Preface of Gaudium et Spes and Introductory statement

The Preface of Gaudium et Spes

All 92 numbers of the official Latin text[i] of Gaudium et Spes and of all other official translations of the text of Gaudium et Spes have titles, only the official English text (Paul VI 1965. Gaudium et Spes) does not edit any titles. I do not know why the English text is published without these titles. The titles were not part of the text that the Council Father voted in the aula and therefore the titles did not end up in the official texts. On December 21, 1965, the Secretary of the Second Vatican Council, archbishop Felici, unsuccessfully tried to do away with the titles for the numbers of Gaudium et Spes in the official publication of the document by Paul VI. Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Cento who were presidents of the Doctrinal Commission and the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity protested and argued that the titles were part of the text that the Council Fathers had approved of by their votes in the aula. With authorization of Paul VI, Cento communicated Felici that the titles are necessary for a full understanding of the text (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. 690. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

It is true; Gaudium et Spes is the only of the 16 documents from the Second Vatican Council that has titles for every number of the document.

Gaudium et Spes 1. “Solidarity of the Church with the Whole Human Family”

I use the titles for the numbers of Gaudium et Spes from the translation of Flannery (Flannery, Austin, ed. 1996. The basis sixteen documents Vatican Council II. Constitutions decrees declarations. A Completely Revised Translation in Inclusive Language. New York: Costello Publishing Company). Gaudium et Spes 1 is entitled “Solidarity of the Church with the Whole Human Family”. I copy the complete text of Gaudium et Spes 1.

“The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds” (Gaudium et Spes 1).

Joy and hope, grief and anxiety

In January 1964, the sub-commission working on scheme XVII had created the famous beginning speaking of “Joys and griefs, hopes and anxieties” (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). The sub-commission followed the inspiration of Pope John XXIII and his Encyclical Pacem in Terris and decided to start the text referring to feelings. The Good Pope John XXIII had won the sympathy of the people by his charisma to reach out to the hearts of the faithful and women, men and queer of good will but without religious faith. The editors of scheme XVII intended to follow his example. The redaction group that at the end of April 1965 presented the text - that from now on was called scheme XIII -, had changed the word order of the beginning to “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties” (Moeller 1968, 271).

The redaction group intended to use a couple of biblical expressions that is “joy and hope” and a couple of expressions that characterize the way of feeling of modern women and men (ibid). Indeed, the redaction group considered the expressions joy and hope as biblical, whereas within the cultural context of the redaction group the expressions grief and anxiety were exclusively associated with the worldly affairs of women and men (ibid. 285).

Fifty-five years after the Second Vatican Council, I am capable of reading all four expressions as emotions that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament obviously not only take for granted but use to express their most important messages. Luke uses the expression joy for his proclamation of the faith in Jesus Christ throughout his Gospel. In Luke 2, 10 an angel brings “news of joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people” to the shepherds out in the fields and Luke 2, 11 gives the reason for this joy “Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2, 11).

Luke 19, 28–40 describes the imminent realization of the just world of Go’d with the picture of the entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. The people enthusiastically welcome their king referring to the prophet Zechariah who proclaims the royal savior riding on a colt according to the Septuagint:

“Rejoice heart and soul, daughter of Zion! Shout for joy, daughter of Jerusalem! Look, your king is approaching, he is vindicated and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will banish chariots from Ephraim and horses from Jerusalem; the bow of war will be banished. He will proclaim peace to the nations, his empire will stretch from sea to sea, from the river to the limits of the earth” (Zechariah 9, 9–10).

Grief and anxiety are also central biblical expressions, and already in Luke 19, 41 Jesus “shed tears over” Jerusalem.  In Luke 22, 37, Jesus cites from the fourth Song of the Servant of Go’d (Isaiah 53, 12) identifying himself with the Servant of Go’d that “is counted as one of the outlaws”. Grief and anxiety are followed by joy. Matthew narrates that the women “filled with awe and great joy” announced to the disciples the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28, 8). The Psalms are rich with pictures of joy and hope, of grief and anxiety. A whole gender of Psalms is called Psalms of lamentation. Matthew narrates the dying of Jesus “Jesus cried out in a loud voice ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27, 46). Matthew makes Jesus use Psalm 22, 1. There are Psalms expressing joy. Paul echoes in Galatians 5, 22 the joy of the righteous man of Psalm 34, 14 when he describes for the community of sisters and brothers the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and trustfulness.

The faith in Jesus Christ realizing the just world of God includes a hope in Go’d that Is capable of transforming grief and anxiety (Schottroff, Luise. 2007. “Matthäusevangelium.” In Bibel in gerechter Sprache, edited by Ulrike Bail, Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Janssen, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch and Luise Schottroff, 1835–1889 and 2313–2314. 2013. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus). Christians celebrate, commemorate and actualize the prayer for this transformation in the Eucharist. The Jews celebrate, commemorate and actualize the prayer for this transformation in the Passover-offering. Rabban Gamaliel refers in Mishna Pesachim 10 to Exodus 13, 8 “It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt”. Rabbi Gamaliel, the teacher of the later Christian apostle Paul admonishes, “Therefore it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, honor, bless, extol, and adore Him who performed all these miracles for our ancestors and us. He brought us forth from bondage into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption. Therefore, let us say before Him, Hallelujah!”[ii]

Fifty-five years after the Second Vatican Council, I use the expressions joy, hope, grief and anxiety univocally according to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Fifty-five years after the Second Vatican Council, I use the expression joy, hope, grief and anxiety univocally to express feelings and emotions.

