Declaration on Christian education Gravisssimum educationis

There were many discussions on the scheme of Christian education in the session of 1964 (Velati, Mauro. 2001. “Il completamento dell’ agenda conciliare.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 197–284. 212. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The question if the Catholic Church accepted cultural pluralism or not was still present in the aula in 1965. The moderators did not want another discussion on the text and the scheme on education passed the preliminary vote on October 13, 1965, without difficulties (ibid. 221) (See my Post “Preparing documents on the bishops, priests, religious and the lay”).

The first sentence of the Introduction to the Declaration on Christian education Gravissimum Educationis) recognizes the importance of education:

“The Sacred Ecumenical Council has considered with care how extremely important education is in the life of man and how its influence ever grows in the social progress of this age” (Paul VI. 1965. “Gravissimum Educationis. Declaration on Christian Education.” The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council).

Indeed, education is important in the life of young women, men and queer and stays important throughout their whole adult life. Affirming the care of considering the extreme importance of education sharply contrasts with the neglect and ignorance of education in the fifty years following the promulgation of the decree (Siebenrock, Roman. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die Christliche Erzieung Gravissimum educationis.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 3, 551–590. 582. Freiburg: Herder). In the same period, pedagogy, the science of education, flourished in the universities. Departments, curricula and PhD programs on education were institutionalized, studying developmental psychology and pedagogy, describing the processes of education, and creating models of education for supporting individual development. Searching the subject index of the 1987 New Dictionary of Theology for the terms education, Christian education, individual development, pedagogy, and pedagogy of religion does not lead to positive results. Systematic theology is not interested in education in the last fifty years.

In the few post-conciliar Church documents on education, we read a lot about Catholic schools but little on education (ibid.).

The Council fathers had not taken interest and for lack of energy and time did not discuss Christian education in the social context of cultural pluralism (Velati 2001, 221). In 1977, the Roman Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions) publishes a document on Catholic Schools. The document asks to develop a concept of Christian education, deplores the difficulty of realizing such a concept within the social context of cultural pluralism, but does not advance one small concrete step for such a concept (Siebenrock 2005. 583). In 1982, the Congregation for Catholic Education reacts to the fundamental change concerning the teachers and professors of Catholic educational institutions and addresses the “Catholic teacher as lay testimony for the Christian faith” (ibid.). Because of the lack of priests and religious women and men leading, managing and teaching the Catholic schools, colleges and universities, lay women and men are now in charge of these responsibilities (ibid.).

Catholic education passed from the hands of male celibate priests and religious women and men into the hands of laywomen, men and queer. This change in the leadership and structure of Catholic educational institutions is fundamental. Yet the Roman Curia of the Catholic Church, dominated by male celibate clergy, was not willed to develop a concept for Christian education in cooperation with the responsible laity within the cultural context of globalized pluralism. The 1982 document of the Congregation for Catholic Education referred to the 1965 Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicum Actuositatem of the Second Vatican Council and thereby put the responsibility for Catholic education on the shoulders of lay women, men and queer without taking much interest in accompanying them, supporting them or empowering them with the necessary jurisdictional powers. The 1983 Codex of Canon Law that in the third book deals extensively with Catholic education, Catholic schools and universities, insists on the authority of the Catholic hierarchy when controlling Catholic education but does not integrate the lay teachers, children and students as partners in the process of developing and realizing Catholic education (ibid. 584).

In 2016, the Catholic Church runs 72,826 kindergartens with 7,313,370 pupils; 96,573 primary schools with 35,125,124 pupils; 47,862 secondary schools with 19,956,347 pupils. The Church also cares for 2,509,457 high school pupils, and 3,049,548 university students[i]. In 2016, eighty of the 195 Catholic Universities in the world are in the Americas, sixty are in Europe and in Africa there are only seventeen Catholic universities, in India there are fourteen and in Asia twenty-two. Knowing that education is a key factor for job qualification, personal well-being and effective participation in society, Catholic universities concentrate on the rich, white North of the hemisphere and neglect the poor, colored South. The Church documents on education are not aware of this structural discrimination concerning education. The documents content themselves with general exhortations that Catholic schools are open and receive poor children with no economic possibilities for acquiring educational skills.

To this day in June 2019, there is no Roman document of the Catholic Church on Christian education and the educational institutions of the Church with reference to the sexual abuse of minors and young adults by the clergy. In Catholic educational institutions, clerics abused their authority, responsibility, traumatized children, and young adults psychologically and spiritually. It is not possible to comment on Gravissimum Educationis without referring to the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics over the last seventy years.

In 2018, the report on the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests, deacons and male religious within the canonical jurisdiction of the German Bishops’ Conference affirmed: sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics must not be perceived as solely the problem of a few problematic individuals but has to be understood as a specific institutional problem of the Catholic Church (Dreßing, Harald, Hans Joachim Salize, Dieter Dölling, Dieter Hermann, Andreas Kruse, Eric Schmitt und Britta Bannenberg, 2018. Sexueller Missbrauch an Minderjährigen durch katholische Priester, Diakone und männliche Ordensangehörige im Bereich der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. 16. Mannheim. https://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/.../MHG-Studie-gesamt.pdf).

The 2017 Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse documents that of the 4,029 survivors who told the Commission during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 2,489 survivors that is 61.8%, told the Commission about abuse in Catholic institutions (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 2017, 75)

It is true that “the church has done a lot of harm to women and children; theological education should be part of healing and preventing sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination” (Campbell-Reed, Eileen R. 2019. “Examining Trends in Theological Education for Women – Part 2.” Ethics Daily. March 8). Commenting on Gravissium Educationis we must bear in mind the words from Campbell-Reed.

The first paragraph of the Introduction of Gravissimum Educationis refers to the encyclical letters Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris of Pope John XXIII and confirms that “men are more aware of their own dignity”. At this point Gravissimum Educationis does not encourage women, men and queer to claim and realize their dignity, the document simply observes that there is more awareness of one’s dignity in the contemporary world. The document then affirms a very optimistic view of the world’s “remarkable” technological and scientific development and optimistically points at “the new means of communication” that is radio and television as instruments of “attaining the cultural and spiritual inheritance” of peoples. The Second Vatican Council was a few years away of the creation of the Club of Rome in 1968 and its pioneering report in 1972 on The Limits to Growth that was the first study to question the viability of continued growth in the human ecological footprint.[ii] Sustainable development and the limits of growth were not yet horizons of concern for the Second Vatican Council.

