Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae on the right of the person and of communities to social and civil freedom in matters religious

Dignitatis Humanae 1,1 (Dignitatis humanae) affirms, the Council “searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church – the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old”. The Council Fathers will not succeed harmonizing contemporary political theory of democracy with the traditional Roman Catholic teaching on the relationship between the Church and the State. The Roman Catholic Church does not dispose of a theological concept of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer on this earth.

Concerning the concept of human dignity, the Council refers to the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris of Pope John XXIII and assesses “A sense of the dignity of the human person” characterizes contemporary society (Dignitatis Humanae 1, 1). We do not get a closer description of this sense of the dignity of the human person. There is an association to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but Dignitatis Humanae carefully refrains from citing the document for fear of proclaiming Human Rights within the Roman Catholic Church. The journal of Congar gives the confirmation that Paul VI and his theologian Colombo feared that Dignitatis Humanae “runs the risk of being interpreted as a charter of freedom within the Church” concerning the claim of the dignity of the human person (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 761.Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne and Mary Cecily Boulding. Edited by Dennis Minns. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press). Colombo had communicated this fear to Murray on May 6, 1965, and we find the note of Congar on May 7, 1965 (ibid). According to Willebrands, since 1960 secretary of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and since 1964 titular bishop of Mauriana, this fear is related “to the crisis concerning the Young Christian Students movement in France” that claimed freedom of speech confronting the French Episcopate (ibid). The Episcopate resolved the crisis by simply exchanging the leadership of the movement (ibid).

Concerning civil liberties and freedoms, all that the Roman Catholic Church wants “is the free exercise of religion in society” (Dignitatis Humanae 1, 1). Article 18 of the UDHR proclaims, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.  The Roman Catholic Church would subscribe to this article and to a few more of the UDHR but would not accept the 30 articles of the UDHR as the rule of law for the Roman Catholic Church itself.

Dignitatis Humanae 1,2 makes clear that the Council does not accept a pluralism of religions on an egalitarian understanding and without discrimination, since the “one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church”. This claim constitutes a discrimination of all the other Churches, confessions and religions on this earth. The Council Fathers simply cannot describe the beliefs and their faith in a way that claims the truth without excluding the truth claims of convictions of other beliefs. The truth claims to truth of a belief sentence or faith-sentence need a validity-condition for this truth. In a liberal democracy with the rule of Human Rights law, the validity-condition for religious claims consists in the social realization of Human Rights. Epistemologically religious belief systems are not tested on the basis of a two-valued logic of falsification and verification. There is no verification or falsification for religious beliefs and faiths, as there is verification and falsification in empirical investigations of state of affairs. Religious faith is a personal conviction, a worldview of an individual woman, man or queer.

Dignitatis Humanae 1,2 “all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it”.

What about the dignity of women, men and queer who did not hear of Jesus Christ and who get confronted with the Christian message by Christian women, men and queer?

A reference to Matthew 28, 19–20 serves to legitimize the claim of the responsibility of everybody to take notice of the Gospel. This is not the point of the Gospel. Matthew 28, 19–20 is about the risen Christ speaking to “the eleven disciples”, “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 time” (Matthew 28, 19–20). The Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church will develop the point concentrating on the duties of the faithful and not on the duties of the non-believers. It looks like the Church Fathers and theologians working on religious liberty were not in contact with the commission working on the self-understanding of the Mission of the Church.

The last sentence of Dignitatis Humanae 1,2 claims “all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it”. The Second Vatican Council does not respect the dignity of non-believers following the example of Jesus Christ, to whom “all authority in heaven and on earth” has been given (Matthew 28, 18). Jesus never claimed “all men are bound to seek the truth”.

In a long process of living and reflecting on life, woman, man or queer assess what to believe, what is my worldview and what are my religious convictions? The disciples of Jesus, beginning with the Apostle Peter, were patiently accompanied by Jesus on their way to faith in Him. All four Gospels describe this process of coming to embrace the belief in Jesus Christ or of refuting this belief and believing in something else. Dignitatis Humanae does not turn to Scripture to speak on the process of the disciples of Jesus on their way to becoming believers. The Gospels guarded the stories of misunderstandings, failures and treason of the disciples as precious testimony for the grace of God and encouragement for the women, men and queer of all times who search their faith and worldview.

Why is it so difficult for Church authorities and many Christians to accept the testimony of Mark 14, 66-72 on the dignity of failing Peter, who denies knowing Jesus three times? Jesus was a very patient teacher and often was despairing of the misunderstandings and unbelief in regard to his Gospel. Jesus starts teaching repeatedly throughout the Gospels. In Mark 8, 31, Jesus began to teach (Greek: didaskein) once more. Mark presents us Jesus as the most important teacher, as a teacher who teaches the people of Israel as Moses once did. It is the teaching of Jesus, we learn from Mark, that the son of man will suffer a lot. I have to observe that Mark presents the talking and teaching of Jesus in simple and understandable terms. The Council Fathers use a language that is abstract, complicated and suffocates the breathing with smoking dogmatic incense. The son of man will suffer from women, men and queer and the son of man will be rejected and killed by the religious authorities, High priests, leaders and theologians of the Roman province of Judea. Jesus was able to communicate about his life and death. In order to believe in Jesus Christ, we need grace, and we do not need the claim to truth of this belief as we claim the truth of the laws of physics. For believing we need the prayer of Jesus Christ himself who empowers his followers. We read in Luke 22, 32 that Peter will be able to believe because of the prayer of Jesus for him. When Peter will have turned to faith (Greek: epistrepsas) he will have to empower his brethren. It is true that Peter is the interlocutor of Jesus in this dialogue. It is Peter and not any other disciple. From this does not follow that Peter is attributed to the role of head of community. Luke at this point presents Jesus speaking to disciples and not to a community. There is no talk about structure, roles or offices. Peter simply will be able to empower his brethren to stay firm in the faith that he himself had struggled desperately to embrace (Luke 22, 54–62). The Biblical references will appear later in the document.

