jesus Christ.

Gaudium et Spes 41, 3 claims “By no human law can the personal dignity and liberty of man be so aptly safeguarded as by the Gospel of Christ which has been entrusted to the Church”. The Council Fathers do not realize that the Gospel of Christ proclaims the threefold commandment of love, love of Go’d, love of one’s neighbor, and love of oneself (Matthew 22, 37–40), and ironically refers to Matthew 22, 39 that claims love of one’s neighbor, and love of oneself. Referring to Matthew 22, 39 the Council “commends all to the charity of all”.

The Council Fathers cite from the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ but do not proclaim the human laws of the UDHR that proclaim equal personal dignity and liberty and rights. The Council Fathers do not accept the invitation of the UDHR to safeguard and further develop Human Rights. Instead, the Council Fathers limit their affirmation of Human Rights to “a sacred reverence for the dignity of conscience and its freedom of choice”, but never directly use the term “Human Rights”.

Gaudium et Spes 41, 4 affirms fundamental for Christian faith that by God the Creator, “the rightful autonomy of the creature, and particularly of man is not withdrawn, but is rather re-established in its own dignity and strengthened in it”. Go’d creates women, men and queer with autonomy and calls Her creation good (Genesis 1, 31), but the Council Fathers limit this autonomy in the name of Go’d. “In the divine arrangement itself, the rightful autonomy of the creature, and particularly of man is not withdrawn, but is rather re-established in its own dignity and strengthened in it” (Gaudium et Spes 41,4). We are not told how we have to understand “rightful autonomy”, I suppose that this kind of dignity concerns heterosexual marriage, but not the autonomy of queer persons to marry, not to speak of the sexual practices of joy and desire of non-married women, men and queer.

Gaudium et Spes 41, 5 affirms again the ambivalence of the Roman Catholic Church that “proclaims the rights of man” but also speaks of a “false autonomy”. “The maintenance of the dignity of the human person is annihilated”, if the person does not obey “divine law”. What is divine law? From Gaudium et Spes 43, 2 we learn that divine law is “the well-informed Christian conscience”. And from Gaudium et Spes 51,2 we finally learn that divine law gets “unfolded by the teaching authority of the Church”. The context of this strange assessment is the Roman Catholic doctrine on marriage. It is really appalling to observe how the Council Fathers pervert the Gospel and put on the place of Jesus Christ’s message of mercy and grace, the dignity-robbing moral doctrine of the Church hierarchy.

Where is the perversion? Introducing the monopoly of interpretation for the Church hierarchy to the divine law, makes the divine law a Church law. That is the perversion!

In Gaudium et Spes 3,2 the Council Fathers had realized the validity-condition for their claim to “solidarity with, as well as its respect and love for the entire human family” by assessing that a “Godlike seed” has been sown in every man and women of humankind. The Council affirms the basic Christian conviction and teaching since Paul’s Letter to the Romans that understands the conscience of all women, men and queer as a justifying witness to “the Law engraved in their hearts” (Romans 2, 12–16). Would this “Law engraved in their hearts” not dispose all women, men and queer to receive and understand the divine law that is found in the Scripture?

The believers in Jesus Christ, the faithful female, male and queer followers of Christ are part of the one people of Go’d and are called to preach the Gospel, tells the Scripture. Preaching the Gospel is interpreting the divine law. “The Holy Spirit, who calls all men to Christ by the seeds of the Lord and by the preaching of the Gospel, stirs up in their hearts a submission to the faith. Who in the womb of the baptismal font He begets to a new life those who believe in Christ, He gathers them into the one People of God which is ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’ (1 Peter 2,9).”  “A royal priesthood” is not in need of the teaching office of the Roman Catholic hierarchy for interpreting the divine law and venerating Go’d.

Gaudium et Spes 42 is titled “What the Church Offers to Society”.

Gaudium et Spes 42, 1 claim that Jesus Christ fortifies “the union of the human family” and

Gaudium et Spes 42, 2 affirms “Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order”. My question is how the human family will come together if not with the help of political, economic and social activities.

Gaudium et Spes 42, 3 recognizes “social movements” that work for the unity of modern society and keeps praising “a union of minds and hearts” within the Roman Catholic Church that roots in the work of the Holy Spirit as a model for the world. The state of affairs of the Roman Catholic Church, an honest assessment of light and shadow, virtue and sin is not on the mind of the Council Fathers.

In Gaudium et Spes 42, 4 “the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and race”, but does not examine, admit and correct racism, sexism and abuse of power within the Church itself.

Gaudium et Spes 42, 5 affirms, “With great respect, therefore, this council regards all the true, good and just elements inherent in the very wide variety of institutions which the human race has established for itself and constantly continues to establish”. At the same time, the Council makes clear to cooperate with worldly institutions on the condition that they comply with “the mission of the Church”.

Gaudium et Spes 43 is titled “What the Church Offers to Human Activity through its Members”.

