Comments on the text of Lumen Gentium

TPreliminary remarks

Lumen Gentium speaks of the Roman Catholic Church using predications like mystery, like people of Go’d, sacrament, and communion, but determines the social aspect of the Church always as hierarchical and never as a people of Go’d, a sacrament, that is a communion of equals. The Second Vatican Council did not acknowledge that Go’d in the Bible did not choose a hierarchy but a people of Go’d. In contrast to Go’d’s chosen people of Go’d, the Roman Catholic Church is a social reality with a monarchist government. The pope has absolutist powers over a hierarchy of celibate men and rules one billion women, men and queer. The Second Vatican Council never writes about the Roman Catholic Church as a social reality of believers and faithful in Jesus Christ. The Council speaks of the hierarchical church and of the laity. Faithful women, men and queer celebrate the divine communion of their local community by recording the Last Supper in the Eucharist. This celebration of the communion is also a divine sign that is the celebration of the sacrament of the communion of the local faithful with all ecclesiastical communities and Churches on this earth (Lumen Gentium 3). This celebration and the communio of the faithful centers around Jesus Christ and according to Canon Law centers as a social reality around the bishop who is empowered by the absolute authority of the pope. Yet, the Catholic Church does not correspond to that communion (Latin: communio) of the people of Go’d that realizes the policy, politics and polity of the just world of Go’d that Jesus Christ had preached. The first chapter of Lumen Gentium ignores that the realization of the divine sign of the communio remains propaganda, if the social structure of the Catholic Church does not realize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful based on the consensus of the beliefs and faith of the Christians that is called the sensus fidelium. The eminent theologian Peter Hünermann, who taught at the prestigious Universities Münster and Tübingen, Germany, and senior editor of the important commentary on the documents of the Second Vatican Council, affirms that the Second Vatican Council had forgotten about the sensus fidelium, the consensus of the people of Go’d (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. 423. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The first chapter of Lumen Gentium is titled “The Mystery of the Church”.

In Lumen Gentium 1 we observe the contradicting aspects of the Roman Catholic Church as absolutist monarchy, that is the human constitution, with the divine aspect of the Roman Catholic Church as the communion of believers, “The Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race” (Paul VI 1964. Lumen Gentium). If the Church is a sacrament, a sign of the just world of Go’d, it cannot be an instrument. Treating the faithful like instruments contradicts the understanding of the Church as a sacrament and mystery. The bodies of women, men and queer living with the help of the Holy Spirit, constitute a sacrament and mystery of a unity of equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer and their relationship with Go’d. The women, men and queer who form the body of Christ are living bodies with social and faith agency for free choices and they are no instruments to be discriminated by an oppressive unity that is operated by the absolutist hierarchy. Women, men and queer try to realize a world according to the preaching and living of Christ with their social choices and not as instruments of the hierarchy.

Lumen Gentium 2 assesses the belief in the dependency of the world’s existence from Go’d who makes women, men and queer participate in Her life. The Council is not yet ready to assess its recognition of the Hebrew Bible’s hope that Go’d, who had created the world, will lead the world to unity and peace. The text qualifies the Hebrew Bible as preparation of Go’d’s revelation in Jesus Christ but not as Go’d’s revelation with validity for the ages.

Lumen Gentium 3 assesses that Jesus Christ inaugurated “the mystery of the Kingdom of heaven and earth”. I prefer to speak of the mystery of the just world of Go’d. The Council expresses hope for the realization of the just world of Go’d as a monarchy, as a kingdom. There is no need to justify the absolutist structure of the Roman Catholic Church with the Biblical expression “Kingdom of God” or referring to the evangelist John.  John had no monarchy in mind when he assesses that the Lord refers to his death on the cross, his burial and resurrection and proclaims the fulfilment of the just world of Go’d that is redemption, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself (John 12, 23)”. This reference of Lumen Gentium ignores the biblical context.

Lumen Gentium 3 continues affirming that the celebration of the Paschal mystery in the Eucharist memorizes and actualizes Christ’s redeeming agency. The reference to “the blood and water which flowed from the open side of a crucified Jesus (John 19, 34)” is a sign for the source of the Church. Blood refers to the origin of the Church and the baptismal water refers to the growth of the Church.  We find this picture of the redeeming self-donation of Christ at the cross that the Eucharist celebrates also in Sacrosanctum Concilium 5,2 (Hünermann 2004, 359).

Lumen Gentium 4 proclaims the gift of the Holy Spirit for “all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father (Ephesians 2, 18)” and assesses “The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (1 Corinthians 3, 16)”. With reference to Ephesians 4, 11–12, to 1 Corinthians 12, 4 and to Galatians 5, 22, the Council tries to affirm that “the Holy Spirit equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits” the Church. In fact, there is no reference to the hierarchical structure of the Church in these citations from the New Testament at all (Hünermann 2004, 360). Saint Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12 that all members of the body are of equal value, even if they are not of equal qualities.

By teaching and healing “Lord Jesus” realizes the just world of Go’d (Lumen Gentium 5). If Christ is a “King” he is also a “Queen”, but I would not use neither predicate. Philosophers of the Enlightenment like Kant, Hegel and Schelling, existentialists like Kierkegaard but also Nietzsche and Bloch adopted the term kingdom of Go’d as a synonym of the ethical perfection of man (Hünermann 2004, 361). The Council most probably was not aware of this use by the philosophers. It is a pity that the Council did not spell out concrete contemporary challenges for the realization of the kingdom of Go’d (ibid). I follow the feminist exegete Schott off, and keep sticking to the interpretation of the Biblical expression kingdom of Go’d as the just world of Go’d (Schottroff, Luise. 2007. “Matthäusevangelium.” 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, 1834–1836.  and 2313–2314. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus).

Lumen Gentium 6 speaks of Go’d as shepherd of the faithful who are called sheep, the sheepfold is the Church, the Church is also a piece of land cultivated by Go’d, and many other pictures describe the Church. The Council acknowledges its roots in the Patriarchs and the Prophets and claims reconciliation between the Jews and the Gentiles referring to Romans 11, 13–26. Hünermann criticizes that the Council does not apply the pictures of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple (Ezekiel 40, 1 – 44, 3) or Go’d’s love for Israel with the pictures from Hosea 1, 2–3 and 2, 18–25 (Hünermann 2004, 361). These pictures describe the social and mystical aspects of the Church but there are no pictures describing Go’d or Jesus Christ in interaction with the industrialized modern world that had been evolving over the last two hundred years before the Council (ibid. 362). When this chapter on the mystery of the Church had been discussed for the first time at the Council from October 1 to October 4, 1963, Council Fathers from Africa and Latin America claimed to consider the Church in their countries. Cardinal Rugambwa proposed to include a picture of a dynamic and growing Church corresponding to the growing Roman Catholic Church in Africa. It is true that Congar had developed this concept of a dynamic and growing Church for a conference to the African episcopate at the Council. The archbishop of Darussalam, Cardinal Laurean Rugambwa who had been appointed the first African cardinal in 1960, takes up this concept in the aula of the Council assessing that this concept is significant for the African Church (Melloni 1998, 68). Bishop Himmer claimed in the name of a group of Latin American bishops to describe the Church as Church of the poor. Himmer’s empathic language on the poor impressed the sober Europeans (ibid). The language of the Council nevertheless continued using very academic European expressions adopting the pictures of the Church Fathers. In the discussion on the document on the bishops that took place from November 5 to November 15, 1963, Cardinal L. Rugambwa claimed a new institution in the name of the episcopate from Africa and Madagascar. Other than local and regional episcopal conferences, a permanent group of bishops should be established as an organ of collegiality for the government of the whole Church as Maximos IV had proposed (Famerée, Joseph. 1998. “Vescovi e diocesi (5–15 novembre 1963).” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 133–208. 142.Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Lercaro was in favor, and the moderators received letters from Rugambwa, from the episcopate from Venezuela and from a group of French bishops creating a commission on the question. Some Council Fathers thought that Paul VI would consent to a commission to study this proposal, but in reality, this commission never came into being (ibid. 151). We see that the divine and the human aspects of the Church are always interacting and that the mystical Church in Africa and Latin America and in some dioceses in Europe suffered from the actual human structure of the centralist hierarchical Church government. We observe also that the social structure of the hierarchical Rome-centered Church impedes the necessary cultural and social collaboration of Catholics with all Christians in regions where the Christians are a minority. Cardinal Rugambwa expressed this ecumenical concern for Africa on November 20, 1963, in the aula (Soetens, Claude. 1998. “L`impegno ecumenico della chiesa cattolica.” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 277–366. 292. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Lumen Gentium 7 proclaims Jesus Christ as “the image of the invisible God”, the head of the Church who “By communicating His Spirit, Christ made His brothers, called together from all nations, mystically the components of His own Body”. The text repeats Christ’s redeeming choices from baptism to the Eucharist. Christ is the model for the individual Christian’s life. Lumen Gentium 7, 3 falsely claims that 1 Corinthians 14 submits the charismatics to the authority of the Apostles. Paul’s word for the community in 1 Corinthians 14, 29 claims instead that prophets shall be judged by all members of the community (Hünermann 2004, 364).