Dignitatis Humanae 1,3 takes a step in the direction of religious freedom by assessing the central role of the conscience of the individual person concerning religious faith and beliefs. It is true, the Roman Catholic Church uses the expressions religious faith and beliefs synonymous with the expression truth, because she accepts only one system of belief as true. This use of the expression truth does not correspond with the use of the expression truth in colloquial language where there is a pluralism of uses.

Dignitatis Humanae 1,4 claims “freedom of religion” and “immunity from coercion in civil society” concerning the belief systems of the Roman Catholic Church. This means, the Roman Catholic Church claims freedom for its beliefs and convictions, even if they are considered intolerant and discriminating by liberal democratic constitutions. The Western liberal democracies accept these discriminations as internal affairs of religions.

Dignitatis Humanae 1, 5 announces to present “the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society”. The Council will present the first positive speeches on democracy by the popes of the 20th century. The Council presents the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that at this point of Dignitatis Humanae is not established with the help of the Bible.

Dignitatis Humanae 2,1 assesses religious freedom for all, not only for Roman Catholics, “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power”. Dignitatis humanae 2,2 even dares to declare human reason as the foundation of human dignity and human dignity as the foundation of religious freedom. There is again the reference to Pacem in Terris for legitimizing this claim as papal teaching. Dignitatis Humanae 2,2 assesses also that there is a human dignity “known through the revealed word of God” that is the foundation of religious freedom of the individual person. It is clear from the text that the two dignities are not used in a univocal way. There is no contradiction between reason and revelation but there is a clear preference for revelation. The claim of Dignitatis Humanae 2,2 “This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right” sounds like coming from a constitution of international law. Yet we must be careful, the Second Vatican Council does not reflect on a constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, although there are thoughts about such a project.

There is no reflection of the fact that the Vatican insists to be considered and treated as a state with the same state powers as any other state. So religious liberty would also concern the Vatican who discriminates the liberty to discuss religious matters freely within the Roman Catholic Church. When we speak of religious freedom, we speak of freedom. In the UDHR, religious freedom has to be treated strictly in relation to freedom and dignity. This is true for all Human Rights claims in the UDHR. Dignitatis Humanae 2,3 struggles to integrate the traditional doctrine of conscience and free will into a concept of religious freedom. It sounds quite strained that religious freedom “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed”.

Dignitatis Humanae 3,1 turns again to arguing with faith-sentences from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition that “the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal” that “directs and governs the entire universe” by the word of God. The Council Fathers present the laws of Go’d the unknowable in the way of the laws of mechanics of classical 19th century physics. Even these laws of physics are no longer considered to be objective, eternal or universal. They are subjective, relative and can be described by experiments that repeatedly show similar results.

Dignitatis Humanae 3,2 teaches a kind of truth finding process by communication “The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth”. Dignitatis Humanae 3,3 rapidly destroys the fresh air of open speech by moralizing on adhering to the truth one has found.

Dignitatis Humanae 3,4 returns to traditional Catholic teaching on conscience as possessing divine elements, and as perceiving “the imperatives of the divine”. Religious freedom consequently concerns the expression of the thoughts, convictions and beliefs of the conscience within the constitutional state.

Dignitatis Humanae 4,1 claims religious freedom for religious communities. The American Constitution describes the nation State as lay in character and affirms that the State has the duty to cooperate with the Church (Komonchak, Joseph A., John Courtney Murray, Samuel Cardinal Stritch, and Francis J. Connell. 1999. “The Crisis in Church-State Relationships in the U.S.A. A recently discovered Text by John Courtney Murray.” The Review of Politics 61 (4): 675–714. 688). Murray wrote his memorandum on religious freedom in 1950 in order to convince many skeptical Americans that the Roman Catholic Church fully and sincerely affirms the values and rights of democracy (ibid).  One is tempted to say that Dignitatis Humanae follows the practical conception of the Church State relationship of the American Constitution. Dignitatis Humanae 4 writes on the necessary cooperation of the State and the Church, while respecting religious freedom of the religious community.

Dignitatis Humanae 4,2 starts enumerating the various rights of religious communities within the State, “religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions” for their religious life. Dignitatis Humanae 4,3 claims the right not to be hindered by the government “in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties”. Dignitatis Humanae 4,4 claims “Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith”. “In spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices” religious communities refrain from any “abuse of one’s right and a violation of the right of others”. Religious communities have the right to participate in “the organization of society” on the basis of the values of their religion, and men have the right “freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense” (Dignitatis Humanae 4,4).

All these rights are not only affirmed by the American Constitution. Article 2 of the UDHR as article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) from 1976 not only protect religion but protect against many forms of discrimination. “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status” (Gibson, John S. 1996. Dictionary of International Human Rights Law. 54. Lanham Md. & London: Scarecrow Press, Inc.). Article 18 of the UDHR and of the CCPR proclaim, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (ibid. 72). The same right is claimed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of 1953, the  International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 1976, the International Covenant the American Convention on Human Rights of 1978, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990, the Declaration on the Basic Duties of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Peoples and Governments of 1983, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1986 (ibid. 73).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 18:

(1)  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching. (2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. (3) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. (4) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, where applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 (ibid. 72–73).