The second paragraph of the Introduction of Gravissimum Educationis refers to the proclamation of “the rights of men to an education” and “the primary rights of children and parents in public documents”. A footnote identifies the primary document as the “Declaration on the Rights of Man of December 10, 1948”. The correct name of the document is Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the difficulty of the official English Vatican edition of Gravissimum Educationis (Paul VI, 1965) to get the name of the document right indicates the Vatican’s official refusal to ratify the UDHR. The Vatican apparently recognizes some selected rights of the UDHR but not all. Article 26 of the UDHR proclaims:

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.                                                                                                  United Nations 1948

Gravissimum Educationis recognizes that “vast numbers of children and young people are still deprived of even rudimentary training” and claims that “suitable education” develops “truth and love” together. The third paragraph of the Introduction of  Gravissimum Educationis describes the Council’s understanding of this “truth” and “love” with reference to Pope John XXIII’s encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, with reference to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern world Gaudium et Spes. The reference to Gaudium et Spes is a general one. This is logical because Paul VI promulgated the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern world after Gravissimum Educationis on December 7, 1965. Gravissimum Educations refers to Lumen Gentium 17 that is the last number of chapter two on the people of Go’d. “Truth” has to be understood as “the mystery of salvation” and the mandate of the Catholic Church to proclaim this mystery of salvation to all women, men and queer of the world (Gravissimum Educationis, Introduction 3). Lumen Gentium 17 legitimizes this mandate of Jesus Christ with reference to Matthew 28, 18–20: “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Lumen Gentium 17 makes also clear that “the obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ”. The Roman Catholic Church participates “in the progress and development of education” because she has to proclaim the mystery of salvation to all people and she has to care for the integrity of the whole life of women, men and queer that is connected with their “heavenly vocation” (Gravissimum Educationis, Introduction 3). Pope John XXIII was convinced of the Church’s call of caring for all women, men and queer. Neither Pope John XXIII nor the Second Vatican Council speak of women, men and queer. Notwithstanding, Pope John showed empathy and care for all women, men and queer of good will, following an inclusive concept of “love”. In Mater et Magistra 3 he writes:

“Hence, though the Church's first care must be for souls, how she can sanctify them and make them share in the gifts of heaven, she concerns herself too with the exigencies of man's daily life, with his livelihood and education, and his general, temporal welfare and prosperity” (John XXIII. 1961. “Mater et Magistra. On Christianity and Social Progress.” The Holy See).

Gravissimum Educationis connects the Church’s concern for education and the general, temporal welfare and prosperity of women, men and queer with their “heavenly vocation”. The declaration is right, if we speak of Christian education. Christian education has to do with Christian faith. Understandably, the Roman Catholic Church aims at realizing in all Catholic schools and for all students what she affirmed in Optatam Totius 14 for the seminarians, namely “opening the minds of the students to the mystery of Christ”. The educational and formation work at Catholic schools aims at helping the students “to establish and penetrate their own entire lives with faith and be strengthened in embracing their vocation with a personal dedication and a joyful heart” (Optatam Totius 14). With reference to Lumen Gentium 1 and Gaudium et Spes 1 and 22, we may affirm for every Christian school girl and boy that the call of the vocation comes from Go’d and that the Church respects this “heavenly” origin (Fuchs 2005b, 427). All Christian teaching, not only the teaching of theology, participates in the teaching of the mystery of salvation, and has to be realized as a pastoral performance, as a first experience of salvation by the students themselves (ibid. 428). Recognizing the “heavenly origin” of the Christian vocation leads to the necessary comment, that Jesus Christ gives this mandate to the Church as a whole that is to every baptized faithful as Lumen Gentium 17 assesses by citing the last three verses of the Gospel according to Matthew: Jesus said “’All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of times’” (Matthew 28, 18–20). Lumen Gentium 10 and 18 claim that for the accomplishment of the mission of the Church, the Church is endowed with the one indivisible sacred power of Christ (ibid.). Preaching the word, teaching and leading the way of Christ and sacramentally sanctifying life is the mandate of all faithful. Lumen Gentium 17 and the 1983 Code of Canon law will again insist on the hierarchical powers ordering these functions of the faithful “according to their state”.

The Introduction of Gravissimum Educationis ends assessing the limits of the declaration. Only “certain fundamental principles of Christian education especially in schools” will be declared, “a special post-conciliar commission” will have to develop these principles in great length. This special post-conciliar commission never came into being (Siebenrock 2005, 556).

Gravissimum Educationis 1 again writes on the “inalienable right to education”. The authors of the declaration are right, considering the right to education, as article 26, 1 of the UDHR simply proclaims, a Human Right. The Preamble of the UDHR affirms that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (United Nations 1948). Human Rights are inalienable rights according to the UN and according to Gravissimum Educationion and according to both, the right to education is a Human Right.

Gravissimum Educationis 1, 1 relates the Human Right to education with human dignity. Many commentators falsely comment that the declaration uses the concept of “human dignity” just as the UDHR uses the concept of “human dignity” (Siebenrock 2005, 566). Article 1 of UDHR proclaims that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (ibid.). All women, men and queer enjoy equal dignity, freedom and rights. The first Human Right, as we read in Article 1 of the UDHR, is the right to the legitimate claim of an individual that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

This proposition of Article 1 of the UDHR operates with the logical operator “and”. The logical operator “and” connects the four terms “equal”, “dignity”, “freedom” and “rights”. “And” is the truth-functional operator of logical conjunction and only if all operands, that is “equal”, “dignity”, “freedom” and “rights” are true, the whole set of operands is true. Only if all variables that is “equality”, “dignity”, “freedom” and “rights” are realized within this logical conjunction, are we allowed to speak of logical truth; and are we allowed to speak of true Human Rights (Leher, Stephan P. 2018. Dignity and Human Rights. Language Philosophy and Social Realizations. 57. New York: Routledge).

Gravissimum Educationis 1, 1 selectively describes the concept of dignity by protesting some forms of discrimination but does not include the concepts of equal freedom and equal rights of all women, men and queer. On the contrary, the decree does not think of the possibility of the single woman, man and queer claiming her or his inalienable dignity, freedom and rights. The bishops define “true unity and peace on earth”, “true education”, “the ultimate end and good of society”, and the “obligations” of the citizens. The bishops define the kind of “proper” education that corresponds to the “ultimate goal” of the people. The bishops do not recognize the freedom and liberty of the individual woman, man and queer to claim their dignity and define their rights. Gravissimum Educationsis and all documents of the Second Vatican Council refuse to acknowledge that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (United Nations 1948). The concepts unity and peace on earth of the bishops cannot be realized because the bishops do not accept the validity condition of peace and unity on earth that is the realization of the equal dignity, freedom, liberty and rights of all women, men and queer.

The Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis is not ready to teach and proclaim the rule of Human Rights law. Gravissimum Educationis misses the opportunity to join in the most valuable and precious effort of educating the young women, men and queer of our world for the self-empowering realization of their dignity, freedom, and rights. The Catholic Church still shies from wholeheartedly embracing the equal dignity of all women, men and queer. Three hundred years ago, the philosophical enlightenment started empowering the rights of the individual. Rousseau already paid attention to the importance of the conjunction of the terms equal dignity, freedoms and rights for a functioning democracy. He claims that dignity is not possible without the participation agency in political law-making for the common good of the community and the moral agency of lawgiving to one-self (Leher 2018, 96). Dignity is not possible without equal participation possibilities for defining the common good for all women, men and queer. The young women, men and queer have to take part in defining the common good and education helps to realize this agency as claims Article 26, 2 of the UDHR:

“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace” (United Nations 1948).

Even in 2024, the Catholic Church is not ready ratifying the UDHR.

Gravissimum Educationsis 1, 2 claims the help “of the latest advances in psychology and the art and science of teaching” to empower children and young people to develop “a mature sense of responsibility”, a “true freedom” and a “prudent sexual education”. The bishops define the terms “mature sense”, “prudent sexual education” and “true responsibility” on their own, and without help of the parents or their children. Parents and children have the “responsibility” to comply with the moral teachings of the bishops and to obey their precepts. Since the bishops claim recognition of the “latest advances in psychology”, but do not describe at least some elements of the advances, I try to propose some important principles of education in dignity for realizing dignity.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) affirms that “a name and nationality is every child’s right, enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties” (Unicef. 2017. “Birth Registration”. Unicef. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/birth-registration/). The births of around 25% of children under the age of five have never been recorded worldwide. Because of this lack of formal recognition by the State, a child is unable to obtain a birth certificate, and as a result, he or she may be denied health care or education (ibid.). In the twenty-first century mankind refuses to hundreds of millions of children the most basic recognition of dignity that is the acknowledgement of their existence. The fact that in reality we do not document the birth of every boy or girl leads to the recognition that only rich countries dispose over institutions for realizing this basic dignity. Many African states lack these resources. The fact that in reality millions of new-born girls and boys are not taken any public notice of, does not justify ignoring the claim to Human Rights of the single boy and girl. The right to a family, privacy and a home is a Human Right and must be granted a little boy or girl within her or his family and the rule of Human Rights law must be part of the polity of his or her community. Article 12 of the UDHR proclaims:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks” (United Nations 1948).

In order to value the little girl or boy as a speaker of this world, I need to claim the right to take the speech for this young boy or girl. I am aware of the fact that a newborn boy or girl takes a lot of love and patience from his parents and sisters and brothers till he or she starts to speak sentences that can be understood. Taking care that newborns get all this attention and care to become boys and girls who will express their speech acts and take the word is a claim that the rights of the polity, the constitution and legislation of the communities have to procure and take care for. I have to consider the private, the single woman, man and queer in his and her and their privacy as part of the public forum, as part of the polity. To speak of the polity of the little boy or girl is to be seen in respect to the rights of this little boy and girl to get a good polity sustained preparation for taking the word in public and express a personal polity. We can call this preparation “education”. We are used to see education by the parents and the family as something private and not public. In reality, a community helps the parents to educate. Education is a theme that is discussed by mothers and fathers and not only by teachers. To set up institutions to bring young girls and boys to school and to see that school-ages boys and girls got to school and get a proper education is a political process. Education, seen from the viewpoint of parents and teachers, is a public affair, because the quality of the education that mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters are able to procure to their children and younger brothers and sisters has important results on society that will be felt, enjoyed or suffered by the whole community. Respect of the private sphere of the family is a public affair. The private cannot take care of the public. The public is open to integrate the single boys and girls into society.

The kind of education that we get and have received and that we procure to our sons, daughters, pupils and students, is important for our participation skills in the process of politics. The law that ensures a fair process of politics that ensures liberty, dignity and equality of the discourse or the citizens is already there, it is the constitutional polity of Human Rights law for example. If the rule of Human Rights law does not rule my community, I have to claim this rule of Human Rights law. The individual woman, man or queer is able to act as an individual. An individual man, woman or queer can speak up and take the word. If an individual man, woman or queer is not freely speaking her or his mind, then dignity is not possible and there is no education claiming dignity.

Alice Miller describes the significance of individual education for the individual, social and public life (Miller, Alice. 1983. For Your Own Good. Hidden cruelty in Child-rearing and the roots of violence. 10-90. London: Virago). What happens to a child in the first years of his or her life is of importance for society. Psychosis, drug addictions and criminal behavior are coded expressions of early life experiences. Miller claims that we have to take notice of the histories of the emotional, of the emotional part of biographies and have to stop splitting the intellect from the emotional. The principle of obedience was the supreme principle of civil and religious education in the nineteenth and twentieth century in Europe and North America (ibid.). Withdrawal of affection was the sanction of parents and professional educators for children who did not comply with obedience and religious education functioned the same way by teaching that Go’d sanctions sinning against the principle of obedience by withdrawing his love. Pedagogues in that time practiced this “black pedagogy” arguing with the evident bad nature of the child that has to be corrected by sacrifice and submission to discipline and duty. The Bible, especially the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, allegedly justified the brutal beatings and submission techniques of the educators in those times (ibid.). Miller even attacks Sigmund Freud for not diagnosing the loss of innocence of the parents and educators who propagated violence as a means of education. It is difficult to accuse one’s parents and risk the loss of their love, identifying with one’s aggressor is traumatizing. Black pedagogy called for the repression of the child’s feelings. The child was not allowed to take notice of suffering from violence. It was not possible to imagine protesting and accusing the violators. Only in the course of the second part of the twentieth century the experiences as a child, empowering experience as traumatizing experiences, were taken seriously (ibid.).

Thanks to a new pedagogy of understanding and love, the old values of obedience, force, hardness, and of numb emotionless unfeeling do not rule any more. For the generation that was brought up with this coldness of emotions and the cruel treatment of black pedagogy, it was hard to start to remember the tears and sufferings, start to cry again and mourn their pain, in order to overcome petrifying grief. The repression of the sufferings from sad experiences in childhood produced adults without empathy who continued the cycles of violence and repression. Old wounds did not heal but were covered up again at the expense of the next generation. The compulsion to repeat is the price for not remembering, the repression of one’s suffering leads to the tragic necessity to repeat the humbling situation over and over again by humbling oneself or humbling others. What a tragedy, if suicide remains the only possible articulation of one’s true self.

