Summary: The Second Vatican Council from the point of view of a Christian defending the rule of Human Rights law

.

There is not a single historian collaborating in the fundamental work on the history of the Second Vatican Council (Alberigo, Giuseppe and Alberto Melloni, ed. 1995–2001. Storia del concilio Vaticano II. 5 vols. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino) who would recognize and discuss the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church. The event of the Second Vatican Council confirms in every document the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church and the supreme powers of the Roman pontiff. To this day, May 28, 2025, this absolutist power structure sets the frame of any reform polity of the Roman Catholic Church.

There is not a single theologian collaborating in the fundamental commentary on the texts of the Second Vatican Council (Hünermann, Peter and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, eds. 2004–2006. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. 5 vols. Freiburg: Herder) who would criticize that the Second Vatican Council unequivocally affirms the societal structure of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolutist monarchy and that the pope governs with absolute powers. There is no theologian working for a bishop or cardinal during the Second Vatican Council and thereafter, who would principally challenge the exercise of absolute power by the pope and the Church hierarchy. There is no Roman Catholic theologian at the Second Vatican Council who would insist on the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men and queer baptized with the Holy Spirit and called to realize the Gospel.

The Roman Catholic theologians who were collaborating with the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the mainstream of male celibate theologians and many male lay theologians do not want to take notice of the principal and inseparable reality of the Roman Catholic Church as a hierarchical society and as the communion of the faithful. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are clear on this point and there are a few theologians who clearly and soberly analyze the texts. One of the central documents of the Second Vatican Council that assesses and describes the essential elements of the Roman Catholic Church, is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium that was promulgated on November 21, 1964. Lumen Gentium 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, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4). December 1, 1967: 733-748). It is impossible to separate the Church as 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 (Lumen Gentium 9), is incomplete. The Church is “established as a communion of life, charity and truth” (ibid.) and 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.). Any analysis of the Roman Catholic Church has to take into account both aspects, the societal aspect as an absolutist monarchy and the divine aspect as the Mystical Body of Christ.

During the reception of the Second Vatican Council in the last 50 years, the mainstream of male Roman Catholic theologians refused to recognize the absolutist hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church. They did not analyze the abuse of power by the hierarchy of the Church, who suppressed a societal structure of the Roman Catholic Church that testifies to the divine aspect of the Roman Catholic Church as the people of Go’d. As a consequence, the theological refusal to legitimize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the faithful, young women, men and queer Catholic faithful lost their interest in the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some cardinals, Council Fathers and theologians wanted to work for a reform of the centrist structures of the Roman Catholic Church. Their arguments, such as that the power (Latin: potestas) of the bishop sufficiently constitutes the necessary legitimacy for working in a counsel for the pope, tried to overcome the absolutist power of the pope over the Church by the institution of an international college of bishops that would govern the Church together with the pope. In the fall of 1963, that is during the second session of the Council, bishops still argued in this direction in the aula of the Council, and theologians proposed to give juridical power to the Episcopal conferences (Vilanova 1998, 404). The counsel of bishops to help the pope in the government of the Roman Catholic Church never became a reality and the Episcopal conferences never received autonomous juridical powers. Paul VI and the authoritarian and long reign of John Paul II suppressed all efforts that suggested a sharing of power at the top of the Roman Catholic Church.

With the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation the Second Vatican Council turned to Scripture as the foundation of the Church and the basis of the Council. The aula of the Second Vatican Council was conscious of the essential relationship between the documents on revelation and on the Church since the fall of 1964, when Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum had been discussed together (Theobald, Christoph. 2001. “La chiesa sotto la Parola die Dio.” 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, 285–370. 289. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Due to the bitter resistance of a minority of Council Fathers and curial cardinals, the final text of the Preface to Dei Verbum no longer mentions the ecclesiological function of revelation. Pope Paul VI never spoke of Dei Verbum as the basis of the Council or the Church. Instead, he turned away from Scripture to concentrate again on the institutional aspect of the Roman Catholic Church (ibid. 359).

