Interpreting Gaudium et Spes Part II

Gaudium et Spes 46–93 is titled “Some more urgent Problems”

Gaudium et Spes 46 is titled “Preface”

The first sentence of Gaudium et Spes 46, 1 takes up a central theme of Gaudium et Spes 1–45, the first part of the Constitution “This council has set forth the dignity of the human person, and the work which men have been destined to undertake throughout the world both as individuals and as members of society.”

It is important to notice that the term “the dignity of the human person” constitutes the beginning of the second part of Gaudium et Spes. Bernhard Häring, the German moral theologian who helped editing the text, does not even mention the term “dignity of the human person” in his commentary of Gaudium et Spes 46 (Häring, Bernhard. 1968. “Einleitung und Kommentar Erstes Kapitel des Zweiten Teils der Pastoralkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 423–446. 425. Freiburg im Breisgaus: Herder). The commentary of Hans-Joachim Sander holds the term “dignity of the human person” to be a relic from the very early redaction of the adnexa of scheme XVII, a mere abstract principle (Sander, Hans-Joachim. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution 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. 770. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The first chapter of the second part of Gaudium et Spes is titled “The Dignity of Marriage and the Family”.

The historic setting of marriage and family constitutes an exemplary pastoral setting for Gaudium et Spes, and in this context Sander accepts the use of the term “dignity” without comment (ibid). Sander does not acknowledge the importance of the use of the term “dignity” from the beginning of the second part of Gaudium et Spes and therefore does not recognize the coherent use of the term “dignity” in part one and part two of Gaudium et Spes.

Yves Congar asks in his commentary on chapter four of the first part of Gaudium et Spes that is titled “Role of the Church in the Modern World”: What is the foundation of the relation between the Church and the World (Congar, Yves. 1968. “Einleitung und Kommentar Viertes Kapitel des Ersten Teils der Pastoralkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 397–422. 399. Freiburg im Breisgaus: Herder)? He answered, the foundation of the relation between the Church and the World is the human person and assesses his answer with references to Gaudium et Spes. Gaudium et Spes 1, 1 affirms the Church “is a community composed of men”. Therefore, the Church is inserted in the history of mankind (Congar 1968, 399). The “world which is the theater of man’s history, and the heir of his energies, his tragedies and his triumphs” (Gaudium et Spes 2, 2) is the world of Go’d’s plan for salvation (ibid). Congar affirms that for the above reasons Gaudium et Spes considers man to be the hinge for all of its considerations and refers to Gaudium et Spes 3, 1 “Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will” (ibid. 399).

Congar insists on the importance of the affirmation in the first sentence of chapter four of the first part of Gaudium et Spes 40, 1 for understanding the intention of the whole document (ibid), “Everything we have said about the dignity of the human person, and about the human community and the profound meaning of human activity, lays the foundation for the relationship between the Church and the world, and provides the basis for dialogue between them” (Gaudium et Spes 40, 1).

We must remember this first sentence of chapter four of the first part of Gaudium et Spes that deals with the mutual relationship of Church and World when we read at the beginning of the second part of Gaudium et Spes about the “dignity of the human person”. Congar comments on the fourth chapter of part one of Gaudium et Spes because he was a main contributor to the text. A French citizen is familiar with the term “dignity of the human person”, and in 1964 even a Catholic theologian accepts the terminology of the French Revolution.

Congar relates “the dignity of the human person” to a common desire of the faithful, the People of God and of “other men of our age” and refers to Gaudium et Spes 11, 1 (Congar 1968, 399). Gaudium et Spes 11, 1 affirms indeed the People of Go’d  “labors to decipher authentic signs of God’s presence and purpose in the happenings, needs and desires in which this People has a part along with other men of our age”.

It is clear, Congar speaks as a Christian and he speaks from his point of view of faith “to decipher authentic signs of God’s presence” in history; in 1968, Congar relates “the dignity of the human person” and “the happenings, needs and desires” of Christians and non-Christians (ibid. 400). In 1963, Pope John XXIII writes the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. He assesses the needs and desires for world peace and is conscious of the historic context of two world wars and the threat of atomic war. At this moment of history, John XXIII introduces the use of the term “human dignity” into the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, writing of “human dignity and life”.

Pacem in Terris 112:

“Justice, then, right reason and consideration for human dignity and life urgently demand that the arms race should cease; that the stockpiles which exist in various countries should be reduced equally and simultaneously by the parties concerned; that nuclear weapons should be banned; and finally that all come to an agreement on a fitting program of disarmament, employing mutual and effective controls. In the words of Pius XII, our Predecessor of happy memory: ‘The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not be permitted to envelop the human race for a third time’ (Pius XII. 1941. “Radiomessagio di Sua Santitá Pio XII. Mercoledì 24, Dicembre 1941.” The Holy See).”

On Christmas Eve 1941, the disputed Pope Pius XII announces in his radio message the challenge for humanity to avoid a third world war. In 1948, the Preamble of the UDHR proclaims, “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world … the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”[i] 

At the end of World War II, in the middle of the Cold War and facing atomic extinction, it was clear to Pope John XXIII that world peace and justice is the need and desire of the women, men and queer in the world, Christians or non-Christians alike. It is also clear for Pope John XXIII that world peace and justice are inseparably linked “to the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UDHR).

Pacem in Terries 144 affirms about the UDHR “There is no doubt, however, that the document represents an important step on the path towards the juridical-political organization of all the peoples of the world. For in it, in most solemn form, the dignity of a human person is acknowledged to all human beings. And as a consequence, there is proclaimed, as a fundamental right, the right of every man freely to investigate the truth and to follow the norms of moral good and justice, and also the right to a life worthy of man’s dignity, while other rights connected with those mentioned are likewise proclaimed”. It is also true that John XXIII affirms that rightly “some objections and reservations were raised regarding certain points in the Declaration” (John XXIII 1963, 144).

Gaudium et Spes and the whole Second Vatican Council do not dare affirming that in the UDHR “in most solemn form, the dignity of a human person is acknowledged to all human beings” (John XXIII 1963, Pacem in Terris. Number 144). The Council Fathers want to treat in part two of Gaudium et Spes “Some more urgent Problems” of the modern world “in the light of the Gospel and of human experience” (Gaudium et Spes 46, 1).  John XXIII rightly identified world peace and justice as urgent problems of our times. The Preamble of the UDHR proclaims, “the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Therefore, I want to examine, if Gaudium et Spes recognizes the inherent dignity of women, men and queer in this world and within the Roman Catholic Church.

Chapter One Gaudium et Spes 47–52. The Dignity of the Human Person

Gaudium et Spes 47 is titled “Marriage and the Family in the Modern World”.

Gaudium et Spes 47,1 affirms “The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family”. Marriage and family form a community of love and of perfecting life.

In Gaudium et Spes 47,2 we hear the intriguing voices of the Council’s minority in the text that speaks of the destruction of the institution of marriage by the many vices of modern life such as “Polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love”, “excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation” (Gaudium et Spes 47,2). Fifty years after the editing of this text, we have to explain that the Council Fathers understand polygamy not as the marriage of a man with two or more wives at the same time. Polygamy is a description for divorced women and men who marry a second time and then have their second husband or wife. One of my African doctoral students once shocked me in a seminary suggesting the above description of European decadent polygamy and defending his native cultural tradition of polygamy as an effective form of protection and care for women who cannot make a living on their own. My African brother confronted me with his culture and tradition, and I have not yet figured out how to communicate to him my conviction that men, women and queer enjoy equal dignity, freedoms and rights. I am sure that African women, men and queer will realize their dignity and claim their integrity. The moderate Council Fathers of the majority, who had become tired during the years of the Council’s reform work, unassumingly affirm that “modern economic conditions”, “demands of society” and “population growth” exercise negative influences on “the good health” of marriage and the family (Gaudium et Seps 47, 2).

Gaudium et Spes 47, 3 claims that there is an “anxiety of consciences” about these negative influences.

Gaudium et Spes 47, 4 affirms that the Church “wishes to support Christians and others” who want “to preserve the holiness and to foster the natural dignity of the married state and its superlative value”.

Gaudium et Spes 48 is titled “Holiness of the Marriage and the Family”.

Gaudium et Spes 48, 1 affirms “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent”.

The above claim of Gaudium et Spes 48, 1 contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948.

