Development of the text of Gaudium et Spes

In March 1962, the Belgian Léon-Joseph Cardinal Suenens, who enjoyed the confidence of Pope John XXIII, told the central preparatory commission that at the upcoming Council, it will not be possible to deal with all the schemes and texts that the 10 preparatory commissions had prepared. Pope John XXIII agrees and after having consulted trusted cardinals, Suenens suggests focusing the Council’s work on the inner constitution of the Church, ecclesia ad intra or the mystery of the Church and on the relationship of the Church and the world, ecclesia ad extra (Hünermann, Peter. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen gentium.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 263–583. 320. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). A week before the opening of the Council, John XXIII publicly confirms these two centers for the Council’s work (ibid. 321). Nevertheless, we have to be clear about the fact that the pre-preparatory commissions and the preparatory commissions for the upcoming Second Vatican Council never thought of a project concerning the relationship of the Church and the contemporary world (Sander, Hans-Joachim. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Pastroalkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et spes.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 4, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 581–886. 616. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). The preparatory commissions presented minor schemes on chastity, virginity, marriage and the family but these texts were not discussed in the first session of the Council. Still in January 1963, the president of the Coordinating Commission Amleto Giovanni Cardinal Cicognani, Cardinal Secretary of Vatican State, insisted on keeping the prepared schemes and on ranking their importance for the further discussion in the first intersession (December 1962-September 1963) of the Council that is known as the second preparation of the 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. 408. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The Italian Cardinals Giovanni Urbani and Carlo Confalonieri, members of the Coordinating Commission and moderate conservatives at the Roman Curia of the Vatican, proposed a list of seventeen schemes for the second preparation and the commission approved of this list. The last of the seventeen schemes on the list was simply called scheme XVII. Urbani wanted the commissions to finish their work by Easter 1963 (ibid.). Nevertheless, no other scheme of the sixteen that the Second Vatican Council had promulgated developed as slowly, without such an incoherent preparation, and with so many diverse themes and contrasting theological perspectives as scheme XVII. In the spring of 1964, it got called scheme XIII, and only in 1965 was a final name kept, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes. No other text of the Second Vatican Council had so many difficulties finding a name. No other scheme of the Council met so many difficulties getting at the order of the aula for a discussion (ibid. 445).

First intersession of the Second Vatican Council

The speech of Cardinal Suenens in the aula on December 4, 1962, was important for starting work on a scheme concerning the Church and the world. In December and on January 17, 1963, the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity discussed the issue and proposed forming a mixed commission with members of the Doctrinal Commission for the work on scheme XVII (ibid. 446). Immediately, Urbani accepted the proposal, and his Coordinating Commission confirmed the creation of the Mixed Commission for scheme XVII. At the same time, the Coordinating Commission asked Suenens for his opinion on three cancelled schemes that the theological preparatory commission had produced, and the possibility to use them for scheme XVII. Suenens proposed keeping the prepared text on the moral order but overworking it. He criticized the prepared scheme on social order because it had not adopted the ideas of John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra and proposed reworking strongly the text. The prepared scheme on the community of the peoples of the world got criticized. It presented the moral life in juridical terms and was silent on atheism and humanism, the international community, poverty, democracy and social justice and the cooperation with all women, men and queer of good will (ibid. 447). In January 1963, Achille Cardinal Liénart from Lille, France, took the word in the Coordinating Commission and strongly criticized a prepared scheme on the deposit of the faith because it was identifying heretic errors of modernity but not presenting the Christian faith in an understandable and clear way like the positive assessments of the Christian faith by John XXIII (ibid. 448). Urbani suggested in the Coordinating Commission, integrating chapter four of the prepared scheme on the apostolate of the laity that deals with the social realization of the Christian faith by the laity, into scheme XVII (ibid.). The first intersession of the Council had to re-prepare many important schemes for the Council, and there was not much energy left for working on scheme XVII. In the Mixed Commission the adversaries Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, secretary of the Holy Office – the former Inquisition -, and president of the Doctrinal Commission, and Fernando Cardinal Cento, president of the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity, met again and their diverging theological convictions did not facilitate the production process for scheme XVII (ibid. 449). Nevertheless, the discussion of the Coordinating Commission in January 1963, already resulted in proposing the six chapters of scheme XVII as we find them in the text that evolved in March, April and May of 1963 within the Mixed Commission. An introduction and six chapters on the vocation of the human person, the human person in society, marriage, family and demography, human culture, economic order and social justice, and the communion of the peoples in peace, will in substance be kept until the final promulgation of Gaudium et Spes in 1965 (ibid.).

A restricted group of bishops and experts met as restricted Mixed Commission on February 28 and March 1, 1963, for the first time under the presidency of Franz Cardinal König from Vienna, Austria (ibid. 450). In the Mixed Commission, the bishops who had prepared the small schemes during the preparation of the Council, got replaced by bishops and cardinals from the Majority of the Council (ibid.). In March 1963, Albert Prignon, theologian, rector of the Pontifical Belgian College at Rome, and confident of Cardinal Suenens, joined the Mixed Commission. Luigi G. Ligutti, who was born in Udine, Italy, and immigrated with 17 years of age to the United States, became ordained priest in the dioceses of De Moines and worked as rural sociologist, joined also the Mixed Commission as expert of the Council, just as the Suisse Dominican theologian Henri De Riedmatten, the French Jesuit Jean Daniélou, the Chilean theologian Jorge Medina, and the Italian Jesuit Tucci were appointed experts for the Mixed Commission (ibid.). De Riedmatten was the son of a family of diplomats, and he worked incessantly convincing Pope Pius XII to open the Roman Catholic Church to the United Nations. On July 26, 1948, Ligutti was appointed Vatican Observer to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the first Vatican appointment to any office of the United Nations.

In the meeting of the Coordinating Commission on March 29, 1963, Ottaviani and his theologian, the Jesuit Tromp did not show up. They had not been able to take control of the introduction text to scheme XVII that Fernando Cardinal Cento, vice-president of the Mixed Commission and president of the Commission of the Apostolate of the Laity, and the conservative Dominican Michael Cardinal Brown, vice-president of the Dogmatic Commission, had proposed. Cardinal Suenens criticized the proposed introduction in that session of the Coordinating Commission for being not pastoral and not positive enough, that is not following the intentions of John XXIII (ibid. 452). On April 11, 1963, John XXIII published his encyclical Pacem in Terris. The encyclical received widespread attention, the press was enthusiastic and the positive public opinion on the encyclical pressured the Council Fathers to follow the ideas of John XXIII in their documents. Pacem in Terris deeply influences the redaction of scheme XVII (ibid.). For the first time, prominent lay Catholics from Catholic international organizations and from the International Congresses of the apostolate of the laity collaborated in April 1963 as experts in the Mixed Commission. They prepared the way for the first lay auditors of the Council who started their work in March 1964 (ibid.). In May 1963, the whole Mixed Commission worked over the chapters of scheme XVII and assigned the further work to five sub-commissions (ibid. 453). The Mixed Commission then counted about fifty bishops and a big number of experts. Many members complained that there was not enough time to discuss and work out a good text and the French Dominican theologian expert Yves Congar even feared a bad end if a serious text would not come before the Council (ibid.). The text now counted 60 pages, and many bishops and experts judged its argumentation as incoherent and superficial. Slowly the idea evolved of dividing the text into a theological part speaking of the vocation of the human person and Christian faith on the one side and into a second part dealing with the problems of the modern world (ibid. 454). Soon, the Coordinating Commission will approve of this idea (ibid.).

Gérard Philips was a trusted theologian of Cardinal Suenens, but he was also member of the Upper House of the Belgium parliament and there had learned mastering the art of political compromise finding. Many documents of the Second Vatican Council would not have been edited, without the integration skills of Philips, who cared for the interests of the bishops as of theologians like the reformist Rahner, or the conservative Trump. In the spring of 1963, Gérard Philips was mostly occupied with the redaction of Lumen Gentium. Cardinal Suenens asked for his expertise and collaboration for many other documents of the Council, and for scheme XVII. His diary shows a few entries on the development and discussions of the Mixed Commission on scheme XVII, most entries are on his work with Lumen Gentium. On the Sunday of Pentecostal, June 2, 1963, Philips describes an example for the clashing of pre-modern views on the ethics of social life with the modern views that respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women and men concerning marriage in the last days of May 1963 in the Mixed Commission (Philips, Gérard. 2006. “Carnet Conciliaire de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Traduction Francaise. Cahier XI and XII.” In Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires, edited by Karim Schelkens, 79–167. 110. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). Philips writes that the discussions on marriage in the Mixed Commission are full of bitter exchanges. Cardinal Ottaviani and his theologian Tromp consider conjugal love as something of minor importance for marriage and quite irrelevant when considering the essence of conjugal duty that is procreation (ibid.). Philips analyses the self-contradiction of that claim observing that marriage continues to exist without having children or even with infertility of the couple. In a rare attack of irony, Philips turns the argument of Ottaviani around and claims procreation as of minor importance for marriage (ibid.). Philips documents the remark of bishop Charue in the Mixed Commission that men and women are not animals, and that Christians cannot reduce their conjugal love to the physical union of animal love (ibid.). Philips contradicts the affirmation of Tromp that Go’d’s only will for marriage is the will for procreation and he insists on the human quality of love and love as a human quality. Philips points at the Holy Scripture where conjugal love helps characterize the type of alliance of Go’d with the elected people and thereby demonstrates the high value of love for Christians (ibid.). Philips informs that his Belgian colleague at the University of Leuven, Charles Moeller collaborates with the Italian Jesuit Roberto Tucci, chief editor of the Jesuits’ journal La Civiltà Cattolica, on the culture chapter of scheme XVII (ibid. 111). Congar writes together with the archbishop of Toulouse, Gabriel-Marie Garrone on human dignity in chapter one of scheme XVII. Then Philips informs about his important collaboration with Congar and Moeller. Together they will prepare a report on the status of scheme XVII for Cardinal Suenens (ibid.).

On July 3, 1963, the judgement of Suenens on scheme XVII was negative in the Coordinating Commission, although he observed some ameliorations of the text (Grootaers 1996, 454). The archbishop of Mechelen was not the only negative voice in the Coordinating Commission. Other cardinals joined his judgement (ibid.). Suenens suggested a small commission that would work on a coherent biblical and patristic composition of the imago Dei theology for the whole document, and he wanted sub-commissions with specialists and experts for the concrete problems of marriage, culture, social life and the international community (ibid. 455). The texts of these specialized sub-commissions would enjoy an inferior status regarding the theological chapters. Was Suenens giving in to Ottaviani and his sharp distinction of doctrine and pastoral? Confalonieri suggested giving the elaboration of a new text into the hands of Suenens. Cardinal Döpfner supported this suggestion first, and then all members of the Coordinating Commission followed (ibid.).

Already the next day Albert Prignon, the rector of the Pontifical Belgian College in Rome, received from Cardinal Suenens the order of assembling a team for the work on the first part of scheme XVII (ibid. 456). This group elaborated the so-called text of Mechelen. In the end, this text was not of decisive importance for the final constitution Gaudium et Spes, but the text demonstrates the scattered work of the intersession on scheme XVII (ibid.). The theologians Congar, Philips, Moeller, Delhaye, Thils, Rahner and Dondeyne participated in the group of experts that Prignon invited to Mechelen Brussels for September 1963 (ibid. 458). Congar suggests three chapters according to the trilogy of human vocation that gives testimony of Jesus Christ to the world (Greek: martyria), of serving humanity with the Gospel (Greek: diakonia) and of forming with the Church a world community of peace and justice (Greek: koinonìa). Since the third General Assembly of the Ecumenical Council of Churches in New Dehli in 1961, Congar had remained very impressed with this trilogy of testimony, service and communion (ibid.).

Second Session of the Second Vatican Council: September 1963-December 1963

The Mixed Commission that finally met again on November 29, 1963, found itself in great confusion about the state of scheme XVII and refused to accept the text of Mechelen (ibid. 460). There had been insufficient communication between the Coordinating Commission who had received the text of 13 pages from Suenens and the Mixed Commission who only had received the text of Mechelen the week before the meeting on November 29, 1963. In the end, Cardinal Cicognani, president of the Coordinating Commission was responsible for the bad communication (ibid. 461). Ottaviani and Tromp were not sad about the confusion created. Tromp considered the text of Mechelen unofficial and a private text, others like Brown, Cento, Charue, Hengsbach, Prignon and Rahner, doubted the mandate of Suenens for editing the whole theological text of scheme XVII. Archbishop of Toulouse Garrone, Cardinal König and the German moral theologian Bernhard Häring opposed the text of Mechelen because of the split of scheme XVII in an official part and an unofficial and inferior part that consisted of mere appendices (ibid.). König insisted on the task of the Council to generate texts of equal authority (ibid.). Garrone had been the best friend of Suenens but, except for Moeller, Garrone will not invite the team of theologians of Suenens to Zurich, Switzerland, in January 1964 to prepare another text for scheme XVII, the so-called text from Zurich (ibid. 463).

Second intersession of the Second Vatican Council: December 1963 – September 1964.

On December 4, 1963, a sub-commission of the Central Commission met and decided that Häring and Sigmond, secretary and undersecretary of the Central Commission would work on scheme XVII with experts under the presidency of bishop Guano from Livorno, Italy, member of the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity. In September 1964, Garrone will eventually take over the leadership on the development of scheme XVII from Guano who was considerably weakened through sickness (ibid.). The group met on December 12, 1963, and worked all through January 1964 elaborating a new text. The group consented on reading the signs of the times, on speaking of the people of Go’d, on paying attention to the apostolate of the laity in the contemporary world, on dealing with human dignity, religious liberty and the concrete problems of family, marriage, social order, justice and peace (Moeller, Charles. 1968. “Die Geschichte der Pastoralkonstitution.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 242–279. 255. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). During this phase of the work on scheme XVII, the formulation of the first sentence of the preface of the later Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes emerged. “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age” are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ (Paul VI 1965. Gaudium et Spes). The preface affirmed the service of the Church for all of humanity offering collaboration with all men of good will (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, 367–512. 427. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). According to Häring, the four chapters followed the text of May 1963, adopted some concepts from the text of Mechelen, and integrated the many contributions from the bishops that had arrived in the last weeks (ibid. 428).  Guano, Moeller and Tucci met with the Swiss reform theologian Lukas Vischer from the World Council of Churches. Vischer convinced the redaction group of the ecumenical necessity to speak in scheme XVII of the separated brothers (ibid.). Moeller insists in his history of the text of scheme XIII that the redaction group for the scheme kept contact and communication with the ecumenical institutions throughout the whole redaction process (Moeller 1968, 269). 

Guano, Moeller and Tucci met from February 1 to 3, 1964 in Zurich, Switzerland and worked through the new text. Häring communicated the results to Ottaviani and Cento in Rome and Guano informed Suenens (Vilanova 1998, 430). On March 4, 1964, the Mixed Commission expressed critique of the text from Zurich. Rahner, Congar and others criticized the excessively optimistic tone of the document that ignored the problem of evil in the world, and the problems of poverty, suffering and injustice (ibid. 431–32). The discussion of the chapters of the text provoked new questions. Parente suggested not to speak any more of the sensus fidei, like of an objective deposit of faith, but to speak of the sensus fidelium, the consented faith and belief of the Christians. Rahner brought up the question of the competence and authority of the Church concerning concrete problems of the individual consciences of the faithful. Rahner repeatedly insisted on considering the common vocation of humankind as a supernatural vocation and not simply a natural one. For decennials Rahner had been claiming a transcendental existential of all humans without reflecting on the necessary consent of the individual woman, man and queer for this idealist universal claim to transcendence by a theologian. Häring became the scapegoat of Ottaviani’s Congregation for the Doctrine that lead a campaign to eliminate him as the responsible secretary for scheme XVII because of his insistence on love as the end of marriage and his defense of hormonal birth control. By November 16, 1964, they will have succeeded (ibid. 433). Finally, the group consented to a text. The Coordinating Commission received this text at the end of June and decided to send the document with the title “On the Church in the world of today”, now called scheme XIII, to the bishops in order to get their feed-back by October 1, 1964 (ibid. 434). The document consisted of an introduction, four chapters and a conclusion. The introduction assessed that the Church and the Council intends to discern the signs of the times of the whole of humanity in the light of Jesus Christ as light for the world (Tanner, Norman. 1999. “La Chiesa nelle società: ecclesia ad extra.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il terzo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 293–416. 295. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The first chapter deals with the integral vocation of the human person, on the worth of life in the world and on the dignity of the human person, on sin and the need for the Savior, and on the difficulties and the harmony of human responsibility. The second chapter is titled “the service of the Church for humanity” (ibid.). The third chapter reflects on the contributions of the faithful for the communion between peoples by dialoguing with the world. The fourth chapter speaks of the responsibilities of marriage and the family, on culture, on economic and social life, on solidarity between the peoples and on war and peace. The conclusion identifies the addresses of the document (ibid.). At the end of the document followed five appendices (Latin: adnexa). The adnexa dealt with a sociological description of contemporary society and with the analysis of the four topics of chapter four by competent experts on the topics (ibid.). In September 1964, the Mixed Commission created two sub-commissions, one on theological questions and the other on the signs of the time. Guano coordinated their work and hoped reporting the results to the upcoming third session of the Council (Vilanova 1998, 436).

Third session of the Council: September 14, 1964 - November 21, 1964.

On October 11, 1964, Philips is back in Leuven. He participates in the regional elections and reflects on the events in Rome of September 1964 (Philips 2006, 132). He judges that the text of scheme XIII is theologically weak and insufficiently prepared. He affirms the resistance against the adnexa and names the proposed teaching on marriage and conjugal love and the claims of nuclear disarmament as real causes of this resistance (ibid.). Philips is convinced that the amelioration of the text would take more than a few months and that therefore a fourth session of the Council will be necessary, although many Council Fathers still opposed a fourth session with vehemence (ibid.). The historian confirms that already during the preparation of the third session of the Second Vatican Council there were doubts and discussions about the possibility to conclude the Council with this session (Komonchak, Joseph. 1999. “L’ecclesiologia di communion.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il terzo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–118. 54. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Cardinal Döpfner from Munich, Germany, realized the difficulties to conclude the Council according to his plan. On October 1, 1964, he asked the other moderators of the Council, who are Gregor Petrus Cardinal Agagianian, Patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church in Beirut and member of the Curia of the Vatican, Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro from Bologna, Italy, and Cardinal Suenens, if the Council would need a fourth session. Important documents like that of the relation of the Church with the modern world still need complete revision (ibid.). Titular Archbishop of Samosata, Pericle Felici, Secretary of the Council, and more juridical administrator than theologian, wanted to close the council on November 20, 1964. Most cardinals of the Coordinating Commission agreed, even Liénart, Lercaro, Döpfner and Suenens, although they wanted to realize scheme XIII. A letter of the delegates of the bishop’s conferences to the pope insisted on the importance of a document on the relation of the Church with the modern world and on a fourth session of the Council (ibid. 56). Sixteen lay auditors of the Council wrote to the moderators that scheme XIII was very important for them and that they wanted to collaborate on the text (ibid.). By October 15, 1964, the Cardinals Lercaro, Döpfner, Suenens and Liénart had changed their mind and supported a fourth session of the Council; the curial Cardinals Agagianian, Cicognani and Carlo Confalonieri, member of the Coordinating Commission and member of the Secretariat for extraordinary affairs of the Council, still opposed a fourth session (ibid. 58). The third session of the Council started on September 14, 1964. The bishops were not happy with the overburdening workload of documents they had to deal with. They got further frustrated by the lack of time for discussion on the schemes. The secretary of the Council, Pericle Felici, pushed for a fast ending to the Council and therefore restricted the time for discussion on the amendments for the proposed schemes. On October 23, 1964, Felici had to announce that the third session would end on November 21, 1964. This announcement implied a fourth session of the Council (ibid.). On January 4, 1965, Paul VI decided that the fourth and last session of the Council would open on September 11, 1965 (ibid. 59).

In the first days following the opening of the third session of October 14, the aula debated successfully the scheme on the Church, De Ecclesia. On September 23, 1964, the Council Fathers turned to the text on religious freedom and on September 25, 1964, they started the debate on the relations with the Jews (Miccoli, Giovanni. 1999. “Due nodi: la libertà religiosa e le relazioni con gli ebrei.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il terzo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 119–220. 119-20. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). In the second week of October attacks of the conservative minority of the Council on the text on ecumenism started creating nervosity and confusion. On November 20, 1964, the decrees on ecumenism and the Oriental Churches finally passed the vote (Tagle, Luis Antonio G. 1999. “La tempesta di november: la settimana nera.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il rezo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 417–482. 441. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The text on religious freedom was not ready for a vote. (See my Posting “Development of the texts of Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio and Orientalium Ecclesiarum”).

During the third session of the Second Vatican Council, there was an intervention of Paul VI on November 6, 1964. The Council debated the missions, and Paul VI spoke in favor of a document on the missionary activity of the Church. There was the debate on the priestly ministry and the formation of the priests and a discussion on a text on marriage. An important event of this third session was the speech of Cardinal Lercaro representing the small group of Council Fathers of the so-called Church of the poor who protested social injustice and poverty in the world and proposed introducing a change of culture within the Church, becoming a poor Church living with the poor. The discussion on the relationship of the Church with the world constitutes a new development in the aula. This debate on the Church in the world realized the original intentions of John XXIII for a pastoral council (Tanner 1999, 293). The discussions and controversies on ecumenism, on religious liberty and on the relationship with the Jews had opened the attention of the Council to the world (ibid.).

From October 20 to November 10, 1964, the scheme on the Church in the world of today, the later Gaudium et Spes, was debated in the aula (ibid.). The discussion was interrupted from November 6 to November 9, 1964, when the decree on the missions was debated (ibid. 302). Many Council Fathers and theologians had emotionally been discussing outside the aula the relationship between the Church as the visible presence of the mystery of Jesus Christ in history. The central point of the discussions concerned the relationship between the legitimate authority of the world (Suenens) and the salvific value of history for humanity. Now the Council Fathers awaited the affirmation of their expectations from the discussions in the aula (ibid.). Cardinal Cento and bishop Guano presented the scheme in the name of the Mixed Commission (ibid. 303). Ottaviani did not want to enter the presentation; he was strongly critical of scheme XIII (ibid. 304). Cento spoke very enthusiastically of the scheme, Guano argued that many people expected from the Church to speak to their culture, to the economic and political situation of the world and to their needs (ibid.). He reported the history of the text, described the expression “world” and its relationship with the Church, and presented the four chapters and five adnexa (ibid. 306).

The historian does not feel empowered to describe a full picture of the following discussions (ibid.). He concludes generally that the overwhelming Majority of the Council Fathers recognized the importance of the document for the Council. There was no direct and open critique in the discussion on the document as such. Yet we do not know about the discussions going on within the Coetus internationalis patrorum that opposed the text. Forty-two Council Fathers intervened during the debate. Their questions concerned the further description of the terms “world” and “Church”, and the identification of the addressees of the text. Was the text for Catholics or for the whole world? The need to better describe the terms “salvation of the human soul”, “salvation of the human person and the whole world” was expressed (ibid. 307–8). The debate in the aula was not a coherent discussion of a chain of arguments. The speakers did not refer to the speakers before them and later speakers would present their prepared statements. Albeit this incoherence, the discussion in the aula was important for the bishops and experts who were working on the amelioration of the text of scheme XIII (ibid. 353). The Council Fathers spoke their minds, and the lack of theological precision did not impede their enthusiasm and involvement with the real problems of the women and men in their dioceses (ibid. 354).

On November 16, 1964, a week after the discussions and the positive vote of the Council Fathers for continuing with the work with scheme XIII, the Mixed Commission met in a plenary session to assess the state of affairs of scheme XIII and to organize the future work (Burigana, Riccardo, and Giovanni Turbanti. 1999. “L’intersessione: preparare la conclusione del concilio.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L’annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del oncilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 550. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Guano asked the Mixed Commission for a strong mandate for his central sub-commission to steer the work on the amelioration of scheme XIII (ibid. 551). He received this mandate and was able to enlarge his sub-commission with experts and members representing all regions and continents of the world. He constituted a new sub-commission for the work on the different problems of the adnexa and on theological questions and formed a small redaction committee for the document. Although the Council had never officially elected the members of the Mixed Commission, it now worked with the status of a relatively autonomous commission (ibid.).

I observe with great interest that on the next day, Gérard Philips testifies in his diary (November 17, 1964) to a slightly different picture of this meeting of the Mixed Commission. Philips writes that the usual confusion reigned the plenary session and Philips unequivocally diagnoses the lack of a strong and determined direction of the group (Philips 2006, 140). He also reports that the Mixed Commission had invited him to become the general redactor of scheme XIII. He would have taken the place of Häring, and Philips writes that he does not want to drive out Häring (ibid.).

Evidently, Guano had fewer scruples and followed the suggestion of the Italian Jesuit Tucci to replace the German moral theologian Häring with the French sociologist Haubtmann (Burigana and Turbanti 1999, 551). Haubtmann is a priest from the dioceses of Grenoble, France. He wrote a thesis on the 19th-century parliamentarian, philosopher and social revolutionist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The French bishops trusted Haubtmann, who had been the national pastor for the French Catholic Workers’ Action (ACA) and was rector of the Catholic University of Paris, the Institut Catholique (ibid.). Haubtmann had been responsible for the adnexa on the social and economic life (ibid. 552). The Mixed Commission appointed Tucci, the German Jesuit moral theologian Hirschmann and the Belgian theologian Moeller to help him in the redaction committee. Congar reports that already in September 1964, Guano had wanted to replace the stubborn and inflexible Häring with the equilibrating mediator Philips; Congar had encouraged Guano to do so (ibid.).

The third intersession of the Council: November 22, 1964 – September 15, 1965.

The redaction committee met in Rome on December 5, 1964, and planned a meeting of all sub-commissions working on scheme XIII for February 1965, near Rome, in Ariccia to be precise. Haubtmann returned to Paris where he absolved a very intense working schedule for the preparation of the meeting in Ariccia (ibid. 554). Haubtmann contacted many theologians and asked them for contributions on Christian anthropology, on the capabilities and limits of the Church in dealing with the modern world, on the collaboration of the world with the “Reign of Go’d”, and on how to deal with atheism (ibid. 555). On December 28, 1964, Haubtmann travelled to Brussels to discuss with Moeller, Philips and Houtart, a Belgian priest and expert on Marxism (ibid. 554).

The diaries, notes and testimonies of theologians and Council Fathers who participated in the Second Vatican Council are a precious source for the reconstruction of the historical context of the documents. Charles Moeller (1912–1986) is one of these precious testimonies to the event of the Second Vatican Council. He had elaborated the first history of the development of the text of Gaudium et Spes (Moeller 1968). He was a Belgian priest, professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, a theological expert at the Council and in 1966 became a leading theologian in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before serving as secretary for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity from 1973 to 1981 (Philips 2006, 175). Moeller impresses me with his empathic attention to the qualities of Philips and other personalities, whose actions he describes. Moeller documents the sentences of Philips in two decisive situations during the development of Gaudium et Spes, where Philips succeeded to lead an already despairing group of pessimistic theologians and bishops from chaos and confusion to new clarity on the aim of their work.

The first intervention of Philips plays on December 28, 1964, during the meeting of Haubtmann, Moeller, Houtart and Philips in Brussels, where they reorganized the redaction of scheme XIII (Moeller 1968, 265). In this meeting, Philips asked a series of questions in order to clear what they were working on (ibid.). Philips asked if the document should be founded on theology, on natural law, on philosophy or on a description of facts. Philips asked further, who speaks in the document? It was clear that the Church speaks, but Philips insisted on a precise answer. Does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church speak, do the Christians speak, does the people of Go’d speak, or does the synod of the Second Vatican Council speak? Philips also asked who the addressee was and what the message is (ibid.). Philips spoke of the importance of clarifying that the Church does not speak in front of the world, but that the Church speaks from within the world (ibid.). Philips was convinced that the Church had to present herself and explicate her self-understanding. Philips recognized that primarily the Christians would be interested in this presentation of their faith perspective, but he insisted that the Church had to present her message in a way that non-Christians would take an interest because they are aware of a dimension that they share with the Christians (ibid.). At the same time, Philips did not champion his personal theological convictions but insisted that the redaction of scheme XIII stays in continuity with the text that had been discussed in the aula and with the amendments of the Council Fathers (ibid.). The second intervention of Philips will take place in September 1965.

Haubtmann informed Garrone on all of his activities, sent him reports and established a relationship of trust with the archbishop of Toulouse. In return, Gabriel-Marie Garrone helped Haubtmann to understand the structure and ways of the Council. This mutual collaboration of Garrone and Haubtmann was crucial for the success of the redaction of the future text of scheme XIII (Burigana and Turbanti 1999. 555). 

From February 1 to February 6, 1965, over 100 persons, bishops, theologians and lay experts discussed the redaction of scheme XIII in Ariccia (ibid. 556). The absence of Rahner was noted. The young bishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland received a lot of attention because of his critique of the text of Haubtmann. Wojtyla complained that the text was too optimistic and affirmed that Western capitalism as the Communist regimes in the East give false answers to the questions that concern the modern world (ibid.). Wojtyla then presented the ideas which his group of theologians had elaborated in Krakovia and received some attention for their conviction that the teachings of the Catholic Church presented the truth for solving the problems of the world (ibid. 557). The text of Haubtmann respected cultural and social pluralism as the separation of Church and State. The texts of Haubtmann and Wojtyla contradicted each other on many points and reconciliation was not possible. In order to overcome the split that emerged at Ariccia, Haubtmann invited Philips to cooperate with the redaction of scheme XIII for the meeting of the Mixed Commission that had been scheduled for the end of March 1965 (ibid. 558). Philips had not been present at the meeting of Ariccia and only a few days before the beginning of the plenary session of the Mixed Commission on March 29, 1965, he had received the final text from Haubtmann (ibid. 558). The situation was not easy for Philips because he had to present the text to the Mixed Commission that included members from the Doctrinal Commission of Ottaviani who were hostile to scheme XIII anyways (ibid. 559). Until April 7, 1965, Philips needed all his diplomatic and political skills to neutralize the growing skepticism of the German bishops who were present. Philips moderated the many conflicting views and suggestions that the members of the meeting expressed during that week (ibid. 559).

There were many different theological arguments, and the pastoral experience of the bishops were quite different. The worldviews of the Europeans from the East and from the West seemed irreconcilable. The text of Karol Wojtyla and his group of Polish bishops condemned the atheist regimes of the East that suppressed and persecuted the Christians. The atheist intellectuals of the liberal Western democracies criticized Christian faith-sentences as primitive superstitions that lack rational legitimacy (ibid.). The Christian faith constituted for the persecuted Christians who had to live in the Communist dictatorships, the spiritual, moral and political resource for resisting their oppression. Philips succeeded in reaching a compromise by including an indirect condemnation of communism into the text. Archbishop Parente from the Doctrinal Commission and collaborator at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Ottaviani opposed any reference to the case of Galileo. They wanted to avoid any expression of regrets for the condemnation of Galileio at all costs and they did not want to rehabilitate him (ibid. 560). There was no consensus on the questions of artificial birth control and the family. Paul VI had a secret commission working on the problem of birth control and the family that was not reaching conclusions either (ibid.). There was no consensus on banning nuclear arms or the arms race, nuclear deterrence was not condemned.

Paul VI repeatedly received Guano and followed the evolution of the text (ibid. 561). The Pope consented with the result from the meeting of the Mixed Commission. Moeller and Tucci discussed the text with Lukas Vischer and received substantial critique from him (ibid.). Luksa Vischer (1926-2008) was Swiss theologian of the Reformation and a convinced ecumenist. At the Second Vatican Council Vischer was an official observer of the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC represents “over 580 million Christians and including most of the world's Orthodox churches, scores of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches, as well as many United and Independent churches” (What is the World Council of Churches? | World Council of Churches https://www.oikoumene.org/about-the-wcc). In 2025 there are 352 member churches, most of them are in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and the Pacific (ibid.). Vischer saw his mission in contributing to a universal community of the Church, “to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship”, and “to engage in Christian service by serving human need, breaking down barriers between people, seeking justice and peace, and upholding the integrity of creation” (ibid.). Vischer’s critique of the proposed text of Gaudium et Spes insisted on reflecting the necessity of history for realizing salvation and not just juxtaposing history and salvation as separated realities (Burigana and Turbanti 1999. 561). Vischer criticized the use of the expression “signs of the times” as superficial because it does not take into consideration the Holy Spirit who was with Jesus Christ and therefore within history where the Spirit inspires women, men and queer dealing within the world (ibid. 562). Vischer was informed by the central message of Luther’s theology, that is faith in Go’d’s grace and mercy. The individual’s faith trusts in Christ, who made visible Go’d’s mercy, that is justification. The individual faithful receives the Holy Spirit at baptism and the Holy Spirit empowers the individual during a whole life to engage in Christian service by serving human need, breaking down barriers between people, seeking justice and peace, and upholding the integrity of creation. To our days the Roman Catholic Church prefers to speak of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Christian community but does not pay sufficient attention to the individual faith and her experience and empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

On May 4, 1965, Haubtmann sent the corrected scheme XIII to the Coordinating Commission that on May 11 approved of the text (ibid.). Haubtmann had met with Suenens to prepare his presentation of scheme XIII in the Coordinating Commission. Felici remained an enemy of scheme XIII and gave Paul VI a page expressing his opposition of condemning nuclear arms and criticizing the affirmation of the priority of conscience over Church teachings concerning birth control (ibid.). Paul VI allowed scheme XIII to be sent to the Council Fathers by June 1965 (ibid.). The project had to overcome a moment of shock when in the middle of May, Guano was hospitalized for hepatitis and the hopes for his eventual convalescence were disappointing (ibid. 563).

On May 24, 1965, the second day of his spiritual retreat, Philips confides to his diary, that he is tired from the work in Rome (Philips 2006, 141). He writes that is was not always possible for him to pray in Rome because of the workload on Lumen Gentium and scheme XIII. In 1964, he did not have the opportunity to go on his annual spiritual retreat and he could rarely concentrate on Go’d although he was conscious that his work was not possible without his faith-experiences (ibid.). He writes that in fact it was he who lead the discussion on scheme XIII during the meeting of the Mixed Commission from March 29 to April 8, 1965 (ibid. 143). He qualifies as strange the circumstances of his leadership in the discussions and the redaction of the text (ibid.). He thought it was peculiar that the French theologians and French bishops, who were entirely responsible for the prepared text, were convinced that only the arts of Philips would succeed in getting consensus on a final text in that meeting of the Mixed Commission (ibid.). Philips did them the service without reserves (ibid.). Philips notes ironically that since the Coordinating Commission had accepted the text of scheme XIII on May 11, 1965, the French showed considerably less interest in his help, and he even did not receive the report of information that Haubtmann was supposed to send him (ibid.). Philips did not feel offended; he thought that the substance of the report was not important anyways and was happy to be able to step back and to retreat (ibid. 143).

He writes, he first had to concentrate on Go’d, he was doing his annual spiritual retreat, and second, he was already preoccupied by the results of the elections of the Belgian Parliament of May 23, 1965 (ibid.). His party, the Christian People’s Party and the Socialists had lost their majority of two thirds and had to form a government with the Liberal Party that had won 20 percent of the votes. The Liberals preoccupied Philips because they represented the Right and had anticlerical tendencies, although many Catholics voted for them. He was also preoccupied that the nationalist Flemish Party gained seats in Parliament and feared an upcoming crisis (ibid.). Again, Philips sensed right and within three years, the conflict between the Walloons and the Flemish population openly erupted and deeply divided the country. Philips’ Catholic University of Leuven will suffer the catastrophe of splitting up in two autonomous universities, according to ethnic lines. Concerning the experience that the big political parties in Europe that formed the governments in postwar Europe, the Socialist party and the Christian Conservative Party, lost their majorities and other parties had to join coalitions to form governments, the rest of Europe would follow Belgian within decades. Within decades nationalist parties will surge all over Europe and their authoritarian leaders will challenge the defenders of the European Union. Despite all of this, Philips was back in Rome in October 1965.

The fourth session of the Council: September 15 – December 7, 1965.

In September 1965, the climate in the Doctrinal Commission working on the text on revelation and the climate in the Mixed Commission working on scheme XIII was considerably different from the relatively equilibrated atmosphere of May 1965 (Turbanti, Giovani. 2001. “Verso il quarto Periodo.” In Concilio di transizione. Il quarto period e la conclusion del concilio (1965). Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 23–72. 63. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). With the abundant feedback from the Council Fathers on the text of scheme XIII that they had received in June, the members of the Mixed Commission had to face a growing vague of critique and skepticism concerning scheme XIII. The Mixed Commission remained unimpressed by the attentive interest of the public opinion and the press for the questions on artificial birth control and for the position of the Council on world peace when the United States intensified their war in Vietnam and South-East Asia. The surging critique of the text on scheme XIII by the Council Fathers preoccupied the theologians of the Mixed Commission more and more (ibid.). Congar writes about his amazing and bitter experience that so many Council Fathers intellectually were not ready and not educated for a complex dialogue with the modern world (ibid.). At the same time, Congar recognizes that there are “several serious defects” in the prepared text of 94 pages for scheme XIII. On September 13, 1965, that is right at the beginning of the Fourth Session of the Second Vatican Council he writes in his diary and lists the defects: “1) the absence of vigorous direction and movement of the whole. It ought to have been Christological and anthropological: to have given the human face of biblical-Christian affirmations; 2) sometimes, there is a little demagogy. It is rather ACO (Catholic Workers’ Action). And certain sections, on the economy for example, list all the requirements without allowing sufficient latitude for the development of new forms or sufficiently providing a deep Spirituality” (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 772. Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne OP and Mary Cecily Boulding OP. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press). Congar expresses the central difficulty of scheme XIII and of the Catholic Church dealing with the modern world. There are blue-collar workers, Catholic laywomen, men and queer who organize and fight for better working conditions, just wages, social security, health care, pensions and much more. They regularly meet to discuss and reflect on their labor experiences and interpret their actions with an understanding of the Gospel as encouraging them to fight for the just world of Go’d within society. Catholic professors of theology, of social and political theory and sociology accompany the social actions of protest and the fight for social justice of the organized Catholic workers. Many Catholic theologians and bishops do not understand these sociologists of the Christian faith. Traditional theology has not yet learned to cope with the social philosophy of labor struggles. When the ACO speaks of the working class, most of the Council Fathers and their theological experts hear a Marxist ideology and not a Christian concern for the just world of Go’d. The theologians who specialized in empirical sociology, usually had not acquired the skills of modern biblical exegesis and were not ready to argument their pastoral social theses with biblical and traditional theological arguments.

The French Dominican and social scientist Louis-Joseph Lebret (1897–1966) passed with the help of Cardinal Liénart his points of criticism of scheme XIII to Hauptmann and the Mixed Commission (Turbanti 2001, 64). Lebret criticized that the prepared text did not take into consideration the dialogue with the whole world but stayed very Eurocentric (ibid.). The proposed text of scheme XIII does not recognize the pluralism of cultures and the aspirations of India, Asia and Africa for a human life in dignity that assures economic and social development (ibid.). Concerning the philosophical movements within Europe, Lebret affirmed that scheme XIII does not analyze the values of the philosophies of socialism, of existentialism, and atheism (bid.). Further, Lebret demanded to recognize the efforts of Hinduism and Buddhism concerning the purification of the world (ibid. 65). Rahner repeated his fundamental critique of the text of scheme XIII and the German bishops’ conference therefore suggested to confide scheme XIII to a post-conciliar commission (ibid.). Progressive theologians in Bologna, Italy, joined the critique and involuntarily got support by Italian conservative and traditional bishops and cardinals, who from the beginning met the dialogue with the modern world with hostility and feared weakening the traditional positions and authority of the Catholic Church (ibid.).

September 1965 was a delicate phase for the redaction of scheme XIII. Guano was not able to attend the meetings of the central commission of the Mixed Commission with all its sub-commissions. He was still sick, and Paul VI decided to replace Guano with the archbishop of Toulouse, Gabriel-Marie Garrone (ibid. 66). This decision was not yet official. Still on September 9, 1965, Guano communicated to Felici that he wanted his vice-president bishop Ancel to present scheme XIII to the Council Fathers in the aula because he himself wanted to stay on as president of the Mixed Commission (ibid.). On September 14, Guano got the information that at the will of Paul VI, Garrone will present the scheme in the aula. Guano was not very happy but accepted the papal decision (ibid. 67). The central commission and all Sub-commissions of the Mixed Commission tried to prepare the text of scheme XIII for the discussion in the aula by quickly integrating the amendments of the Council Fathers into the text (ibid.).

Charles Moeller documents that Philips successfully moderated conflicting views on the text between French and German bishops and theologians. Moeller documents the second decisive intervention by Philips in his history of the development of the text of Gaudium et Spes (Moeller 1968. 272). This intervention took place in a big meeting on September 17, 1965, that treated the text of Gaudium et Spes for the upcoming presentation in the aula (ibid. 271). Bishop Elchinger from Straßburg had organized the meeting because there was so much critique for the prepared text that a positive vote in the aula seemed impossible. At the meeting were present the German bishops Volk, Reuß and Hengsbach, and the French bishops Ancel, Garrone, and Musty (ibid. 272). The German Jesuit and moral theologian Hirschmann expressed the critique of the German bishops’ conference, which had heavily criticized the prepared text. According to Hirschmann’s report, the text failed considering the Christian faith within history, and did not teach on sin, on the cross and on eschatological hope. The contribution of faith to history was not clear, the ecumenical aspect was not considered in the text, and the mentality of the non-believers was not sufficiently taken into account (ibid. 271). The French bishops and the French Jesuit theologian Daniélou defended the prepared text, although archbishop Garrone admitted deficiencies that have to be corrected. Haubtmann reported that the prepared text had received a very positive reception with the French laity. Haubtmann reported also that ninety percent of the received amendments from the Council Fathers demanded a biblical argumentation and a biblical foundation that leads to the truths of faith that is to the crucified and resurrected Christ (ibid. 272). Philips took the word and his proposal to collaborate on the amelioration of the prepared text found consensus. Philips argued that a refusal of the prepared text by the Council Fathers would mean that there is no text at all, and that writing a new text was not possible in the few months until the end of the Second Vatican Council. Philips described the central problem of his editorial work on the text as the difficulty to use the theological vocabulary of the Church in a way that the addressees could understand the text. Further, the addressees had to feel that the Church understood their concerns. Philips affirms there is unrest and the necessity for contact and dialogue. He had tried to establish contact and dialogue with the people, he had tried to overwork the text in order to clarify that the Church speaks to the women and men of the concrete world “in the light of Christ”, respecting them as they are and recognizing their needs in the struggles of daily life. Finally, Philips suggested ameliorating the prepared text but pleaded to accept the prepared text as the starting point for this revision (ibid.). The revision that followed in ten sub-commissions in the following days produced compromise solutions consisting of the description of the world and the needs of modern women and men and of the proclamation of the Christian faith and the teachings of the Church. The compromise accepted the principal tension between a principally positive worldview and an ambivalent outlook on a world that is in constant need of redemption and salvation and the Church. The sub-commissions had supporters on both sides of the conflict. Nevertheless, the will on working out compromises carried the text of Gaudium et Spes through the discussion in the aula, through further work in the ten sub-commissions on five-hundred pages of amendments and comments from the debate, until the final positive vote on Gaudium et Spes in the aula on December 7, 1965 (ibid. 272–73). So far, the documentation of Moeller.

On September 21, 1965, the Council Fathers started discussing scheme XIII (Routhier 2001, 151). The reaction of the Council Fathers to the presented text was positive in general and many Fathers acclaimed the work of the Mixed Commission (ibid.). From September 21 to September 23, 1965, there were 26 speeches by Council Fathers in the aula and at least 18 of them supported the presented text as basis for further discussions and amendments on scheme XIII. On September 23, 1965, the Council was ready for an orientation vote. 2,111 Council Fathers voted in favor of keeping the text and only 44 opposed the presented text (ibid. 159). Detailed discussions on the chapters of scheme XIII followed this vote. On September 24, 1965, the Introduction to scheme XIII was discussed (ibid. 160), and the discussion on the first four chapters of scheme XIII started (ibid. 162). Until September 28, 1965, 38 Council Fathers took the word in aula. The first chapter on the dignity of the human person again raised controversy on atheism and communism (ibid. 163). The discussions on chapters two, three and four of the first part of scheme XIII were less controversial. Controversy arose again on the question of birth control concerning the first chapter of part two of scheme XIII that is on marriage and family life. Since the papal commission had not yet concluded on birth control either, scheme XIII does not present a conclusion on marriage and artificial birth control (ibid. 177). In order to shorten the discussion in the aula, 70 Council Fathers turned over written observations and amendments for the Mixed Commission and the debate continued with the second chapter of the second part of scheme XIII (ibid.). The discussion on chapters two, three, four and five of the second part of scheme XIII was much easier and faster than on the first chapter. The discussion on culture ended on October 4, 1965, and the Council Fathers continued with the chapter on economic and social life (ibid. 180–81). On October 5, the discussion passed to the chapter on political life and on October 6 and 7, 1965, to the debate on war and peace and new controversies arose on the ethical legitimacy of nuclear arms and nuclear deterrence. The debate on scheme XIII finally ended on October 8, 1965, and the hard work in the commissions could start to prepare the text for the final votes in aula (ibid. 189).

On October 19, 1965, Philips participated in the meeting of the Mixed Commission (Philips 2006, 153). The Mixed Commission was supposed to discuss scheme XIII but half of the time they had to discuss the Pope’s concerns for the document on revelation (ibid.). On October 23, 1965, Philips finished the first part of scheme XIII, that is the first four chapters, and he is exhausted from fatigue (ibid. 154). On October 25, 1965, the meeting of the Mixed Commission that discussed the second part of scheme XIII and especially the question of marriage and the family was arduous. Since the morning of that day, Philips had been suffering from chest pain. He was no longer capable of participating in the Mixed Commission and says, “The Council is over for me” (ibid. 154). Haubtmann continues changing the text of scheme XIII and Philips feels powerless, he must let Haubtmann do and retreats to assure not to get hurt by Haubtmann’s offense. Philips remarks that Haubtmann remains completely indifferent on part two of scheme XIII (ibid. 155). Philips returns to Belgium and will not travel to Rome anymore.

On October 25, Garrone took over from Philips the work of the editor of scheme XIII in the Mixed Commission (Hünermann 2004, 379). He closely cooperated with Paul VI who wanted scheme XIII to succeed (ibid.). Sometimes Garrone bypassed the Mixed Commission and assured the legitimacy of changes to the text pointing at a wish from Paul VI (ibid.). From November 15 to November 17, 1965, there were 33 ballots on the amendments of scheme XIII (ibid. 372). On December 4, 1965, there were another 12 ballots on amendments for scheme XIII and on December 7, 1965, the entire scheme XIII passed the final vote with 2,3009 yes and only 75 no (ibid.). On December 6, 1965, Haubtmann again corrected the text on his own and exchanged the expression “social doctrine of the Church” with the expression “doctrine on society”; 22 bishops, most of them from Brazil, protested and the embarrassed Haubtmann had difficulty excusing himself (ibid. 380).