Lumen Gentium 20 and 21 affirm the transmission of faith and care for the authentic proclamation of the faith as the primary task of the bishops (Hoping 2005, 753). Dei Verbum as well as Lumen Gentium legitimated the origin of the bishops’ role as teachers with the help of the Church Father Irenaeus but not with the Scripture (ibid.). Hoping recalls that there were times when the bishops did not use their office in the Church to serve the authentic handing on of the faith; by contrast, the Apostles did indeed serve the faithful with their Magisterium that is the teaching office, the transmission and proclamation of the faith (ibid.). The Second Vatican Council is not able to legitimate the claim that “the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over to them the authority to teach in their own place” with a reference to the Sacred Scriptures. Instead, the reference goes to Saint Irenaeus’ book “Against Heresies” (Chapter III, 3:1) (ibid. 754). The Second Vatican Council assures that the societal structure of the Church as an absolutist monarchy. The pope and the bishops dominate the proclamation of the faith and dominate any apostolic activity of the faithful of the people of Go’d.

The Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio is a decisive point in establishing sisterly and brotherly relations with the Churches of the Reformation. Yet, the monarchical character of the Roman Catholic Church is an obstacle for the mutual recognition of all sacraments, the signs of salvation. The primacy of the bishop of Rome constitutes the most important obstacle to the common celebration of the Eucharist in the ecumenical dialogue with Protestants. If the pope is considered the necessary sign of the unity of all Christians in Jesus Christ, then recognition of this sign is a possibility condition for the celebration of this unity in the Eucharist. This kind of argument perverts the Christian religion. The absolutist power of the pope perverts the service of proclaiming faith by making claims to jurisdictional, governmental and political authority. Jesus Christ is the good shepherd. Concerning the Council’s reference to the Gospel of John when speaking about “the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 2), we may affirm that in John 13, Jesus washes the feet of the apostles. It is clear therefore, without the service of washing the feet of each other, without the effective service of love for each other, there is no credible divine service at all and no societal service, no “communion of life, charity and truth” (Lumen Gentium 9). 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).

Reading, studying and praying the Sacred Scripture helps to convert our desires for power in desires for realizing love and peace. The Pauline greetings in Romans are an affirmation of “the mutuality of men and women in Christian ministry” that is very strong and quite exceptional (Mathew 2013, 1). The leadership roles of women mentioned in Romans 16, 1-16 and their ministry can be described in relation to Paul’s notion of “mutual interdependence” that we find also in other letters of his. In Romans, Paul understands “mutuality” as a “relationship of reciprocal care” as the expression “one another” shows. Romans 16,16 “to greet one another with a holy kiss … can be interpreted as a summation of Rom. 16, 1-16 and as a practice intended to include the entire church community” (ibid.: 1-2). Why does the Roman Catholic Church not realize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men and queer within the Church, if her foundational documents give testimony to a community structure that is characterized by mutual care and love? The Gospel is the ecclesiological function of the Church, that the Holy Spirit operates.

The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate finally withdrew all theological arguments for the traditional legitimization of Catholic Anti-Semitism by the Roman Catholic Church and established Judaism as a positive fact for Christian theology (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2017. „Nostra aetate 4: Aufbruch und Ausgleich“ In „…mit Klugheit und Liebe“, edited by Franz Gmainer-Pranzl, Astrid Ingruber and Markus Ladstätter, 253 – 265. 254. Linz: Wagner-Verlag). At the same time, Nostra Aetate did not overcome all traditional theological perspectives of Christian superiority of the people of the New Covenant over “Abraham’s stock” (ibid). The Second Vatican Council was not able to use the terms “Israel”, “Holocaust” and “Shoah”. The Catholic Church gave in to the pressure of Arab countries who feared a recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican (ibid.: 257). Israel gets recognition not as Israel but for “foreshadowing” the Christian religion (ibid.: 258). There is no respect for the autonomy and self-determination of Israel, and the goodness of the “roots” of that olive tree does not originate in Go’d’s plan of salvation for Israel but gets assured by the inclusion of Israel into Go’d’s plan of salvation by Christ (ibid.: 258-59).

The fight against the discrimination of women, men and queer as part of salvation and part of the word of Go’d is not considered in Dei Verbum. Dignitatis Humanae 11,2 assesses the cross of Jesus Christ as “the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men” without understanding “true freedom for men” as the realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer. Referring again to Romains 1, 16, Dignitatis Humanae 11, 3 proclaims the faith of the Apostles “the Gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe” and fails to insist on preaching salvation as a call to love, that is also the call to realize equal dignity, freedom and rights. Instead, Dignitatis Humanae 13,1 puts the care for salvation exclusively into the hands of the society of the Roman Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council actually claims that the celibate male bishops and cardinals under the absolutist powers of the pope will care for the salvation of the women, men and queer believers. In reality, the hierarchy suppresses salvation as a realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights and does not safeguard peace and justice. Roman Catholic women, men and queer claim a division of powers within their Church and the end of their discrimination.