At the beginning of the third millennium CE, psychologists will classify the emotions joy, hope, grief and anxiety as so-called primary emotions. There are positive emotions, joy and hope, and negative emotions grief and anxiety. It makes sense to start dealing with primary emotions because structural affects as shame, guilt, pride, envy and jealousy develop after the establishment of the psychological structure that separates self-representation and object-representation (Aichhorn, Wolfgang, and Helmut Kronberger. 2012. “The Nature of Emotions. A Psychological Perspective.” In Yearbook 2011. Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, 515–525. 520. Berlin: De Gruyter). It makes sense to address primary emotions when talking about solidarity with contemporary men, because “emotions regulate interactions between individuals and play an essential role in the development of a child’s personality” (ibid. 515). “Through laughing and crying we express proximity, sociality, and commonality” (ibid). Happiness is a state of emotion where everything is ok. At the same time, happiness serves as a positive reinforcement for the presence of the other person who interacts with the happy person. Disgust serves as a hint to the interacting person that “his or her behavior has triggered negative feelings” (ibid. 519). Sadness indicates that a person desires the end of an interruption of the interaction. Expressing emotions means expressing our interest in producing and safeguarding connections with persons we like and in ending connections we dislike. We learn to express excitement, happiness, sadness and disgust in the first six months of our lives and “in the second half of a child’s first year of life, additional affects appear such as anger, contempt, fear and shame” (ibid. 520). The primary emotion grief “is a response to abandonment” and “is an omnipresent emotion in life because separation, loss, and parting follow us during our entire life” (ibid. 522). The Latin text of Gaudium et Spes 1 speaks of angor which translates as psychical suffering but not as anxiety. Anxiety is caused by disorganization of attachment (ibid.). Anxiety is the expression of a state of loss of personal integrity because of the loss of securing relationships. Fear is the loss of a sense of security, the loss of security in relationships. There is “fear of loss of self, fear of separation, fear of loss of love, fear of punishment and fear of shaming” (ibid). Anxiety threatens the integrity of the self; anxiety is the experience of loss of self and is panicking and pure consciousness suffering from angst. Gaudium et Spes is the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World and it is good to affirm solidarity with the joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of mankind. It is good to identify oneself and acknowledge emotions as fundamental human expressions. It is also necessary for the Church to accept and deal with emotions, because the regulation of “social behavior is mainly linked to affective regulations, and probably less associated with cognitive regulation” (ibid. 524).

Fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, there is no necessity for defining joy and hope as biblical and grief and anxiety as worldly, the split appears arbitrary. The historical context of the editing of Gaudium et Spes makes us understand the split as a consequence from the consensus program of September 17, 1965. Philips had wanted to address the needs of contemporary women and men with the “light of Christ” that is with Christian faith-sentences (Moeller 1968, 272). The mix of faith-sentences and empirical sentences characterizes much of the text of Gaudium et Spes.

Fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, we may say that emotions and feelings threaten and secure our physical, psychic, social, cultural and spiritual integrity. We may also assess that the science of behavioral psychology has established the thesis that we have to deal with emotions in a responsible way, if we want to realize a certain social behavior (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 524). From this follows that Christians who want to realize the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ and want to collaborate with all humankind to realize justice and peace, have to be aware of their emotions.

Those who are poor or in any way afflicted

“The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ” (Gaudium et Spes 1).

Gaudium et Spes 1 affirms solidarity with “those who are poor or in any way afflicted” but does not present social, economic, physical, political or spiritual criteria to describe “those who are poor or in any way afflicted”. Sociologically, economically and spiritually it is not clear who the women, men and queer are that are poor or in any way afflicted. Hünermann makes a very important observation concerning the method of the commissions working on Gaudium et Spes. The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes wanted to treat many problems of the modern world (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. 386. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). The Council Fathers wrote on many problems of the modern world, but they never asked for advice from scientific institutions and academic experts on the problems; there was no systematic counseling and advice from departments of universities for the Council Fathers. Investigating empirical evidence of the problems of the world before writing on them was not on the mind-set of the Council Fathers (ibid. 386). The Second Vatican Council never planned or realized a scientific empirical sociological investigation on the minds, preoccupations, opinions and priorities of the fellow lay Catholic women, men and queer (ibid). Empiric study of the sociology of religion was a fruit of the reception of the Second Vatican Council.

In 1965, De Riedmatten was a member of sub-commission X that worked on the problems of world peace (Moeller 1968, 274). The redaction group for Gaudium et Spes did not get empirical evidence on those who are “the poor or in any way afflicted”. Empirical evidence was available in 1965, but the redaction group was not aware of the necessity of this kind of evidence for the credibility of the claims of the text.

The United Nations were investigating the question of poverty and justice at the time, the Vatican’s interest in the United Nations was diplomatic for the moment. The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations in New York evolved in 1964, after relations had been established between the United Nations and the Holy See in October 1957[iii]. In 1969, De Riedmatten became the first permanent observer of the Holy See mission to the UN in Geneva. Dominican father Henri de Riedmatten (1919–1979) came from a Swiss family of diplomats, was a patrologist by training, and “felt at home in the diplomatic world” (Joblin, Joseph. 2012. “The Catholic Presence at the United Nations in Geneva. Between past and future perspectives.” In International Catholic Organizations & Catholic Inspired NGOs. Their contribution to the Building of the International Community, published by Mathias Nebel, 27 – 36. 28. Caritas in Veritate Foundation). De Riedmatten successfully worked that the Holy See was considered as a partner in diplomatic life. Reintegration of the Holy See into the international scene was crucial for promoting spiritual values, peace and justice (ibid). These aims of De Riedmatten sound quite noble; yet, we have to be clear that the work of women and men from International Catholic Organizations were at the beginning of a new relationship between the United Nations and the Vatican. With the help of these and other Catholic Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO) De Riedmatten was convincing the diplomatic world and the United Nations to view the Vatican as a partner in diplomatic life (ibid).

Before World War II, the Polish woman Miss Hedwige de Romer was a functionary of the League of Nations. In 1945, she took the initiative to create the International Catholic Center in Geneva in order to provide the International Catholic Organizations (ICOs), that took their origin from lay activity, “with documentation on UN agenda items, inform them about the political climate, and to allow them to participate effectively on the international scene” (ibid.). De Riedmatten made himself an ecclesiastical adviser of Miss de Romer and became ecclesiastical counsellor for the Center (ibid).The United Nations considered the ICOs as a Non-Governmental Organization and had no problem cooperating with them. De Riedmatten used this opportunity to get the attention of the United Nations for the Vatican. In 1953, De Riedamtten had assured that a representative of the Vatican attended on a regular base the meetings of The International Catholic Committee of Nurses and Medico-Social Assistants (CICIAMS) that had already attained observer status, with the World Health Organization (WHO) (ibid. 29). In 1948, the Holy See became observer-status at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and in 1952 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Vatican was not any more seen a political power-seeking institution that pursued worldly goals, as it had done for centuries until the unification of the state of Italy in 1870. Thus, the reintegration in the international scene succeeded after decades of isolation. The Vatican had been marginalized at the 1899 conference at The Hague, had been excluded from the second conference at The Hague in 1907; the two conferences produced one of the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in international law. The Holy See decided not to be present at the peace conferences in 1919 and 1945 (ibid.).