Lumen Gentium 8 describes the Church by referring in length to the encyclical of Pius XII Mystici Corporis from 1943. “But the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element”. I agree that the Church is a complex reality consisting of a divine and a human element. I strongly disagree that the human element consists in an absolutist monarchy under the absolutist power of the pope and the hierarchy. Whenever the Council writes of the Church as a whole and does not describe the divine and human elements separately, we have to protest this usurpation of power by the pope and the hierarchy. Christ worked for the just world of Go’d, instead he got a Church constituted as an absolutist monarchy. Why do we Catholics allow this usurpation of power and distortion of the just world of Go’d? A Church announcing the poverty and persecution of Jesus, “announcing the cross and death of the Lord until He comes” is not credible when discriminating, suppressing and oppressing her faithful women, men and queer by a dictatorship of male celibates.  The hierarchy does not govern, teach and sanctify in humility and self-denial but humiliates and denies equal dignity, freedom and rights to millions of faithful. Hünermann speaks of structures of sin within the Catholic Church in regard to the absolutist social institutions of the Roman Catholic Church that violate the life in faith of the communities and of individuals (Hünermann 2004, 369).

The second chapter of Lumen Gentium titles “The people of Go’d”.  

Lumen Gentium 9, 1 affirms that the first people Go’d had chosen for a covenant was the people of Israel. This first covenant prepared the second covenant that was ratified in Jesus Christ. Jeremiah 31, 31–34 serves to assess the claim that the Christians constitute “the new People of God”.  Romans 4, 25 already proclaimed that we are justified because Jesus had been delivered up for our sins and crimes.

Lumen Gentium 9, 2 affirms, “The state of this people is that of the dignity and freedom of the sons of God, in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in His temple. Its law is the new commandment to love as Christ loved us (John 13, 34). Its end is the kingdom of God, which has been begun by God Himself on earth, and which is to be further extended until he brings it to perfection at the end of time, when Christ, our life (Colossians 3, 4) shall appear”. Then "creation itself will be delivered from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the sons of God (Romans 8, 21).

Lumen Gentium 9,3 assesses with Nehemiah 13, 1, Numbers 20, 4 and Deuteronomy 23, 1–8 that already Israel was called Church of Go’d. The Church of Christ is a sacrament of unity for all who believe in Christ as source of salvation and peace.

Since the days of Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain and Abraham to the days of Jesus Christ we hear from the Scriptures of Go’d’s plan. The women, men and queer on this earth will not anymore be hungry or die from hunger, will not be subjected to violence, to torture and terror but will instead be empowered to live a life of dignity, equal rights and freedom.

The last sentence of Lumen Gentium 9 at least refers a little bit to the necessity of the Church to renew herself with the help of the Holy Spirit. Apart from this assessment of conversion, a confession of the Church’s sins in history and presence would make her self-assessment in this second chapter of Lumen Gentium more credible.

Lumen Gentium 10, 1 calls Christ Lord and High Priest referring to Hebrews 5, 1–5. Christ made the baptized the new people “a kingdom and priests to God the Father (Revelation 1, 6 and 5, 9–10)”. If all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ are priests, then there is no need for a hierarchy of celibate men as a second line of priests. The Council simply suppresses the social realization of the claims of the author of Hebrews.

Lumen Gentium 10, 2 concedes a general priesthood of all baptized but tries to justify the hierarchical priesthood by ordination with Pius XII. Quite significantly, the Council cannot refer to any verse of the Scripture for assessing the priestly service as a hierarchical function of male celibates. Hünermann asks to start to understand the sacraments as performance of the people of Go’d, as the performance of the community of the faithful. Today there is no legitimation that only ordained male celibate priests may perform the Eucharist. The German bishops’ conference wrote in its draft for Lumen Gentium that all members of the people of Go’d enjoy the same dignity as Christians because they are members of the people of Go’d. An essential difference between these members does not exist (Hünermann 2004, 378). All Christian women, men and queer take part in the mission of Jesus Christ in the same way. Christ confided them baptism and the Eucharist (ibid. 379).

Lumen Gentium 11 splits the communion of the celebration of the sacraments into those who participate and those who are authorized to act “in Christ’s name”, that are the consecrated priests of the hierarchy. Only “Those of the faithful who are consecrated by Holy Orders are appointed to feed the Church in Christ’s name with the word and the grace of God”. Hünermann criticizes that the Council degrades the faithful as receivers of the sacraments and does not recognize them as Spirit empowered subjects of the sacraments (ibid. 381).

Lumen Gentium 12 affirms “The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office” and rightly refers to Hebrews 13, 15. The Council even affirms, “The entire body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief”. The sensus fidelium cannot err. In reality, all prophetic teaching of the faith by the laity in reality is an act of obedience to the “sacred teaching authority” of the Church (Lumen Gentium 12, 1). Hebrews 13, 15 claims the prophetic office for all Christians and not only for the bishops and the pope. Lumen Gentium 12, 2 again makes “the appointed leaders” masters of the unity of faith of the Church and not masters of the law of the Holy Spirit that is love as we read in Hebrews 13, 1, “Continue to love each other like brothers” (See also Hebrews 13, 16). Hebrews 13, 17 encourages the faithful to obey their leaders, but not a hierarchy of priests and bishops.

Lumen Gentium 13, 1 uses the idea of unity for the interactions of Go’d and women, men and queer on the earth, “In the beginning God made human nature one and decreed that all His children, scattered as they were, would finally be gathered together as one”. John 11, 52 serves as testimony to the unity of mankind that Jesus Christ realizes. Lumen Gentium 13, 2 uses citations of the Church Fathers to describe the unity of the world. Why does the Council not refer to the encyclical Pacem in Terris of John XXIII and his thoughts on the collaboration of the Church with the United Nations?

