Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem

 

In February 1963, representatives from the international congress of the apostolate of the lay met in Rome and were consulted by the assembly of the commission for the apostolate of the lay. This was a decisive moment for lay participation at the Second Vatican Council (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 477. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

The president of the Council’s commission on the apostolate of the lay, Cardinal Ceto, introduced the scheme on the apostolate of the laity in the aula in the fall of 1964. He affirmed that every Christian vocation is by nature a vocation for the apostolate and for the mission of the Church and that both have their source in baptism (ibid. 481). This dogmatic affirmation sounds comforting to the new self-understanding of the laywomen and men in the Catholic Church. They started participating in the liturgical reforms that their bishops had brought from the Council in Rome to their dioceses. They claimed their spirituality, and active participation in Church life with dignity and freedom. They claimed their right that the bishops listen and take them seriously. Sadly, the bishops were not prepared and did not dispose of the necessary soft skills to meet this offer of a mutual interaction of equal sisters and brothers in the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops panicked observing chaos and disobedience. Their reaction was authoritarian and destructive. In the end, the Second Vatican Council had failed to assess the apostolate of the laity as central for the life of the Catholic Church and refused to acknowledge the full mission of the baptized (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Flussi e riflussi tra due stagioni.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 559–612. 579. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). 2,500 bishops and the pope preserved their power over one billion Catholic women, men and queer and were ready to ignore the mission all baptized had received from the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. Some bishops protested this discrimination of laywomen and men, especially in the discussions of the session in the fall of 1964. Paul VI promulgated the decree on November 18, 1965.

In Apostolicam Actuositatem 1–3, there are elements of a theology of the people of Go’d, of the faithful in Jesus Christ. The following thirty articles of the decree ban this theology of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men, queer who believe, and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The bishops knew that Apostolicam Actuositatem for the first time in Church history takes notice of the lay faithful. The lay were excited about their recognition at a Council. They did not recognize that Apostolicam Actuositatem speaks of the people of Go’d, the faithful in Jesus Christ, as a society that is an absolute monarchy. According to Apostolicam Actuositatem the faithful women, men and queer are not sitting together in free prayer and free discussion, celebrating the Eucharist as equals. Instead, a few authoritarian powerful celibate men control the prayers, discussions and celebrations of the Eucharist of the millions of faithful. Further, the bishops excel in the perverting art of masking their oppressive domination: They do not control, they “address themselves to the laity”. I do not want to downplay the importance of Apostolicam Actuositatem for the Church. 50 years after the promulgation of Apostolicam Actuositatem by the pope, I want to explain why millions of Catholic lay women, men and queer left the institution of the Roman Catholic Church over the last decades. The faithful insist on their equal dignity, freedom and rights within the Church. Since this dignity was not granted to them by Church authorities they broke with the institutional religion for the sake of their integrity and dignity.

Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 refers to many documents of the Second Vatican Council that “had addressed the laity”. There is the reference to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. The reference is not to the mystery of the Church of chapter one, and there is no reference to chapter two on the people of Go’d. Lumen Gentium having assessed the power of the hierarchy in chapter three, there is reference to chapter four that is on the laity: “Having set forth the functions of the hierarchy, the Sacred Council gladly turns its attention to the state of those faithful called the laity” (Lumen Gentium 30). Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 refers to Lumen Gentium 33:

“The laity are gathered together in the People of God and make up the Body of Christ under one head. Whoever they are they are called upon, as living members, to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification, since this very energy is a gift of the Creator and a blessing of the Redeemer. The lay apostolate, however, is a participation in the salvific mission of the Church itself. Through their baptism and confirmation all are commissioned to that apostolate by the Lord Himself” (Lumen Gentium 33).

The bishops are not sure who the laity are. Nevertheless, “whoever they are” they “are commissioned to the salvific mission of the Church by the Lord Himself”. Why is it so difficult for the bishops to esteem this mission? Why is it impossible for them to speak of the Church as the faithful in Jesus Christ, as the people of Go’d? There are references to the Declaration on Christian Education, to the Decree on the ministry and the life of priests 9, that tells the priests that they are brothers of all who are baptized. There is reference to the Decree concerning the pastoral office of the bishops Christus Dominus, and the bishops are advised to listen a bit to the faithful. There is reference to the Constitution on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium inviting the faithful to actively participate in the liturgy but also to receive “much education” in the liturgy. There is reference to the Decree on the mission activity of the Church Ad Gentes number 15.

“The Holy Spirit, who calls all men to Christ by the seeds of the Lord and by the preaching of the Gospel, stirs up in their hearts a submission to the faith. Who in the womb of the baptismal font He begets to a new life those who believe in Christ, He gathers them into the one People of God which is ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’ (1 Peter 2,9)” (Ad Gentes 15).

The reference of Apostolicam Actuositatem 1,1 to Ad Gentes 15 on its turn is a reference to Lumen Gentium 9. Apparently, the bishops writing Apostolicam Actuositatem did not want to refer directly to the chapter in Lumen Gentium that speaks of the ministry of the Church as a whole because they wanted to speak of themselves first before speaking of the laity. The theology of Lumen Gentium 9 clearly affirms the teaching, sanctifying and governing functions of the mission of the Church for the whole “purchased people” and not only for a privileged cast of bishops. Lumen Gentium 9 that cites 1 Peter 2,9: “But you are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people to be a personal possession to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2, 9). The First Letter of Peter is addressed “to all those living as aliens in the Dispersion of Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen” (1 Peter 1,1), the letter is addressed to Jews scattered in the gentile world, successors of the twelve tribes (The New Jerusalem Bible. Standard Edition 1999. Note 1a. 1367).

In Apostolicam Actuositatem 1,1 there is also a reference to Ad Gentes 21 that all of a sudden recognizes who the lay are, and indeed speaks of “men and women” and their duty:

“Their main duty, whether they are men or women, is the witness which they are bound to bear to Christ by their life and works in the home, in their social milieu, and in their own professional circle. In them, there must appear the new man created according to God in justice and true holiness (Eph. 4,24).”

Ephesians does not forget that love and forgiveness are necessary for realizing the Christian life: “Be generous to one another, sympathetic, forgiving each other as readily as Go’d forgave you in Christ (Ephesians 4, 32)” (Ad Gentes 21).

In Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, the Council affirms the apostolate of the baptized but instead of claiming that the people of Go’d is called Church and that all faithful are realizing the mission of this Church the Council simply says, “the Church can never be without the laity”.

The commission working on the text titled their document from the beginning of its work to the end “Apostolate of the faithful”. The bishops of the Council then changed this name into “Apostolate of the laity” (B Bausenhart, Guido. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über das Apostolat der Laien.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 4, 1–124. 38. Freiburg: Herder). The faithful in Jesus Christ, the people of Go’d, the community of the baptized is called “laity”. According to Church law, this mass of people must at the bottom of the hierarchy, that is the clergy, the bishops and the pope. Apostolicam Actuositatem refers constantly to the authority of the Popes Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius X, and Leo XIII, all living between the middle of the 19th and the middle of the 20th century, to assess the hierarchical structure of the Church and the submission of the faithful to this monarchical structure.

Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 refers to the rising of a Christian community in Antioch (Acts 11, 19–21), “where the hand of the Lord” was with the scattered Jews who arrived from Jerusalem and “preached the Lord Jesus” (Bausenhart 2005, 40). They were not apostles; they were Jews who had turned Christians. Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 refers also to Acts 18, 26 where the woman Christian Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught the Jew Apollo. Apollo so far heard only of John the Baptist but nothing of Jesus. Finally, Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 refers to Romans 16, 1–16, where Paul gives testimony that he was an empathic apostle, capable of relating to women and men, respecting them as equals, and nurturing reciprocal interactions. Paul testifies of the mutual interactions of love with his sisters and brothers in Christ that empowered the Christian communities.

Referring to Acts 11, 19-21, Romans 16, 1–16 and Philippians 4, 3 the bishops want to restrain the apostolic mission of the faithful in Jesus Christ to “the very beginning of the Church” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 1,1). How is it possible that the Second Vatican Council that claims to go back to the sources of the Christian faith that is the New Testament claims that the order of the beginning of the Church was wrong? The word of Go’d, the New Testament testifies against the power usurping claims of the male celibate bishops. Paul calls on the solidarity of the Christians with the women and men who “labored with him in the Gospel” and whom he calls “my fellow workers” (Philippians 4, 3). Paul did not speak of an anonymous mass of “the laity, whose proper and indispensable role in the mission of the Church” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 1,1). he would reluctantly affirm.

The bishops weaken Paul’s testimony for reciprocal interactions, by simply affirming, “the Church could scarcely exist and function without the activity of the laity” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 2). They do not affirm that Paul respected the sisters and brothers as equals, neither dare the bishops say, that the lay owe them obedience.

The bishops assess that they have lost control over civil society and “that many areas of human life have become increasingly autonomous” (ibid.). In this situation the “apostolate of the laity” is supposed to make up for the loss of control of the bishops. The bishops even affirm that “the laity” is empowered for this mission by “the Holy Spirit” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 3). Nevertheless, the faithful themselves are not capable and authorized by the bishops to discover with the help of the Holy Spirit the “basic principles” for the apostolate.

The bishops had affirmed that “the Holy Spirit makes the laity ever more conscious of their own responsibility” and service for Christ and the Church, but the bishops “give pastoral principles” replacing the law of the Holy Spirit by the spirit of Canon law that prescribes the norms for the faithful and their apostolate (Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 4).

Neglecting the acceptance of the faithful as women, men and queer with equal dignity, freedom and rights, normally produces depression, apathy and self-destruction. Refusing to provide love and understanding, the lack of positive feedback and recognition produces feelings of humiliation, anger and hate (Aichhorn, Wolfgang, and Helmut Kronberger. 2012. “The Nature of Emotions. A Psychological Perspective.” In Yearbook 2011. Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, 515–25. 523. Berlin: De Gruyter). Therefore, Yahweh will come and realize the promise of the new covenant: “No, this is the covenant I shall make with the House of Israel when those days have come, Yahweh declares. Within them, I shall plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. The I shall be their Go’d and they will be my people. There will be no further need for everyone to teach neighbor or brother or sister saying, ‘learn to know Yahweh’. No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest, Yahweh declares, since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sin to mind” (Jeremiah 31, 33-34). Lumen Gentium 9, 1 cites Jeremiah’s prophecy of the promise of a new covenant. Some bishops at the Second Vatican Council were aware of the necessary turn to the hearts of the women, men and queer faithful who experience the mercy of Yahweh. These bishops were overruled by the Vatican authorities who did not want to share a bit of their power. Even the Vatican could not bloc the citation of Jeremiah 31, 33-34 in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium.

Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, 1 claims that all sharing in Christ’s “saving redemption” that is “all activity of the Mystical Body attaining this goal is called apostolate”. “The Christian vocation” - having started with the sacrament of baptism -, “is a vocation to the apostolate”, “which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, 1).

All Christians take part in the apostolate. There is even the affirmation that “the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, 3). The reference for this affirmation is Lumen Gentium 31, I want to cite Lumen Gentium 31, 1:

“The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church. These faithful are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (Lumen Gentium 31, 1).

From Lumen Gentium 31, 1 we learn that the faithful by baptism not equally share in the mission of the whole people of Go’d in the Church, the faithful share only “in their own way” that is in submission to the hierarchy.

Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, 3 speaks of the “priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ”, Lumen Gentium 31, 1 speaks of the “priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ”. The terms “office” and “function” translate the Latin term munus. We have to be very clear about the fact that the term munus in the documents of the Second Vatican Council is nothing more than a nice principle of theology; it is not a term that may be used for the Church government. The 1983 Code of Canon Law is clear. The 1983 Code speaks of the power of governance and not of functions of organs; canon 135 § 1 divides the one power of governance into legislative, executive and judicial powers and “confined the term munus to theological statements of principle” (McCormack, Alan. 1997. The term “privilege”. A Textual Study of its Meaning and Use in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. 34-35. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana).

When it comes to actual power (podestas in Latin), the Second Vatican Council knows only one power that is the power of the pope. The Decree concerning the pastoral office of the bishops in the Church Christus Dominus 2 claims that the Roman pontiff “is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches” and “Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches”.

When Apostolicam Actuositatem speaks in 2, 3 of the office (munus) of the bishops, there is the clear affirmation that they got “the power (podestas) of teaching, sanctifying and ruling” from Jesus Christ. The bishops got from Jesus Christ the power to teach, sanctify and rule “in His name and power” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 2,3).

For the bishops any lay woman, man or queer, any baptized Christian who shares in Christ’s vocation and participates in the apostolate of “the priestly, prophetical and kingly functions of Christ” never ever possess of any form of power or podestas. The power question is the criteria for ending the confusion about lay participation in the Church. According to the documents of the Second Vatican Council there is simply no power for the faithful on their own. They have no power and therefore no rights, no freedom, no dignity, they are completely under the control of the hierarchy of the pope.

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is perfectly clear about the fact that it is impossible to separate the Church as monarchical society and the Church as communion, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities … “(Lumen Gentium 8).

The body of Christ theology joins the societal structure of the Church and the mystical. The mystical reality of the Church that is the Church as sacrament consists of two parts: The mystical is the sign and the societal is the instrument for realizing the sign, “the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument” (Lumen Gentium 1).

I reject the canonist’s monarchist claim that the individual Catholics are not able to self-legislate, that they are not capable of creating legal structures, that therefore their bishops, cardinals, and popes have to govern, and the individuals must submit to their laws (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748. 737).

I doubt that the Christians building the Mystical Body of Christ today are not empowered by the Holy Spirit to govern their community life. They do not need the Church-society as an absolutist monarchy in order to help realize the formation of the church community. The teaching mission of teaching the reign of God and healing that Jesus gave to his disciples, today is realized not only by bishops, cardinals and popes. Today many Christian women, men and queer are theologically educated. They have the spiritual formation and empowerment to promote the Gospel and help educate and form women, men and queer to become Christians and they have the expertise to govern Christian communities and churches.

The offices of the mission of the Church that indeed are realized with power are called ministries. There are the ministries of priestly, prophetic and royal office and these ministries are only for the hierarchy of celibate men bishops and the pope (Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, 3).

The rest of Apostolicam Actuositatem submits the different “activities” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 9–14 name fields of the apostolate, Apostolicam Actuositatem 15–22 forms) of the lay apostolate to the power of the bishops who “watch over the proper and necessary order” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 23–27).

The bishops claim the submission to the sanctifying power of the clergy as necessary, because “the Eucharist is the soul of the entire apostolate” and the laity must participate in the apostolate of the Church (Apostolicam Actuositatem 3, 1). The bishops claim the submission to their prophetic teaching power as necessary, because the teaching ministry of the bishops and the pope make known “the faith, hope and charity which the Holy Spirit diffuses in the hearts of all members of the Church”. The bishops claim the submission of the laity to their kingly power because “The Holy Spirit sanctifies the people of Go’d through ministry and the sacraments” and the bishops give “the faithful these special gifts” and “their pastors must make a judgement about the true nature and proper use of these gifts” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 3, 3).

Apostolicam Actuositatem 4, 1 affirms again the submission of the laity because “the intimate union with Christ in the Church is nourished” by “their sacred participation in the sacred liturgy” (referring to Sacrosanctum Concilium 11). Those who do not like my use of “participation” and “submission” as synonyms may read “participation at the Eucharist under the direction of the priest” and listen to the rest of the article that speaks of “the correct fulfilling of the secular duties” of the laity who acts “prudently and patiently” (referring to Lumen Gentium 32). “Correct judgements” by the laity are possible only “of temporal things”, and as long as they occupy the temporal sphere, they may practice their virtues, “following Jesus in His poverty”, “suffer persecution for justice sake”, and live “the spiritual life of the laity”. The lay may “become members of associations or institutes” as long as these institutions are approved by the governing power of the bishops. The laity should submit and obey to the hierarchy as “the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Apostles” submitted cooperating “in the work of the Savior”. Male celibate sexism does not only discriminate the woman Virgin Mary, but the male bishops also discriminate Jesus the Savior as someone who submitted his mother and thereby destroyed the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer.

Neither the popes nor the bishops wanted the faithful exercise real priestly, prophetic and governmental power in the Church, they asked for obedience of the laity and their submission. During the summer of 1965, Paul VI repeatedly had spoken of a crisis of obedience in the Church (Routhier, Gilles. 2001. “Portre a termine l`opera iniziata: la faticosa esperienza del qurto periodo.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 73–196. 74. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Speaking to the Commission for the reform of the Code of Canon Law on November 20, 1965, Paul VI made it clear that the lay lack any power for governing (Bausenhart 2005b, 48). In the post-conciliar time, Paul VI was convinced that he had to take charge again of the ordinary rule and government of the Church. He consented that the Council was a special moment for the Church, but it was time to think about what had to come (Turbanti, Giovanni. 2001. “Verso il quarto periodo.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 23–72. 47. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Paul VI actually claimed that his absolute power “flows in a coherent way from revelation” (Onclin 1967, 742). Revelation contradicts Paul VI in this point and at some others. Jesus never spoke of the priestly office of the clergy. Jesus empowered the disciples to sanctify the world. The Council never accepted that the lay and the bishops have an equal munus to sanctify the world. Christus Dominus reserves the use of the term “munus of sanctifying” for the bishops and the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem failed to effectively integrate the laity in the apostolate of the Church (Grootaers 1996, 579). There is never equality of the apostolate of the Church for the laity and the bishops. The laity participates, takes part, and cooperates but is always submitted to and has to obey the hierarchy (Sauer 1999, 290). Jesus does not say that only the apostles are empowered to preach and heal, on the contrary. When the apostles complained that there was somebody healing in the name of Jesus, the Messiah, Jesus answered: “Anybody who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9, 40).