In 1990, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) published its first annual Human Development Report (HDR) (Stanton, Elizabeth, A. 2007. The Human Development Index: A History. Working Papers Series 127. 3. Amherst: Political Economy Research Institute. University of Massachusets). Following Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, the HDR developed a Human Development Index that includes variables “for three important ends of development: access to health, education, and goods. Empowered by these, and other, capabilities, individuals can achieve their desired state of being” (ibid). Elisabeth Stanton documents the pioneering work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum that “stands out from that of their predecessors because of inclusion of human beings’ role as agents of their own well-being, and because of the centrality of human agency both as an end in itself, and as a means to other important capabilities or freedoms” (ibid. 10). Sen and Nussbaum distinguished means, such and money, from ends, such as well-being, freedom, dignity, rights and other capabilities; Sen insists that capabilities have to be determined through a democratic process, Nussbaum presents a list of capabilities (ibid. 9). There were important predecessors for the HDR, such as the Human Development Index (HDI). In 1966, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) “published a 20-country study of a level of living index that had categories for physical needs (nutrition, shelter, and health); cultural needs (education, leisure, and security); and higher needs (measured as income above a threshold)” (ibid. 13). In the following years “the UNDP has been exceptionally receptive to criticism regarding poor data, incorrect choice of indicators, and poor specification of HDI overall and of HDI’s income component in particular” (ibid. 27). The HDI has been changed significantly, and new inequality-related measures were developed and included (ibid). The social investigations of the UNDP and in the annual Human Development Reports are a work in progress for contributing to the development of a just and peaceful world.

In the meeting of September 17, 1965, the German bishops and theologians had asked to take the lived history of women and men seriously. Speaking of “those who are poor or in any way afflicted” clearly indicates the interest of Gaudium et Spes to address the most vulnerable women and men and to recognize their lives as a substantial part of the history of the world.

The liberation theologians called the solidarity of the Church with “those who are poor or in any way afflicted” that Gaudium et Spes 1 affirms the “preferential option of the Church for the poor” (Sander 2005, 712). Liberation theologians often were white male celibate priests coming from the Spanish middle classes or from rich Latin American families, as for example the brothers Fernando and Ernesto Cardenal. The brothers Fernando and Ernesto fought within the Sandinista National Liberation Front that succeeded in 1979 in Nicaragua in overthrowing the brutal dictatorship of the US American proxy Anastasio Somoza. The Jesuit Fernando Cardenal (1934–2016) served as education minister in the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua from 1984 to 1990 and worked to end mass illiteracy (Langer, Emily. 2016. “Father Fernando Cardenal: Priest who was expelled by the Jesuits for joining the Sandinista regime following the Nicaraguan revolution.” Independent, February 26). In 1995, he left the Sandinista National Liberation Front denouncing members and leaders of corruption (ibid.). In January 1997, I visited Fernando Cardenal in the Jesuit novitiate in San Salvador. The Jesuit had turned the residence, where on November 16, 1989, the military brutally executed six Jesuit priests and two women, into a house for the basic training of young Jesuits. Ignacio Ellacuría, Ignacio Martín-Baró, Segundo Montes, Juan Ramón Moreno, Joaquín López y López, and Amando López were murdered together with their housekeeper Elba Ramos and her 15-year-old daughter Celina Ramos[iv]. Sitting with Fernando in the garden of the novitiate before the rosebush of the martyrs, we looked at the blooming red roses, and he recounted how he collected millions of dollars from heads of Latin American states imploring him to overthrow the Somoza family. He told me that after Pope John Paul II demanded to expel him from the Jesuit order, the General Superior of the Jesuits Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach wrote a long and personal letter to his mother affirming that her son Fernando was a good Jesuit and pious priest. Fernando’s mother was relieved. The Sandinistas developed a public health care system and promoted gender equality. Soon the Sandinistas exploited their public offices for private privileges, and Human Rights abuses such as mass execution and oppression of indigenous peoples provoked international criticism. There was a civil war in the country and the increasingly authoritarian and corrupt Daniel Ortega, the former president of the Sandinistas, won reelections in 2016 as president of Nicaragua, notwithstanding all his shortcomings and failures[v]. Liberation theology did not liberate the people of Nicaragua from poverty.

In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II operated in the Vatican in quite the same way as Fernando Cardenal in Central America. John Paul II ordered US Archbishop Paul C. Marcinkus, president of the Vatican bank from 1971 to 1989, to organize the millions of dollars for the support of the Polish labor union Solidarnós (Solidarity). Marcinkus was linked to several banking scandals in Italy. In 1982 he was indicted in connection with the collapse of the largest Italian investment bank Banco Ambriosiano, but as Vatican employee he enjoyed diplomatic immunity from persecution (Fox, Margalit. 2006. “Archbishop Marcinkus, 84, Banker at the Vatican, Dies.” The New York Times, February 22). In 1989, Solidarnós succeeded in peacefully overthrowing the Polish Communist dictatorship. Fernando Cardenal fought dictatorship, John Paul II fought dictatorship, Fernando was expelled from his religious order, John Paul II was sanctified under Benedict XVI. 

The documents of the Episcopal Conferences of Latin America and the Caribbean in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968 and in Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, adopted the preferential option for the poor with enthusiasm as the new creed of the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean (Calder, Bruce. 2020. “Conference of Latin American Bishops (CELAM).” Encyclopedia.com. Accessed March 11). The documents of the Episcopal Conferences of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, in 1992 and of Aparecida, Brazil, in 2007 were prepared under the strict control of Rome (ibid). Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI disliked the social and political activities of liberation theology and silenced the liberation theologians (Ratzinger, Josef. 1984. “Instruction on certain aspects of the Theology of Liberation.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). The liberation theologians spoke for the poor, they spoke for the people, but they did not empower the poor to speak for themselves. This kind of theology followed the paternalistic and authoritarian patterns of traditional Roman Catholic theology. The people realized that they were not taken seriously and distanced themselves from the Catholic Church. The liberation theologians opted for the poor, but the poor opted for the rich whom they think to find in the many Evangelical Churches that spread over the continent. 

The followers of Christ form a community

“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). “The followers of Christ” are the women, men and queer of the world who believe in Jesus Christ. The followers of Christ “are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father” that is the just world of Go’d, and the followers of Christ believe and hope in salvation by Jesus Christ for all women, men and queer on this earth (Gaudium et Spes 1).

The text of Gaudium et Spes 1 is very clear and calls the followers of Christ a “community” (Latin: communitas) and not a society. The community of the followers of Christ, the people of Go’d, are one aspect of the Church. The societal aspect of the Church is the monarchic government of the Church by the hierarchy (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748. 733). We have to remember this distinction of the terms community and society that is part of the self-understanding of the Council Fathers and their theologians. The expert on Canon Law, Willy Onclin from Leuven, was an expert at the Second Vatican Council, he collaborated with the Doctrinal Commission, and he was member of the Commissions for the office of the Bishops, for the formation of priests and for education during the Second Vatican Council (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 489. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino.Mulino). In 1965, Paul VI appointed him assistant-secretary of the commission responsible for the redaction of the new Code of Canon Law that was in charge of putting the ecclesiology of the Council into paragraphs of law (De Fleurquin, Luc. 1990. “Monsieur Willy Onclin. Doctor Honoris Causa de la Universidad de Navarra (1905–1989).” Ius Canonicum XXX (59): 15–18. 17).