Lumen Gentium 13, 3 alludes to the “bonds of close union” of Churches that respect the primacy of the pope of the Catholic Church. There is no real attention of the Council for “The catholic unity of the people of Go’d” (Lumen Gentium 13, 3) that respects the equal dignity of all faithful.

In the middle of the 20th century, ecumenical efforts gave rise to questions of the salvation of all people and of the relation of other Christian confessions and other religions with the Roman Catholic Church (Hünermann 2004, 392). Lumen Gentium 14 – 16 tries to give answers to the question of who a member of the Roman Catholic Church is. The tone of the document changes. There are no more descriptions of the people of Go’d. Instead, there is much fencing off and dissociation of full membership and membership in progress (ibid. 394). Go’d’s universal will of salvation is not questioned but the particularities of the Roman Catholic Church really hide salvation behind a veil of Catholic hierarchical supremacy over other faiths and religions.

Lumen Gentium 14, 1 assesses that the Church is necessary for salvation. The Church apparently was made necessary by Christ and Christ rules the Church “through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops” (Lumen Gentium 14, 2). Hünermann is right that in Mark, Matthew and Luke the risen Lord confides to his disciples the mission to preach faith and baptize the believers. Although the Eastern Orthodoxy, the Churches of the West and the Churches of the Reformation recognize the same picture of the Church as congregation of the faithful as does Lumen Gentium, Lumen Gentium 14 insists a lot on the institution of the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church and the primacy of the pope (Hünermann 2004, 394).

Lumen Gentium 15 concedes that the Orthodox Christians and the Christians of the Churches from the Reformation “are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power”. Yet unity is not possible because they “do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter”. Those Christians who do not subject themselves to the authority of the pope are not in full communion with “Mother Church”. In contrast, the decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio 3 not only confirms that Orthodox Christians and Protestants are joined with the Catholics but that they are in communion with Catholics by baptism (ibid. 396). This communion is not perfect, but the Protestants are justified because of faith and baptism and therefore incorporated in Christ (ibid). Unitatis Redintegratio 11 will differentiate the elements of Christian faith that are necessary and less important elements (ibid. 397).

Lumen Gentium 16 speaks of the possibility that non-Christians become part of “the people of Go’d” and have access to salvation and cites Acts. The Hebrew are first called by Go’d, but also Muslims participate in Go’d’s “plan of salvation” as do “those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God (Acts 17, 25–28)”. “Those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life” are not excluded from salvation. There are also those “who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair”. In Gaudium et Spes 19–20, the Second Vatican Council finally succeeds and claims that atheists, too, have access to the grace of salvation. The Second Vatican Council tries to face the Holocaust, the ending colonialism and the mission to preach the Christian faith (Hünermann 2004, 398). Lumen Gentium 2 spoke of the Hebrew Bible, Lumen Gentium acknowledges the roots of the Christian faith in the faith of the Patriarchs and the Prophets and claims reconciliation between the Jews and the Gentiles referring to Romans 11, 13–26. Lumen Gentium 9, 1 affirms with Jeremiah 31, 31–34 that the first people Go’d had chosen for a covenant were the people of Israel. Despite these affirmations of the revelations of the Hebrew Bible, the hope of Israel for salvation is not recognized as full salvation. The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate is a bit more conscientious of the dependency of the Church from Israel than Lumen Gentium: “Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots” (Nostra Aetate 4). The Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes and the Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae on the Right of the Person and of Communities to social and civil Freedom in matters Religious are more conscientious of Go’d’s unknown ways of realizing salvation. In the end, the women, men and queer who describe and give testimony to the mystery that is at work in their lives are the only subjects of a universal belief in salvation (Hünermann 2004, 400–401).

Lumen Gentium 17 speaks of the mission of the Church to preach the Gospel. The mission by Jesus Christ constitutes the Church (John 20, 21; Matthew 28, 18–20 and Acts 1, 8) (ibid. 401). After having spread the faith with violence and military suppression, the Council finally assesses the values “in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples”. “The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state. Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice” (Lumen Gentium 17).  Again, the hierarchical ordained priesthood limits the preaching of the Gospel by the laity. Ad Gentes will be a little more precise on the actual mission agency of the Christians.

Chapter three of Lumen Gentium is on the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the episcopate.

Already the first sentence of Lumen Gentium 18 is a lie. Jesus Christ never instituted ministers, and the power of the hierarchy is not sacred. It is not true that in John 20, 21, Jesus Christ sends the Apostles “as He Himself had been sent by the Father”. In John 20, 21, Jesus Christ sends his disciples that is women, men and possibly queer that were in the room (John 20, 19). Lumen Gentium 18 admits that it follows the teachings of the First Vatican Council concerning the primacy of Peter. Lumen Gentium 18 does not admit that there is no verse in the Scriptures claiming that the episcopate succeeds the Apostles according to the will of Jesus Christ. Neither is there a verse of the Scripture assessing that Jesus Christ instituted Peter as head of the Apostles “and in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion”.

Lumen Gentium 19 is slightly more precise concerning history. In Mark 3, 13–19 and Matthew 10, 1–42, Jesus calls the twelve, he does not appoint or institute them as claimed in Lumen Gentium 18. It is right to refer to Luke 6, 13, who calls the Twelve Apostles. Jesus never “formed after the manner of a college or a stable group” his twelve Apostles and Judas demonstrates the fragility of the group. Yes, Jesus Christ sent his disciples to preach all peoples, and he sent them to pasture them and serve as the Latin text of Lumen Gentium 19 claims referring to Matthew 28, 16–20, Mark 16, 15, Luke 24, 45–48 and John 20, 21–23 (Hünermann 2004, 105). Jesus did not send his disciples to “make all peoples His disciples and sanctify and govern them” as Lumen Gentium 19 falsely claims.

The claim that the Apostles appointed bishops, and these bishops appointed other bishops does not correspond to history. There is no “succession running from the beginning” as Lumen Gentium 20 claims, and the “apostolic tradition” that is the preaching and living of the Gospel, was preserved by women and men according to their charismas. In the first century CE, being Apostle was not an office with an exact profile and a clear area of responsibility. The Church was visible as a number of Christian communities around the Mediterranean. The communities of Christians were in communication and Paul’s letters are a testimony of the hard way of persuasion and loving motivation of the brothers and sisters to persevere in the ways of Jesus Christ. It is true that men already in the first century CE started and continued, with growing intensity in the second century CE, to chase away women from the responsible jobs and the realization of their charisma in the communities (Spencer, F. Scott. 1997. Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

Lumen Gentium 21, 1 assesses Jesus Christ as a high priest, but then claims His realizing of the sacraments, the teaching and governing of the Church not by the Holy Spirit that all faithful receive in baptism but by the hierarchy. At the place of Jesus Christ, there is the ordained hierarchy of the Church that preaches, administers the sacraments and governs “by their paternal functioning”. “The outpouring of the holy Spirit coming upon them (Acts 1, 8; 2, 4 and John 20,22–23)” according to John 20, 20 concerns the disciples and not only the eleven Apostles as implied in the reference of Lumen Gentium 21, 2. It was a pious wish of Church Fathers of the first centuries CE, and it is the teaching of the Council of Trent “that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred” to the bishops and “that fullness of power” and “the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry” (Lumen Gentium 21, 2).