There are still more rights concerning religious freedom that we find in the covenants of International Law. I do not intend to present an overview of all these laws. I am observing that Dignitatis Humanae does not refer to the UDHR. Just as the US is suspicious of the United Nations, so is the Vatican. Murray followed a political theory of the institutions of society, of legality and the constitutional right to religious freedom according to the American Constitution (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L’intersessione (1963–1964).” 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, 376–513. 455. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The constitution of the liberal democratic nation-state guarantees religious freedom with the rule of law. Assessing religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae assesses religious freedom for every woman, man and queer on this earth. No nation state of this earth is excluded from the claim to guarantee religious freedom. Dignitatis Humanae coherently sticks to the principles of the American Constitution concerning religion and religious freedom. The Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI could have very well followed a different way and could have recognized religious freedom referring to the UDHR from the United Nations. In 1950 Paul VI got to know the argumentation of the Jesuit political and theological scholar John Courtney Murray for religious freedom. Murray followed the assessment of democracy according to the US Constitution. Murray succeeded convincing Paul VI that traditional Catholic teaching was compatible with the US Constitution. I do not know if the Cold War and the fear of a Communist government in Italy kept the hesitant and insecure Paul VI on the side of the West. Paul VI hoped that the Western Superpower would guarantee religious freedom opposing Communism in the world.

Pope John XXIII had demonstrated more courage and had worked with confidence to overcome the dangerous splitting of the world in spheres of interest between the Soviet Union and the US. The last chapters of Pope John XXIII’s Encyclical Pacem in Terris of 1963 clearly views the world in a perspective of peace and justice and already political unity. John XXIII recognized the United Nations as the necessary organization for overcoming the particular interests of the single states and nations, aspiring to world peace and justice as the common end. Recognizing the United Nations as the realized nucleus of a future single world State was not on the mind of the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. In 1967, the theologians and bishops were not recognizing the United Nations as the nucleus of “a single organized political society”. They described the whole of humanity as a community, that does not constitute a single organized society comprised of all men but is divided into many States. There is not a single world State, “a single organized political society” (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748. 736). The teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church for almost two thousand years has been developing and realizing concepts of unity. Yet, at the Second Vatican Council, no theory of unity for the world was on the mind-set of the Council Fathers. The Roman Catholic Church had no think-tank learning how to realize the political unity of a world society with democratic means and the rule of law. The rule of Human Rights law of the United Nations did not correspond with the concepts of realizing unity by the absolutist powers of the pope. The Roman Catholic Church declined to think about democratic concepts for her own unity in pluralism. With the experience and practice of surviving the centuries of history and a unique arsenal of know-how how to stay in power, the Roman Curia turned to diplomacy to get influence on the UN and at international organizations. This diplomacy of cooperation in autonomy is very successful and proves the effectiveness of the so-called soft powers. 

Dignitatis Humanae 5 affirms the right of the family “freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents” who “have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive”. Dignitatis Humanae 5 continuous, the state cooperates enabling “a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education”, and a system of education that excludes religious education or forces instructions on children “which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs” violates the right of the parents to guide the education of their children.

UDHR 26,1 claims “everyone has the right to education”, and UDHR 26,3 claims “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. Concerning education there is correspondence between Dignitatis Humanae and the UDHR. Taking a look at International Law we read in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 13,1 “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity and shall strengthen the respect for Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic, or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace”.

Dignitatis Humanae 5 misses an opportunity to affirm the important function of education for maintaining peace on this earth. The Declaration on Christian education Gravissimum Educationis 1 (Paul VI 1965) recognizes the importance of education. In the fifty years following the promulgation of the decree, developments on the concept of education and its realization were neglected (Siebenrock, Roman A. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die Christliche Erzieung Gravissimum educationis.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 3, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 551–590. 582. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In the few post conciliar Church documents on education, we read a lot about Catholic schools but little on education (ibid). Paul VI promulgated Gravissimum Educationis in the last session of the Council in 1965. The Council fathers were already exhausted and lacked the energy to work on a concept of education within the social context of cultural pluralism (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. 221. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Dignitatis Humanae 5 claims the right to education in the context of the right to a family but does not develop further on the right to a family. The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes deals with the family. Nevertheless, it is strange, that a declaration on human dignity like Dignitatis Humanae does not address divorce. UDHR 16,1 proclaims the right to marry and found a family without any limitation, and men and women “are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. The Catholic Church does not grant this right to their ministers and discriminates women and married men on this point. The right to marriage and to a family is a very basic right, a human right and there must not be any form of discrimination or violation of this right. I doubt that the right of religious freedom, that also constitutes a basic human right, would include the right to not appoint married men and women to ministers. The right to choose ministers is part of religious freedom. There is no doubt over the validity of the claim of Dignitatis Humane 4,3 to “the right of the religious communities to freely select, train and appoint their own ministers”. The right to non-discrimination of the UDHR 2, claims the non-discrimination on the distinction of sex. In my judgement this right has to be taken just as seriously as the right to religious freedom. The exclusion of women, married men and queer from the ministry of priesthood, bishop or pope within the Roman Catholic Church constitutes a violation of Human Rights.

Digitatis Humanae 6 deals with the second principle of State Church relationships that Murray identified in his 1950 article, that is the duties of the State in relation to religious communities (Komonchak 1999 et al., 694).

Dignitatis Humanae 6,1 affirms “the common welfare of society” needs appropriate conditions of social life that “chiefly consists in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person”. Dignitatis Humanae 6,1 refers to the encyclicals Mater et Magistra from 1961 and to Pacem in Terris from 1963 intending to show conformity between the rights of the US Constitution and the teaching of the Pope John XXIII. Dignitatis Humanae 6,1 concludes that the duties of religious freedom to take care for the common good involves all, the “whole citizenry”, social groups, government, and “the Church and other religious communities”.