Onclin and the theologians working for a reform of the governmental structures of the Roman Catholic Church argued that the power (Latin: potestas) of the bishop sufficiently constitutes the necessary legitimacy for working in a counsel for the pope and many bishops had brought up this claim during the discussions in the aula in the second session of the Council. Onclin also proposed to give juridical power to the Episcopal conferences (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. 404. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The counsel of bishops for helping the pope in the government of the Roman Catholic Church never became a reality and the Episcopal conferences never received autonomous juridical powers. It is no wonder that under the authoritarian reign of John Paul II, Onclin lost much of his influence on the redaction of the new Code of Canon Law (Quisinsky, Michael. 2013. “Onclin.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 203. 203. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

Onclin takes perfect notice of the fact that the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, that was promulgated on November 21, 1964, describes the Church under the twin aspects of society and community in continuity with Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici corporis Christi from 1943 (Onclin 1967, 733). It is impossible to separate the Church as a society and the Church as communion, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ are not to be considered as two realities (Lumen Gentium 8)” (ibid.). Describing the Church as “the people of God”, as “the messianic people” destined to bring together all human beings that is “established as a communion of life, charity and truth” (Lumen Gentium 9) is incomplete. We have to recognize that the Church at the same time is “the society of men who are incorporated in it and who, under the direction of the sovereign pontiff and the bishops, pursue in common the end to which they are called, communion in divine life” (ibid.).

When interpreting Gaudium et Spes, we must not forget that the Second Vatican Council sticks to the definition of the Catholic Church as a hierarchical society and as the community of the followers of Christ, the people of Go’d. Gaudium et Spes 1 uses the definition of the Church as society and as community. The Church as a hierarchical society under the direction of the sovereign pontiff and the bishops, affirms the solidarity of the followers of Christ “with the whole human family” (Gaudium et Spes 1). From the title of Gaudium et Spes 1 “Solidarity of the Church with the Whole Human Family”, it is clear, that the Council prefers to speak of the Church collectively and does not speak to the individual faithful. Therefore, the title is not “Solidarity of the disciples of Jesus Christ with the whole human family”, but solidarity of the Church. That means, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope and the Council Fathers, affirm that the community of the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ “is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds” (Gaudium et Spes 1).  It is not the faithful who affirm their solidarity. Instead, the pope and the Council Fathers make up their minds for the laity. Philips calls this method naively “pedagogical” (Moeller 1968, 272); we would call this method excessive.

In January 1964, Philips demanded a clear answer for the start of a revision of the text of scheme XVII (ibid. 265). Philips asked, 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? In 1965, Philips affirms that the Church speaks in Gaudium et Spes, that is the hierarchy speaks. In 1965, undisputed paternalism constituted the historic context of the editors of Gaudium et Spes.

In 1965, the Council Fathers and their theologians did not recognize that millions of Catholics could affirm their solidarity with the poor on their own; they could affirm their solidarity and empathy with each other and with others. Catholics could speak for themselves; they did not and do not need a pope and a hierarchy to speak for them. The Council Fathers did not understand what was going on. On September 17, 1965, Philips told the bishops and the theologians that there is unrest and the necessity for contact and dialogue (ibid. 272). Philips was convinced that his pedagogical method was a realization of a dialogue (ibid). The faithful were not convinced of this method.  During the summer of 1965, Paul VI repeatedly spoke of “a crisis of obedience” and many Council Fathers thought the same way (Routhier, Gilles. 2001. “Portare a termine l’opera iniziata: la faticosa esperienza del quarto period.” 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, 73–196. 74. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The urgent need for talking, discussing and dialogue between the laity and the hierarchy was ignored. Paul VI announced in his opening speech for the last session of the Second Vatican Council that he did not give the Council freedom to discuss some specific questions (ibid. 193). A secretly appointed and working commission had been working in the name of the Pope John XXIII on the questions of world population. Paul VI asked the commission to continue its work; he enlarged the commission and made it work on the questions of marriage, divorce and birth control. De Riedmatten was the president of the commission from the days of John XXIII until the end of the commission in 1968.  

In 1965, the Council Fathers and their theologians did not realize that women, men and queer had irrevocably started realizing their dignity by speech-acts. The Council Fathers and their theologians were not aware that social scientists, economists and philosophers like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum had been developing a social theory of social realizations by women as men as agents of their own well-being. The Council Fathers and their theologians were not prepared intellectually to adopt this expertise from the scientific community. Additionally, many Council Fathers, many theologians and even Paul VI lacked the soft skills to deal with the popular expressions of Christian faith of millions of women, men and queer Catholic faithful. Catholics, who had been passive consumers of the liturgy and the sacraments before the Second Vatican Council, demanded with the reforms of the Council an active part in the life of the Church.

As De Lubac, many theologians and bishops who had started at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council as reformers, were not able to cope with the growing pluralism within the Church. By 1964, Catholic women, men and queer were determined to express their Christian life and their faith-sentences within the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church and they demanded freedom and rights to do so. Haubtmann had been consulting French theologians who had studied sociology, lay sociologists and some representatives from Catholic lay organizations. The laywomen and men in some commissions of the Council, especially the few lays in the Central Sub-commission for Gaudium et Spes were allowed to speak when a bishop gave them the word, but they had no voting right (Hünermann 2004, 385). The Second Vatican Council was written by clerics, and the influence of the lays was limited to the questions of family, marriage and the economy (ibid).

In 2020 CE, Catholic women, men and queer protested their discrimination by the Roman Catholic hierarchy stronger than ever. The Catholic women of the Voices of Faith “empower and advocate for a prophetic Catholic Church, where women’s voices count, participate and lead on equal footing with men”[vi]. Voices of Faith is a women’s initiative “facing the crisis of the Catholic Church” and “questioning the Church hierarchy and its response to a changing world and emerging problems, such as sexual and power abuses” and tells Church leaders “why gender equality in our Church is crucial to its future” (ibid). Voices of Faith is “an initiative that creates events, media outreach and international network groups to empower Catholic women into decision making roles at local and global levels of the Catholic Church”[vii]. Voices of Faith “want to include and hear women’s diverse voices and bring them to the forefront”. The women of Voices of Faith “seek open and honest dialogue on an issue where varied opinions exist”, “are respectful of all people and seek constructive solutions”, “are unapologetic about our vision and mission”, “believe women are an innovative and bold solution to the many problems the Catholic Church is facing in a 21st century world” and “are women and men of faith” (ibid). This short description of values of Voices of Faith demonstrates that Catholic women and men affirm their Christian values for realizing the just world of Go’d by themselves and do not need the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to speak for them.