The Declaration on Religious Freedom on the Right of the Person and of Communities to social and civil freedom in matter religious Dignitatis Humanae, is an important affirmation of religious freedom by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, neither Dignitatis Humanae, nor Unitatis Redintegratio or the Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite Orientalium Ecclesiarum bother about gender, ethnicity, and class. The context of the believers who hear, comprehend, speak and live their faith is constituted by billions of women, men and queer faithful. From the 1970ies onward, feminist theologians assert that gender, ethnicity, and class are part of those cultural, social and biographical variations that directly influence the understanding, practice and speaking of faith (Nussberger, Danielle. 2019. “Catholic feminist thought.” In The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, edited by Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe, assistant editor Thomas L. Humphries, 833-849. 833. Oxford: Oxford University Press). African American, Hispanic, African, and Asian women confront their experience of suffering and oppression with “the biblical Jesus and see resonances between their quests for justice and liberation, and the salvation that Jesus has achieved through his life, death, and resurrection” (ibid.: 840). Women feminist theologians and women feminist biblical scholars started studying and developing the liberating message of the New Testament, they demonstrated the Bible’s protest against oppression, abuse of power and sexual abuse. Studying, meditating and praying with the Bible, they called for Church reforms and the recognition of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer faithful. Women feminist exegetes and theologians realized the hopes of the last sentence of Dei Verbum “we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God” (Dei Verbum 26).

In 2020 CE, Catholic women, men and queer protest 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”[i]. Feminist theologians insist on the “continuity between the covenantal theology of the Hebrew Scriptures and the soteriology of the New Testament” (Nussberger 2019, 833). Further, we must not forget that Jewish theologians treat much the same questions as Christians. The Rabbis studied and study the Torah. They prayed, meditated, discussed and wrote comments on the Torah, the constitution of Israel that was written under divine inspiration. Rabbis would discuss, comment and write on theological themes like reconciliation, forgiveness of sins and new life, redemption, atonement, justification, salvation and new creation (Segal, Alan F. 2015. “The Second Temple Period.” In The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture, edited by Judith R. Baskin and Kenneth Seeskin, 34–57. 34. Cambridge: Cambridge). Taking the soteriological hopes of Exodus and the annual celebration of the Passover Festival seriously, we have to be clear as Christians that redemption and salvation is not yet finished. It is a central aspect of the rule of scriptural exegesis in Judaism that is of the Mekhilta, that the Passover Festival not only concerns the commemorating of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt; instead, commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (Plietzsch 2005, 56).

Rabbinic literature insists on Go’d’s faithful relation to Israel. Jeremiah already had spoken of “a new covenant” that Go’d will make (Jeremiah 31, 31), Jesus will take up the term at the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, 25 and Luke 22, 20. Hebrews 8, 8 – 12 is the longest citation of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament (Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1989. Etudes sur l`Epitre aux Romains. 231. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico), it cites the prophecy of Jeremiah on the new covenant.  Yahweh will “write on the hearts” of the Israelites this law of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31, 33) and Ezekiel identifies this law as the law of the Spirit of Yahweh, the One and Only who provides the principle of life and the rule of law of the Spirit for realizing the just world of Go’d (Ezekiel 36, 27; 37, 24b). This allows Paul to speak in Romans 8, 2 of “the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ” (Lyonnet 1989, 325). Is it allowed to read Luke 10, 25 – 28 that is about the connection of the Law and eternal life, and Mark 12, 28 – 31, and Mathew 22, 35 – 40, that are about the greatest commandment, together with Romans 13, 8 that speaks about the law? “The only thing you should owe to anyone is love for one another, for to love the other person is to fulfil the law” (Romans 13, 8). Yes, as Christians we confess that the love of Christ that we are allowed to receive with faith will liberate and save us (Lyonnet 1989, 320).