Article 16 of the UDHR proclaims:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.                                                                     (UDHR 16)

UDHR 16, 1 clearly proclaims the equal rights of men and women “to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. The Council Fathers refuse the human right to dissolve marriage by divorce. Some Council Fathers had evoked the right to divorce, but there was no way of getting the consensus of the Council for that right (Häring 1968, 424). Even in 2020 CE, the Roman Catholic Church does not realize the human right to divorce from marriage. Gaudium et Spes 48, 1 is one of the longest articles of the whole Constitution. Nevertheless, there is no biblical reference for sustaining the impossibility of divorce, there is no reference to the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church in the first millennium CE that allowed divorce as still do the Orthodox Churches and the Churches of the Reform and there is only reference to the 1930 Encyclical Casti Connubi from Pius XI. It is important to acknowledge that Paul VI will stick to the teaching of this encyclical of Pius XI. His own Encyclical Humane Vitae follows in 1968 the teachings of Casti Connubi. Paul VI made his trusted theologian Carlo Colombo (1909–1991) from Milan prepare the draft for this encyclical. From the beginning of 1964 until the last days of its work in November 1965, Colombo was member of the sub-commission working on marriage and the family. Philippe Delhaye (1912–1990), French priest from the dioceses of Namur and expert on the history of the Christian concept of conscience, was also theological expert on that sub-commission treating marriage and family. Delhaye defended the right to the social realization of free choices of conscience (Delhaye, Philippe. 1963. La Conscience morale du Chrétien. 42. Paris:  Declée). He represents the contraposition to theologians like Colombo, who subjected the dignity of conscience to the obedience of the teachings of the hierarchy of the Church, and especially to Casti Connubi, the encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Christian marriage from December 31, 1930.  The chapter on the dignity of marriage and the family is characterized by efforts of the two opposing positions to assure their influence in the text of Gaudium et Spes 47–52.

Gaudium et Spes 48, 2 constructs an unfortunate similarity between the union of Jesus Christ with his Church and the union of man and woman in marriage. This similarity is unfortunate because it compares the faith in the new covenant of Jesus Christ with the Church to the covenant of man and woman in marriage and founds the sacramentality of marriage on that comparison. Doing this, divorce looks like an impossibility within the logic of faith. But faith follows the law of the Holy Spirit that is love and love is forgiveness and the beginning of hope.

Gaudium et Spes 48, 3 speaks of the necessary “education and especially religious education” of the children by their father and mother.

Gaudium et Spes 48, 4 affirms that children “will respond to the kindness of their parents with sentiments of gratitude, with love and trust” and speaks of the blessings of having children with the pathos of somebody who never passed two hours with children in noise, chaos and confusion. Millions of adult children respond to their old and sick parents by sticking them into nursing homes, and a whole generation of adults passes to their children a climate crisis that is destroying the resources for the children’s lives.

Gaudium et Spes 49 is titled “Married Love”.

Hans-Joachim Sander, born 1959 in a miner’s family in the Saarland, Germany, married in 1988 and started teaching dogmatic theology at Salzburg University, Austria (Sander 2016). He qualifies the celestial praise of love in Gaudium et Spes 49 as super elevated, abstract and as not in touch with real marriage life (Sander 2005, 775). 

Gaudium et Spes 49, 1 recognizes true love between men and women according to customs and traditions throughout history. There are formal references to Genesis, to The Proverbs, Tobit, and The Song of Songs without explaining the cultural and historic context of the patriarchal customs and traditions that rule marriage and family organization of the Biblical authors. Why referring to customs and traditions that submit women to men, treat women as property of men and consider the possession of women together with the possession of cattle, as we read in The Decalogue of Exodus 20, 17. References to Paul and to the late Letter to the Ephesians are not really changing the norms of patriarchal traditions and customs that ruled the Antiquity.

Gaudium et Spes 49, 2 turns to love “from one person to another through an affection of the will” that is personal love and “This love God has judged worthy of special gifts, healing, perfecting and exalting gifts of grace and of charity”.

The Council Fathers really speak of sex and praise conjugal sex and sexuality as a good gift from Go’d the Creator. Nevertheless, this positive recognition and appraisal of conjugal sex and love finally overcomes centuries of viewing sex in marriage as a deficient expression of Christians that needs a special justification. Augustine invented this perverted view on sexuality pretending a connection between original sin and sex as sinful (Häring 1968, 435). Both assumptions, original sin and sex as sinful realization of life find no foundation in the Bible. Nevertheless, male white European celibate theologians condemned sex as sinful and insisted on the healing of dishonest lust in marriage life through generating children, the first and primary end of marriage (ibid). In 2020, we recognize the healing powers of sexuality and sex and judge undeveloped sexuality as perverse and harmful for the person’s integrity. Times are changing.

Gaudium et Spes 49, 3 continues describing the Christian dream of love in marriage “Firmly established by the Lord, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual and total love”.

The Council Fathers actually proclaim the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women and men making love. There is mutual dignity with women and men having sex in marriage. Bernhard Häring, member of the Redemptorist Order of Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696–1787), remembers the merits of Alphonsus de Liguori bringing about a positive evaluation of sex in marriage (ibid. 435).  Alphonsus de Liguori opposed Augustine’s pessimistic view on sexual lust. De Liguori considers sex in marriage as good by nature, describes sex as a “mutual giving” of the spouses and accepts lust as good and as a dignified expression of conjugal love that empowers the spouses’ love, and strengthens their marriage. He disapproves of the norm that the spouses have to be conscious of generating children when having sex and defends the good reasons of spouses for not wishing to generate children as being legitimate (ibid).

Members of the conservative minority at the Second Vatican Council like the Irish Dominican Michael Cardinal Browne, who had been General Master of his Order, kept sticking to Augustine’s condemnation of sex and lust as principally sinful. The Church had sanctified De Liguori in 1839 and declared him Doctor of the Church in 1871 but did not adopt his liberating pastoral views on conscience and moral life. De Liguori was born to a noble and mighty family in Naples, Italy. He received the best juridical formation of that time. In the 17th century, the juridical faculty of the University of Naples was leading in the development of the philosophy of law; there, Francesco d’Andrea claimed that Civil and Canon Law have to adapt to the social, economic and cultural needs and find solutions for the changing problems of society that means law is part of history (Vereecke, Louis. 1993. “Sant’Alfonso Giurista. La Formazione Giuridica e l’Influsso sulla Morale.” In Studia Moralia 31: 265–282. 272).

De Liguori was an excellent lawyer by formation, he prayed and meditated on the Bible, but he was not a theologian who systematically developed his convictions of the liberty of conscience and of the validity-condition of moral certitude for moral decisions (ibid. 280). For more than a century, moral theologians of the Roman Catholic Church developed their teaching of practical morality along the list of the Decalogue. De Liguori had pioneered this procedure of presenting Christian moral life insisting on an analogy. If the lawmaker does not promulgate a law, then I am not obliged to comply with that law, because I have no knowledge of that law. De Liguori supposed that what is true for the order of civil society is true for moral life too. If Go’d does not give me moral certitude on a moral law then I am not obliged to comply with that law (ibid.). The Roman Catholic Church and her moral theologians often forgot and forget about the necessity to evolve moral policy according to the needs of women, men and queer.

Gaudium et Spes 49, 4 expresses the Christian hope that “Especially in the heart of their own families, young people should be aptly and seasonably instructed in the dignity, duty and work of married love” in order “to enter a marriage of their own” one day.

Gaudium et Spes 50 is titled “The fruitfulness of Marriage”.

Gaudium et Spes 50, 1 affirms “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents”. We recognize the teaching of Casti Connubi that does not affirm conjugal love as personal love of man and woman but establishes children as validity-condition of conjugal love.

Within Gaudium et Spes 50, 2 we find two contrasting and incoherent models of conscience (Hogan, Linda. 2004. “Conscience in the Documents of Vatican II.” In: Conscience, edited by Charles E. Curran, 82–89. 86. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press).

The first model encourages parents “Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God” (Gaudium et Spes 50, 2a).

The second model follows immediately and subjects conscience of the parents to the teaching of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council Fathers demand from the parents “But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (Gaudium et Spes 50, 2b).