Gaudium et Spes 43, 1 turns to a pedagogy of fear affirming “The Christian who neglects his temporal duties, neglects his duties toward his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal salvation”. Gaudium et Spes 28, 2 referred to Luke 6, 37–38, Matthew 7, 1–2 and Romans 2: 1–11; 14: 10–12, claiming, “God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone”. Gaudium et Spes 43, 1 forgets about Go’d’s hidden ways to bring about salvation and certainly forgets about forgiveness and love. Gaudium et Spes 43, 1 affirms that Christ “worked as an artisan” but does not affirm that he was a healer by preaching and preached by healing. Christ came to save and not to destroy.

Gaudium et Spes 43, 2 encourages “let the layman take on his own distinctive role” solving the complicated problems of their professions in society. The fear of the Council Fathers is justified in that they lose their authority by assessing their inability to solve the complicated problems of modern society. Therefore, they eagerly remind the lay that they work in the world “enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church”. The authoritarian organization of the Roman Catholic Church as society really impedes any dialogue between bishops and laity as a mutual interaction of equals.

Gaudium et Spes 43, 3 suggests that lay in conflict situations with each other “should always try to enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and caring above all for the common good”. There is no such claim for the members of the Church’s hierarchy.

Gaudium et Spes 43, 4 encourages the laity to give witness to Jesus Christ. Gaudium et Spes 43, 5 claims that the bishops who govern the Church, the priests and the religious should teach and live a model Christian life for the faithful. Gaudium et Spes 43, 6 claims that the pastors prepare for their task by studies. Gaudium et Spes 43, 7 confesses that in the past centuries and “in the present age, too, it does not escape the Church how great a distance lies between the message she offers and the human failings of those to whom the Gospel is entrusted”.

Gaudium et Spes 44 is titled “What the Church Receives from the Modern World”.

Gaudium et Spes 44, 1 repeats the title and assesses that the Church “has profited by the history and the development of humanity”. We do not get a description of this profit.

Gaudium et Spes 44, 2 acknowledges the Church profits from “the progress of the sciences, and the treasures hidden in the various forms of human culture” and explains the function of culture for faith, “With the help of the Holy Spirit, it is the task of the entire People of God, especially pastors and theologians, to hear, distinguish and interpret the many voices of our age, and to judge them in the light of the divine word, so that revealed truth can always be more deeply penetrated, better understood and set forth to greater advantage”. Again, we hear nice, hollow words.

Gaudium et Spes 44, 3 affirms again that the Church defends with modern science the societal character that she has received from Christ, that is the hierarchy; the Council affirms also the families as constructive element of the Church and affirms that her enemies contribute to her fortification and flourishing. The Church has not received the hierarchy from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Savior, not the suppressor.

Gaudium et Spes 45 is titled “Christ: Alpha and Omega”.

Gaudium et Spes 45, 1 affirms “the Church has a single intention: that God’s kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass”. Since we do not hear from the Council Fathers what they mean by Go’d’s kingdom and salvation, the affirmation remains empty.

Gaudium et Spes 45, 2 affirms “The Lord is the goal of human history” but does not explain what that means.

Gaudium et Spes 45, 3 simply cites Revelation 22, 12–13 “Behold I come quickly! And my reward is with me, to render to each one according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” but does not explain the context, the meaning and the sense of this self-affirmation of Jesus Christ according to John. Moreover, the reader falsely might forget that Jesus Christ is judging with mercy and not according to deeds.

Concluding analysis of the addressees of the Second Vatican Council

The bishops and most theologians of the Second Vatican Council had studied theology according to the medieval Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In 1879 Pope Leo XIII established Thomas as authority on the exposition of Catholic doctrine. Already in 1864 Pope Pius IX published the syllabus, that is a collection of modern errors that were condemned, like the equality of women and men, democracy, socialism, atheism, moral relativism, separation of church and state, and many more. The syllabus was used as an instrument for censoring the study of modernity until 1966. Systematically the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church were forbidden to study authors of modernity and contemporary philosophers. No wonder, that at the Second Vatican Council the Council Fathers and their theological experts were not prepared to write on the individual person, her dignity, freedom and rights.

The first chapter of the first part of scheme XIII had been titled “The Vocation of the Human Person”, but the French Archbishop Garrone changed the title to “The Church and the Human condition” (Moeller 1968, 269). The second chapter is titled “The Human community”, the third chapter is titled “Humanity’s Activity in the Universe” and the fourth chapter is titled “Role of the Church in the Modern World”. The council rarely speaks of a human person. The Second Vatican Council is not prepared for a theology of the individual persons, but sticks to Thomas speaking of mankind in general, of man, of the human condition, community, and human dignity.