Only girls and boys who were nurtured in a caring surrounding of empathy will be able as adults to open to the sufferings of others. Miller claims for herself, and for the children values, rules and laws that respect the weaker that is the child, and respect life and its fragile nature. Refusing this respect to others produces the death of the souls and the castration of their creativity. The search of peace starts with the empathic interest in the education and growing up of our children, claims Miller. Dependency on the dictators, terrorists and aggressors in their infancy of suffering and ignored thirst for respect constitute a constant threat of new hate and xenophobic destruction (ibid.).

Miller wants adult women, men and queer who are empowered to reign their inner life and who are ready assessing errors and failures as mistakes they face and deal with responsibility and dignity. Binding ourselves and our children with feelings of guilt impedes the experience of liberty and dignity we want to live. Even if we fail to love, and often we do so, we can mourn our mistakes and ask forgiveness, we can liberate the freedom and dignity of the children, students and others by receiving reconciliation. A child needs listening love, needs loving understanding, and the agency to assess one’s desires and to pursue one’s happiness (ibid.). It is of public concern that the individual girl and boy grows realizing her or his physical, emotional, social, economic, cultural and spiritual integrity, and develops self-esteem and self-respect and standing power to persist with the wish to choose what is good for her or him. Liberty is liberty only when related with one’s dignity to claim what one wants to do, to express what one does feel and wish and wants to create.

Gravissimum Educationis 1, 3 does not claim with the UDHR the Human Right of conscience but claims instead “a right conscience” for the moral values and “the sacred right” for “a deeper knowledge and love of Go’d” that “the sons of the Church” have to ensure. The whole Article 1 of the UDHR reads:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (United Nations 1948).

If the Roman Catholic Church really wants to embrace Human Rights, she has to assess the Human Rights of freedom of religion without any discrimination. Article 2 of the UDHR claims:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (United Nations 1948).

Article 18 of the UDHR includes the Human Right of any community to manifest its religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (United Nations 1948).

The Roman Catholic Church has the Human Rights to teach its faith and beliefs concerning Go’d. Gravissimum Educationis 1, 3 misses the opportunity to point at the plurality of religions and religious beliefs and the chance to welcome this plurality as a deep testimony of the spiritual aspect of the life of women, men and queer on this earth.

Gravissimum Educationis 2 claims the right of all baptized to a Christian education. Interestingly there is no reference to the UDHR, although this reference seems natural. The decree is very conscious about the fact that the baptized Catholics are no clerics or seminarians but children. The bishops classify them as laity and if they describe their apostolate, they refer to the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity 12:

The lay women, men and queer “should become the first to carry on the apostolate directly to other young persons” and “adults should stimulate young persons first by good example to take part in the apostolate and, if the opportunity presents itself, by offering them effective advice and willing assistance” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 12).

The bishops indirectly admit that Christian education largely has become the task of laywomen, men and queer. The majority of the teachers in Catholic schools are laypersons. Sadly, the bishops do not contribute any suggestions how the lay sisters and brothers could go about introducing the children into their apostolate. The decree treats the children like adults: The baptized should be “gradually introduced in the knowledge of the mystery of salvation” and learn to “strive for the growth of the Mystical Body”. It is the duty of the laity to realize this Christian formation and laywomen, men and queer are called to “contribute to the good of the whole society”. There is a reference to Lumen Gentium 36; it is the duty of the laity “to work for the benefit of women, men and queer” but there is no word on the education of children at that point. There are many references to verses of the New Testament in Gravissimum Educationis 2, but there is no word on initiating the baptized children into the reading, meditating and praying with the Bible. There is no word on the spiritual process of faith experiences of children, of evolving beliefs and of lovingly accompanying the spiritual development of curious children and their need for protection, security and self-worth. It is ok to define with 1 Peter 3, 15 the aim of a self-assured religious faith. However, why not describe how to get there? The Gospels are writings from the Christian faith perspective, or faith worldview, as a testimony to the faith and confession of Jesus Christ so that the readers may find their faith too.

The perspective of Luke is clear from the beginning, he gives “an ordered account” so that Theophilus may become a believer (Luke 1, 1–4). Luke writes as a believer in Jesus Christ that is the resurrected Jesus who had been crucified and Luke wants Theophilus to recognize with certainty Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, the crucified and resurrected Son of man. Theophilus had been instructed and had been taught the Christian faith, however, he was not yet convinced of what he had heard. He did not believe in Jesus Christ and was not confessing the crucified and resurrected Messiah. Luke wants him to “recognize with certainty”. Believing and having faith are described as something that has to do with certainty, with a secure and safe conviction that one holds for true (Luke 1, 4). The whole Gospel serves this conviction and faith. Life, cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the bedrock of the Christian faith. Throughout his Gospel Luke narrates from the perspective of his belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the anointed Son of man and the words and deeds of the Jesus Christ of his faith. Luke is conscious of the fact that faith cannot be simply taught, that teaching faith has to lead to personal certainties and convictions and social choices (Luke 1, 1-4). I do not know about the choices of Theophilus, but I shall see my choices concerning Jesus Christ. To assess my faith- and confession-sentences, I turn to the New Testament.

The decree on priestly training Optatam Totius 16 claims for the seminarians: “The students are to be formed with particular care in the study of the Bible, which ought to be, as it were, the soul of all theology.” Concerning Christian education the council forgets about the importance of the Bible for the children. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum 25, 2 actually claims that the bishops empower the lay “to be penetrated with” the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures. In the fifty years that followed the Second Vatican Council, Christian expert exegetes invested their professional life energies to produce precious translations of the Bible in vernacular languages to empower lay women, men and queer to get into contact with the word of Go’d. Why is there no reference to Dei Verbum in Gravissimum Edudacitonis? I think that there was no contact between the two commissions and there was no interest in interacting. Dei Verbum was promulgated a month after Gravissimum Educationis, but this is not the reason for ignoring each other. Gravissimum Educationis could have followed Dei Verbum and could have encouraged the bishops to procure editions of the Bible that are adapted for the needs of children. The bishops forgot about it, the lay Catholics did not. Thanks to them and thanks to Go’d there are many Bible editions available for children of all ages; there are a child’s bible, children’s bible, children’s illustrated bible, and many more. Scientific congresses asses the necessary balance of theological and non-theological criteria for children’s bibles and pedagogues of religion and literature scientists take interest in the research on that topic (Adam, Gottfried, Rainer Lachmann and Regine Schindler, eds. 2008. Die Inhalte von Kinderbibeln. Kriterien ihrer Auswahl. Göttingen: V&R unipress).