The first model underscores the capability and agency of conscience to find and realize the right choice and judgement within complex situations by deliberating in order to do the good that sustains the objective moral order (Hogan 2004, 86). This model defends the autonomy of conscience for taking moral decisions and assessing the decisions with responsibility and arguments (ibid). The other conscience model of the Second Vatican Council underscores the relation of conscience with the objective moral order that the individual Christian receives from the authority of the teaching Church (ibid).

Gaudium et Spes 50, 3 suddenly becomes aware of the validity problem for infertile marriages without children and quickly affirms “marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often-intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking”.

Gaudium et Spes 51 is titled “Married Love and Respect for Human Life”.

Gaudium et Spes 51, 1 signal some understanding for parents who practice birth control methods “in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased”.  Gaudium et Spes 51, 2 speaks of people who “offer dishonorable solutions” to the problem. Gaudium et Spes 51, 3 affirms “Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”. The Council Fathers prohibit artificial birth control with a reference to Casti Connubi of 1930. Hormonal contraception is of a much later date, but the Council does not worry about the new method for birth control and was not allowed to worry. The Council Fathers knew that Paul VI had withdrawn the question of birth control from the Council and had constituted a secret commission to study the problem of birth control. The sub-commission on marriage and family left the matter of birth control to the secret papal commission (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. 274. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

Gaudium et Spes 52 is titled “Fostering Marriage and the Family: A Duty for All”.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 1 encourages the fathers to cooperate in the education of their children. The mothers should stay at home with the children “though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account”. There is no further suggestion that women would earn their own money and independence or that man takes an equal share of the household and of the education of the children.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 2 affirms a kind of the right to marry and to found a family, but without referring to UDHR 16.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 3 encourages society and public institutions to protect the family and children.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 4 affirms that Christians “should actively promote the values of marriage and the family”.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 5 all of a sudden expresses the hope that empirical sciences “notably the medical, biological, social and psychological” sciences, “can considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family along with peace of conscience if by pooling their efforts they labor to explain more thoroughly the various conditions favoring a proper regulation of births”.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 6 encourages priests to sustain and support families.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 7 encourages family associations to train and educate young people “for family, social and apostolic life”.

Gaudium et Spes 52, 8 invites the spouses to “become witnesses of the mystery of love which the Lord revealed to the world by His dying and His rising up to life again” and points at Ephesians 5, 25-27 as reference. Gaudium et Spes 52, 8 does not mention Ephesians 5, 24 that subordinates the wife to the husband, and speaks instead of reciproqual love, of “equal affection” and of “mutual sanctification” of the spouses.

Chapter Two of Gaudium et Spes 53–60 is titled “Proper Development of Culture”

Gaudium et Spes 53 is titled “Introduction”.

Gaudium et Spes 53, 1 affirms the connection of human nature and culture.

Gaudium et Spes 53, 2 describes the expression culture by listing man’s social agencies for organizing societies and institutions, economic agencies like labor and knowledge, and communicative and spiritual agencies.

Gaudium et Spes 53, 3 takes note of cultural pluralism “Different styles of life and multiple scales of values arise from the diverse manner of using things, of laboring, of expressing oneself, of practicing religion, of forming customs, of establishing laws and juridic institutions, of cultivating the sciences, the arts and beauty”. Gaudium et Spes views culture as principally progressing, developing the whole human family and promoting civilization. Genders are not visible in this description of culture within the historical context of the Council Fathers, who consent to a text whose authors are predominantly white, male celibate European Catholic theologians and bishops. 

Gaudium et Spes 54–56 is entitled “Section 1: The circumstances of Culture in the World of Today”

Gaudium et Spes 54 is titled “New Forms of Living” and tries to explicate the changes of culture that Gaudium et Spes 4–10 had evoked.

Advances of social sciences, technical progress, new forms of production due to new forms of communication, industrialization and urbanization, a new mass culture, and increasing international commerce promote the unity of the human race and preserves the different civilizations. The Second Vatican Council describes elements of what we call today globalization. The Council’s perspective is from a Western civilization that forgets about brutal colonialism that destroyed cultures and economies. Religious imperialism from the Christian religions legitimated the submission of continents to European empires. Within the historic context of colonialism, Western civilization shows itself not as peaceful but as belligerent, greedy, abusive and destructive. Western civilization covered the world with two World Wars. The German Nazis and their European accomplices used their civilization of modern science and technologies for the industrial extinction of 6 million Jews, of Sinti and Roma, of political enemies and Slavic ethnics. Why did the Roman Catholic hierarchy not encourage the faithful in Germany and Austria to resist Nazism? Why did the Catholic faithful women, men and queer not collectively organize and fight the Nazis? They were not empowered to follow their conscience and realize their protest. They were empowered to obey their bishops and the authorities; they were not empowered to realize their dignity. Communism in China and the Soviet Union terrorized with their civilization of oppression and dictatorship half of the world. Women, men and queer from the United States, South America and Europe pioneered the international movement for Human Rights. A few decades later, US governments supported dictators in South America and forcefully imposed on the whole world their rules for trade and commerce.

The Council Fathers do not speak of a plurality of cultures anymore, they are not aware of the perishing of traditional cultures of many ethnics groups and people, of international trade wars and wars for dominance. There is no word on the culture of exploitation and greed, of the culture of poverty and misery and of deprivation within inhumane living conditions that expose oppressed women and children to misery and death. The critique of the unilaterally positive outlook on the cultural development of the West and the critique of Eurocentrism in Gaudium et Spes are part of the redaction process of the document itself. A few theologians expressed this critique in the commissions or communicated it to the editors (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. 64 Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Gaudium et Spes 55 is titled “Humanity, Author of Culture” and affirms “an increase in the number of men and women who are conscious that they themselves are the authors and the artisans of the culture of their community. Throughout the whole world there is a mounting increase in the sense of autonomy as well as of responsibility”. All this gives birth to a “new humanism”. 

Gaudium et Spes 56 is titled “Difficulties and Duties”. Gaudium et Spes 56, 1 speaks of hopes and of anxieties of modern man. Gaudium et Spes 56, 2 finally acknowledges that the encounter of cultures destroys the cultures of peoples who are not offered dialogue and respect. Gaudium et Spes 56, 3–6 ask how scientific progress, and technological development may contribute to a new humanism. Gaudium et Spes 56, 7 all of a sudden presents the “fraternally united Christians” as partners in the construction of this new humanism. The post-conciliar development will show quite the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church will develop a growing split between the hierarchy and the faithful, institutional religion constantly loses cultural competence and religiosity turns subjective and individual.

There is no awareness of the necessity to study the influence of the described changes and anxieties, of the growing autonomy and self-responsibility of the Catholic faithful on the hierarchical society of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no awareness of the great exodus of priests, lay women and men and queer from the culture of dominance of the religious institution Roman Catholic Church that had started in the last years of the Council and grew to a mass phenomenon in the decades that followed the Council.

Gaudium et Spes 57–59 is titled “Section 2: Some Principles for the Proper Development of Culture”.

Gaudium et Spes 57 is titled “Faith and Culture”. Gaudium et Spes 57, 1 demand that the Catholic faithful “work with all men in the building of a more human world”. Many Catholic women, men and queer realize the social choice working for the equal dignity, liberty and rights of all women, men and queer, but they chose to do so independently from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Gaudium et Spes 57, 2–4 issue a naïve Christian catechesis.

Gaudium et Spes 57, 2 affirms Go’d’s call to man “that he should subdue the earth, perfect creation and develop himself” and that man “obeys the commandment of Christ that he place himself at the service of his brethren”. Gaudium et Spes 57, 3 links the development of modern science to “that marvelous Wisdom which was with God from all eternity” without explaining this link. Gaudium et Spes 57, 4 affirms that “the human spirit” – whatever the Council means with this expression – by grace is disposed “to acknowledge the Word of God”.

Gaudium et Spes 57, 5 discovers the reality of agnosticism. Gaudium et Spes 57, 6 acknowledges the positive values of modern science as “preparation for the acceptance of the message of the Gospel”. Science is valued as pre-school for preaching the Gospel.

Gaudium et Spes 58 is titled “Relations Between Culture and the Good News of Christ”.

Gaudium et Spes 58, 1 affirms that God “revealing Himself to His people” … “has spoken according to the culture proper to each epoch”. The Council that keeps an exclusively Christian perspective on the revelation of Go’d to women, men and queer. of every culture and in every epoch is not considered by

Gaudium et Spes 58, 2 tries to make the reader believe that the Roman Catholic Church always had respected and respects the different cultures of the people and nations where she preached the Gospel.