Dignitatis Humanae 6,1 does not use the expression “common welfare” synonymous with the expression Human Rights. Siebenrock comments that the use of term “common welfare” (commune bonum) proves that the Second Vatican Council accepts the modern concept of freedom and liberty of the individual human person (Siebenrock, Roman, A. 2005. „Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die religiöse Freiheit Dignitatis humanae.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 4, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 125–207. 179. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Siebenrock does not reflect on the concept of equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer as does the UDHR, nor does he reflect the philosophy of the Enlightenment or the Protestant Ecumenical movement after World War I that leads to the concept of equality of dignity, freedom and rights.

The German theologian Siebenrock in my judgement is a typical representative of his generation of lay or clergy theologians at German speaking theological faculties that are recognized by the Roman authorities. These theologians do not reflect on the equal dignity, liberty and rights, that claim the first article of the UDHR. Siebenrock does not support the autonomous individual person as faithful of the Roman Catholic Church. The individual Catholic woman, man and queer is not recognized in her or his equal dignity, freedom and rights and the discrimination of women, men and queer is justified on the basis of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to provide her norms and laws with sovereignty, freedom and without external interference. The individual women, men and queer faithful of the Roman Catholic Church recognize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all Christians and claim Human Rights. Women protest their discrimination in the Roman Catholic Church, and they are supported by men and queer. The so-called intellectual professors of theology are not able to acknowledge and reflect Human Rights, they are happy with their social privileges as professors and forget about their duty to use this privilege for developing theological concepts for the future.

Siebenrock comments that “the inviolable rights of the human person” is an assessment of Dignitatis Humanae of Human Rights (ibid). I do not think that this is the case. Even if it were the case, the duty of protecting Human Rights concerns the governments and not the Roman Catholic Church (Dignitatis Humanae 6,2). Equality of dignity, freedom and rights as a leading principle for the whole UDHR is not recognized in the commentary of Siebenrock. Siebenrock comments that the State has to realize Human Rights, but he does not speak of the UDHR or give a description of the Human Rights he is speaking of (Siebenrock 2005, 180).

Dignitatis Humanae 6,2 claims “The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government” and cites again Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris as confirming authorities. We must be very careful not to mix up the assessment of the Roman Catholic Church “of the inviolable rights of man” with an assessment of the Human Rights of the UDHR. The Roman Catholic Church does not subscribe to the UDHR in general but assesses selected rights. Dignitatis Humanae 6,2 claims the right of religious freedom, nothing else.  It is not possible to claim without contradiction religious freedom to be founded “in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself (Mater et Magistra, Pacem in Terris)” (Dignitatis Humanae 2,2) and at the same time violate dignity by the discrimination of women, men and queer.

Dignitatis Humanae 6,3 again claims the duty of the State to secure religious freedom. Government must empower religious life “in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will”. Murray had resorted with the support of the US American cardinals and bishops to a diplomatic ruse. Murray claimed the correspondence of the claims of Pope Leo XIII and of the American Constitution. In his 1885 Encyclycal Immortale Dei, Leo XIII claimed that governments have to empower “men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will”. The American Constitution claims, “The state recognizes that its acts and legislation ought to be in harmony with the law of God”. Murray had convinced the Council Fathers that the two claims are coherent and correspond with each other (Komonchak 1999 et al., 694). In November 1963, the Dominican De Riedmatten - conservative theologian and progressive diplomat -, and other theologians reacted with outrage at Murray’s theological stunt presenting Leo XIII as defender of institutional democracy (Soetens 1998, 306).  Murray’s stunt is anachronistic. The popes were on the side of civil monarchy well into the 20th century CE. Nevertheless, Murray succeeded in convincing the Council that the democratic State secures religious freedom as the popes had taught. De Riedmatten was not in favor of the principle of one-person one vote, and claims concerning religious liberty “Everything should not be based on the individual right of the person” (Congar 2012, 419). 

Dignitatis Humanae 6,3 assesses that “justice and peace have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will”. For Pope Leo XIII and the popes who followed him there was no doubt that the “holy will” of God calls for banning women and married men from the ordained priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. Go’d’s holy will serves them to legitimize discrimination. Nevertheless, discrimination of women and married men and queer is a violation of the principles of justice and peace. Church.

Dignitatis Humanae 6,4 claims “the constitutional order of a society” guarantees that the right “of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice”.

I copy Dignitatis Humanae 6,5 “Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens”. The claim of Dignitatis Humanae 6,5 that “there is to be no discrimination among citizens” seems to correspond with the UDHR 1 “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. We have to be careful that Dignitatis Humanae 6,5 does not condemn discrimination in general but condemns nonspecifically discrimination “among citizens”. Dignitatis Humanae discriminates married women and men, who are banned from priestly ordination and the hierarchy, and it discriminates queer who are not allowed to receive the sacrament of marriage. The Roman Catholic Church legitimizes this discrimination with the right to religious freedom. We must bear in mind the hermeneutical principle that the Human Rights of the UDHR are inseparable from one another. Article 30 of the UDHR proclaims that no interpretation of the UDHR must lead to a “destruction of any of the rights or freedoms” of the UDHR (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/). The positive affirmation of the hermeneutic principle of indivisibility of the right of dignity and all the other rights of the UDHR we find in part one of the 1993 Vienna Declaration: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated” (Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action | OHCHR). (See my Post “Describing Dignity”).

Religious liberty therefore is to be seen together with the equal dignity, liberty and rights of all women, men and queer and there is no discrimination possible on the ground of religious beliefs. If Dignitatis Humanae 6,5 wants to claim the recognition of religious freedom based on the UDHR, then all rights of the UDHR have to be recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

Dignitatis Humanae 6.6 claims the duty of governments not to “hinder men from joining or leaving a religious community”. Governments must not “in any way destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community”. Destroying religion is “a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations” (Dignitatis Humanae 6.6).

Dignitatis Humanae 7 develops the rights and duties of men in society from the point of view of Roman Catholic social teaching. UDHR 1 proclaims the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. UDHR 16 proclaims religious freedom.