Rahner holds necessary that the hierarchy guarantees the unity of the Church giving doctrinal and pastoral directives to the laity (Sauer, Hanjo. 1999. “Il concilio all scoperta dei laici.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 259–292. 290. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Rahner and all theologian experts at the Second Vatican Council together with the bishops lived with a mindset open for an appendix-theology for the lay. Their ecclesiology does not think about socially realizing the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the individual Christian woman man and queer. In the 1950s, Rahner was apparently aware of the necessity of a balanced juridical relationship between the Catholic hierarchy and the laity. He claimed something like “a right of the laity” that would empower the laity to collaborate with the hierarchy on matters of the world that is politics as partners who authentically follow Christ, and not as subserviently submissive followers of episcopal orders (Bausenhart 2005, 23). To my knowledge there never followed a political theory and theological development for this right of the laity by Rahner. Nevertheless, it was a long way from Vinzenz Pallotti (1795–1850), who first claimed the universal apostolate for the laity to the acknowledgement of this apostolate in the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 11). The way to the development of lay offices and ministries and the acknowledgement of the powers of lay in these offices by a sort of ordination without making of the clergy lay people and of the lay a new clergy, will be long too.

It is nice, if Rahner calls baptism, “the consecration of the lay for pastoral work” (ibid. 30) but Rahner’s good will misses the point. Consecration for pastoral work without ordination for an office and a ministry is like presenting a political program in a dictatorship where there are never free elections that could lead to a parliament that would legislate this program. Rahner must have known that the Catholic Church is not only a spiritual realization but also legitimately and necessarily constituted as a society. Like everybody, also Rahner has the Human Right to repress whatever he wants to split from his conscious considerations. In the beginning of the 1980s, I regularly witnessed Rahner’s private outbreaks of anger against the “Vatican hierarchy of bonzes” as he used to say. Anger may be a driving force for changing a given situation, anger can be seen as the prerequisite for self-confidence (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 522), but Rahner never overcame his inhibition of fighting for his personal integrity because of his scruples about the accusation of disloyalty to his ecclesiastic superiors. It is nice and all right if Rahner knows and assesses that the baptized woman, man and queer – Rahner actually speaks only of the male Christian –, realizes the Church is “revolutionary conscience” (Bausenhart 2005, 30). It is nice to assess that the mission of the baptized in the Church is sacramental. It is nice to assess that she or he who is doing her or his job, lives in her or his family, society and nation, realizes the infinite task of a Christian that is building the reign of Go’d, of truth, of selflessness and love” and thereby “establishes the presence of the Church in the world” (ibid.). At the same time these assessments do not fend off all the psychological, social and ecclesial injuries to one’s personal integrity as a Catholic woman, man or queer within the absolute monarchy of the Church society.

Apostolicam Actuositatem 28–32 are on the formation for the apostolate. Already from the beginning, the decree referred to the New Testament, giving testimony of Christian sisters and brothers who teach women, men and queer the message of Jesus Christ. Teaching the faith always was a basic mission of the Christians and the formation for the apostolate of teaching, sanctifying and governing was on the mind of the communities. Apostolicam Actuositatem 28 repeats the necessity of “this formation for the apostolate”. Apostolicam Actuositatem 29 stresses spiritual formation and describes the necessity of an all-embracing scientific, philosophical, ethical and theological formation. There are first doubts that the bishops master the disciplines of the world’s knowledge. Although members of the commission for the lay apostolate worked together with members of the commission on scheme 13, the later Gaudium et Spes claims independently from Apostolicam Actuositatem that the formation of the lay serves the empowerment of the lay to fulfill their responsibilities as Christians (Gaudium et Spes 43, 2) (Bausenhart 2005, 93). Finally, there is a reference to Christian education. Christian education must “provide formation for the apostolate” but there is no reference to Gravissimum Educationis.

The references of Apostolicam Actuositatem 1, 1 to Acts 11, 19-21, to Acts 18, 26, to Romans 16, 1–16 and to Philippians 4, 3 are references to strong testimonies of Christian women and men realizing their teaching, sanctifying and governing functions in Christian communities. The Council does not dare to inspire with the help of the New Testament women, men and queer to teach the Gospel, sanctify by forgiving and prayer, and taking a share in the government of the Church. In the end, the Second Vatican Council had failed to assess the apostolate of the laity as central for the life of the Catholic Church and refused to acknowledge the full mission of the baptized (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. 579).