Nostra Aetate did not view religious pluralism as an opportunity for humanity and the Christians to discover and understand that “the Spirit of Go’d blows where it will” (John 3, 8). There were a few exceptions to Roman Catholic blindness for a plurality of worldviews, spiritualties and convictions. Cardinal König voluntarily recognizes the search for truth in other religions (König, Franz. 2006. Offen für Gott - offen für die Welt. Kirche im Dialog. 126. Edited by Christa Pongratz-Lippitt. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In the 1990s, Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the proclamation of the faith started to fight and suppress the theologians defending the equal dignity of religions. Ratzinger started questioning the faith in Christ of the Belgian Jesuit Jacques Dupuis (1923 – 2004), who had lived and taught for more than 40 years in India, constantly dialoguing with Buddhists, Christians, Confucians and Hindus and working on a Christian theology of religious pluralism (ibid.: 132). König wants to transcend the limits of the Christian world and to find out “what the non-Christian religions mean for us and how the good in all religions can be combined to serve global justice and peace” (K König, Franz. 1999. “In defence of Fr Dupuis”. The Tablet. January 16, 1999. 76-77. 77). König publicly defends Dupuis. The Cardinal clearly transcends the limits of the official Catholic teaching of Nostra Aetate on interreligious dialogue when he claims with Dupuis “the Holy Spirit’s activity also outside the visible Body of the Church” and uses Sacred Scripture as validity-condition for this claim: The Gospel of John 3, 8 says: “the wind blows where it will” (König 1999, 76). The monarchical character of the Roman Catholic Church and the primacy of the supreme pontiff of the Church are not compatible with the mutual recognition of religions, worldviews and with an egalitarian view on religious pluralism.

We find the ambiguity of respecting the faithful and at the same time not respecting them also in the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem. In the end the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church do not respect the “sensus fidelium” that is the expressions of the faith convictions and beliefs of every single Catholic woman, man or queer on an equal basis (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Flussi e riflussi tra due stagioni.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 559–612. 575. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The legitimate interests of the lay women, men and queer in the Catholic Church and their spiritual potential was not recognized or taken into consideration by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council (ibid.: 579). Apostolicam Actuositatem does not even bother defining the terms “lay” and “laity” (Velati, Mauro 2001. “Il completamento dell’ agenda conciliare.” In Concilio di transizione settembre – dicembre 1965. Vol. 5 of  Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 197–284. 284. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Why does the Council not simply speak of faithful instead of laity? The commission working on the text titled her document from the beginning of its work to the end “Apostolate of the faithful”; the bishops of the Council finally changed this name into “Apostolate of the laity” (Bausenhart, Guido. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über das Apostolat der Laien.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 4, 1-124. 38. Freiburg: Herder).

All disciples and male and female followers are part of the one people of Go’d and are called to preach the Gospel, tells the Scripture, “The Holy Spirit, who calls all men to Christ by the seeds of the Lord and by the preaching of the Gospel, stirs up in their hearts a submission to the faith. Who in the womb of the baptismal font He begets to a new life those who believe in Christ, He gathers them into the one People of God which is ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’ (1 Peter 2,9).” Apostolicam Actuositatem could have referred to the theology of Lumen Gentium 9 that clearly affirms the teaching, sanctifying and governing functions of the mission of the Church for the whole “purchased people” and not only for a privileged cast of bishops who cannot cope any more with their tasks. It is true; in the end, Lumen Gentium binds the faithful in submission to the authority of the hierarchy and suffocates the sources of the Holy Spirit of the faithful and the realization of the Law of the Spirit that is love.

Gaudium et Spes 15, 1 affirms the faith-sentence that man “by his intellect surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind”.

The lay faithful in the Roman Catholic Church may love, but they may not proclaim the Gospel of love. Apostolicam Actuositatem 8 speaks of love as element of the apostolate of the lay and refers to Matthew 22, 37–40 affirming: “The greatest commandment in the law is to love God’ with one’s whole heart and one’s neighbor as oneself” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 8, 2). The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes also cites the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22, 37-40; Mark 12, 29-31; Luke 10, 25-28), but no other document of the Second Vatican Council cites the commandment of love. The Second Vatican Council does not show much interest in the commandment of love of Jesus Christ. Further we have to observe, that Gaudium et Spes does not affirm the threefold commandment of love of Jesus Christ as threefold commandment; the reception of the threefold commandment is restricted to a twofold commandment of love of Go’d and of the neighbor. Self-love is also part of the threefold commandment of love of Jesus, but self-love is not on the agenda of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Anthropologically it is clear, that women, men and queer who are not capable of self-love do not have the capability of loving others or of loving Go’d.

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.

Gaudium et Spes wants to assess the modern world and wants to dialogue with the modern world. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World tries hard to cope with the claims to equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. In the first part of Gaudium et Spes there is much talk of dignity and the first chapter titles “The dignity of the Human Person” (Gaudium et Spes 12-22). Nevertheless, the concept of dignity is never described without ambiguity. The second part of Gaudium et Spes 16, for example, describes the dignity of conscience by respecting freedom and the right of all women, men and queer to that freedom and dignity citing the Church Fathers and the threefold commandment of love Matthew 22, 37-40 and Galatians 5, 14: “Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner, conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships”. The first part of Gaudium et Spes 16 suppresses the freedom and free choice of conscience of “man” by a “law which holds him to obedience” and insists on an ethics of obedience to the objective moral law that the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church defines (Hogan, Linda. 2004. “Conscience in the Documents of Vatican II.” In: Conscience, edited by Charles E. Curran, 82–89. 84. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press). The ambiguities of obedience and free choice, of equal dignity of all women, men and queer and of the dignity of man who obeys “Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin” (Gaudium et Spes 17), create confusion. Ambiguities create confusion and confusion in moral matters creates lack of direction, impossibility of perseverance and of development. Education and personal development need the mutual interaction of determined love. The capability of loving is the fundamental element of my anthropology.

The Second Vatican Council forgot about a systematic holistic anthropology that includes the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the individual person, being a female, male and queer lay, or a male celibate member of the hierarchy. The Second Vatican Council has no concept for dealing with the integrity of the individual person, which is the integrity of her physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural and spiritual elements. There is no anthropological concept for a holistic human development of the celibate men of the hierarchy and there is no supervision of the integrity of the young men during priestly education. Neither the Decree on Priestly Training: Optatam Totium, nor the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious life: Perfectae Caritatis, nor the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests: Presbyterorum Ordinis, nor the Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus Dominus, care about the necessary anthropological qualifications for a healthy male celibate personality. The last 50 years sadly demonstrated the consequences of neglecting to watch over the personal integrity of the clerics and of not listening to the complaints of the lay men, women and queer who had suffered at the hands of power abusing clerics. The lack of persons with integrity within the Roman Catholic clergy and the long and painful process to make the hierarchy accountable for the abuse of power and sexual abuse of young people has not yet ended in 2020 CE. People who do not work for integrity, and consequently enjoy their integrity on a daily base, and who do not respect the integrity of other persons, are not acceptable to a Church office. People, who do not read, pray and meditate on the Holy Scripture and experience inner peace, calm and comfort, and who do not assess their concepts of faith and convictions, must not teach others the service of Go’d. People who cannot or do not want to interact with other persons on a mutual base of equal respect and understanding, violate the equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer. The realization of dignity is the validity-condition for any claim to validity, for any philosophical, theological, social, or religious claim. This Trilogy claims dignity and integrity of the faithful within the Roman Catholic Church; dignity and integrity for all women, men and queer, without discrimination of anybody. If discourse within the Roman Catholic Church does not serve the realization of the dignity of the performing persons, Jesus’ threefold commandment of love is ignored.

A discourse needs at least two persons, a speaker and a listener, who respect each other and realize that there are no privileged sentences in their dialogue or discourse.

The first step in a discourse consists in the process of getting clarity about what is claimed by the sentence or sentences of a speaker A. The listening person B in this speech-act agrees with person A to a series of further speech-acts that try to explicate the claim to validity that A has brought forward. A and B have to make sure that the claim to validity is clear.

The second step in this kind of discourse consists in the description of the validity-condition for the claim to validity and in describing the range of the validity-condition.. The validity-condition of my faith-sentences and of the faith-sentences of the Christian faith is the realization of the Human Right of the equal dignity, liberty, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. The description of the social range for the realization of the claim to validity is an important element of validity-condition of the claim to validity.

The third step of the discourse consists of the discussion that clarifies if the validity-condition of the claim has been realized. This discussion will involve many speech-acts. Compliance of the claim with the validity-condition is a regulative principle. Discourse partners do not produce truth with consensus. Consensus mayor may not evolve during the discourse. The claim of speaker A may be true also, if B does not accept the claim of A as being true. What is important is the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the discourse partners, and the caring for the dignity of each other during the discourse.

We must not forget that the social realization of dignity with speech-acts not only realizes the psycho-social integrity and dignity of the persons participating in the speech-acts, but also contributes to the maintenance, that is to say to the integrity, of the social setting, the polity of Human Rights. To be able to assess in the speech-acts that investigate faith-sentences and worldviews, the fulfillment of the validity-condition “dignity of the participating persons” is a necessary element of the social realization of dignity. Therefore, the social realization of the way of life of a Christian is inseparably linked to the social realization of dignity.

Dignity, freedom, equality and rights are relatively new words in the practice of human languages. It does make sense to encourage women, men and queer to use these new words in their speech-acts, because the frequent use of these words contributes to a sustainable realization of their Human Rights. During the 1960s, the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church became self-conscious agents of their dignity, freedom and rights. During the Second Vatican Council the lay women, men and queer started participating in the liturgical reforms that their bishops had brought from Rome to their dioceses. They claimed their spirituality, and active participation in Church life with dignity and freedom. They claimed their right that the bishops listen and take them seriously. The lay women, men and queer were enthusiastic about their active participation in the liturgy as the Constitution in the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium promised to them. Sadly, the bishops were not prepared and did not have the necessary soft skills to meet this offer of a mutual interaction of equal sisters and brothers in the Catholic Church. Most bishops panicked when observing chaos and disobedience. Some bishops in the aula protested against the discrimination of laywomen and men within the liturgy, especially in the discussions of the third session in the fall of 1964. In the end, the Second Vatican Council failed to assess the apostolate of the laity as central for the life of the Roman Catholic Church and refused to acknowledge the full mission of the baptized faithful (Grootaers 1996, 579). 2300 bishops and the pope preserved their power over one billion Catholic women, men and queer and were ready to ignore the mission all baptized had received from the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. The same discrimination of the laity is true in the Decree Ad Gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church. The Second Vatican Council was not able to speak of the missionary activity of every faithful woman, man and queer as an essential activity of her and his Christian life.

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 to 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)[ii]. Pacem in Terris 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. Pacem in Terris 144).

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.”[iii] 

The text of Gaudium et Spes touches on some social and cultural rights of the UDHR 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. 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 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.). The fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and the fight against the ecological disasters of the worldwide climate change need supranational cooperation and affirming the UDHR would make the Roman Catholic Church a more effective partner in these fights for health and ecological use of the earth’s resources and therefore for peace and justice.

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 Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were aware of the necessity to adapt the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to the needs of world. Yet, a clear analysis of the Roman Catholic Church has to affirm, that a monarchical society cannot adapt without changing her social structure. The realization of the Law of the Spirit that is the threefold commandment of love of the Lord Jesus Christ, empowers the construction of an egalitarian community of the People of Go’d and empowers the conversion from the monarchic principle of government to the government of institutions that respect the equal dignity, liberty and rights of the faithful. The Law of the Spirit has the power for reform and change of Canonical Law. Yet, no pope so far, not even Pope Francis, had the courage and Spirit to do so.

The Codex of Canon Law of 1983 presents an order that is “far from the legal values characteristic for modern society” (Köck, Heribert, Franz. 2018. „Human Rights in the Catholic Church with regard also tot he General principle of Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination“ In Revision of the Codes. An Indian-European Dialogue, edited by Adrian Loretan and Felix Wilfred, 97 - 130. 126. Wien: LIT Verlag). We remember that the modern state under the rule of law - as designed for example by Rousseau in the 18th century - was gradually developed in the 19th century and that the State under the rule of Human Rights law is a very young practice of humanity (Leher 2018, 91-97). This is no excuse that the Roman Catholic Church does not accept the Human Rights of the UDHR and does not abide by the rule of Human Rights law (Köck 2018, 120). Concerning Church government, the Roman Catholic Church violates the right of the faithful to freely take part in the decision-shaping and decision-making in the Church. We need Canon Law that would respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all Catholics choosing officeholders, and the participation in legislative and administrative responsibilities and offices (ibid.). The Roman Catholic Church is very much obsessed by the power question and misses the growing frustration and resignation of millions of Catholics who turn away from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolutist monarchy that does not care for Human Rights of their women, men and queer. Her autocratic structures of absolutist government are incapable of preserving the common good of her members who consequently challenge the legitimacy of this monarchic government and in growing numbers turn away in frustration, anger and growing disinterest from the Roman Catholic Church as an institution.

With hope, faith, and love, we still await the social realization of the prophecy of Jeremiah. “There will be no further need for everyone to teach neighbor or brother, saying, ‘Learn to know Yahweh!’ No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest, Yahweh declares, since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sin to mind” (Jeremiah 31, 34). Jesus of Nazareth received the Holy Spirit to meditate, study and work for the realization of the New Covenant. Even at the Last Supper Jesus hoped for the New Covenant and believed that Father Yahweh will realize the prophecy of Jeremiah. Rabbinic literature insists on Go’d’s faithful relation to Israel. Jeremiah already had spoken of “a new covenant” that Go’d will make (Jeremiah 31, 31), Jesus will take up the term at the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, 25 and Luke 22, 20. Yahweh will “write on the hearts” of the Israelites this law of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31, 33) and Ezekiel identifies this law as the law of the Spirit of Yahweh, the One and Only who provides the principle of life and the rule of law of the Spirit for all believers of Israel, the people of Go’d (Ezekiel 36, 27; 37, 24b). In Romans 8, 2 Paul speaks of “the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ” (Lyonnet 1989, 325).

Isaiah gave testimony to his prophetic mission, “The spirit of the Lord Yahweh is on me for Yahweh has anointed me” (Isaiah 61,1). With Paul and Luke all believers, Jews and Christians, the afflicted, the broken-hearted, the captives and the mourning, strangers and foreigners give thanks to Yahweh, because He sent Isaiah “to bring the news” to them (Isaiah 61,1-3).  

Throughout his Gospel Luke narrates from the perspective of his belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the anointed Son of man. Jesus is Christ because “God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10,38). In Acts 10,38 Luke makes confesses Peter that Jesus becomes Messiah – that is the anointed -, through Go’d who anoints him with Holy Spirit and power. Luke makes use of the oldest Christian kerygma that had been written down long before the Gospels. “God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and because God was with him, Jesus went about doing good and curing all who had fallen into the power of the devil” (Acts 10, 38). Messiah means anointed. Christ and the Christians are anointed with the Holy Spirit, Christ because he loves the Father (Matthew 4, 1-10; and Luke 4, 1-14) and Christians because they believe in Christ. We read in Acts “the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the word” (Acts 10, 44b). “Listening to the word” is the Christian message, the kerygma’s vocabulary for what to believe.

The Christians have no right to claim the Holy Spirit their own, because the “the Spirit of Go’d blows where it will” (John 3, 8). Therefore, we thank the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, we thank the inspired authors of the Gospel for having given testimony to the Holy Spirit and the faithfulness of Go’d to Her people. We thank René Cassin (1887-1976), the French representative on the Commission on Human Rights responsible for drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and proposing the general principle “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Article 1a, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Cassin was a secular French Jew, lawyer and judge. He joined De Gaulle’s resistance in England and served as the general’s chief legal advisor. The secular Jew Cassin advised the Roman Catholic Charles De Gaulle. Cassin’s support of human rights was influenced by the murder of many family members by the Nazis and his conviction that the French rights tradition, focused on the equal legal standing of all citizens, should be expanded to the international levels (UN Commission on Human Rights 1947e). Cassin told the UN Commission, ‘I think we must insist upon this fact that we must finally reach the fusion of the idea of man as a community and man as an individual (UN Commission of Human Rights 1947b)’ (Hoover, Joe. 2013. “Rereading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Plurality and Contestation, not Consensus.” Journal of Human Rights 12 (2): 217–41. 238). (See also: Stephan P. Leher 2018. “The drafting process of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. 22-30. In: Stephan P. Leher 2018. Dignity and Human Rights: Language Philosophy and Social Realizations. Routledge Taylor & Francis: London and New York).

When Yahweh will bring about Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, where “Yahweh declares, since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sin to mind” (Jeremiah 31, 34), Roman Catholic Christians will also get empowered to believe in the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men and queer.

[i] https://voicesoffaith.org/ (accessed March 18, 2020).

[ii] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[iii] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/