In 1965, Roman Catholic paternalism was not only a concern of feminist philosophers and theologians. Roman Catholic paternalism was also a problem for the Orthodox Churches. In July 1964, Philips enjoys the summer without meetings, discussions and traveling at his home in Leuven (Philips 2006, 122). On August 1, 1964, he had a long conversation with Cardinal Suenens (ibid. 123). Suenens tells Philips that the harsh reaction of some Orthodox bishops concerning the subordination of the collegiality of the bishops under the authority of the pope in De Ecclesia had left him affected with sadness and consternation. The Orthodox bishops protested the Roman juridical reinforcement of the papal powers over the bishops and the Church in the Doctrinal Constitution on the Church De Ecclesia (ibid). In a first reaction, Philips speaks of the lack of understanding on the Orthodox side for the Catholic point of view; in his second reaction, Philips starts reflecting and assesses the juridical affirmations of the Church as a society under the direction of the pope in the text of De Ecclesia. In his diary, Philips tries to harmonize the societal and the communal aspects of the Church, admits the difference between the divine aspect of the Church as a communion and the worldly aspect of the Church as a hierarchical society, but does not see a necessary contradiction between the two aspects (ibid). Philips refuses to call his effort an artificial harmonization, he speaks of a deeper comprehension of the two aspects and finally testifies that the Roman theologians are opposed to an ecclesiology of the communion anyways, only to uncritically surrender again to episcopal authority and powers (ibid). The Orthodox Churches had never forgotten the Christian tradition of the first centuries CE that asked for the consent of the people before appointing a bishop. It is useful that a bishop and a bishop of Rome speaks in the name of a community of Catholics if the bishop has the authority to do so. The bishops receive the authorization to speak in the name of others by the consent of the others to do so. In the West European Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Rome suppressed this tradition. The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople are apostolic as the bishop of Rome. the patriarchates meet in synods with their bishops without a pope as supreme pontiff.

Gaudium et Spes 2. “The Council addresses all of humanity”

Gaudium et Spes 2 is titled “The Council addresses all of humanity”. In Gaudium et Spes 2, 1 the Council Fathers take the word and affirm they address themselves to the sons and daughters of the Church, to all followers of Jesus Christ and “to the whole of humanity”. What are they going to tell the world? In Gaudium et Spes 2, 2 the Council Fathers tell the world that they base their worldview on the faith in Jesus Christ as savior. The Council Fathers further assess that every Christian shares this faith in the salvation work of Christ that is sustained by Go’d’s love “so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and reach its fulfillment” (Gaudium et Spes 2, 2). Gaudium et Spes 2, 2 realizes the programmatic intention of Philips and of those whom he had convinced to share this intention to communicate to the world the message of Christ according to His instructions (Moeller 1968, 272). The message is the belief that Go’d’s love takes care of the world, the people, the women and men of this earth. We do not yet hear from the Council Fathers what this new-fashioned world looks like or what it will look like.

Gaudium et Spes 3. “An Offer of Service to Humankind”

Gaudium et Spes 3 is titled “An Offer of Service to Humankind”. The speaker in Gaudium et Spes 3 is the Council, that is the Council Fathers. The programmatic intention of Philips was “to speak to the people as they are” (ibid) and Gaudium et Spes 3 affirms this intention. Gaudium et Spes 3, 1 deal with “mankind”. Speaking abstractly about “mankind” and not about women, men and queer corresponds to the patriarchal mind-sets of the Council Fathers. The Council Fathers recognize the ambivalence of the human condition and the search for sense and meaning in life. The Council Fathers pretend again to be able to speak for the faithful, they are not aware of their paternalism and declare, “giving witness and voice to the faith of the whole people of God gathered together by Christ”, despite of the will and capability of the faithful to speak for themselves,

I want to make clear that my use of the expression paternalism serves to describe the historical context of Gaudium et Spes and nothing more. The intention of the Council Fathers is “solidarity with, as well as its respect and love for the entire human family”. The validity-condition for this claim to loving solidarity with humankind consists in the engagement of the Council Fathers “in conversation about these various problems”. I will have to investigate the fulfillment of this validity-condition throughout Gaudium et Spes. 

The last sentence of Gaudium et Spes 3, 1 affirms “For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will”. The Council’s conception of “man” supports philosophical dualism of body and soul, but also recognizes “heart and conscience, mind and will” as being necessary for a “whole and entire” description of “man”.

Gaudium et Spes 3,2 is indeed a remarkable proposition. The Council Fathers realize the validity-condition for their claim to “solidarity with, as well as its respect and love for the entire human family” by assessing that a “Godlike seed” has been sown in every man and women of humankind. The Council affirms the basic Christian conviction and teaching since Paul’s Letter to the Romans that understands the conscience of all women, men and queer as a justifying witness to “the Law engraved in their hearts” (Romans 2, 12–16). By affirming that a “Godlike seed” has been sown in every man and women of humankind, the Council Fathers respect women and men because the assessment of a “Godlike seed” for all of humankind, for Christians and not-Christians, treats all women, men and queer as equals. For a moment the Council Fathers offer the collaboration of the Church in “fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs” (Gaudium et Spes 3,2) respecting their equality as creatures.

Speaking in Gaudium et Spes 3, 1 about “heart and conscience, mind and will” the Council Fathers had already touched a central question of modern women, men and queer that is freedom and liberty. Connecting the Christian concept of conscience with the Christian concept of a “Godlike seed” that has been sown in every man, woman and queer of humankind opens Christians the way to proclaim the faith in Jesus Christ by respecting the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. A teaching that Jesus Christ would have done away with Go’d’s seed of equality in women, men and queer qualifies as heretic for Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. It is true, there is no affirmation of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer by the Second Vatican Council but Gaudium et Spes shows elements for developing such a theology of Human Rights.

In the 55 years that followed the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church pursued quite a different direction. The Council Fathers not only spoke for the faithful, but they spoke also for the societal institution of the Church that is the Roman pontiff, his cardinals at the Roman Curia and their male celibate collaborators. It is not good to speak for the Roman Curia, the government of the Church and the hierarchy. When the Roman prelates were liberated from the Council Fathers, who had developed a common conscience for the Second Vatican Council as a special event for the Church’s history, the Roman central government again took control over the Church. Thus, did not come true what Gaudium et Spes 3,2 had claimed: “The Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit”. The government of the Church, the Church as society, did not realize the example of Jesus Christ who entered this world “to serve and not to be served” (Gaudium et Spes 3, 2). In his Christmas address to his Roman Curia on December 21, 2017, Pope Francis found harsh words for the reigning clericalism in his Curia (Francis 2017). He bitterly and at the same time helplessly demanded that the relationship between the Curia and the local churches be based on collaboration and trust and never on superiority or adversity (ibid).