Gravissimum Educationis 3 deals in three articles with the authors of Christian education. The parents are “obligated” to educate their children, “the family has the primary duty of imparting education” and “needs help of the whole community”. Gravissimum Educationis had mentioned so far the baptized children, the pastors who baptize, the parents and the lay women, men and queer that educate the children and help them to format their beliefs and faith. All of a sudden, the decree speaks of “the special way, the duty of education belongs to the Church” (Gravissimum Educationis 3, 3). Who is that Church? All baptized make up the Church, the people of Go’d, the mystical body of Christ. The education of millions of children and youths in thousands of Catholic schools needs an organization, needs many organizations and institutions. These organizations are made up of Catholic women, men and queer. Why is it necessary for the Second Vatican Council to speak of the Church as a society that is governed by a hierarchy of bishops and the pope? The bishops want to assure their control over Christian education and manifest that they are in control. This hierarchic institution Church does not want to organize Christian education as a common effort and duty of all Christians but rather prefers to speak of herself as the Church. The social institution of the Roman Catholic Church is capable of collaborating with states and state institutions in organizing education. To be effective, the social institution of the Catholic Church does not need the hierarchical structure that discriminates the laywomen, men and queer Christians. The Church hierarchy rather hinders the apostolic work of their faithful.

Gravissimum Educationis 4 names catechetical instruction as a means to fulfil the Church’s educational role and assesses also the aid of the “media of mass communication, youth associations and schools” for Christian education.

Gravissiumum Educationis 5, 1 speaks of the “special importance” of schools, and describes a very ideal picture of how schools “promote friendly relations and foster a spirit of mutual understanding” between the pupils who prepare for professional life. Gravissimum Educationis 5, 2 praises the vocation of the teachers and their “special qualities of mind and heart”. The task of education is called a munus, that is an apostolic office.

Gravissimum Educationis 6, 1 claims “the primary and inalienable right and duty” of the parents to educate their children and their right to freely choose the schools for their children. The state is called to realize “distributive justice” and pay “public subsidies” to realize the choice of the parents.

Gravissimum Educationis 6, 2 claims the duty of the state in realizing the “right of children to an adequate school education”, respecting cultural pluralism and the “peaceful association of citizens”. We are not told by the declaration what this respect of pluralism means. The associating of citizens according to Gravissimum Educationis 6, 3 serves to form “associations of parents” in schools where the “faithful” assist in “finding suitable methods of education and programs of study and in forming teachers”.

Gravissimum Educationis 7, 1 all of a sudden esteems the “apostolic action” of Catholic lay teachers and associations “in schools that are not Catholic” and with reference to the Decree on the Lay Apostolate 12 and 16 speaks of a special form of the lay apostolate. In Gravissimum Educationis 7, 2 the “Church” refers to the Declaration on Religious Liberty 5: “the rights of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all”. The Church insists on the duty of the parents to arrange the Christian formation of their children and “esteems highly those civil authorities and societies” which help to realize this religious formation.

Gravissimum Educationis 8, 1 is conscious of the Roman Catholic Church’s “influence on education by the Catholic school”. The Church claims to be open “to the situation of the contemporary world” and wants to educate the students’ “knowledge of the world, life and man by faith”. The faith language of Gravissimum Educationis does not reach the youth; it does not even reach Catholic adults because it is not interactive but simply determines from above how and what students have to learn concerning their faith.

Gravissimum Educationis 8, 2 once more insists on “the right of the Church to freely establish and conduct schools of every type and level” and at the same time points at the cooperation and mutual benefits of “the dialogue between the Church and mankind”. The right to free education protects the “freedom of conscience, the rights of parents, as well as to the betterment of culture itself”. These sentences mirror the concerns of the bishops that in many parts of the world the Catholic Church is not allowed to realize the right “to freely conduct schools”.

Gravissimum Educationis 8, 3 starts with the admission that the lay teachers are those on whom “the Catholic school depends for the accomplishment of its goals and programs”. Unfortunately, the teachers are not invited by the bishops to collaborate with equal rights in the development of the goals and programs of the Catholic schools. The lay women, men and queer teachers are still seen as instruments and as a means for education and not as a responsible end in themselves. Indeed, openly queer teachers still will not get a job at a Catholic school. Nevertheless, Christian teachers are realizing their dignity and empower their students to realize theirs. It is not enough “to stimulate the students to act for themselves”, realizing social choices of dignity and empowering them to do so stays at the center of the teachers’ “apostolate”. How is it possible that “parents entrust their children to Catholic schools” if there is no mutual realization of dignity between parents, teachers and bishops? If there is no dignity, then there is no trust.

“Christ, the unique Teacher” (Gravissimum Educationis 8, 3) of parents and teachers does not teach that gender is determined by visible genitalia. In 1965 as in 2024, the Vatican’s theology on gender relies on categories of male and female that were shaped centuries ago in oppressive and repressive cultures (DeBernardo, Francis. 2019. “New Ways Ministry responds to new Vatican document on gender identity.” New Ways Ministry. June 10). It is theologically wrong, it is pedagogically wrong, and it is scientifically “deficient and flawed” (ibid.) to give “in every phase of education due consideration to the difference of sex and the proper ends Divine Providence assigns to each sex in the family and in society” as Gravissimum Educationis 8, 3 falsely claims. On June 10, 2019, the Vatican published another document on gender theory and education (Congregation for Catholic Education 2019) “ignoring new scientific understandings of gender identity and by refusing to engage in dialogue with LGBT people about their lived experiences of self-understanding and faith” (DeBernardo 2019).

Contemporary science has shown that gender is biologically determined by genetics, hormones, and brain chemistry – things not visible at birth, that “people do not choose their gender, as the Vatican claims: they discover it through their lived experiences” (ibid.). Why do we not follow the teachings by words and deeds that Jesus Christ taught his disciples? Why does the Catholic Church not respect and encourage the process by which individuals discover the wonderful way that God has created them? “Dialogue requires mutual respect” (DeBernardo 2019), which neither this document nor Gravissimum Educationis exhibit or promote.

Gravissimum Educationis 9 speaks of the different types of Catholic schools that adapt to different cultural situations and attend “students who are not Catholics”. The variety of these types is impressive; there are primary and secondary education, technical schools, and centers for educating adults and for persons “in need of special care” as “schools for preparing teachers”. Again, the bishops affirm their responsibility to care for the education “of those who are poor in the goods of this world” but there is no assessment, if they effectively comply with their aim. They do not reflect that Catholic Schools are strong in the rich countries of the North and that the poor countries of the South do not equally participate in the Catholic school system. This is especially true for Catholic universities.

Gravissimum Educationis 10 speaks of the Catholic colleges and universities. Gravissimum Educationis 10, 1 strikes me because of the actual claim that at the Catholic universities “new and current questions are raised and investigated according to the example of Saint Thomas”. Thanks to Go’d and the lay women, men and queer professors, scientists and researchers, Catholic universities are not investigating according to the methods of the thirteenth century, but according to the standards of modern science. The bishops really do not understand the world of science, at the same time they prioritize “the development of scientific research” at their universities (Gravissimum Educationis 10, 2). The bishops understand very well the importance of modern science, even if they do not understand the scientific methods. Doing science creates a certain way of life, a mentality and a culture. The bishops have access to the world village of the scientific community by funding scientific institutions. The bishops have no access to the thoughts of the women, men and queer dedicating their lives to science and they do not dispose of a philosophy and theology that would comply with validity conditions of the scientific world. The bishops do not read the minds of the scientists and researchers, they are not concerned with the research interests of the laywomen, men and queer and therefore there is no dialogue. The bishops are not capable of accomplishing an “enduring and pervasive influence of the Christian mind in the furtherance of culture”, they do not empower Christian theologians for the dialogue with cultural pluralism and a globalized world. The priests and religious of the bishops are not capable of procuring “spiritual formation” at universities. At the same time, the apostolate of spiritual formation of lay women, men and queer by lay women, men and queer is not recognized as such.

Gravissimum Educationis 11 rightly speaks of “the faculties of the sacred sciences” and their task to promote the “intellectual apostolate” for “the development of doctrine”, for the dialogue with “our separated brethren and with non-Christians”. Christian professors who realize this intellectual apostolate are rare and are usually confronted with disbelief, suspicion and lack of understanding if not censorship and oppression.

Gravissimum Educationis 12 calls for cooperation and coordination “between Catholic schools and other schools” and promotes “international gatherings of universities”.

The Conclusion of Gravissium Educationis exhorts the “young people themselves to become aware of the importance of the work of education”. There is no word in the declaration on the opinions of the young people themselves. The bishops do not speak to them in form of an interactive dialogue. In fact, they do not even ask who these young people are and what they think, live, feel, dream, realize, strive for and want to realize. Fifty years after this declaration, we observe the effects of this ignorance of the youth by the bishops. The concerns of the youth are not primarily religious institutions but individual faith.

Youth studies beyond the geographical terrain of North America, Australia and Western Europe are rare. The United Nations defines youth as persons aged fifteen to twenty-four years. In 2015, youth in Asia constituted the largest youth population by region numbering 718 million that is over 60% of the world’s youth live in Asia-Pacific. In 2010, India alone had 234 million young people, followed by China with 225 million. By comparison, Japan only had twelve million young people. Transition between education and employment is one of the main obstacles facing youth of the Asia-Pacific region (United Nations 2012, 1).

Looking at South Asia, that is Myanmar, Thailand, peninsular Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, we observe a sub-region of Asia that is doing well below the Asian average. The survey of the World Economic Forum in 2017 got responses from thirty-one thousand people aged between eighteen and thirty-five in the above countries, giving insights into their views on society. Climate change remained the biggest global concern for the third year in a row. The regional issues that most concern South Asia’s young people include the lack of economic opportunity and employment (selected by 47.3% of those surveyed), poverty (34.6%), lack of education (33.8%) and inequality (31.7%) (Kithsiri, Indira. 2017. “What worries South Asia’s young people, and what they are doing about it.” World Economic Forum. October 2).

In 2017, youth unemployment rates in Latin America and the Caribbean rose to a worrying 20%. There are some twenty million young people in Latin America, who neither study nor work. Youth unemployment triples the unemployment rate of the rest of the population. The young people of this generation are the most educated and trained, but employment opportunities are scarce and precarious. This affects not only the quality of life of these people, but the opportunities for the development of society in general (Gallego Suárez, Samuel Augusto. 2018. “Latin America: the land of the young people who neither study nor work.” Latin American Post. May 16). Latin America and the Caribbean have the largest number of Catholics in the world. The large system of Catholic schools and universities is doing a very good educational job. Why are the Catholic bishops not caring for adequate employment opportunities of the youth after having given them a good education? Apparently, too many Catholic bishops shy away from conflict with the very, very small economic elites, the super-rich and the powerful. This alliance of the altar with political power is disastrous.

All over the world, young people want security, peace, education, decent jobs, a family and trusted partnerships and they are confident about the future despite all the problems they face. Gravissimum Educationis could have taken the pain to listen to the youth of the world a little bit. Yes, education is important and the effort of the Catholic Schools and Universities around the world is impressive. Yet today it is important to interact with the young people on an equal base of dignity, liberty and rights and not only direct decrees in their direction.

It is important to listen to young people all over the world. Youth studies in Africa and Asia are as important as in America or Europe. More than poverty, tyranny and brutal violence by dictatorships try to silence the young voices claiming dignity, freedom and Human Rights. The dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party prevents studies and investigations on the youth. In June 2019, we remember thirty years of Tiananmen. Officially, the Tiananmen Square massacre never happened. Thirty years on, people in China keep alive its memory. They are convinced that a government that uses force to stay in power is illegitimate. Wu Xiangdong, a twenty-one-year-old, was one of the thousands of youths whose peaceful protest and life was crushed by government soldiers fighting their way into downtown Beijing, using tanks, armored personnel carriers and live ammunition. There is still no official account of how many students, who had been camped out for nearly two months, giving voice to many people’s hopes for a more open society, had lost their lives that night. His father, Wu Xuehan died of grief six years later. Xu Jue, Xiangdong’s mother and Xuehan’s wife was prevented to go or escorted by police to the cemetery. In front of her husband’s grave, she would always place twenty-seven flowers. “The poem inscribed on the back of Xuehan’s tombstone explains, in a code of sorts, both the cause of his death and Xu Jue’s ritual:

Eight calla lilies, Nine yellow chrysanthemums, Six white tulips, Four red roses” (Johnson, Ian. 2019. “Thirty Years After Tiananmen: Someone Always Remembers.” The New York Times. June 3). Eight, nine, six, four. Year, month, day. June 4, 1989. Mrs Xu died of cancer in 2017. Since then, the flowers are still on the grave, someone remembers and always will remember (ibid.).

Once liberal Democracy and the rule of Human Rights law constitutes the polity of a region, the citizens have to constantly assess and strengthen their dignity, liberty and rights. The parliamentarians of the European Union in Strasbourg are very well aware of this task to empower the young people in Europe to value and participate in developing democracy in Europe. Therefore, the European Parliament organized the 2016 European Youth Event in Strasbourg on 20–21 May 2016, to discuss the Eurobarometer survey, that was conducted among 10,294 young Europeans aged sixteen to thirty years in the twenty-eight Member States between 9 and 25 April 2016. In Strasbourg seven thousand participants, aged sixteen to thirty years, reflected upon, debated and proposed new ideas about the state of the world, the future of Europe and democracy, youth and employment, the digital revolution, sustainable development and European values (European Parliament 2016).

The Eurobarometer survey showed that more than half of the young people in Europe have the impression that, in their country, the young have been marginalized and excluded from economic and social life by the economic crisis (57%). Unsurprisingly, the rates are very high in the countries that are worst affected by the economic crisis, and where there is high youth unemployment.

93% of young people in Greece feel excluded because of the crisis, as do 86% in Portugal, 81% in Cyprus and 79% in Spain. In contrast, only 27% of the young people in Germany, 28% in Malta and 31% in Denmark feel excluded. (ibid.). The youth unemployment rate as of January 2019 — youth unemployment as unemployment of those younger than twenty-five years —, is high in Greece at 39% of the youth, in Italy it is 33%, in Spain 33%, in Croatia 23%, in Cyprus 20%, in France 20%, in Germany 6%, in Denmark 9%, in the United Kingdom 12%, and in Malta 12% (“Youth unemployment rate” 2019).

90% of the respondents say that it is important for young Europeans to learn about the European Union and how its institutions work. For more than half (51%), voting in European elections is the best way of participating effectively in public life in the European Union (European Parliament 2016). The survey also documented the significant involvement of young people in sustainable development. Very large numbers of young Europeans have adopted daily practices to protect the environment and combat climate change, starting with systematic sorting of waste (63%), reducing consumption of disposable items (47%) and reducing water and energy consumption at home (46%).

In the European elections of May 26, 2019, the traditionally low turnout of young people rose from 25% in the 2014 election to almost 40% in 2019. The young people mobilized for climate. Far from disinterest in politics, young people demonstrated their interest in European and global topics. They voted to state that the European Union can respond to the challenge of environmental protection, and made the choice to send pro-European candidates to the Parliament to represent them (Jeunes Européens – France 2019). What happened in the 2024 election for the European Parliament? Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine war and cost of living crisis, Europe’s youth worried more about economy, less about climate and contributed to gains of far-right parties (Sarah Marsh, Barbara Erling and David Latona. June 13, 2024. “How the far-right gained traction with Europe's youth”. How the far-right gained traction with Europe's youth | Reuters).

In view of the elections for the European Parliament the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) issued in March 2024 a statement inviting all citizens, especially Catholics, to prepare for the elections and vote responsibly “promoting Christian values and the European project” (STATEMENT | EU Bishops in view of the 2024 elections: "For a responsible vote promoting Christian values and the European project" - The Catholic Church in the European Union (comece.eu). For the young people the statement reads “We encourage young people to exercise their vote in the coming European elections and so construct a Europe that assures their future and does justice to their genuine aspirations” (ibid.).

The programs of the far-right nationalist parties are characterized by xenophobic policies on immigration and concentration on national interests. Xenophobic policies do not constitute Christian values. We are allowed to assess, that the European youth is not anymore listening to the official statements of the Roman Catholic Church. No wonder, the COMECE had no word on the fears and frustrations of the youth in 2024. The Roman Catholic Church hast lost the youth in Europe and North America decades ago. A young generation with no affiliation to a religion and no religious practice will not transmit to their children neither affiliation to nor practice of a religion. Europe enters a non-Christian age.

It is not the fault of the European youth, that they have to cope with the consequences of social isolation, fear, sickness, angst and failing, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine war and cost of living crisis. The Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union takes part in the responsibility that the European youth was not cared for and educated in a way that empowers the dignity, freedom and rights of the youth. Instead, the bishops comfortably leaned back claiming values that they did not teach with empathy, respect and perseverance. The bishops did not bother discussing with the youth the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and his threefold commandment of love: love of Go’d, love of one’s neighbor, and love of oneself (Matthew 22, 37–40; Mark 12, 29–31; Luke 10, 25–28). The bishops did not help the youth to find identity, integrity and dignity trustfully teaching Jesus’ commandment of self-love. The bishops do not carefully and with prayer show the youth how to speak and listen to one’s inners force, empowerment and power resources, the bishops did not serve as a role model of solidarity for the youth by loving one’s neighbor who suffers as sick, as unemployed, as discriminated, as immigrant, etc...

Only girls and boys who were nurtured in a caring surrounding of empathy will be able as adults to open to the sufferings of others (Miller 1983). Alice Miller claims for herself, and for the children, values, rules and laws that respect the weaker that is the child, and respect life and its fragile nature. Refusing this respect to others produces the death of the souls and the castration of their creativity. The search of peace starts with the empathic interest in the education and growing up of our children, claims Miller. Dependency on the dictators, terrorists and aggressors in their infancy of suffering and ignored thirst for respect constitute a constant threat of new hate and xenophobic destruction (ibid.).

How is the Roman Catholic Church responding to the climate change, to the necessary protection of the environment and to the claims of sustainable development of the globe? In 2015, Pope Francis published the Encyclical letter Laudato Si’ on care for our common home (Francis 2015). Pope Francis received much sympathy for his encyclical. Catholic experts in Catholic Social Teaching published a lot about the encyclical; exegetes wrote on creation, sustainable development and the Genesis, anthropologists wrote on ecology, the natural world and the Catholic philosophical tradition (Mills, Mary, John, A. Orr, Harry Schnitker, eds. 2017. Reflections on Pope Francis’s Encyclical, Laudato si’. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Cambridge). Catholic theologians publishing on sustainable development and climate change are reluctant to refer to Pope Francis. They want to take part in the academic discourse on sustainability. Although the pope links the destruction of the environment to the exploitation of the poor, participants in the democratic discourse need support for the implementation of concrete policies. The warning words of the pope on the conservation of creation, his visits to Lampedusa and Lesbos, the personal encounter with rescued survivors of refugees who had crossed the Mediterranean and the accusation of the scandal that thousands of women, men and children are left dying in the sea are necessary gestures. Yet he is not capable of firing the 10% of his staff at the Vatican who are openly criticizing his compassionate insistence on mercy. He does not confront the 70% of his Curial staff who silently wait for his death. He is reluctant to work on internal reform of the Catholic Church and forgets about empowering and enlarging the support of the 20% of his Roman personal who are in favor of much needed reforms.

The lay Catholic theologian Markus Vogt, professor for Catholic Social Doctrine at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Munich, Germany, warns against an excess of optimism concerning the promise of sustainability and global and intergenerational justice (Vogt, Markus. 2010. “Sustainability and Climate Justice from a Theological Perspective.” 2. https://www.kaththeol.uni-muenchen.de/personenliste/professoren). More self-awareness of modern anthropocentrism on the biological conditions of humanity is necessary. The Christian theologian combines positions of radical life-affirmation with humility that acknowledges the limits of nature (ibid. 4). Meditating as an individual, mortal human being on earth that the earth’s diameter relates to the radius of the universe as relates one to one followed by eighteen zeros makes me feel humble and tiny and almost lost in despair without much persuasion. Vogt fends off accusations that Christianity is “at the cultural and historical root of modern-day environmental crisis” and describes the Christian belief in creation as an ordered nature “in which conflict, existential struggle, death and suffering also play their part” just as healing, safeguarding and renewing (ibid.). What then is a theological perspective on sustainability? After having affirmed that “safeguarding the functioning of the biosphere is one of the most important social contributions we can make to the future and to fight against poverty” (ibid. 6), Vogt continues arguing his claims within the philosophical discourse of arguments and not with further pictures of the biblical tradition praising Go’d’s creation as the gift of life. This discourse enables Vogt to enter the political discourse on ways and policies to effectively confront climate change and ecological sustainability. The terms justice and environmental protection are logically joined by a conjunction: “There is no justice without environmental protection and no environmental protection without justice” (ibid.). Sustainability derives from the ethical principles that future generations should have the same right to life and that all people should have the same access to globally available resources (ibid.).

In contrast to Vogt, I do not question these two principles for “lack in viable alternatives”. I agree with the above two principles as claims to the realization of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. I want to care for the next generation because I want to realize the social choice of my dignity that I share with all women, men and queer, young or old. The social choice of reducing my energy consumption and sharing the resources of the world with all women, men and queer on this earth, realizes my dignity as a possibility condition for all women, men and queer realizing their dignity too. Intergenerational justice is not a new principle. It is a concrete realization of Rousseau’s principle of democracy that obeying oneself - my social choice reducing energy consumption and my high standard of living - is considered to be the ultimate description of freedom (Leher 2018, 146). The realization of the logical conjunction of the terms ‘equal dignity’ and ‘equal freedom and rights’ is the validity condition of claims to validity within a functioning democracy. Democracy is not the rule of the majority against a minority that enjoys a minimum of rights against discrimination. Democracy rather is the political process of the social realization of the equal dignity, freedom and rights by all women, men and queer. The speech-acts of two individual persons are a small but elementary contribution to the social realization of dignity. The effective realization of sustainability, that is the principle of the equal right to life of all women, men and queer and the principle of the equal right to the resources of the globe, presuppose the rule of Human Rights law and a functioning liberal democracy. It is sad that Catholic theologians of social ethics do not enter this discourse on the rule of democratic law. Vogt is no exception to the silence on the Catholic Church’s discrimination of the rule of Human Rights law by its 1983 Code of Canon law. Pointing at the Catholic Church as “the oldest global player on earth and biggest global institution” (ibid. 13) does not mask the fact that the Catholic Church is constituted as an absolute monarchy that does not respect the equal dignity of all women, men and queer. It does not help to claim “a globalization of solidarity” for the Catholic Church when entering the fight for a sustainable ecology, because the possibility condition of solidarity is the equal participation of all women, men and queer in the social realization of the life of the Catholic Church. Since this full participation is the privilege of the small male celibate elite of bishops, the necessary solidarity effort remains an ineffective moral principle. The way to the social realization of ecologic sustainability is a democratic one. Finally in 2015, an institutional innovation offered a much-needed source of democratic renewal for global climate politics (Lawrence, Mark G., and Stefan Schäfer. 2019. “Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement. A truly democratic global climate politics is needed.” Science 364 (6443): 829–830. 829).

“Under the Paris Agreement, member states decide individually, in the form of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), what actions they will commit to taking toward the common goal of climate risk reduction” (ibid.). To this day, 195 countries have signed the agreement.

The Paris temperature goals of limiting the increase of the global mean surface temperature to 1.5 degrees centigrade, will probably not be achieved by 2030 because the necessary decrease by -5% in carbon dioxide emission would require extensive societal, industrial, technological and other transformations that are not plausible. Nevertheless, the institutional setting of global governance of the Paris Agreement is more closely connected to systems of representation and accountability than abstract universal concepts and computer-generated scenarios (ibid. 830). The democratic character of the Paris Agreement recognizes the multiplicity of local contexts and capitalizes “on a range of forms of knowledge—such as scientific, humanist, political, religious, and indigenous” (ibid.). Lawrence and Schäfer are convinced, that “fostering the virtues of democratic governance will also improve the ability of societies to cope with the difficult situations they will face in a world experiencing the increasingly challenging impacts of climate change” (ibid.).

Why does the Vatican not sign the Paris agreement? On December 14, 2018, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the right hand of the pope, gave a speech to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. On behalf of Pope Francis, the cardinal proposes “a number of points that should be included in the core of the Paris Agreement Work Programme. Among them, I would like to indicate only a few: to encourage developed countries to take the lead; to advance sustainable consumption and production patterns and promote education in sustainability and responsible awareness” and some others (Parolin 2018). The proposals are altogether very general, abstract and moralizing. The Vatican does not sign the Paris agreement because it is not a member of the United Nations because it does not want to sign the UDHR. Not signing the UDHR, the Holy See not only refuses to assess the rule of Human Rights law within the Roman Catholic Church, but it also gives away energies and resources fighting for the rule of Human Rights law on the international level of politics including fighting the climate change.

[i] “Vatican – Catholic Church Statistics 2018,” agenzia fides, http://www.fides.org/en/news/64944-VATICAN_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_STATISTICS_2018 (accessed June 5, 2019).

[ii] https://www.clubofrome.org/about-us/history/ (accessed June 5, 2019).