The first Roman Catholic theologian who interpreted Thomas after having studied Kant and German Idealism was the Belgian Jesuit Joseph Maréchal (1878-1944) (Muck, Otto. 1988. „Die Deutschsprachige Maréchal-Schule. Transzendentalphilosophie als Metaphysik: J. B. Lotz, K. Rahner, W. Brugger, E. Coreth u.a.“ In: Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by E. Coreth – W.M. Neidl – G. Pfliegersdorffer. Bd.2: Rückgriff auf scholastisches Erbe. 590-622. Graz: Styria). Maréchal held a doctorate in biology, in philosophy and in theology, and introduced what is called “the anthropologic turn” into the interpretation of Thomas Aquinas. Thomas never spoke of the individual subject as producer of knowledge, truth, feelings, or social interactions as free choices. Thomas spoke of mankind in general, of man, and the individual was not an individual woman, man or queer. The individual was an abstract and anonym number, an individual quantity of the universal quality “human”.

Joseph Maréchal was teaching at the Jesuit scholasticate - that is the Jesuits’ higher formation center for humanities, philosophy and theology - in Louvain from 1919 until 1935 (Maréchal, Joseph (1878–1944) | Encyclopedia.com). Since he was not teaching at the University of Louvin, where he had taken in 1905 a doctorate in natural science, Catholic Belgian theologians did not get to know his works, and Belgian Jesuits did not become important theologians at the time. The Belgian theological, juridical, and biblical experts were diocesan priests or Dominicans, but not Jesuits, and they were teaching at the University of Louvin. Maréchal got studied and received by German speaking philosophers like the Jesuit Otto Muck, and the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (ibid.). In 1955 Karl Rahner (1904-1984) prepared a series of articles on the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (1492-1556) and their significance for the spiritual life of the contemporary Christian (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church. London: Burns & Oates). With the help of the Spiritual Exercises Rahner wanted to address those Christians, “who are not particularly interested in abstract ontology as such, but in the practical theology of Christian life and the Church” (ibid. 8). Rahner claims “for the ontological domain of the person and of personal decision” that “the singular or particular is not purely and simply an instance of the universal, susceptible of entire resolution into it” (ibid.). Rahner claimed in 1957 that the individual faithful is taken seriously by the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy (ibid.). (See my Post “Spirituality, feelings, and social choice).

Rahner was theological expert at the Second Vatican Council, but he did not succeed introducing a practical theology of individual Christian life into the Council’s documents. In the fall of 1962, French and German theologians were not capable of cooperating and working together on alternative texts on the prepared texts on revelation and the deposit of faith by the Vatican commissions. A preparatory text of Congar for the Council did not get attention from the Germans, and all forgot about the scheme on the Church. (Fogarty, Gerald. 1996. “L’avvio dell’assemblea.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 87–128. 107. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulinoibid). Karl Rahner presented his own text. The first chapter dealt with mankind’s divine vocation as a gift of Go’d that concerns the whole nature of the singular woman and man. The second chapter treated the hidden presence of Go’d in the history of mankind, and the third chapter spoke of the revealed presence of Go’d in the teachings of the Church. Go’d created the singular individual in such a way as to give her or him out of love the free gift of Himself (bid.). Rahner’s papers raised too much controversy and were apparently too abstract for getting the attention of a significant group of Council Fathers in the commissions and presidency of the Second Vatican Council.

The small group of French and German theologians that wanted alternative texts on revelation and the deposit of faith had no strategy for getting their texts discussed and they forgot completely to include in their considerations the prepared scheme on ecclesiology (ibid. 102). It was Cardinal Suenens and his theologian Philips, who early recognized the need to work on improving the prepared document on the Church. Philips did not work out an alternative text, but attempted to obtain a corrected version of the prepared text that would find the consensus of all. The Vatican had prepared the texts, and Philips new from his experience as parliamentarian in Belgium, that one does not simply reject a legislative text and thereby offend the government. The strategy employed by Suenens and Philips was successful. Suenens and his theologian Philips strictly informed and discussed the matter with the influential Italian Cardinal Martini, the future Pope Paul VI, and Martini’s theologian, Carlo Colombo. On October 19, 1962, Suenens and Montini jointly presented the need for a corrected version of the prepared scheme of the Church in the meeting of the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs of the Council (ibid.). Cardinal Suenens also had the ear of Pope John XXIII. The French and German theologians never got their papers to an influential steering committee, the presidency, or the Secretariat of the Council, they had no strategy. Congar jealously confided his diary of the Council, that the Belgian theologians were very successful at the Council. On Friday, March 13, 1964, he notes about his “Belgian friends” at the Council that he does not want to criticize them or be impolite (Congar, Yves. 2002. Mon Journal du Concile. Vol. 2. 53. Paris: Les Éditions du CERF). Congar does not think about a strategy, nor does he analyze the strategy of the Belgians. He simply wonders, “The Belgians are not numerous: five or six of them, but they are everywhere” (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 508. Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne OP and Mary Cecily Boulding OP. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press).

[ii] “About The Club of Rome,” The Club of Rome, https://clubofrome.org/about-us/ (accessed April 5, 2020).