The faithful adopted the Second Vatican Council as a call to reform and progressed on their way of realizing their faith in Jesus Christ with the dignity of self-responsibility for their social choices. Both, the Roman Curia as the society of the Church, and the faithful as the people of Go’d and the divine aspect of the Church, did not go the path the Council Fathers had proclaimed for them.

Empirical investigations of how women, men and queer think about life, family, work, religion, politics, and society.

The Council Fathers affirm in Gaudium et Spes 3, 1 “For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed”. In the years after the Second Vatican Council, Catholic social scientists and theologians recognized the need for social, empirical investigations concerning the state of affairs of individual women, men and queer. Before renewing society, I must have a picture of what I am renewing, before suggesting therapies, a diagnosis is necessary.

The Belgian Jesuit Jan Kerkhofs[viii] (1924–2015) from the Catholic University Leuven, initiated in the 1970s with the Dutch sociologist Ruud Alphons de Moor[ix] (1928– 2001) from the University of Tilburg, a Catholic lay, the Foundation for the Study of European Values. In the post-conciliar years, Catholic social scientists in Western Europe were convinced of the necessity for empirical data and facts on the state of the values systems of the European Catholics and the European populations. In 2020, the homepage of the European Values Study (EVS) does not document any more the start of the projecting of the EVS as an initiative of Catholic priests, scientists and theologians. The Roman and often the local Catholic authorities did not seek the dialogue and discourse with the Catholic social scientists. The Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was rather suspicious of the Catholic social scientists, because the empirical facts that showed an important change of values were not helpful for the Roman critique of liberal Western society as materialist and morally decadent.

The European population replaced the authoritarian values of obedience to the religious and public authorities with the values of freedom, dignity and responsible social choice.  The Catholic theologians and social scientists were not in need of any Roman support for their investigations. The ethics of the Catholic theologians and social scientists support artificial birth control and responsible parenthood, respect of sexual orientations and practices, and oppose the criminalization of women who had abortions, they demanded the integration of divorced couples in Church life, and they denounced discrimination, sexism and sexual abuse by celibate male clerics and demanded married priests, women and men. Catholic social scientists who followed an ethics of choice continued their scientific work at universities that were free from the influence of religious authorities. Catholic theologians got jobs at independent State Universities investigating the philosophy of religion. The Catholic Universities suffered from this brain drain and their theological academic institutions became schools that uncritically teach official Roman Catholic teaching.

In 1981 the European Values Study (EVS) started. A thousand citizens in the European Member States of that time were interviewed using standardized questionnaires. The survey is repeated every nine years. In 2008, it covered 47 European countries and regions and about 70.000 people were interviewed (ibid). The European Values Study “provides insights into the ideas, beliefs, preferences, attitudes, values, and opinions of citizens all over Europe. It is a unique research project on how Europeans think about life, family, work, religion, politics, and society” (ibid.).

When the EVS was planned in the 1970s, the members of the study group asked the questions “Do Europeans share common values? Are values changing in Europe and, if so, in what directions? Do Christian values continue to permeate European life and culture? Is a coherent alternative meaning system replacing that of Christianity? What are the implications for European unity?”[x] The World Value Survey (WVS) started in 1981 as a part of the European Values Study.[xi] The WVS covers almost 100 societies and nearly 90% of the world’s population[xii].

The social scientist at University College London David Voas is a member of the Executive Committee of the EVS. In October 2019, he affirmed in a panel on Religion, national identity and pro-choice values: “The undoubted power of religion can be deployed for good or ill, and there is a widespread belief that religion has done more harm than good. People are increasingly choosing to live without religion partly because they reject the exercise of its power over their own affairs”[xiii]. In 2020, we sadly observe that the Roman Catholic Church is not perceived as collaborating in the renewal of human society but as quite an obstacle for renewal. At the end, Gaudium et Spes 3 affirms with John 3, 17 that Jesus Christ came into the world not to judge the world but to save the world and that Christ came “to serve and not to be served (Matthew 20, 28 and Mark 10, 45)”. Jesus Christ came into the world “to serve and not to be served” and he repeatedly denounced the mighty, religious and secular, for their power abuse over women, men and queer. Within the Narrative of the Passion of Jesus Christ, the oldest narratives that entered the New Testament, Luke narrates the institution of the Eucharist during the Last Supper (Luke 22, 14–20), the foretelling of the treachery of Judas (Luke 22, 21–23) and Jesus’ response to the question of the power of the apostles (Luke 22, 24–27). The eternal temptation for power capability over others inhabits the men who Jesus Christ had called first to follow him. Luke narrates “An argument also began between them about who should be reckoned the greatest; but he said to them, ‘Among the gentiles it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. With you this must not happen. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves. For who is the greater: the one at the table or the one who serves? The one at table, surely? Yet here am I among you as one who serves’” (Luke 22, 24–27). John does not narrate the institution of the Eucharist. John narrates a supper before the festival of the Passover, and that Judas had decided to betray Jesus (John 13, 1–2). John insists on giving testimony to Jesus Christ realizing love by washing the disciples’ feet”, being aware “that the Father had put everything into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God” (John 13, 3–5). After having served his disciples, Jesus Christ asks them if they had understood and he teaches them “You call me Master and Lord, and rightly; so I am. If Lord then, the Master, and I have washed your feet, you must wash each other’s feet. I have given you an example so that you may copy what I have done to you” (John, 13, 13–15).

I am aware of being a white European Roman Catholic cleric. I try to fight my inner patterns of paternalism, sexism and racism and I try to fight paternalism, sexism and racism with the Roman Catholic Church. My contribution in this effort for establishing equal dignity, freedom and rights for all Christians within the Roman Catholic Church consists in elaborating a theology for the social realization of the threefold commandment of love (Matthew 22, 37–40; Mark 12, 29–31; Luke 10, 25–28) within the Roman Catholic Church.

Too often I fall short of the Law of the Spirit that is love in the way of Jesus Christ “serving and not to be served”. I am thankful for the uncountable chances in my life to stand up again and try anew.

Applying social science for sustaining Roman Catholic paternalism

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is not the enemy of empirical science and sociology. For over 100 years, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church makes progressive and intelligent use of the technologies of the modern world, especially of the mass media and public relations policies, in order to preserve the absolutist powers of the pope and the bishops within the Church. In the spring of 2010, Archbishop Alois Kothgasser from Salzburg, Austria told me that the Vatican’s nuncio in Vienna had commissioned an Institute for Social Research and Consulting to investigate the degree of hostility of the Catholics of the dioceses of Eisenstadt, Austria, against the unloved Roman candidate for bishop. The conservative Croatian priest Ägidius J. Zsifkovics was the Roman favorite for the nomination of bishop of Eisenstadt, Austria. The results of the study indicated a low level of protest and resistance against the nomination, the archbishop was relieved. In July 2010, Rome nominated Zsifkovics bishop and indeed, there were no public protestations by the population.