Dignitatis Humanae 7,1 starts the other way round, claiming that the right to religious freedom is subject to norms and therefore “In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed”. The Roman Catholic Church declares her “moral principles” as rules and norms for the citizen. “In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility” (Dignitatis Humanae 7,1). The “rights of the individual men and social groups” are not spelled out, whereas “the moral law” that sustains “the common welfare of all” is described as the reciprocal respect “for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others”. This law of reciprocity of rights and duties would sound quite enlightened, if it included all of the rights of the UDHR. This is not the case.

Dignitatis Humanae 7,2 affirms in a short sentence “society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion”. This affirmation is a light form of what Murray in his memorandum of 1950 called the priority of the lay state’s laws over religious norms in conflict with the lay state (Komonchak et al. 1999, 704). Right after this affirmation Dignitatis humanae 7,2 continues to claim the control of the actions of the government by “juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order”. The norms of “the objective moral order” protect the rights of all citizens, peacefully settle conflicts of rights and arise “out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality”. Dignitatis Humanae neither affirms the UDHR as “the rights of all citizens” nor the protection of these rights with the help of the rule of law of a liberal democracy. Siebenrock assesses the vagueness of the expressions “the common welfare”, “rights of all citizens” and “public morality” in the wording of Dignitatis Humanae 7, and in a footnote, he points at the US American Constitution as a model for protecting religion from suppression (Siebenrock 2005, 182). There is no word on the discrimination of the rights and freedoms of the Roman Catholic faithful within the Roman Catholic Church and there is no claim for something like a Catholic Constitution of basic rights and freedoms of the faithful. The Roman Catholic Church would for example, never accept the rights of queer to marry or the right of married men and women to divorce. This contradicts UDHR 16,1 that proclaims the right to marry and found a family without any limitation, and men and women “are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. When Dignitatis Humanae 7,3 claims from society – not from the government of the liberal democracy or the rule of democratic law –, “the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary” we have to be clear that this respect reaches as far as the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and not as far as the rule of the UDHR law.

Dignitatis Humanae 8,1 writes from the perspective of Roman Catholic doctrine, that the faith-sentences of the Catholic faith get the truth value true, and that this truth overrules social choices of individual women, men and queer who decide according to their own conscience and not according to the moral value system that Church authority prescribes. The right to freedom and freedom of self-determination is not affirmed, social choices are rather suspect for using “the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience” (Dignitatis Humanae 8,1). We have to understand this “authority” not as the legitimate democratic authority of government and the “duty of obedience” does not concern the rule of law but monarchic Church authority. The only obedience that does not violate one’s dignity is the free social choice of the single woman, man and queer to consent to the restriction of one’s liberty in order to realize the liberty of another woman, man and queer. Dignitatis Humanae 8,1 further calls the formation of men who “will respect the moral order and be obedient to lawful authority” by submitting their freedom of decision to obedience “education”. The Second Vatican Council wants obedient faithful and not faithful that take their social choices according to their faith conscience and freedom.

Dignitatis Humanae 8,2 praises religious freedom as a possibility condition that men are “fulfilling their duties in community life”. These duties are not described, but we understand that these duties concern the fulfilling of the moral principles of the teaching of the Church.

Digntiatis Humanae 9 admits that the “dignity of the human person” developed in a process of experience throughout history. At the same time, Dignitatis Humanae 9 claims that the Second Vatican Council’s “doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation”; Christ respected “the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God”. This freedom for the social choice to believe or not to believe corresponds with religious freedom of the state, “religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith”. I do not know why there is this very abstract mentioning of Christ, but no story about Jesus that exemplifies freedom of faith. Jesus showed respect for the social choices of not believing him, of betraying him, of the difficult and complicated way of Peter to become a believer. It is a service of love to respect the dignity of others. Acts describe the conflict and complicated relationship between Peter and Paul. Peter finally respected the dignity of Paul and the dignity and freedom of the Hellenistic Christians. Dignity as it was realized by Jesus Christ according to the testimonies of the Gospel leads me to claim the truth value true for the claim that Christians and non-Christians in a coherent and univocal way may use the term dignity that is described as respect of the liberty and freedom of social choices of others.

Dignitatis Humanae 10 affirms the “Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free” as founded in the Bible and routed in Catholic tradition; “This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church” (Dignitatis Humanae 10). Catholic doctrine claims freedom as validity-condition for an act of faith. Dignitatis Humanae 10 refers to a litany of Church Fathers and to Pope Pius XII, who assessed this fundamental Catholic principle.

Dignitatis Humanae 10 is finally capable of arguing with references to the Holy Scripture.

So far, Dignitatis Humanae argued in 9 articles with only one reference to the Gospel. Suddenly there is a change. It looks like the exegetes and biblical scholars of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity at this point took over the argumentation in Dignitatis Humanae from the American constitutionalist John Courtney Murray. Dignitatis Humanae 10 refers within one sentence to two verses of the Scripture, to Ephesians 1, 5 and to John 6, 44.

According to the Bible (The New Jerusalem Bible) we read “marking us out for himself beforehand, to be adopted sons, through Jesus Christ. Such was his purpose and good pleasure (Ephesians 1, 5) and “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day” (John 6, 44).

We have to interpret Ephesians 1, 5 in the context of the hymn “God’s plan of salvation” (Ephesians 1, 3-14). “Thus, he chose us in Christ before the world was made, to be holy and faultless before him in love” (Ephesians 1, 4), and “to the praise of the glory of his grace, his free gift to us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1, 6).