It is not the teaching of the Gospel. Lumen Gentium 21, 2 therefore speaks of the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church that gives the bishops the powers of teaching, governing and sanctifying and not of the Scripture. Bringing up Christ and the Holy Spirit as actual agencies teaching, governing and sanctifying the Church may overcome the Council of Trent that did not need Christ and the Holy Spirit for the government of the Church (Hünermann 2004, 415). Hünermann praises the entry of Christology in Lumen Gentium (ibid). Nevertheless, there is no word of critique on the use of Christ to suppress the people of Go’d with the help of a hierarchy and an absolutist monarch, not to speak of the discrimination of women, men and queer. The primacy of the pope is assessed, because the episcopal powers “can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college”. If the last sentence claims that the community of the Churches, the communio ecclesiarum, constitutes and founds the collegiality of the bishops, this claim fatally hides behind the primacy of the pope. Hünermann is right in claiming the celebration of the communion of the Eucharist with the bishop at the center as the basic realization of Church (Hünermann 2004, 417). We have to be clear about the fact that Lumen Gentium does not speak anywhere of this Eucharistic ecclesiology. It is nice if the theologian completes the Council, but the theology of the official Church does not change because of a theological commentary. It remains for future generations to convince the popes and bishops that first, there is the celebration of the Eucharist of a local community and then there is a community of Churches and the Church.

Lumen Gentium 22, 1 assess again “Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body”. In the first centuries CE, the consensus of the people of Go’d for consecrating a bishop was also necessary. The candidate for bishop expressly had to confess the faith of the people of Go’d. The assessment of the consent of the individual Christians of a community for the consecration of an individual candidate for bishops is an assessment of the common faith. In patristic times, this foundational consent is necessary to exercise the powers and function of a bishop. The Second Vatican Council forgot about the consensus of the people of Go’d (Hünermann 2004, 423). The Council corrects the teaching of the Council of Trent by assessing the sacramental origin of the bishop’s teaching, governing and sanctifying power (ibid). On the initiative of Paul VI, the Council specifies, “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” (Lumen Gentium 22, 2). In the famous Nota Explicativa Praevia, we read the authentic interpretation of the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, of Lumen Gentium 22. In short, the Nota says, that the absolute power of the pope over the individual bishops as over the college of the bishops is without dispute, although the pope is member of the college.

The Nota Explicativa Praevia proves, that the positive vote on consecration as foundation of podestas, that is power, jurisdictions and authority, of the bishop, in October 30, 1963, was a Pyrrhic victory.

Hünermann interprets the sentence “The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity” of the Nota Explicativa Praevia (Paul VI 1964) as papal encouragement of episcopal conferences around the world and of synods of bishops with the pope (Hünermann 2004, 545). Fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, we know that Paul VI worked in the opposite direction and John Paul II further restricted the authority of episcopal conferences. At the end of his commentary on Lumen Gentium, Hünermann speaks of two post conciliar developments in the Church and in Church politics: Church Realpolitik destroyed with cruel papal power the social realization of effective episcopal colleges and Catholic theologians unrealistically continued claiming the social realization of effective episcopal conferences and synods (ibid. 547).

Lumen Gentium 23 assesses the teaching of the First Vatican Council that the pope is the “foundational principle” of the bishops and the faithful of the universal Church. With references to Church Fathers of the first centuries CE, the Council speaks of the bishop as the “principle and foundation of unity” of the particular Church.  By Christ’s command the local bishop has “to be solicitous for the whole Church”, although the Council makes clear that there is no jurisdiction for this solicitude. The ambiguity of the third chapter of Lumen Gentium that oscillates between estimation of the service of the local individual bishop for the whole Church and his effective dependence on the powers of the pope, shows the necessity to resolve this question. The sentence “the bishops, in a universal fellowship of charity, should gladly extend their fraternal aid to other churches, especially to neighboring and more needy dioceses in accordance with the venerable example of antiquity” admits that there are very rich dioceses living in the lands of plenty and very poor Churches. The Roman Curia disposes over a Congregation for the Mission of the Church. The Council does not encourage this central institution to cooperate with the episcopal conferences of the world for realizing international solidarity within the Church. The Council sticks to the centralist government of the Roman Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium 24 introduces the description of the teaching, sanctifying and governing offices of the bishops that are described in Lumen Gentium 25–27. Lumen Gentium 24 repeats the unbiblical claims from Lumen Gentium 20 and 21 that bishops are successors of the Apostles and assess the necessity of the “missio canonica”, the juridical authorization of the bishop for his mission by Rome. 

Lumen Gentium 25 treats the duties of the bishop preaching the Gospel. “The bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching”, the bishops are “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff” and “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff”. In Europe and North America, it is no wonder that the faithful flee by millions a Roman Catholic Church that claims to be entitled to this kind of suppression of the conscience of the faithful.

Lumen Gentium 26 assess the bishop’s authority in ordering all liturgical and sanctifying services according to Roman prescriptions. Lumen Gentium 27 claims that “Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them”. There is talk of the counsel, exhortations, and example of the bishops but in the end, they govern “by their authority and sacred power”.

Lumen Gentium 28 deals with the relationship of the presbyter with Christ, of the presbyter with the bishops and the episcopate, of the presbyter with other presbyters and presbyterate as brothers, and finally of the presbyter with the people of Go’d of whom the priest takes care. It is not the intention of the Council to describe the office of the presbyter historically (Hünermann 2004, 450). The expression presbyter expresses the governing function, and the expression priest expresses the function of the divine cult (ibid. 451). The historic presbyters presided the Eucharist and the community and there was no need for priests. The priests “are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power”. At the same time, they are “associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity”, they are his “co-workers” and the ambiguity of dependence and generosity, of obedience and self-responsibility characterizes all texts of the Council on the priests.

Lumen Gentium 29 characterizes the diaconate as a “ministry of service of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God”. The Council rules, “the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy” and “be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state”.

Chapter four of Lumen Gentium is on the laity.

The Council Fathers and the pope make a step back from their self-understanding as all-powerful guides of the lay and start taking the lay seriously as members of the mystical body of the Church. In the commissions preparing the document there are three lay men, the vast majority of the commission members were bishops and priest theologians. Women were not invited to the commissions and queer were not invited either. The laity of the Catholic Church was about to make up their own mind on the equal dignity, freedom, equality and rights of all faithful, and were realizing their Christian faith with the help of the Holy Spirit. Their silent submission to the social hierarchy of the Catholic Church has ended and millions of lay women, men and queer are leaving the social institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium 30 assesses that the pastors of the laity, that is the bishops and priests, “know that they were not ordained by Christ to take upon themselves alone the entire salvific mission of the Church toward the world”. There is also the laity cooperating with its proper roles in the Church. Lumen Gentium 30 cites Ephesians 4, 15–16 in order to legitimize the limited roles and functions of the laity in the Church. Ephesians 4, 15–16 proclaim that all Christians are equal members of the body of Christ and that Christ is the head of the Christians and there is no word of a hierarchy speaking in the name of Christ. We can work properly in building the body of Christ without sacramental priesthood and without sacramental ordination of bishops and without an autocratic pope. The Council ignores the equality and liberation aspect of Ephesians 4, 15–16 “If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow completely into Christ, who is the head by whom the whole Body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each individual part to work according to its function. So the body grows until it has built itself up in love”. In 1960, John XXIII claimed in his homily at Pentecost that Ephesians 4, 15–16 be the leading theme for the opening of the “portals of the Council” (Hünermann 2004, 463). In 1964, these portals were about to be closed again. The Austrian Jesuit Neuner, who worked all his life as professor of theology in India and was expert at the Second Vatican Council for the theology of religions, rightly claims that a right theology of the people of Go’d would render redundant any speech of a laity (Neuner, Peter. 2001. “Die Stellung der Laien in einem sich wandelnden Kirchenbild.” In Mehr als nur Nichtkleriker. Laien in der katholischen Kirche, edited by Sabine Demel, 35–56. 52. Regensburg: Themen der Katholischen Akademie in Bayern).

Lumen Gentium 31 claims the laity “are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world”. The laity seeks the kingdom by “secular affairs”. Sacred affairs are affairs of the ordained priests to sacred ministry. Within the given limits of the hierarchy, the laity “may work for the sanctification of the world”. The expression “kingdom of Go’d” in the biblical sense was introduced into Catholic theology again only in the 20th century (Hünermann 2004b, 466). Together with feminist theologians of the 20th century CE, I prefer interpreting the biblical expression ”kingdom of Go’d” as the just world of Go’d.

Lumen Gentium 32 starts out perfectly on the one chosen People of God “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4, 5); sharing a common dignity as members from their regeneration in Christ, having the same filial grace and the same vocation to perfection; possessing in common one salvation, one hope and one undivided charity. There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because "there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all ‘one’ in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3, 28 and Colossians 3, 11)”. The differentiation of the different ministries quickly introduces again discrimination of men and women and queer into the Roman Catholic Church. The male celibate hierarchy teaches, sanctifies and governs the laity. Hünermann is conscious of the fact that it will take time for the Catholic Church to change its social character from a monarchy to the social character of sisters and brothers living together with equal dignity, freedom and rights (Hünermann 2004, 468).

Lumen Gentium 33 acknowledges “The lay apostolate, however, is a participation in the salvific mission of the Church itself”. If the laity wants to cooperate in the apostolate of the hierarchy, it needs to be called by the hierarchy to do so. There is no talk in Lumen Gentum 33 of cooperating in the construction of the just world of Go’d. The interest of the hierarchy is building up the Roman Catholic Church and not the just world of Go’d with the people of Go’d..

Lumen Gentium 34 starts with the good sentence “The supreme and eternal Priest, Christ Jesus, since he wills to continue his witness and service also through the laity, vivifies them in this Spirit and increasingly urges them on to every good and perfect work”. Also, Lumen Gentium 35 starts with a good sentence. “Christ, the great Prophet, who proclaimed the Kingdom of His Father both by the testimony of His life and the power of His words, continually fulfills His prophetic office until the complete manifestation of glory”. It is a pity that right after this assessment of Christ’s prophetic office that continuous with the faithful, the hierarchy claims to teach in the name of Christ and to govern in the name of Christ. The faithful are reduced to “children” who are sanctified by the “married and family life”. It is nice that Lumen Gentium 36 claims, “the Lord wishes to spread His kingdom also by means of the laity, namely, a kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love and peace”. It is not nice that the hierarchy in reality restricts the work of the laity for the just world of Go’d. Lumen Gentium 36 therefore encourages the laity to work for equal dignity, freedom and rights, for a just distribution of the wealth in the world, as long as this work does not turn to the social realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights of the faithful within the Roman Catholic Church itself.

In the decennials following the Second Vatican Council, the laity did in abundance what Lumen Gentium 37 claims, “the laity should openly reveal to the bishops their needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which is fitting for children of God and brothers in Christ”. The bishops did not listen, and the hierarchy blocked any discussion on the desires of equal dignity, freedom and rights. Lumen Gentium 37 claims that the laity accepts with obedience the decisions of the hierarchy. At the same time, Lumen Gentium 37 claims in the following “Let the spiritual shepherds recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibility of the laity in the Church”. Nobody can resolve this contradiction of claiming obedience to the hierarchy and at the same time claiming recognition of the responsibility of the laity. These contradictions weaken the Church and do not strengthen the Church as the last sentence of Lumen Gentium 37 hopes. Hünermann comments that the Council Fathers expressed their mistrust of the laity and he remembers Pope Boniface VIII calling the laity enemies of the clergy in 1296 (Hünermann 2004, 481).

Lumen Gentium 38 demands from the laity living “before the world as a witness to the resurrection and life of the Lord Jesus”. There is nothing wrong in following this call.

Chapter five of Lumen Gentium (Lumen Gentium 39-42) is on the universal call to holiness in the Church. Chapter six of Lumen Gentium (Lumen Gentium 43-47) is on the religious.

The discussions in the aula were never-ending on the question if to write one chapter on the universal vocation to sanctity of all men and women in the Church or if to make two chapters, one for the religious and the other for the laity. 679 bishops, including 17 cardinals from different religious orders and the conference of the superior generals of the religious orders tried hard to prevent the assessment of a universal vocation to sanctity. They thought the religious vocation to be superior to the vocation of the laity to sanctity in the Church. The commissions working on the text were unable to reach consensus on the question and the question had to be decided in the aula in the third session of the Council. On September 30, 1964, the vote passed on the decision for two chapters, one speaking of the universal vocation and the other of the religious (Hünermann 2004, 483–84).

Chapter five of Lumen Gentium on holiness

Lumen Gentium 39 assesses that Christ sanctified the Church and this holiness “is expressed in many ways in individuals, who in their walk of life, tend toward the perfection of charity, thus causing the edification of others; in a very special way this (holiness) appears in the practice of the counsels, customarily called evangelical”. The evangelical counsels are chastity (Matthew 19, 12), obedience (Matthew 20, 26 as realization of love; Mark 10, 42-45, Luke 22, 25-27) and poverty (Matthew 19, 21, Mark 10, 21, Luke 18,22). The Council puts the individual woman and man into the center of attention and does not speak of individual communities or orders but of individuals (ibid. 484). Lumen Gentium 40 proclaims “The Lord Jesus, the divine Teacher and Model of all perfection, preached holiness of life to each and every one of His disciples of every condition”. Lumen Gentium 40 sticks to this egalitarian perspective on holiness “Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity”.

Lumen Gentium 41 speaks of the different realizations of holiness in the Church according to six orders. The bishops have to carry out their ministry; the priests realize holiness by “their very office of praying and offering sacrifice for their own people and the entire people of God”. Deacons “will accomplish holiness by their constancy in prayer, by their burning love, and by their unremitting recollection of whatever is true, just and of good repute”. There are “laymen, chosen of God and called by the bishop. These laymen spend themselves completely in apostolic labors” and “married couples and Christian parents should follow their own proper path (to holiness) by faithful love”. There are those “who are weighed down with poverty, infirmity and sickness, as well as those who must bear various hardships or who suffer persecution for justice’s sake” and finally there are “all Christ’s faithful, whatever be the conditions, duties and circumstances of their lives”. All this corresponds to the traditional social ethics in the Church of the late Antiquity but is not in accordance with the contemporary world (Hünermann 2004, 490–91). Today we face at the same time open and free pluralisms of all sorts, liberal democratic states, modern dictatorships and a globalized world suffering deadly climate crisis. Lumen Gentium 42 names the sacraments as a way to realize holiness, also confessing Jesus Christ before men and even under the threat of persecution and martyrdom, and further the evangelical counsels of chastity, obedience and poverty.

Chapter six of Lumen Gentium on the religious

43 starts speaking of the religious and the realization of the evangelical counsels by the various communities and religious orders and families. Lumen Gentium 44 develops the theology of this particular form of life. The religious intends” by the profession of the evangelical counsels in the Church, to free himself from those obstacles, which might draw him away from the fervor of charity and the perfection of divine worship. The Church preserves and fosters the special character of her various religious institutes” that is prayer or “active works of the apostolate”. Lumen Gentium 45 makes sure that the religious orders are under the control of the pope and the hierarchy “It is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law”. The pope and the hierarchy do not like religious orders or religious individuals who are too independent of the Roman authority or who criticize too much and become publicly visible as opposition to the pope. Church jurisdiction over religious orders is important. The pastoral in the mission countries during colonialism was largely in the hands of religious orders. The Roman Pontiff encountered difficulties establishing his hierarchy of bishops and priests once the countries had reached independence from the colonial powers.

Lumen Gentium 46 praises the benefits of the evangelical counsels lived by the religious for one’s human development and holiness. Unfortunately, “the men and women, Brothers and Sisters, who in monasteries, or in schools and hospitals, or in the missions” not only “render generous services of all kinds to mankind” but also sadly fall short of their vocation and violate children, boys and girls, women, men and their religious sisters afflicting suffering and misery on them. There is no word on the necessity of justice, conversion, repentance, confession of sins, atonement, reparation and reconciliation in the text. Lumen Gentium 47 encourages all the faithful living a life in holiness, without assessing the weakness of the individual woman, man and queer who constantly need to rise again after mistakes, failures and sinning.

The seventh chapter of Lumen Gentium titles the Eschatological nature of the Pilgrim Church and its Union with the Church in heaven.

Pope John XXIII asked Cardinal Larraona, prefect of the Congregation for the sacred rites, to prepare a text for the Council on the celestial Church of the Saints and their veneration. In February 1964, Paul VI gave the text to the Doctrinal Commission. The document on the Church so far lacked the eschatological aspect of the Church, the text of Larraona fit into that vacuum and was integrated into Lumen Gentium as chapter seven. At the beginning of the third session of the Council in September 1964, the Council Fathers discussed the text that was still titled “the Eschatological nature of our vocation and our union with the celestial Church” (Hünermann 2004, 303). This title expressed a very individualistic view of eschatology. The final title expresses the collective aspect of the Church as people of Go’d. Nevertheless, terms like “heavenly Church” and “divine majesty” reconciled the Maronite archbishop of Aleppo, Ignace Ziade with the text, that he had previously criticized as having forgotten about the Holy Spirit. Now he welcomed the text (ibid.).

Cardinal Suenens criticized in an important speech the fact that most of the saints were religious men and women who were born in three European countries. He protested that the complicated process of canonization was too expensive for dioceses in poor countries; and, on September 20, 1964, the chapter passed the vote (ibid. 505–6).

Lumen Gentium 48 is clear about the eschatological character of the Church. She “will attain its full perfection only in the glory of heaven”. The foundation of the eschatological hope of the Church for salvation is the faith in Jesus Christ. Lumen Gentium 1 and 9 are remembered. Christ will reestablish “at the end of time the human race as well as the entire world”. Salvation concerns the whole creation, the whole cosmos and not only women, men and queer. The Second Vatican Council did not yet acknowlede the environmental crisis of the world or climate change caused by women, men and queer. There is no confession of any sins committed by the Church in the past or in the present in the document, and any such confession at the time of the Second Vatican Council was unthinkable (ibid. 507). Nevertheless, the Council was conscientious of the old theological tradition that the second coming of Christ concerns the restauration of the whole of creation. Lumen Gentium 49 claims that the heavenly Church and the pilgrim Church together form the one people of Go’d, the mystical body of Christ. The “communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” is the reason for “the memory of the dead” (Lumen Gentium 50). The Church has always venerated the Saints and martyrs “with special devotion, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels”. Lumen Gentium 50 refers to Sacrosanctum Concilium 104 and assesses that in the sacred liturgy “we celebrate together the praise of the divine majesty” and celebrating the Eucharist, “we are most closely united to the Church in heaven”.

Lumen Gentium 51 takes pastoral care for the right veneration of saints that consists in the “praise of Christ and of God”. The Council insists, “The authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints’ example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession”.

Chapter eight of Lumen Gentium titles The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.

On October 29, 1963, the aula decided with a small majority of the votes to integrate the scheme on the Virgin Mary into the scheme on the Church. Cardinal Santos spoke in the name of those who were against, and Cardinal König spoke for the supporters of integration (Hünermann 2004, 512). The supporters of integration described for ecumenical reasons Mary as a member of the Church who received and welcomed the grace of salvation. Santos and König worked in the commission for the scheme together with the theologians Carlo Balic (1899–1977) and Philips, who represented the two differing theologies on Mary. Balic was a Croatian Franciscan who had studied at Leuven. He was a renowned expert on Mary, founder of the International Academy of Mary in Rome and president of the International Scotist Commission. He wanted to concentrate on the special privileges of Mary at the side of Jesus, as mother of Christ, underlining her role as mediator and cooperator in the work of salvation and insisting on her conformity with Christ. Philips represented the bishops who wanted to write about Mary’s place within the Church and the mystery of Christ founded on scriptural and patristic texts, and Mary as a model member of the Church. When the Belgian colleagues at the University of Leuven shied away from Philips in November of 1963 because of his redaction of the official text on the Church, Balic assures Philips of his solidarity (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. 86. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven). 86). The Oriental bishops did not join the Latin bishops in the ecumenical effort, because they considered the discussion an interior problem to the Catholic-Protestant dialogue. Paul VI had preferred the theology that Christ was the unique mediator but Mary the mother of the Church. Philips persuaded the pope to take into account the many Council Fathers with conservative mentalities on Mary. For them it was important to predicate Mary as mediator. Balic insisted on the term mediator of salvation for Mary (Schelkens 2006, 131). Philips pointed at the tradition of the Catholic Church to attribute different titles to Mary. Paul VI insisted on adding the title Mother of the Church (ibid. 141). In the name of Latin-American bishops, Mendez Arceo pointed at the contradiction of calling Mary mother of the Church and at the same time a member of the Church, Mary being in that case the mother of herself. At the beginning of June 1964, the Theological Commission approved a text for the Council Fathers (Hünermann 2004, 513). The new title of the text expresses the theological program, “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church”. I want it to be completely clear that good theologians construct the term Virgin Mary by linking the predication Holy Spirit to Mary and not to hymen biology.

Even Hünermann, who is not a feminist theologian but a traditional male celibate theologian priest, and who was convinced with his generation of male theologians that theology is a gender-neutral science of faith, criticizes the high-flown, exagerated, and artificial language style of the chapter on Mary (Hünermann 2004, 517). He qualifies this clerical men-talk on the woman Mary as esthetic and succeeds in completely ignoring the important feminist theological literature on the Virgin Mary. Feminist theologians insist on plausible historical reconstructions of the life of Mary within the concrete patriarchal social and cultural context, asking “what it would have been like for this young, Jewish peasant woman to be ostracized and threatened because she was risking her life to carry out a controversial pregnancy” (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. 842. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mary overcame poverty and oppression and “actively responded to God with courage, wisdom and strength” (ibid). Theology has to take notice of the human struggle for integrity of this young woman who intimately knew about the destructive forces of violence and oppression “when she suffers the persecution and death of her innocent son who cries out for Go’d’s justice” (ibid. 842–43). Luke 1, 46–55, the Magnificat, makes Mary a testimony of faith and thanks as a woman who confronted injustices of poverty and oppression and praised the social realization of her restored dignity. The Lord “has looked upon the humiliation of his servant” (Luke 1, 48), is a fairly good translation by the New Bible of Jerusalem of the Greek tapeínwsis that speaks of a humiliation by violent force and may even be understood as rape. Usually, tapeínwsis gets translated with “lowliness” instead of “humiliation”.  This misleading interpretation served the pseudo legitimation of Mary as a role model for the submissive virtues of humility, obedience and selflessness of women (Schottroff, Luise. 2007. “tapeínwsis”. 2340-2341. 2341). Assessing the sentences of women, men and queer speaking of their bodies, sex, life and death must be part of theology speaking of faith. Motherhood and giving Christ’s life to the world are experiences of life and faith of the concrete faithful woman Mary. We have no right to interpret the life of Mary by substituting her life and faith-experiences with celibate male fantasies and desires. The text on the Virgin Mary in chapter eight of Lumen Gentium is part of the suppressive history of male dominance in Roman Catholic theology’s hierarchy of “man as first and woman as second” (Nussberger 2019, 842). Mary invites to be regarded as a role model for women who fight for the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer. Characterizing, super elevating and venerating Mary as submissive partner of Go’d is but to carry on with the construction of male dominance in the Roman Catholic Church. Patriarchal ideology tried to label Eve as “helpmate or as second to Adam”. Feminist theology rightly protests the sexist labeling of women as being passive and humble sufferers.  Mary invites to “regard woman’s character as resilient and responsible active by not limiting her activity to the consumption of the forbidden fruit” (Nussberger 2019, 843). We would need theological texts eliciting “the process of identity formation for men and women” and queer as active agents of the social realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights; women “are one with Christ, freely choosing to enact a grace-filled, Christic life-form that is not imposed from the outside” (ibid). We would need “helpful Mariologies designed to empower both women and men to be fully-fledged, devoted members of Christ’s body” (ibid. 844).

I try to interpret Lumen Gentium 52–54 as the assessment of Mary as a self-determined woman believing in Jesus Christ. She realizes, as the first member of the body of Christ, her faith and realizes her integrity as woman and mother of the boy Jesus whom she has given life.

Was Mary the first human to believe that Jesus was the messiah of Go’d? I understand all the stories of Jesus’s infancy in the Gospels as posterior to the passion recites and testimonies of Christ’s resurrection. Whether Mary was the first believer, I cannot decide, neither with affirmation nor with negation. Lumen Gentium 52 starts talking about Mary citing a faith-sentence from the Letter to the Galatians. The question of Mary concerns my faith, my belief “when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman...that we might receive the adoption of sons (Galatians 4, 4)” and daughters and queer. From my Christian faith it follows that Mary was of greatest importance to the history of salvation. In some way, we even can say that Mary was the possibility condition of the birth of Jesus and therefore of the incarnation. From this it is not only clear that “the faithful must in the first-place reverence the memory of Mary” as mother of “our Lord Jesus Christ” (Lumen Gentium 52) but they must treat all women, men and queer according to the dignity they receive from Go’d to sustain their existence.

The Virgin Mary “received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world” (Lumen Gentium 53) as may do men, women and queer as temples of the Holy Spirit. There is no person and there is no body without heart. That Mary “in her heart and in her body” birthed Jesus Christ and became as a mother a believer and follower of Christ Mary’s constitutes for the faithful her uniqueness in the history of humankind and of salvation. She followed Christ to beneath the cross and learned to believe in his resurrection. She followed the resurrected and believed in the way of love to overcome the violence of sin. Therefore, it is right to say that Mary “is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity” (Lumen Gentium 53). This Roman Catholic Church today would certainly refuse Mary “type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity” the ordained priesthood and any place in the hierarchy of the Church. A Church refusing to teach the teaching of the Holy Spirit that all women, men and queer are of equal dignity, freedom and rights, is not credible in hailing an individual woman Mary, the sister of all oppressed and discriminated women of the world.

With Lumen Gentium 54 the introduction to chapter eight ends. There is no perfect text that perfectly claims the mysteries of Christian faith in a complete way. There are only faithful who claim their faith. Concerning the dogmas on Mary and the theology of these dogmas and other important considerations on Mary there is the tradition of the Church Fathers, especially those from the East. They use biblical pictures and pictures of their culture and traditions. In the 18th and 19th century, many Christians and Catholics, not necessarily the theologians, turned away from pre-modern theological concepts and claimed the freedom of their conscience of faith. Women, men and queer in the times of nationalism and industrialization started to make up their mind on questions of the faith based on the philosophies they found in their surroundings and were part of their living world. The theologians who continued to express dogmas in the old way of metaphysical speculation of Greek concepts and patristic pictures did not reach out to these new worldviews. The terms “Virgin Mary” or “Mary mother of Go’d” (Lumen Gentium 54) were taken as statements of biological facts and not as expressions of faith. Lumen Gentium 54 is therefore right in assessing that “the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified” the many questions concerning faith and Mary.

Lumen Gentium 55–59 are about “The Role of the Blessed Mother in the Economy of Salvation”.

Lumen Gentium 55 speaks of Mary and the Hebrew Bible. Eve apparently fell into sin (Genesis 3, 15) and Mary will achieve “victory over the serpent”. The sexist male determination of Eve as the quintessential disobedient woman is continued with the sexist male suppression of Mary’s self-determination and faith agency and her label as a model of “pure obedience” (Nussberger 2019, 843). The first discrimination concerns the reduction of Eve to the consumer of the forbidden fruit and the second discrimination concerns the reduction of Mary to a purely obedient woman without freedom and rights for her own social choices (ibid). A third discrimination concerns all women of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament who suffer the male determinations over their stories and biographies. Christian theologians have to face the Jewish reproach of stealing the Hebrew Bible for a Christian interpretation that ignores Jewish life, tradition and revelation. Isaiah 7, 14 and Micha 5, 2–3 speak of a virgin “who shall conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel”. Matthew 1, 22–23 affirms that Mary is this Virgin. This corresponds to the faith of the Christians but as Christians, we have to affirm that the Virgin Mary is not alone, but together with many women “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him” (Lumen Gentium 55). Today we must meditate on how women and men and queer live in dignity, freedom and equality and are empowered with these liberties and dignity to realize the project of Go’d, for the just world of Go’d, women birthing children, parents parenting, and women, men and queer living a family life.

Lumen Gentium 56 cites Luke 1, 28 (the angel Gabriel says to Mary, “rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favor! The Lord is with you”) and Luke 1, 38 (“Mary said, ‘You see before you the Lord’s servant, let it happen to me as you have said.’ And the angel left her”) not showing much interest in Luke’s assessment of the testimony to personal liberation from oppression by Mary in Luke 1, 48. At least Mary’s faith is assessed as an active social choice “Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience”. The rest of Lumen Gentium 56 again elevates obedience as the principal virtue for women. If Mary cooperates in the economy of salvation, every woman, man and queer is also called to cooperate.

Lumen Gentium 57 treats the faith-sentences of the Gospel of Luke 1, 5 – 2, 52 - the so called childhood narrative of Jesus -, not as an announcement of the mission of Jesus and the discovering of this mission by Jesus himself, but as empiric evidence for the “union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation”. Lumen Gentium 58 follows in that sense taking the appearances of Mary in the public life of Jesus in the Gospels as abstract assessment of the super-elevated and completely idealized union of Mary and Jesus. The struggle, perseverance and resilience of the young woman Mary believing in the mission of her son and joining her faith with solidarity in life is not mentioned or explored. After Christ’s resurrection we do not hear Mary speaking any more in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts. We have to read Lumen Gentium 59 and interpret Pentecost as empowering all, women, men and queer to realize the mission of the Gospel and not as a legitimation for silencing the women in the Church.  After the Apostles had returned from the ascension of Christ to Jerusalem and stayed in one room “with one mind continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (Acts 1, 14)” the first to take the word and speak was Peter but not a woman. No woman will ever raise her voice in Acts. The Second Vatican Council continued with this sad distortion of the liberating Gospel of Jesus and continued silencing the women. Women are excluded from equal liberty and dignity to stay close to Jesus Christ and take responsibility for his mission through the centuries.