The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem announces “Furthermore, centers of documentation and study not only in theology but also in anthropology, psychology, sociology, and methodology should be established for all fields of the apostolate for the better development of the natural capacities of the laity-men and women, young persons and adults” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 32, 4).

In the 1970s and 1980s, many Bishops’ conferences around the world established social academies and training centers where clerics and laity worked together investigating and studying social questions, economic problems, worker’s rights, etc. The bishops and most Catholic theologians never interacted with their brothers and sisters who were experts, social scientists and economists. The theologians mostly resisted taking notice of the new knowledge of the social sciences. There was no mutual exchange or discourse between theological, social and economic questions. The social academies and institutions for social education were under the control of the bishops. The directors of the institutions were clerics or laywomen and men who publicly submitted their teachings on social and moral matters to the directives of the official Church. Consequently, the publications, statements and standpoints of these Church institutions steadily lost the attention of the public and their relevance for political decision makers.

Introductory statement of Gaudium et Spes

Gaudium et Spes 4–10. “Introductory statement: The situation of men in the Modern World”

Gaudium et Spes 4–10 is called “Introductory statement: The situation of men in the Modern World”. Philips dominated with his personality, his mastery of Latin, and his political soft skills the meeting of the Mixed Commission for scheme XIII that took place from March 9 to April 8, 1965 (Moeller 1968, 270). Thanks to the perseverance of Philips, the Mixed Commission adopted the description of the modern world in Gaudium et Spes 4–10 and thus preserved the text of the sub-commission on the signs of the time that had been working since September 1964 (Sander 2005, 715). Philips suggested calling Gaudium et Spes 4–10 “Introductory description” of the situation of man in the modern world (Moeller 1968, 270). The Mixed Commission got aware that a description describes the actual historic context and that the historic context changes over time; the title “Introductory description” expresses this awareness of the limitation of the description (ibid.).

Gaudium et Spes 4. “Hope and grief”

Gaudium et Spes 4 is entitled “Hope and grief”. Gaudium et Spes 4, 1 actually claims that the Church and the Council “respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other”. Gaudium et Spes 4, 2 acknowledges a tremendous acceleration and change of the modern world “we can already speak of a true cultural and social transformation” that “has repercussions on man’s religious life as well”. Gaudium et Spes 4, 3 says that this “crisis of growth” and rapid transformation of society left women, men and queer “to be paralyzed by uncertainty about the direction to give it”. Gaudium et Spes 4, 4 describes the growing split of the world into a large world of poor people and a small world of wealthy persons and describes the paradox “Never before has man had so keen an understanding of freedom, yet at the same time new forms of social and psychological slavery make their appearance”. Gaudium et Spes 4, 5 concludes “many of our contemporaries are kept from accurately identifying permanent values and adjusting them properly to fresh discoveries” and remain as a result of this situation “buffeted between hope and anxiety”.

Gaudium et Spes 5. “Deep-seated Changes”

Gaudium et Spes 5 is titled “Deep-seated Changes” and affirms that man transforms the face of the earth with a technology “based on the mathematical and natural sciences and on those dealing with man himself”.

Gaudium et Spes 6. “Changes in the Social Order”

Gaudium et Spes 6 is titled “Changes in the Social Order” and observes the transformation “of the traditional local communities such as families, clans, tribes, villages and other groups”, and that “the pursuit of city living has grown”. The “media of social communication” inform fast and universally about “styles of thought and feeling”, and “many men are being induced to migrate on various counts”. The people dissolve traditional forms of social life and develop a “more mature and personal exercise of liberty”.

Gaudium et Spes 7. “Changes in Attitudes, Morals and Religion”

Gaudium et Spes 7 is titled “Changes in Attitudes, Morals and Religion”, and observes “among young people” the desire to be allowed to actively participate in society, and the Council denounces “an upheaval in the manner and even the norms of behavior”. People practice “a more personal and explicit adherence to faith” and at the same time “growing numbers of people are abandoning religion in practice”. The Council actually claims, “the denial of God or of religion, or the abandonment of them” are “presented as requirements of scientific progress or of a certain new humanism”. The Council Fathers are not arguing on the basis of empirical evidence, they just put out the thesis that people are abandoning religion in practice and that many philosophers teach atheism. The Council Fathers every now and then touch on the expressions freedom and liberty but they do not affirm that women, men and queer have started to claim their equal dignity, freedom and rights also in religious matters. The Council does not differentiate between “abandoning religion in practice” that is abandoning institutionalized religion and the individual development and practice of a personal spirituality.

Gaudium et Spes 8. “Imbalances in the World of Today”

Gaudium et Spes 8 is entitled “Imbalances in the World of Today”.

Gaudium et Spes 8, 1 observes that the rapid changes are “combined with keener awareness of the inequalities in the world”.

Gaudium et Spes 8, 2 observes that “an imbalance arises between a concern for practicality and efficiency, and the demands of moral conscience, also very often between the conditions of collective existence and the requisites of personal thought, and even of contemplation. At length there develops an imbalance between specialized human activity and a comprehensive view of reality”.

Gaudium et Spes 8, 3 continues “As for the family, discord results from population, economic and social pressures, or from difficulties which arise between succeeding generations, or from new social relationships between men and women”.

Gaudium et Spes 8, 4 turns to the ethnic conflicts and the conflicts nationalism. “Differences crop up too between races and between various kinds of social orders; between wealthy nations and those which are less influential or are needy; finally, between international institutions born of the popular desire for peace, and the ambition to propagate one’s own ideology, as well as collective greeds existing in nations or other groups”.

Gaudium et Spes 8, 5 sums up the imbalances describing the human condition “What results is mutual distrust, enmities, conflicts and hardships. Of such is man at once the cause and the victim”.

Parts of Gaudium et Spes 8 sound like taken from the German Jewish woman philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) and her book “The Human Condition” (Arendt 1958). The modern human condition contrasts the enormous human powers that developed through technological and humanistic research, with the underdeveloped agency for controlling and foreseeing their consequences.

Gaudium et Spes 9. “Broader Aspirations of Humankind”

Gaudium et Spes 9 is titled “Broader Aspirations of Humankind” and welcomes the conviction of the modern world “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”. Reading in 2020 Gaudium et Spes 9, 3 we face a valid description of what the case is and had been for the last fifty years. “People hounded by hunger call upon those better off. Where they have not yet won it, women claim for themselves an equity with men before the law and in fact. Laborers and farmers seek not only to provide for the necessities of life, but to develop the gifts of their personality by their labors and indeed to take part in regulating economic, social, political and cultural life. Now, for the first time in human history all people are convinced that the benefits of culture ought to be and actually can be extended to everyone.”