In Catholic theology this hymn is called a great Christological hymn. Well, Ephesians 1, 3 blesses “Go’d and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” for the blessings we received from Him in Jesus Christ. The blessing addresses “God the Father”. Ephesians 1, 4 professes the faith to be chosen by Go’d in Jesus Christ before any beginning of the world for the sake of realizing love. We may also interpret verse Ephesians 1, 4 as another fundamental critique of the pope’s and his hierarchy’s claim to be in charge of the sanctifying power in the Church. But this is not the central message of the verse. The central message says, that before any act of faith on our part, we had been chosen “for the sake of realizing love” before our existence, “before any beginning of the world”. The Bible proclaims Go’d as the agent of creation, redemption and sanctification. There is no talk about predestination, there is only “praise of the glory of his grace, his free gift to us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1, 6).

How uses Dignitatis Humanae 10 these references? We read, “The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son (Ephesians 1,5) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father (John 6, 44) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith” (Dignitatis Humanae 10).

Dignitatis Humanae 10 speaks of an “act of faith”, of “a free act” of man. According to Ephesians 1, 4 women, men and queer are not free, because they had been chosen by God “before the world was made”. For salvation there is no act, no deed or work of man necessary, man must not “give his adherence to God” because salvation is “grace”, God’s “free gift to us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1, 6). God wills our salvation, concerning salvation there is no free will of man possible and no Pelagian action. The Second Vatican Council should have listened to Martin Luther at this point of the question. Concerning faith, it is God who works, wills, and acts in us through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit makes that we will Go’d’s will that is not forced on us, we will the good and nothing can separate us from willing realizing the good and love the good (Martin Luther. De servo abbitrio. 1525. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 219-662. 291. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig). It took the Roman Catholic Church 30- years of ecumenical dialogue with the Churches of the Reformation to confirm the compatibility of Luther’s theology of justification with Roman Catholic teaching (See my Post “Comments on the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio”).

Reading the John 6,44, it is perfectly clear that Jesus claims that God draws the woman, man or queer to him, Jesus Christ proclaims "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6, 44).

Digntiatis Humanae 11 is the longest article of the declaration and excels citing the Gospel 20 times, in Dignitatis Humanae 11, 1 alone, there are 10 references to the Gospel. At the beginning there is a long description of Jesus Christ as an example for Go’d’s respect of the dignity of the human person. Jesus respected the dignity, liberty and freedom of conscience of his disciples and followers. There is no force on his side or coercion to believe. The sentence “God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment, and he is to enjoy freedom” (Dignitatis Humanae 11, 1) assesses the first and only theological argument for the equal dignity of women, men and queer. All were created by Go’d and with Go’d there is no discrimination. Speaking of a judgment - Latin: Consilium -, the Council Fathers speak of free choice of faith by the person’s counsel that is deliberating and reaching a decision, like searching for a plan and  a guide. The person has to take counsel with its own consilium. Understanding, insight and knowledge are also aspects describing the Latin expression consilium. To translate the expression consilium with the expression judgement is incomplete and too abstract. Consilium expresses a process that prepares the decisions and takes decisions. Thereby facts get checked, arguments are considered and possible consequences are assessed.

Dignitatis Humanae 11,1 continues with biblical testimonies of how Jesus Christ related to his disciples and followers and respected their dignity despite their incapacities and failure to believe. His policy was not that of power politics and he did not claim power to sanction contesters, sinners, or enemies. “Christ is at once our Master and our Lord (John 13,13) and also “meek and humble of heart” (Matthew 11,29). In attracting and inviting His disciples He used patience (Matthew 11, 28–30 and John 6, 67–68). He wrought miracles to illuminate His teaching and to establish its truth, but His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them (Matthew 9, 28–29, Marc 9, 23–24 and 6, 5–6)” (Dignitatis Humanae 11,1).  

In Dignitatis Humanae 11,1 is finally described the faith in the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ as the truth, faith in Jesus himself. Jesus accepted who did not believe in him and left for Go’d all final judgement (Matthew 11, 20–24, Romans 12, 19–20, 2 Thessalonians 1, 8 and Matthew 13,30 and 40–42). The Council Fathers insisted on citing from the long and secondary ending of Marc 16, 16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned”. Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Doctrinal Commission, and the Coetus patrorum continued nevertheless preferring the Gospel of deterrence to the Gospel of mercy and love. Dignitatis Humanae restores the whole context of the Biblical perspective of love by assessing of Jesus “He refused to be a political messiah, ruling by force” (Matthew 4, 8–10 and John 6, 15). “He showed Himself the perfect servant of God (Isaiah 42, 1–4) who ‘does not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax’ (Matthew 12,20)” (Dignitatis Humanae 11,1).

Dignitatis Humanae 11, 2 looks like a further assessment of Biblical testimonies of faith in Jesus Christ. Dignitatis Humanae 11, 2 cites “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22, 21)” and interprets this verse as Jesus’s acknowledgement of “the power of government and its rights”. There is no word in Dignitatis Humanae on the fact that Matthew 22, 21 serves as legitimization of the separation of Church and State and of religious freedom for Christians. “Jesus in Matthew 22:21 sought to distinguish between church and state in his pronouncement "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Although what is "Caesar's" and what is "God's" continues to have ambiguity for many today, the person's right to make this decision is the essence of the freedom of religion and belief (Gibson, John S. 1996. Dictionary of International Human Rights Law. 74f. Lanham Md. & London: Scarecrow Press, Inc.).

The Second Vatican Council and Paul VI did not want to acknowledge that Jesus taught the separation of the Church and the State, and the Roman Catholic Church had ignored and violated throughout the whole second Millennium CE this principle of the separation of worldly and spiritual powers fighting emperors and kings with armies, battles and politics. Only in the 19th century CE, the Roman Catholic Church had to recognize the complete failure of this policy.