Lumen Gentium 60–65 titles “On the Blessed Virgin and the Church”. Lumen Gentium 60 makes clear that Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and humankind. Lumen Gentium 61 assesses “the Blessed Virgin was on this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer”. Lumen Gentium 62 attributes to Mary, who was taken up into heaven, the office of maternal care for all Christians. It makes theological sense to claim that Mary “cares for her Son’s sisters and brothers”. We can ask: What makes me a brother and sister of Jesus? The answer is faith in him. Mary cared for brothers and sisters of Jesus during her life. That we see in the Gospel. It is also true that the poor, humiliated, and sick, those who long for consolation, and hope for a way out of despair and suppression, pray to Mary. I do want to respect the claims of those who got consoled by their prayer to Mary. I do not accept the claim of Council Fathers and theologians establishing an office in heaven for Mary in order to help the miserable. The Council Fathers should help the poor and end suppression themselves.

Lumen Gentium 63 claims that divine maternity unites Mary with Jesus and because of this closeness with Jesus the Redeemer, “the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church”. Mary is a pre-picture of the church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ. The Council Fathers refer to Saint Ambrose (339-397 CE) bishop of Milan, as authority for this claim. The Church is made up of the individual members of the body of Christ. We need at least two individuals to form a group that we may call Church. Well, we could take Jesus and Mary. I would rather consider Mary and Joseph. Doing this, there is sense in the sentence that Mary gave birth to Jesus after sexual intercourse with Joseph. There is also sense in the sentence that Mary gave birth and believed, that her son Jesus is the Christ, “the Son of the Father”. We believe that this belief and faith of Mary was given birth by the Holy Spirit. In the sense that the Holy Spirit is the gift of faith for every man, woman and queer, the Holy Spirit empowered the faith of Joseph that his son Jesus is the Christ. Faith is possible without sexual intercourse, being a human being is hardly possible without sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse sometimes empowers joy and faith in Go’d’s creative agencies. Joseph, because of sexual intercourse, is the father of Jesus Christ. To do some justice to Joseph, I suggest claiming that together with Mary he is a pre-picture of the Church. To considering Mary and Joseph as sexual beings, least of all to consider Jesus as a man with sexuality, is impossible for the hierarchy, for many theologians and for many faithful of the Roman Catholic Church. The power of sexuality is strong but confidence in sexuality is confidence in life and fear of the destructive power of sexuality is mistrust in Go’d’s creation.

In Lumen Gentium 63 the Council Fathers refer to Gerhoh of Reichersberg as testimony that Mary pre-pictures and pre-models the Church as Virgin and mother (Lumen Gentium 63). To pass through the village of Reichersberg right over the banks of the river Inn that separates Germany and Austria today, one has to leave the autobahn and take the old medieval road through the village. The tourists visit the monastery of the Austrian baroque and take a rest in the monastery’s restaurant. In medieval times, the intellectual capacities of the Canon Regulars of Saint Augustin of Reichersberg were respected in Germany and Austria. In the following centuries, the Regulars rather were famous for their excellent wines that they produced in their fertile vineyards of the Wachau and the region of the river Kamp, one of Austria’s best places to culture wine. The Regulars are respected by the local population as long as they offer their pastoral services to the local parishes. After the Second Vatican Council, more and more Regulars left the monasteries, and the monastery turned from serving the parishes to selling wine to tourists. Already at the time of Gerhoh of Reichersberg in the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church needed reform. Individual women and men claimed and struggled for reform, reform was preached from Cluny in France to Salzburg, Augsburg, Freising and Reichersberg, and even to Rome and Paris. After 300 years, Luther institutionalized the Reform, and the Evangelical Churches give testimony today. The Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not realize that the Church needed a more profound reform than they were ready to procure. They missed the development that women, men and queer had irrevocably started embracing dignity, freedom and equality for their lives and their faith and claimed to be listened to in the Church.

Lumen Gentium 64 idealizes the Church as a whole as a kind of virgin. The Virgin Mary is mother of Jesus Christ; the virgin Church is the spouse of Jesus Christ and mother of her baptized children. The parallelism of Mary as mother and the Church as mother is perfect and thus the Church marries the son of Mary. In this kind of construction Mary is not the mother of the Church but the stepmother of the Church since the Church marries her son. Since the Virgin Mary is also member of the Church, Lumen Gentium 65 claims that Mary is also the perfect model of the Church, the type of the Church. As Mary bore Jesus Christ, “through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also”. Now, the Church is spouse of Jesus Christ and at the same time mother of Jesus Christ. All this really does not fit together and produces a whole mess of neurotic fantasies. We really get no instructions from the Council about the real life of faith and of solidarity of Mary.

Faith in Incarnation is of the order of grace. Jesus Christ, the incarnated word, on the cross entrusted Mary to John in order to take care of her as his mother (John 19, 26-27). Yes, we should take care and entrust ourselves to the oppressed women of this world and treat them as our mothers. Not to turn to abstract ideas but realizing our lives as daughters and sons with dignity, freedom and equality is important. Speaking of love, we have to remember the words of the question Jesus asked the lawyer “Which of these three do you think made himself neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands? (Luke 10, 36)”. The case is that only through love will I prove to be a neighbor to a woman, man or queer in need of my solidarity. The problem is to become a neighbor, not a son, a daughter, a mother or father. Mary is the mother of the Logos en sarkos, the word that became flesh. In this sense, Mary is the mother of Jesus. She is also the mother of Christ, theotokos, and this is important in order to give Mary the dignity, liberty and equality of a woman believer in Christ. By believing in Christ she can say, I am the mother of Christ, the son of Go’d. Why do theologians shy away from their business so much? Rather than speaking sense, they too often proclaim nonsense and sick fantasies.

Lumen Gentium 66 and 67 treat “The Cult of the Blessed Virgin in the Church”. Lumen Gentium 66 confirms that Mary “is rightly honored with a special cult by the church”. Whatever this cult looks like it is a cult by the Holy Spirit, a spiritual cult by women, men and queer. Why does the article not speak of the millions of pilgrims of so many centuries, who in so many different circumstances of poverty, war, suppression, violence and other plagues experienced Mary who talked to them with consoling love and peace? The pilgrims express the needs of the times, the special situations in history that demand answers by the faith with the Holy Spirit in deeds and agencies of solidarity. No word of the Council Father on this. Lumen Gentium 67 warns of “sterile and transitory feelings” concerning the cult of Mary. In this sense, I suggest an alternative prayer: Let the faithful not despair of anger with empty concepts of theological speculations full of nonsense on Mary. Encourage every woman through the example of Mary, who took care of her dignity, so all women are treated equally at every step of their life and receive respect for their deepest and private decisions on life.

Lumen Gentium 68 and 69 title “Mary the sign of created hope and solace to the wandering people of God”. In view of the sisters and brothers of all Churches and confessions believing in Jesus Christ, I dare to say: We believe and thank Mary for her example of faith and a life of a suppressed woman that celebrated liberation, dignity and equality for all women, men and queer on this earth. Let us join in the hope with her son Jesus Christ that all families of people may be happily gathered in peace and justice into one people of Go’d. Amen.