Gaudium et Spes 10. “Humanity’s Deeper Questionings”

Gaudium et Spes 10 is titled “Humanity’s Deeper Questionings”, and claims describing “the basic imbalance which is rooted in the heart of man”. In fact, the French theologians and philosophers of culture who produced the text adopted the thoughts of a minor French philosopher who engaged in the existential analysis of white male European intellectuals living in the 20th century.

Gaudium et Spes 10, 1.

“For in man himself many elements wrestle with one another. Thus, on the one hand, as a creature, he experiences his limitations in a multitude of ways; on the other he feels himself to be boundless in his desires and summoned to a higher life. Pulled by manifold attractions he is constantly forced to choose among them and renounce some. Indeed, as a weak and sinful being, he often does what he would not and fails to do what he would (Romans 7, 14f.). Hence, he suffers from internal divisions, and from this flow so many and such great discords in society” (Gaudium et Spes 10, 1).

The historic context of Paul and his Letter to the Romans considerably differs from the historic context of Europeans in the 20th century CE. Paul does not describe society; he reflects on Christian faith and speaks about Go’d’s mercy and grace. The Council is at this point completely grace forgotten and mercy is no question.

In 1965, these sentences may describe the inner state of affairs of some educated white European men. A plurality of cultures in the world corresponds to a plurality of descriptions. Despite all efforts to correct the Eurocentrism in the text of Gaudium et Spes during the last months of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes 10 remains an example for the Eurocentric perspective of the Second Vatican Council.

Gaudium et Spes 10, 2.

No empiric evidence justifies the generalization of Gaudium et Spes 10, 2 that “the number constantly swells of the people who raise the most basic questions or recognize them with a new sharpness: what is man? What is this sense of sorrow, of evil, of death, which continues to exist despite so much progress? What purpose have these victories purchased at so high a cost? What can man offer to society, what can he expect from it? What follows this earthly life?” There are certainly women, men and queer who share moments of thinking about some aspects of the above questions, but the whole world does not inquire “with a new sharpness” into them.

Gaudium et Spes 10, 3.

Gaudium et Spes 10, 2 uses existential questions as a kind of pretext to confront in the following paragraph Gaudium et Spes 10, 3 the modern world with the abstract formulation of Christian dogmatic belief sentences. Bishops and theologians from the Doctrinal Commission who collaborated in the Mixed Commission, in Gaudium et Spes 10, 3 got the opportunity to present faith-sentences like Christ “is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” as positive facts. Accepting this error of category was the price for getting the consensus of the Doctrinal Commission for scheme XIII. The Council Fathers take the citation “Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” from the Letter to the Hebrews 13, 8. The context of the letter to the Hebrews is a homily within a meeting of the Christian community, possible before the celebration of the Eucharist.

Gaudium et Spes 10, 3 refers without caring for the historic context or the message of the verses from The Second Letter to the Corinthians 5, 15, of Acts 4, 12, of Hebrews 13, 8 and of Colossians 1, 15. Corinthians 5, 15 affirms that Christ died “for all humanity” but adds “his purpose in dying for all humanity was that those who live should live not any more themselves, but for him who died and was raised to life for them”. In Gaudium et Spes 10, 3 there is no word on the role model that Christ presents “for all who live”. The historic context of Acts 4, 12 is the arrest of Peter an John by “the captain of the Temple and the Sadducees” (Acts 4, 1) and their confession before “the rulers, elders and scribes” (Acts 4, 5), “with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, Jonathan, Alexander and all the members of the high-priestly family” (Acts 4, 6). It is in this violent context before the Sanhedrin that “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4, 8) fearlessly confessed and proclaimed that only in Christ men can be saved (Acts 4, 12). Confessing Christ as savior in captivity and humiliation constitutes the historic context of Acts 4, 12, but the Council Fathers do not mention this context. They prefer addressing an abstract humanity but forget about the millions of suppressed Christians in the world. The Council Fathers select from the Gospel the pieces that satisfy their appetites, regardless of the message of the verses they refer to.

The Council Fathers do not adapt their use of the Sacred Scriptures for their modern listeners or readers, although they had demanded this adaptation in their document on the Sacred Scriptures. Dei Verbum 25, 3 had demanded that the Sacred Scriptures “should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation”, and Nostra Aetate 4, 8 accepts “the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows”. Colossians 1, 15 praises Christ: “He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all creation”. The Council Fathers pretend projecting “the light” of this image on the whole world as “solution to the outstanding problems of our time” (Gaudium et Spes 10, 3). This kind of uninvited paternalism does not correspond to a mutual agreement of the world and the Council, it rather corresponds to “the pedagogical method” of Philips.

In Gaudium et Spes 10, 3 the Council Fathers preach as if they had never demanded from the bishops the example of charity, prayer, and preaching.  Lumen Gentium 27, 3 demands from the bishop that “he takes care of the faithful by his prayer, preaching, and all the works of charity, and not only of them but also of those who are not yet of the one flock, who also are commended to him in the Lord”.

[i] “Gaudium et Spes,” The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_lt.html (accessed March 17, 2020).

[ii] “Mishnah Resachim 10:5,” Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Pesachim.10.5?lang=bi (accessed October 14, 2018).

[iii] “Our History,” Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, https://holyseemission.org/contents//mission/our-history.php (accessed March 20, 2020).

[iv] “Jesuit Martyrs of El Salvador,” Ignatian Solidarity Network, https://ignatiansolidarity.net/resources/jesuit-martyrs-of-el-salvador/ (accessed March 20, 2020).

[v] “Sandinista National Liberation Front,” Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front (accessed March 18, 2020).

[vi] “All voices count,” Voices of Faith, https://voicesoffaith.org/ (accessed March 18, 2020).

[vii] “Women as Change Agents,” Voices of Faith, https://voicesoffaith.org/about (accessed March 18, 2020).

[viii] “Jan Kerkhofs,” Wikipedia.org, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Kerkhofs (accessed March 20, 2020).

[ix] “Ruud de Moor”, Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruud_de_Moor (accessed March 20, 2020).

[x] “History,” European Values Study, https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/about-evs/history/ (accessed March 19, 2020).

[xi] “History of the World Values Survey Association,” World Values Survey, http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp (accessed March 19, 2020).

[xii] “What we do,” World Values Survey, http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp (accessed March 19, 2020).

[xiii] “David Voas: ‘The Power of Nones: Why Secularization Matters’,” European Values Study, https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/david-voas-the-power-of-nones-why-secularization-matters/ (accessed March 19, 2020).