“Religions and belief systems have many dimensions. Landmarks in the right to religious freedom are prominent in many historical eras, societies, and cultures but largely revolve around the person’s freedom to believe and worship without dictation by government or discrimination and intolerance from any source. Over the centuries, however, governments have demanded people’s conformity to state religion, accompanied by or followed by discrimination, intolerance, and often severe punishment for any deviation from the identity of ‘church and state’ or the prescribed belief system. The history of Western imperialism is remembered well in many parts of the world where Christianity was imposed as ‘the imperial creed’” (Gibson 1996, 74).

“Over the ages, the ‘Caesars’ of the state identified themselves with God, and many were convinced of their ‘divine right’ to rule. The Renaissance and Reformation in Europe led to the wars of religion which, in turn, brought about the brief Peace of Augsburg in 1555. One could worship as a Catholic or a Lutheran if the person’s prince were Catholic or Lutheran; some Free Cities permitted both. Calvinists and others were ignored. Peace opened the door to toleration which was widened with the treaties of the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, introducing the modern state system. On the Continent, in 1579, religious strife in Holland moved the Protestants in the Union of Utrecht to affirm their faith in the North Low Countries but not to prosecute Catholicism in the South. Holland then became the first home of religious toleration on the Continent” (ibid. 75).

Dignitatis Humanae 11, 2 confirms that the Council Fathers had used the American Constitution in their defense of religious freedom and now use the Bible describing the work of salvation of Jesus Christ, referring to John 18, 37, to Matthew 26, 51–3 and to John 18, 36 as well as to John 12, 32. Dignitatis Humanae 11, 2 assesses over and over that Jesus did not force anybody to believe in him and encountered everybody with love. Notwithstanding, the whole text of Dignitatis Humanae does not try to join the constitutional argumentation for freedom, dignity and equal rights of all women, men and queer on this earth with the message of the Gospel.

Dignitatis Humanae 11,3 presents another 12 references to the Letters of the New Testament and to Acts describing how the Apostles followed the way of Jesus Christ as their example. They preached and tried to convince, and they did not force anybody. Referring to Romains 14, 12, the Council Fathers underline again the conscience of the individual person as the agent deliberating the claim “the Gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe” (Romains 1, 16). The Apostles respected the civil authorities (Romans 13, 1-5) and criticized them “’It is necessary to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)’ and Acts 4, 19-20” (Dignitatis Humanae 11,3).

Dignitatis Humanae 12 ,1 returns to the constitutional argumentation of the Second Vatican Council affirming “religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation”. Religious liberty is a new concept and dignity and revelation are the traditional concepts. The Council even admits that the Church in its history exercised constraint on religious freedom against the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

Dignitatis Humanae 12,2 accepts that the Gospel itself made the people recognize the dignity of the human person and the validity of the claim for religious freedom. The Gospel makes the people conscious and aware of what it says. Dignitatis Humane 12,2 affirms the Gospel “has contributed greatly” to the recognition of the dignity of the human person. Who else has contributed to the recognition of the dignity of the human person and whose contribution was decisive? Who in history began treating the individual as an individual? Hammurabi, Socrates, Buddha, Solon, Jesus, Saint Francis of Assisi, Bartolomé de Las Casas, the Bill of Rights?

Dignitatis Humanae 13,1 claims with the letter Officio Sanctissimo from Pope Leo XIII from 1887 “that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires”. Dignitatis Humanae here does not speak of the religious freedom of the single person, of the dignity of the human person. The Church claims many rights from the state. Why suddenly this claim of religious freedom for the institution Church comes up without regard for the individual believer? Leo XIII wrote his letter for the bishops of Bavaria in an effort to end the conflict between the rights of the Roman Catholic Church and the state of Bavaria as formulated in the international treaty between the Holy See and the state of Bavaria in 1817. The pope claims in the state of Bavaria, and the Vatican repeats the claims with other nation states, the right for censorship of books that do not please the Catholic Church, the right to prohibit mixed marriages, and divorce. The State of Bavaria had not recognized the dogma of infallibility of the pope that the First Vatican Council had promulgated. In this context, freedom of the Church means granting the pope powers, for example to appoint bishops in Bavaria or sack theology professors who were employed by the State of Bavaria for teaching Catholic theology. After the French Revolution and the wars of Napoleon, during most of the 19th century CE the Roman Catholic Church in Germany and Bavaria had to reorganize her Church life and her relationships with the States (Franzen, August. 1980. Kleine Kirchengeschichte. 334. Freiburg: Freiburger Graphische Betriebe).

Dignitatis Humanae 13, 2 claims freedom for the two realities of the Church, the spiritual and the societal. The Church as society claims all the rights to discriminate her faithful women, men and queer in the name of the faith, and formulates this doctrine of Pope Pius XI from 1937 very encoded “The Church also claims freedom for herself in her character as a society of men who have the right to live in society in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith”.

Dignitatis Humanae 13,3 claims not only the constitutional freedom of religion but also “its practical application” that is understood as power to fire professors, appoint bishops, and discriminate women, men and queer.

Dignitatis Humanae 13,4 claims with freedom of the Church authority for the Church to intervene in the life of the State. This claim is a contradiction to the US Constitution that claims that individual persons express their faith and policies within the rule of the democratic state of law. There is no harmony between the freedom of the Church that is the authority of the hierarchy of the Church and religious freedom of the individual faithful, as Dignitatis Humanae 13,4 claims. Where does the claim of freedom of the Church come from? Dignitatis humanae is about religious freedom and not freedom of the Church. Freedom of the Church is part of religious freedom. The balance of Church freedom and the rule of law of the democratic state is realized by the possibility of the faithful to live their faith according to their conscience within the democratic rule of law. Conscience is the common ground for citizens and the faithful, it is not the teaching, governing or sanctifying authority of the Church.