Gaudium et Spes 58, 3 claims that the Church is able of staying “faithful to her own tradition” and at the same time “she can enter into communion with the various civilizations, to their enrichment”. I fear the “own tradition” of the Roman Catholic Church is the tradition of the Latin West and communion with various civilizations remains a goal to achieve.

Gaudium et Spes 58, 4 professes that “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” makes fruitful “the spiritual qualities and traditions of every people of every age” and pledges that preaching and living the Gospel constitutes the function of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no way of holding the Council Fathers accountable for their claims of contributing to “civic culture”.

Gaudium et Spes 59 is titled “Proper Harmony Between Forms of Culture”.

Gaudium et Spes 59, 1 demand “to develop the human faculties in such a way that there results a growth of the faculty of admiration, of intuition, of contemplation, of making personal judgment, of developing a religious, moral and social sense”. These capabilities are necessary for realizing “the integral perfection of the human person, to the good of the community and of the whole society”. All the above sounds very beautiful, even fifty years after the promulgation of the text. Nevertheless, the text does not answer the question of how the Council Fathers want to bring about this development of character in history.

Gaudium et Spes 59, 2 affirms the liberty of the human arts, of science and of the autonomy of culture.

Gaudium et Spes 59, 3 continues affirming the liberty of expression before again oppressing all the above liberties by “the limits of morality and the common utility” that are imposed by the teachings of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Gaudium et Spes 59, 4 speaks on “public authority” as guarantee of the necessary conditions for cultural development.

The Second Vatican Council is not capable of proclaiming, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (UDHR 1). The Council cannot affirm the conjunctional claim “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (UDHR 18). The Roman Catholic Church does not affirm “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” (UDHR 19). Gaudium et Spes claims the autonomy of culture but ignores Human Rights as validity-condition for the claim.

Gaudium et Spes 60–62 is titled “Section 3: Some more urgent Duties of Christians in Regard to Culture”.

Gaudium et Spes 60 is titled “Recognition of Everyone’s Right to Culture and its Implementation”.

Gaudium et Spes 60, 1 affirms the duty of Christians to realize “the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition” and is aware that illiteracy and ignorance prevent the realization of that right. Consequently, Gaudium et Spes 60, 2 demands from Christians to enable effective access to higher education for young “men”. Women and queer are not mentioned.

Gaudium et Spes 60, 3 claims access of “farmers and workers” to cultural development. The Council takes notice that “Women now work in almost all spheres”. At the same time the Council anxiously binds women to household and upbringing of children as “their proper role in accordance with their own nature” without recognizing the contradiction of this sexist determination of a “nature” with the claim of cultural participation without “any discrimination of sex” in Gaudium et Spes 60, 1.

Gaudium et Spes 61 is titled “Cultural Education”. 

Gaudium et Spes 61, 1 suffers from adapting to cultural pluralism and from not knowing how to deal with plurality within culture. Gaudium et Spes 61, 2 recognizes the family as primary educator. Gaudium et Spes 61, 3 speaks of social communication, of leisure time and sports, of reading books, of tourism and of reduced working time as opportunities for the cultural development of the individual. The Council is not aware that it addresses itself to the Western way of life of capitalism and forgets about the real living conditions of most women, men and queer. “A profound inquiry into the meaning of culture and science for the human person” as claimed in Gaudium et Spes 61, 4, has to consider the living conditions of all women, men and queer and not only the leisure time of rich Westerners living in the Northern hemisphere.

Gaudium et Spes 62 is titled “Proper Harmony between Culture and Christian Formation”.

Gaudium et Spes 62, 1 affirms that the confrontation with culture enables a “more accurate understanding of the faith”. The Council Fathers treat “The Deposit of the faith” and the “truths of faith” as timeless and out of reach of the evolution of cultures in history. At the same time, the Council speaks of the communication of the Christian faith within culture. Why is it so difficult for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that the expressions and descriptions of the Deposit of the faith changed during history?

Gaudium et Spes 62, 3 recognizes “the arts and literature” as important elements of culture.

Gaudium et Spes 62, 4 recognizes the artists and welcomes works of art in the sanctuaries according to the prescriptions of Sacrosanctum Concilium 123.

Gaudium et Spes 62, 5 even claims “a better knowledge of God” through the experience of art.

Gaudium et Spes 62, 6 encourages the faithful Catholics to communicate with contemporary art and exchange as long as “the teaching of Christian doctrine” is guaranteed.

Gaudium et Spes 62, 7 encourages theologians culturing “close contact with its own time” in order to “attain to a better understanding of the faith”. This helps the education of priests and Christians as Optatam Totius and Gravissimum educationis have affirmed. The laity is encouraged to engage in theological studies. Roberto Tucci, chief editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, that is the Jesuits’ semi-official journal of the Vatican, testifies as senior member of the sub-commission working on the appendix on culture, that overcoming the hierarchy’s “horror of a laity teaching theology” was a big success and in the interest of the Council Fathers (Tucci, Roberto. 1968. “Kommentar zum II. Kapitel des Zweiten Hauptteils von Gaudium et Spes.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 447–484. 483. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). There is reference to Lumen Gentium 4 and 37 in order to legitimate that the laity teaches theology. Lumen Gentium 4 and 37 generally pay attention to the laity, but do not speak of the laity teaching theology. The Archbishop Michele Pellegrino from Turin had demanded in the aula of the Council to affirm the freedom for research in theology for priests and the laity (ibid. 484). The text speaking of “the Christian freedom” was changed to “lawful freedom” in the last days of the redaction, due to the intervention of a Council Father who feared for the orthodox signification of the term freedom (ibid).

Hans-Joachim Sander explains the one-sidedly positive presentation of contemporary culture by the Council Fathers as an expression of effusive joy and relief that a century of Roman papal condemnation of all modern culture has ended with Pope John XXIII (Sander 2005, 780). The exuberance of the positive descriptions of contemporary culture in this second chapter of the second part of Gaudium et Spes sounds exaggerated, just as the exuberant qualification of modernity as heretic and Antichrist were exaggerated. Gaudium et Spes does not fight any more for a proper “Christian culture” that does not touch the corrupted and sinful cultural spheres of the modern world but constitutes a “Christian society” and counterculture (ibid). Gaudium et Spes accepts that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the world and lives within the world. Only at the very end of the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church develops some elements for a concept of the relationship of the faithful in this world with the world and promulgates the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes on December 7, 1965. Most of the Catholic faithful women, men and queer do not experience difficulties living as Christians in the world or living with their faith in the world. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has not yet developed a concept for living as faithful in the world. The hierarchy is not aware that it constitutes a closed society that is principally separated from the world and refuses to accept and proclaim the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer in this world. At the same time, the Council Fathers are aware of the necessity to adapt the teachings of the Church society to the needs of the world. A clear analysis has to affirm that a monarchical society cannot adapt to an egalitarian community of the People of Go’d without converting from the monarchic principle of government to the government of the Law of the Spirit with the social, institutional and structural realization of the threefold commandment of love of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no biblical theology of culture in the whole chapter on culture of Gaudium et Spes. What does a culture of the realization of the just world of Go’d look like? We need an answer to this question.

Chapter Three Gaudium et Spes 63 – 72

Gaudium et Spes 63 – 72 is titled “Economic and Social Life”.

Gaudium et Spes 63 is titled “Some Characteristics of Economic Life Today”.

Gaudium et Spes 63, 1 affirms “In the economic and social realms, too, the dignity and complete vocation of the human person and the welfare of society as a whole are to be respected and promoted”.

Gaudium et Spes 63, 2 assesses “man’s increasing domination over nature” and elements of a globalized economy.

Gaudium et Spes 63, 3 deplores the “exclusive economic thinking” in “collective economies and others”. The Council does not use the expression capitalist. No social encyclical has so far used the expression capitalist. There are “reasons for anxiety”. “While a few enjoy very great power of choice, the majority are deprived of almost all possibility of acting on their own initiative and responsibility, and often subsist in living and working conditions unworthy of the human person” (Gaudium et Spes 63, 3).

Gaudium et Spes 63, 4 describes the imbalance between a minority of rich and the majority of poor countries, between the poor and the rich within a country and between agriculture and industrial production and other services.

Gaudium et Spes 63, 5 assesses “Our contemporaries are coming to feel these inequalities with an ever-sharper awareness”. The Church has reacted, and the Council reacts “and in the light of the Gospel has worked out the principles of justice and equity demanded by right reason both for individual and social life and for international life”.

Gaudium et Spes 64 is titled “Economic Development in the Service of Humanity”.

 It affirms, “The fundamental finality of this production is not the mere increase of products nor profit or control but rather the service of man, and indeed of the whole man with regard for the full range of his material needs and the demands of his intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life”. A reference to Luke 16, the teaching of Jesus on the use of money, and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus underscore the dangers of material wealth.

Gaudium et Spes 65 is titled “Economic Development Under Man’s Direction”.

Gaudium et Spes 65, 1 claims the capability of economic development for every individual and every state. Gaudium et Spes 65, 2 criticizes the uncontrolled freedom of individuals and “the collective organization of production” that “subordinate the basic rights of individual persons”. Gaudium et Spes 65, 3 encourages citizens “to contribute to the true progress of their own community according to their ability”.

Gaudium et Spes 66 is titled “An End to Excessive Economic and Social Differences”.

Gaudium et Spes 66, 1 demand “removing economic inequalities”, and “a fair income for country people working in agriculture”. Gaudium et Spes 66, 2 claims “When workers come from another country or district and contribute to the economic advancement of a nation or region by their labor, all discrimination as regards wages and working conditions must be carefully avoided”. Gaudium et Spes 66, 3 claims for working individuals “the appropriate technical and professional formation” and “The livelihood and the human dignity especially of those who are in very difficult conditions because of illness or old age must be guaranteed”.

Gaudium et Spes 67–72 is titled “Certain Principles Governing Socio-Economic Life as a Whole”.

Gaudium et Spes 67 is titled “Work, Working Conditions, Leisure”

Gaudium et Spes 67, 1 claim that human labor is superior to the production of goods or services. Gaudium et Spes 67, 2 affirms that by labor “a man ordinarily supports himself and his family” and claims “the right to work”. There is no word on the women and queer supporting themselves and their families. We find attention to men and women in Gaudium et Spes 67, 3 “Since economic activity for the most part implies the associated work of human beings, any way of organizing and directing it which may be detrimental to any working men and women would be wrong and inhuman”. Workers and employed “should also all enjoy sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social and religious life”.

Gaudium et Spes 68 is titled “Co-Responsibility in Enterprise and in the Economic System as a Whole; Labor Disputes”.

Gaudium et Spes 68, 1 claim in coherence with the social teachings of the Church. “Therefore, with attention to the functions of each—owners or employers, management or labor—and without doing harm to the necessary unity of management, the active sharing of all in the administration and profits of these enterprises in ways to be properly determined is to be promoted”. The right of the employees to elect representatives to defend their interests is affirmed.

Gaudium et Spes 68, 2 affirms “Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people”.

Gaudium et Spes 68, 3 legitimates the instrument of strikes for settling peacefully arising “socio-economic disputes”.

Gaudium et Spes 69 is titled “Earthly Goods Destined for All”.

Gaudium et Spes 69, 1 claim with the social teaching of the Church “under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner”. The Council dares affirming “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others” but immediately the Council takes precautions against any form of revolution.

Gaudium et Spes 69, 2 describes that “absolutely necessary things are furnished to each member” of a traditional community by their respectful customs and by social institutions to the members of an advanced society.

Gaudium et Spes 70 is titled “Investment and Money” and claims “Investments, for their part, must be directed toward procuring employment and sufficient income for the people both now and in the future”.

Gaudium et Spes 71 is titled “Ownership, Private Property, Large Estates”.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 1 claim “that the access of both individuals and communities to some ownership of external goods be fostered”.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 2 affirms “Private property” is necessary for “the autonomy of the person and the family”, for “human freedom”, and for “civil liberties”.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 3 assesses the increased diversification of property and “professional capacities”.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 4 affirms that private ownerships and public property must work for the common good.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 5 insists on the “social quality” of private property.

Gaudium et Spes 71, 6 protests that in “underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates” and masses of poor people who receive from the rich landowners an “income unworthy of a human being”.

Gaudium et Spes 72 is titled “Economic and Social Activity and the Kingdom of Christ”.

Gaudium et Spes 72, 1 affirms “Christians who take an active part in present-day socio-economic development and fight for justice and charity should be convinced that they can make a great contribution to the prosperity of mankind and to the peace of the world”. There is no mentioning of Human Rights and the fight for the realization of the rule of Human Rights law. There is a lot of reference to the New Testament, but the love of justice must not disturb the “right order” of the Gospel. We are not told more about that right order. I suspect that the “right order” consists in submission to the Church authorities who lobby the authorities of the nation state according to the principles of the social teaching of the Church. The social teaching of the Church does not only defend the employed and their right to strike but defends also the employees and the right of the management to threaten unjustified striking workers with a lockout (Nell-Breuning, Oswald von. 1968. “Kommentar zum III. Kapitel des Zweiten Hauptteils der Pastoralen Konstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et Spes.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 487–515. 504. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Nell-Breuning criticizes the text for not mentioning the employees and their proper functions. He empathizes with the employees who insist that they are workers too, and at times have considerably more responsibility than the employed, especially when they need to finance their investments (ibid. 505).

The German bishops have lost their influence on the German parliament because the Catholic Church has lost her influence on society (Sander 2005, 789). According to Sander, the social model of the French worker priests that guided the French authors of the text, is equally outdated (ibid. 790). The French fought for the empowerment of the workers to defend their dignity, freedom and rights and claimed that lockouts should be made illegal. Sander is right; there were only about 80 active worker priests living in France in 2005. There is no more a workers’ movement in France.

Amid the 10 references to the New Testament at the end of the last sentence of Gaudium et Spes 72, there are two references to the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ. There is a reference to Mark 12, 29–31 and a reference to Luke 10, 30 – 37 that is the Parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus exemplifies with the parable the threefold commandment of love of Luke 10, 25–28 for the insisting lawyer. There is no reference to Matthew 22, 37–40 and none of the 10 references to the New Testament of the footnote at the end of Gaudium et Spes 72 gets further attention from the Council Fathers. They did not bother to relate the verses of the New Testament to the theme of Gaudium et Spes that is titled “Economic and Social Activity and the Kingdom of Christ”. Jesus Christ tells in the parable of the good Samaritan that he relates to the woman, man and queer whom he encounters on his way of life, with love, with mutual respect and empathy, with the capability to relate in a way that “proves to be a neighbor” to the woman, man or queer.

The Council Fathers do not invite to accept the offer of Jesus Christ for a mutual loving relationship; instead, they claim that we have to obey before being able to love, “Whoever in obedience to Christ seeks first the Kingdom of God, takes therefrom a stronger and purer love for helping all his brethren and for perfecting the work of justice under the inspiration of charity” (Gaudium et Spes 72, 2). The parable of the good Samaritan and the whole life of Jesus Christ prove that the economy of salvation of Jesus Christ functions the other way around: First there is the love of Go’d, then we are invited to join the way of the just world of Go’d.

The ascetic aristocrat Nell-Breuning (1890 – 1991), native of Treves as Karl Marx, whom he had studied carefully, developed his crystal-clear intellect with disciplined work, a shy and eremitic lifestyle and a sense of serving combined with a persistent self-confidence in his superior analytic capabilities. From 1984 to 1987, I was member of the Jesuit community with Nell-Breuning in Frankfurt and witnessed how his academic colleagues feared him for his acid critiques and that his students highly respected his mastery of socioeconomic ethics. Unassumingly and insistingly, he deconstructs the Council Fathers’ preaching righteousness because of works. He cites the French draft of the paragraph Gaudium et Spes 72, 2. “Quiconque, à l’example du Christ, cherche d’abord le Royaume de Dieu, y trouvera un amour plus fort et plus pur pour aider ses frères et pour accomplir ainsi une oevre de justice, sous l’impulsion de l’amour” (Nell-Breuning 1968, 515). Nell-Breuning observes that Gaudium et Spes 72, 2 speaks two times of love, whereas the Latin translation of the French draft speaks of love of Christ and then of justice as a work of charity (ibid),  The French draft of Gaudium et Spes 72, 2  is clear, “Whoever seeks first the Kingdom of God, there finds a stronger and purer love for helping his brothers and thereby fulfils a work of justice, under the impulse of love”. The French draft identifies the solidarity with ones’ brothers that is with all fellow neighbors, as fulfillment of a work of justice out of love. The Latin text and all translations speak of two different acts, an act of solidarity and an act of virtue (ibid), “Whoever in obedience to Christ seeks first the Kingdom of God, takes therefrom a stronger and purer love for helping all his brethren and for perfecting the work of justice under the inspiration of charity” (Gaudium et Spes 72, 2). Nell-Breuning corrects, the help for the brothers is a work of justice fulfilled under the impulse of love and dryly proposes an economy of salvation using the terms of the Aquinas (ibid). The socioeconomic agency of the loyal followers of Jesus Christ, who first seek the Kingdom of God, has to be considered contemporarily as the realization of two acts. There is an act as a social choice for realizing justice (actus elicitus virtutis iustitiae) that is also an act under the influence of the special inner motivation that is love (actus imperatus virtutis caritatis) (ibid). Nell-Breuning succeeds in expressing with medieval terms the modern cooperation of religious faith (love motivates solidarity) with the secular liberal Democracy (social realization of justice). Nell-Breuning does not speak of discourse-theory, but I am sure that Habermas preferred the discussion with Nell-Breuning to the discussions with confused followers and hollow Catholic critics of discourse-theory. Habermas discussed with religious citizens who express their convictions of faith – as something that is potentially useful for liberal democracy and the constitutional state under the rule of law:

“The force of religious traditions to articulate moral intuitions with regard to communal forms of a dignified human life makes religious presentation of relevant political issues a serious candidate for possible truth contents that can then be translated from the vocabulary of a specific religious community into a generally accessible language.” (Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. Religion in the Public Sphere. 11)

Nell-Breuning affirms that developing a theology of economy is a difficult task (Nell-Breuning 1968, 516). He suggests reflecting on a theology of the economic and social life in connection with the following numbers of Gaudium et Spes. Gaudium et Spes 6, 8 and 9. Gaudium et Spes 52 on the family, Gaudium et Spes 56, 57 and 60 on culture, Gaudium et Spes 73 and 75 from chapter IV on the Political Community, and Gaudium et Spes 83, 85–88 from chapter V on Peace and Establishment of a Community of Nations (ibid). Gaudium et Spes 9, 1 claimed “that it devolves on humanity to establish a political, social and economic order which will growingly serve man and help individuals as well as groups to affirm and develop the dignity proper to them”.

The Council Fathers cite from the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ but do not proclaim the human laws of the UDHR that proclaim equal personal dignity and liberty and rights. The Council Fathers do not accept the invitation of the UDHR to safeguard and further develop Human Rights. The drafting process of the UDHR achieved immense work of concentration. Finally, the UDHR counts 30 articles. Civil, legal, and political rights preceded in the late eighteenth-century economic, social, and cultural rights that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Gibson 1996, 7).  So far, the text of Gaudium et Spes touches on some social and cultural rights but does not really proclaim them as rights. The Council Fathers did not want to collaborate with the United Nations and did not proclaim UDHR.

UDHR 15, 1 proclaims, “Everyone has the right to a nationality”. I do not see any difficulty for the Council Fathers affirming this right. UDHR 16 proclaims the right to a family, UDHR 17 proclaims “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” This compromise of the UDHR on property, the compromise between the capitalist and the communist way of organizing an economy, is remarkably like the affirmations of Gaudium et Spes 71. There is no equivalent in Gaudium et Spes to UDHR 19 that proclaims the right to freedom of speech and a free press, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. UDHR 22 proclaims the right to social security. UDHR 23 proclaims the right to work, to equal pay for equal work, the right to an existence worthy of human dignity, and the right to form and to join trade unions. UDHR 24 proclaims the right to leisure, limitation of working hours, periodic holidays with pay. UDHR 25, 1 proclaims the right to health and food “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and social services”. UDHR 25, 2 proclaims the right that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. UDHR 26 proclaims the right to education. UDHR 27 proclaims the cultural rights “(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” UDHR 28 proclaims “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” UDHR 29 states the equation of individual rights within the context of rights of others and the public order of the state. UDHR 30 proclaims “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” The Council Fathers seek the context of the modern world, they claim, “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” (Gaudium et Spes 1). However, to this day, the whole hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is incapable of recognizing the UDHR as a fundamental element of the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the women, men and queer of this age.

Chapter Four Gaudium et Spes 73 – 76

Gaudium et Spes 73 – 76 is titled “The Life of the Political Community”.

Gaudium et Spes 73 is titled “Modern Public Life”.

Gaudium et Spes 74 is titled “Nature and Purpose of the Political Community”.

Gaudium et Spes 75 is titled “Participation by All in Public Life” and Gaudium et Spes 76 is titled “The Political Community and the Church”.

The fourth and fifth chapter of the second part of Gaudium et Spes deal with “the political space” (Nell-Breuning, Oswald von. 1968. “Kommentar zum IV. Kapitel des Zweiten Hauptteils der Pastoralen Konstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et Spes.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 517–532. 517. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Chapter four of the second part of Gaudium et Spes deals with the nation state (ibid).

Chapter five of the second part of Gaudium et Spes is titled “The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations” and deals with the life between nations and their unity (Gaudium et Spes 77-93).

Gaudium et Spes uses the expression “political community” (Latin: communitas politica) synonymous with the “nation state”. This use is not only outdated, but also a “deplorable” step backwards from the 1963 Encyclical Pacem in Terris from Pope John XXIII (ibid). Gaudium et Spes was not able to grasp the concept of John XXIII who considered the nation states as elements of an evolving unity of all of humanity and not any more as self-sufficient political, civil, and social organization. Gaudium et Spes uses the expressions “communitas politica”, “communitas civilis”, “res publica” (Gaudium et Spes 73, 2) and “civitas terrena” (Gaudium et Spes 76, 4) synonymously and calls the inhabitants of that community citizens (Latin: cives) (ibid). Gaudium et Spes strikingly ignores the new horizon of international relations and rarely cites Pacem in Terris.

There are three references to Pacem in Terris in the second chapter of the first part of Gaudium et Spes (concerning freedom in society and the dignity of the erroneous conscience), and one reference in chapter three (concerning the personal contribution to history).

In chapter four of the second part of Gaudium et Spes there are 5 references to Pacem in Terris. There are two references to Pacem in Terris in Gaudium et Spes 76, two references in Gaudium et Spes 80 and one reference in Gaudium et Spes 82 (ibid).

Gaudium et Spes is not capable of viewing public life (Latin: vita publica) as a world community of nation states that are all possible member states of the United Nations (ibid). Gaudium et Spes considers public life within the boundaries of the nation state and ignores developing a theology for the evolving globalized world community. Gaudium et Spes does not recognize the supranational authority of the United Nations and recognizes only the authority of the nation state as public authority (ibid).

Who was responsible for the fact that Pacem in Terris was ignored on the important point of affirming a supranational authority? Pavan, an important collaborator on Pacem in Terris, had been member of the sub-commission on the socioeconomic life (Moeller 1968, 274). Pietro Pavan (1903–1994) taught moral theology and socio-econonmic ethics at the Diocesan Seminary at Treviso, Italy, and in 1948 became professor at the Lateran University in Rome. His theological interests were the national and international apostolate of the laity, and the relation of Catholic social ethics and democracy (Quisinsky, Michael. 2013. “Pavan.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 210–211. 210. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). He was the most important collaborator of John XXIII on Pacem in Terris and Mater et Magistra and expert of the Second Vatican Council. He was a member of the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity and in the Commission on Human Dignity (ibid. 211). Did he not realize what was happening in Gaudium et Spes 73? De Riedmatten was a member of the sub-commission working on peace for Gaudium et Spes (Moeller 1968, 274). Did the Dominican diplomat of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, who succeeded in integrating the Vatican into the international diplomatic life again, not think about the theological development of a supranational authority for world peace? De Riedmatten was a diplomat, and the mentality of a diplomat concentrates on the realization of chances and not on thinking about what is very well in theory. He was very well aware of the fact that the Vatican lacked the professional staff to realize an international diplomatic policy. On November 9, 1963, Congar noted in his diary about a “long and interesting visit from Father de Riedmatten” (Congar 2012, 418). The visitor expressed his doubts as to the Roman Curia “Will there be men, will there be men prepared for internationalization? At the moment, the Curia is pretty well at a standstill”, there is no longer money coming in from the bishops who are discussing at the Council in Rome and not any more present in their dioceses (ibid. 418–19). From Congar’s notes on the visit, we learn also, that De Riedmatten did not want to proclaim equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer as foundation of religious liberty “Everything should not be based on the individual right of the person” (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 419. Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne OP and Mary Cecily Boulding OP. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press).  De Riedmatten also notes that for the moment the Vatican has no resources, that is money, for developing and maintaining a diplomatic presence in international affairs (ibid.).

Analyzing Gaudium et Spes 73, 2, we have to be clear that the Second Vatican Council affirms the right of freedom to assembly and association, the right of freedom of speech and the right of freedom of religion within the context of the nation state (Nell-Breuning 1968, 517). UDHR 20, 1 proclaims for the whole world “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”. Gaudium et Spes 73, 3 affirms “a growing desire among many people to play a greater part in organizing the life of the political community”. Nell-Breuning qualifies as disconcerting that women’s agency for organizing the life of the political community (Gaudium et Spes 73, 3), and to participate in political life (Gaudium et Spes 75) are ignored. Concerning the equal treatment of women and men Gaudium et Spes again falls behind Pacem in Terris (ibid. 519). Pacem in Terris 41 affirms, “Since women are becoming ever more conscious of their human dignity, they will not tolerate being treated as mere material instruments, but demand rights befitting a human person both in domestic and in public life”. There is no such affirmation in Gaudium et Spes.

Gaudium et Spes 74, 1 follows the concept of the state according to Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and assesses “Men, families and the various groups which make up the civil community” set up “a political community for the sake of the common good” (ibid. 520). We use the expression common good (Latin: bonum commune) in two ways; common good as self-worth and common good as a means (ibid). Gaudium et Spes 63, 1 uses the expression common good as self-worth speaking of “the welfare of society as a whole” (Latin: bonum societatis) that is the realization of all capabilities that are possible for women, men and queer. We use the expression common good as a means speaking of the necessary possibility conditions that a society or community has to procure for the self-realization of the individual person (ibid). The common good is something like the polity of a state and politics that empower the policies of the individual woman, man or queer. Documents of the Roman Catholic Church usually use the expression common good as the service of the nation state for the welfare of society that is for the full realization of the human qualities of individuals within a nation state (ibid).

The merit of John XXIII consists in widening Aristotle’s horizon on the individual state as the conclusive and perfect fulfillment of humanity to a political theory that views the world, that speaks of a necessary world authority of the United Nations that guarantees peace, justice and freedom (ibid. 521). The Second Vatican Council speaks of the common good of the individual nation state. Gaudium et Spes 83 – 93 is titled “Setting Up An International Community” and speaks of this international community as a building that needs to be constructed in the future. This international community does not yet exist and remains for the time being an ideal, not an existing quantity and the Council does not talk about a possible future common good (ibid). In Gaudium et Spes 83 – 93 there is no single recurrence of the expression common good.

Gaudium et Spes 26 speaks of the common good of the entire human family. Gaudium et Spes 26, 1 speaks of “an extension of the role of the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment”. Moreover, Gaudium et Spes 26, 1 assesses, “Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family” and the necessity of “conditions of social life” for the whole of humanity. Yet, the Second Vatican Council did not think in the categories of the UDHR. The reference of Gaudium et Spes 26, 1 goes to Mater et Magistra, but not to Pacem in Terris 143 that praises the proclamation of the UDHR as “An act of the highest importance”. John XXIII published the encyclical Mater et Magistra on May 15, 1961, to remember 70 years of the first social encyclical of the Roman Catholic Church Rerum Novarum. Mater et Magistra 40 speaks with Pope Pius XI of an international juridical order. Mater et Magistra 60 speaks of international movements. Mater et Magistra 80 speaks of “The demands of the common good on the international level”, there is talk of international aid (Mater et Magistra 161–165), and of international relations and world peace (Mater et Magistra 171), but there is no affirmation of an international community in Mater et Magistra.

Gaudium et Spes 75 speaks of the “Participation by All in Public Life” that is of democracy (Nell-Breuning 1968, 523). The School of Salamanca had established the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the 16th century CE by theologians like Vitoria and Suárez. The people still lacked education and information to exercise this sovereignty by themselves; they had to delegate the realization of the sovereignty of the people to representatives of the upper classes (ibid). De Las Casas wrote in the 16th century on the inherent freedom of the individual that must not be taken away by anybody (Pérez Luño, Antonio-Enrique. 1990. “Estudio preliminar al Tratado de Regia Potestate.” In Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas. Obras Completas Vol 12. De Regia Potestate, edited by Antonio Larios Ramos and Antonio García del Moral y Garrido, i–xxxix. Madrid: Alianza Editoria). The official Roman Catholic Church fought against the principle of democracy; Pope Pius XII tolerated the democratic state order of the victorious US power for practical reasons but did not embrace democracy as his preferred form of government (Nell-Breuning 1968, 524). Nell-Breuning dryly comments on Gaudium et Spes 75 that the whole Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes did not work on democracy, democratic structures and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people for the government of a nation state (ibid). Silently the Council accepts democracy as a reality of modern life, not more (ibid). Gaudium et Spes 76 makes clear that the Roman Catholic Church talks to the individual nation state as her interlocutor in the world. Concerning the international community, the Roman Catholic Church contents herself with “active presence” as Gaudium et Spes 89 assesses (ibid. 517).

Nell-Breuning comments the claim of the last sentence of Gaudium et Spes 76 on the mission and duty of the Church “to foster all that is good, beautiful and strengthens peace among men for the glory of God” (Gaudium et Spes 76, 6), remembering the historic failure of the Roman Catholic Church of the 19th century. The Church ignored the existential need for human working and living conditions of the millions of women and men of the emerging working class (ibid. 532). The Church has not realized what she had claimed to realize. Individual bishops started fulfilling the mission of the Church with the working class. Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler (1811–1877) of Mainz encouraged the German Catholics to organize politically and take active part in political life and developed the theological teaching of social justice of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum. In 1848, he was elected member of the Frankfurt National Assembly, he defended the freedom of the Church from state interventions and criticized piously preaching Church authorities who did not care for the social deprivation and precarious economic conditions of the proletariat[ii]. Concerning Gaudium et Spes 76, Nell-Breuning claims with bishop Ketteler that it is the duty of the Church to empower and capacitate the people to live a human life that is worth that name; promoting the Christian faith is secondary, and follows when all enjoy a life in dignity (ibid. 532).

Chapter Five Gaudium et Spes 77–93.

Gaudium et Spes 77–93 is titled “The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations”.

There is an introduction, section one and section two, and a conclusion.

Gaudium et Spes 77 is titled “Introduction” and claims “the Council wishes passionately to summon Christians to cooperate, under the help of Christ the author of peace, with all men in securing among themselves a peace based on justice and love and in setting up the instruments of peace”. The Council encourages the Christians and all men – 50 years after the promulgation of Gaudium et Spes the Catholic Church still refuses gendering and to recognize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer – to collaborate for peace. The Council does not empower the Christians for realizing this peace. There is a pastoral claim; there is a teaching but no prophetic agency. The pastoral is prophetic, and the prophetic is pastoral and Gaudium et Spes often forgets about this mutuality (Coste, René. 1968. “Kommentar zum V. Kapitel, Artikel 77–82 des Zweiten Hauptteils der Pastoralen Konstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et Spes.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 544–562. 544. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Coste is right, Jesus was healing and thereby realized the proclamation of the just world of Go’d and Jesus taught the just world of Go’d and thereby healed.

Gaudium et Spes 78 is titled “Nature of Peace” and affirms that peace is the result of justice, that “is a structured order of human society”. There is no word on how this structure looks like. Facing the possible threat of humanity’s destruction by her own hands, it is not enough to remember Augustine’s reflection on peace from Antiquity (ibid. 545). There is no hint at a polity for this world order, there is only the hollow demand for the individual “to do in love what the truth requires” (Gaudium et Spes 78, 4). Gaudium et Spes 78, 5 “praises those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights” but refrains from proclaiming the principle of non-violence as fundamental to the teaching of Jesus Christ (ibid. 547). Coste affirms that the Roman Catholic Church during centuries has ignored the non-violent way of Jesus Christ and defended the concept of a just war; Cost calls this ignorance of Jesus’ will a scandal (ibid). 

Gaudium et Spes 79–82 is titled “Section 1: The Avoidance of War”.

Gaudium et Spes 79 is titled “Curbing the Savagery of War”.

Gaudium et Spes 79,1 describes the “fierce character of warfare”, guerilla warfare, and terrorism.

Gaudium et Spes 79,2 claims the binding force of “universal natural law”, and protests disobedience and ignorance of that law, “the most infamous among these are actions designed for the methodical extermination of an entire people, nation or ethnic minority”.

Gaudium et Spes 79,3 claims more and stricter “international agreements aimed at making military activity and its consequences less inhuman”.

Gaudium et Spes 79,4 does not deny the right to legitimate defense and bans the “subjugation of other nations”.

Gaudium et Spes 79,5 encourages the military service to work for peace and security.

Gaudium et Spes 79 proposes to reduce the violence of wars and violence from wars but does not proclaim Christ’s Gospel of non-violence and does not explicitly and principally condemn starting a war of aggression (Coste 1968, 555).

Gaudium et Spes 80,1 states, “the horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction”, but there is no clear condemnation of atomic warfare.

Gaudium et Spes 80,2 calls the men who take the decision to raise nuclear warfare to take the decision to their responsible conscience and assess the consequences of such war for the future.

Gaudium et Spes 80, 3 and 4 finally condemn total war “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation” (Gaudium et Spes 80, 4).

Gaudium et Spes 81 is titled “The Arms Race”.

There is a tolerance of atomic deterrence “to possible enemy attack” (Gaudium et Spes 81, 1).  There are many negative attributes for the arms race but there is no outright condemnation of the arms race in Gaudium et Spes 81 (Coste 1968, 557).

Gaudium et Spes 81,2 warns that the balance of deterrence easily gets lost to aggressions and that a true way to establish peace is necessary.

Gaudium et Spes 81,3 calls the arms race “a trap for humanity” and claims, “Divine Providence urgently demands of us that we free ourselves from the age-old slavery of war”.

Gaudium et Spes 81, 4 affirms that for “outlawing war” there is necessity “of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights”. The Council assesses that this “universal public authority” does not yet exist and refrains from claiming the establishment of such an authority. Again, Gaudium et Spes takes a step back from Pacem in Terris. This encyclical of John XXIII serves at the end of Gaudium et Spes 81, 4 as legitimation for the claim to an end of the nuclear arms race through treaties of mutual disarmament.

Gaudium et Spes 82 is titled “Total Outlawing of War: International Action to Prevent War”. 

Gaudium et Spes 82, 1 morally appeals to “the good will of the very many leaders who work hard to do away with war” but does not claim an international authority, government and legislation that prohibit war and have the power for sanctioning offenders of the law.

Gaudium et Spes 82, 2 calls for studies to develop solutions for the problems of peace and disarmament.

Gaudium et Spes 82, 3 speaks of “a pressing need for a renewed education of attitudes and for new inspiration in public opinion”, because the decisions of the government are influenced by the people.

Gaudium et Spes 82, 4 assures, “the Church of Christ, present in the midst of the anxiety of this age, does not cease to hope most firmly”.

Gaudium et Spes 83–93 is titled “Section 2: Setting up an International Community”.

The Latin title does not speak of a setup but of a task of building such an international community. The Second Vatican Council does not participate in the building of an international community, as Pope John XXIII had demanded in Pacem in Terris. The Second Vatican Council and Gaudium et Spes did not develop a political theory that considers the nation states as elements of an evolving unity of all of humanity and did not adopt the demand of John XXIII to actively engage in building this international community:

“It is therefore our ardent desire that the United Nations Organization — in its structure and in its means — may become ever more equal to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks. And may the time come as quickly as possible when every human being will find therein an effective safeguard for the rights which derive directly from his dignity as a person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable rights” (Pacem in Terris 145).

The Second Vatican Council continued viewing the nation state as a self-sufficient political, civil, and social organization, refused any thought on a supranational authority and simply ignored the United Nations. Gaudium et Spes is not capable of viewing public life (Latin: vita publica) as a world community of nation states that are all possible member states of the United Nations (Nell-Breuning 1968, 517).

Gaudium et Spes 83 lists “human envy, distrust, pride, and other egotistical passions” as individual causes of discord and as causes of discord “in the relations between various nations” and demands to “work tirelessly for the creation of organizations which will foster peace”. There is no reference to the United Nations; there are many vague references to international organizations in general. The Council forgets about the historic cause of the foundation of the United Nations that was the end of World War II and the end of the Nazi terror on the world.

Gaudium et Spes 84 calls on the international community to promote for developing countries “food supplies, health, education, and labor”.

Gaudium et Spes 85 speaks again of the necessity for international economic cooperation.

Gaudium et Spes 86 sets out some norms for helping developing nations but does not develop a policy strategy for this development and does not address the United Nations.

Gaudium et Spes 87 points at the problem of population growth in developing countries and rightly analysis that a policy of distribution is not able to solve the problem and that the developing countries are in need of production capabilities.

Gaudium et Spes 88 calls the Christians of the rich countries to go helping the people in the developing countries.

Gaudium et Spes 89 encourages the faithful, “the men and Christians” to “collaborate with the international community” without naming the members of this community.

Gaudium et Spes 90 is titled “Role of Christians in International Organizations” and continues with an ethic for individuals. The Council does not demand any action from the government of the Roman Catholic Church or taking any initiative in relationship to the United Nations. The Roman Catholic Church as a society of absolutist monarchic rule contents herself with an “active presence” in the international community but does not join in the construction of the United Nations, as Nell-Breuning acidly remarks (Nell-Breuning 1968, 517).

Nell-Breuning deplores that Gaudium et Spes 84–90 deal with the situation of the developing countries exclusively from an economic perspective. Although poverty justifies this focus, Nell-Breuning points at Pacem in Terris 98 and 140 that deal with development in a holistic perspective that includes economic, social, political, and cultural aspects, as health and sport (Nell-Breuning, Oswald von. 1968. “Exkurs über die Probleme des Zweiten Abschnitts des V. Kapitels des Zweiten Hauptteils der Pastoralen Konstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et Spes.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 562–565. 562. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

Since 1964, the Holy See has permanent observer status at the United Nations, and “The Holy See Mission at the United Nations in New York follows attentively and with interest the work of the United Nations Organization”[iii]. In 2020, the Vatican still affirms, “the Holy See Mission works to advance freedom of religion and respect for the sanctity of all human life – from conception to natural death – and thus all aspects of authentic human development” (ibid). “Authentic human development” means for the Vatican development without a social choice in artificial birth control, abortion and divorce (ibid). This is one reason why in 2020, the Vatican is still unable to join the United Nations.

Gaudium et Spes 91–93 is titled “Conclusion. Role of Individual Christians and of Local Churches”.

Gaudium et Spes 91 affirms that the teachings of the Council Fathers will help “every man to meet the urgencies of our ages”, and although “with matters in a constant state of development”, “we have relied on the word of God and the spirit of the Gospel”.

Gaudium et Spes 92 affirms “we foster within the Church herself mutual esteem, reverence and harmony, through the full recognition of lawful diversity” and pleads for dialogue between the hierarchy and the faithful. The expression “lawful diversity” refers to Canon Law that insists on the discrimination of women, queer and men.

Gaudium et Spes 93,1 affirms that one may call oneself a Christian “if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

Gaudium et Spes 93,2 affirms further “Not everyone who cries, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven” but the Council is not ready to affirm the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer faithful or not faithful. For this reason, I join the Council Fathers in their prayer that concludes Gaudium et Spes praying to Go’d “who is able to accomplish all things in a measure far beyond what we ask or conceive” (Gaudium et Spes 93, 3).

[i] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[ii] “Ketteler, Wilhelm Emmanuel Von,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ketteler-wilhelm-emmanuel-von (accessed April 19, 2020).

[iii] “Discover The Mission,” Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, https://holyseemission.org/contents/mission/discover-the-mission.php (accessed March 18, 2020).