Dignitatis Humanae 14,1 assess again the mission of the Catholic Church for spreading “the word of the Lord” with another reference to Matthew 28, 19–20. Jesus commanded all of his disciples to preach the Gospel and keep his commandments, Dignitatis Humanae 14,1 speaks only of the Church that is the hierarchy of bishops and priests. There was evidently no cooperation with the commission working on the text for the missions Ad Gentes. The hierarchical Church claims in Dignitatis Humanae 14,1 further that the word of the Lord be “glorified” (2 Thessalonians 3,1).  The faithful are not addressed as responsible women, men and queer, as Christians who are called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel and heal, instead the faithful laity is addressed as “children” of the Church, they are treated by the Council Fathers as under-aged sheep-like infants, who are incapable of preaching, teaching, governing and sanctifying. The conscience of these children is formed by “carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church”, not the sacred teaching of Jesus Christ. Dignitatis Humanae 14,1 demonstrates the authoritarian self-understanding of the pope as a Roman aristocratic prince in the way of Pius XII, the last pope before the Second Vatican Council. Together with the reference to the authoritarian assessments of the hierarchy by Pius XII, Dignitatis Humanae 14,1 concludes by encouraging with Acts 4,29 the Christians to walk their life with “apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood”. In the face of Communist persecution of Christians and millions of Christians suffering suppression the allusion to their martyrdom dignifies their sacrifices in the public conscience of the Second Vatican Council. The closeness to the reference to Pius XII who did not dare encourage the German and Austrian Christians to resist the brutal Nazi terror-regime of Adolf Hitler, and protest the extermination of Jews, Sinti and Roma and millions of Slavic women and men and queer, leaves a stale taste and lack of sensitivity at this place of Digntiatis Humanae.

Dignitatis Humanae 14,2 assesses Jesus Christ as the center of the Christians and calls for patience and love for those who ignore or err concerning the Christian faith. The reference is to John XXIII and his encyclical Pacem in Terris and he could have spoken the last sentence of Dignitatis Humanae 14,2 “All is to be taken into account – the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith”.

Dignitatis Humanae 15,1 assesses religious freedom a last time, “religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions” and even finds for the first time a shy and indirect allusion to the UDHR, claiming religious freedom “is solemnly recognized in international documents”. The Council is not naïve and documents that there are governments subscribing to religious freedom by their constitution, but in practice nevertheless suppress religious freedom. The reference to the UDHR is indirect and works by referring to Pacem in Terris as source of the claim of the UDHR. The last articles of Dignitatis Humanae are filled with references to religious liberty by Pope John XXIII who had initiated a document on religious freedom in the first place.

Dignitatis Humanae 15,2 follows John XXIII’s claim to work for world peace “Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society”.

Dignitatis Humanae 15,3 ends the declaration praying for religious freedom and for the freedom of the daughters and sons of Go’d referring to Romains 8,21. Romans 8, 21 does not pray for “the glorious freedom of the sons of God” (Dignitatis Humanae 15,3), but “the glorious freedom of the sons of God” serves as a role model “with intention that the whole creation itself might be freed from its slavery to corruption and brought into the same glorious freedom as the children of God” (Romains 8,21). Paul is more Catholic that the Roman Catholic Church. In 2025 women, men and queer understand, “that the whole creation itself might be freed from its slavery to corruption” by the Anthropocene.

Beyond 1950 the Great Acceleration becomes apparent, that is the explosive growth of the Industrial Revolution and its direct destabilizing impact on Earth’s life support system (Earth for All. A Report of the Club of Rome. 2022.15). The Great Acceleration delineates the Holocene from the Anthropocene. In the Holocene the climate changed civilization, and by 2000 CE civilization changes the climate. In 1972 The Club of Rome published The Limits of Growth, by 2000 CE “Earth has entered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene” (ibid. 13). The Great Acceleration concerns the loss of tropical forest, domesticated land, terrestrial biosphere degradation, marine fish capture, shrimp aquaculture, coastal nitrogen, ocean acidification, surface temperature, stratospheric ozone, atmospheric methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, international tourism, tele-communication, transportation, water use, primary energy use, foreign direct investment, real Gross National Product, world population and much more (ibid. 14-15). (See my Post “Anthropocene”).

The Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. In 1972 The Club of Rome published The Limits of Growth. None of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council mention an ecologic crisis, climate change or the necessities to respect the limits of economic growth. Creation as a whole was not on the mind of the Council Fathers.

Historically, Martin Luther’s family had been peasant farmers. Hans Luther, Martin’s father, left farming and became a successful  miner, ore smelter and eventually mine owner (Copper Miner’s Son: Martin Luther – Grace and Truth Community Church). In 1484 Luther’s family came to Mansfeld in Sachsen-Anhalt, Central Germany. “Mining has shaped the town since the Middle Ages. Copper slate for the extraction of silver and copper was extracted deep from the earth here” (ibid.). The toxic effects of smelting on the environment - wastewater, slag, minerals, atmosphere pollution -, had been observed since the invention of new techniques led at the beginning of the 16th century to hitherto unknown heights of ore production. Production growth consumed much energy and over the centuries the insatiable burning of the natural resources of planet earth for energy production brought the terrifying results that we are facing today. At the beginning of the period of modern times and the ever-accelerating production of ore, Martin Luther was very well acquainted with life, work, cultural and economic change of the time. Luther is not an enemy of technical inventions, industrious human will, and hard labor. Luther centers on salvation, not economy. With respect to salvation Luther speaks of the humility of faith as opposing pride, haughtiness, and arrogance of man’s trust in his capabilities and wills. Luther uses humility not as a pious virtue, but synonymous with an existential state of desperation and despair. In this disastrous existential evil, one awaits Go’d’s will trusting in faith and having faith in Go’d, accepting that salvation comes from the will of Go’d and not from the work of women and men (Martin Luther. De servo abbitrio. 1525. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 219-662. 284. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig).