The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes starts with a footnote.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes (Paul VI 1965) is the only document of the Second Vatican Council where the title gets a footnote. The footnote explains that the Constitution consists of two parts. The first part “rests on doctrinal principles” concerning the teaching of the Church “on man” and “on the world”. In the second part, “the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society. The constitution is called pastoral because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind” (Gaudium et Spes. Footnote 1). The footnote is published in the official Latin text, in the official Russian, Hungarian, Portuguese and Swedish translations, and in the Italian text. The German, English and French translations do not show the footnote (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_ge.html).

The official publication was done by the Vatican, and many cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Curia, the administration of the Roman Catholic Church, was uneasy about a pastoral constitution and the modern world. In the second session of the Council, a text was presented that started with an official part and a second part that consisted of appendices. The partition was rejected by Cardinal König from Vienna, and others who followed the intention of Pope John XXIII. (See my Posting “Development of the text of Gaudium et Spes”). Pope John XXIII wanted the Second Vatican Council to be a pastoral council, and not a dogmatic council that insists with absolutist power on doctrinal truths, sanctions heretic opinions and condemns the modern world altogether. Evidently, the Roman Curia never got ready embracing Pope John’s pastoral concerns anyways.

Fifty-five years after the promulgation of Gaudium et Spes an interpretation of the text of the footnote needs to take into consideration the historical context of the footnote.

The first element of the historical context of the footnote is the editing process of the text of the whole Pastoral Constitution. Studying the text of Gaudium et Spes, I observe the extensive use of Biblical pictures and the Scriptures as primary source for presenting the teaching of the Church. The text of Gaudium et Spes carefully avoids the use of doctrinal principles. The footnote at the very beginning of Gaudium et Spes speaks of the principles of Christian faith but does not affirm that the teachings of Jesus Christ and his proclamation of the just world of Go’d are the foundation of the Christian message.

All documents of the Second Vatican Council together, constitute a second element of the historical context of the first footnote of Gaudium et Spes. The documents of the Second Vatican Council clearly advise the traditional and future dogmatic theologian to put Sacred Scripture first, and tradition second. “Dogmatic theology should be so arranged that these biblical themes are proposed first of all” (Optatam Totius 16, 3). In the text of Gaudium et Spes there are 45 recurrences of the name Christ, but the footnote defines the term pastoral without reference to the biblical narratives of Jesus Christ as the Good Shepherd, the Good Pastor who lives with the women, men and queer whom he heals and teaches the just world of Go’d. The Council fathers and theologians who were responsible for the editing of the footnote were ignoring Optatam Totius 16, 3 that had been promulgated on October 28, 1965, that is six weeks before the final vote on Gaudium et Spes.

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum 17 affirms the faith-sentence “Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested His Father and Himself by deeds and words, and completed His work by His death, resurrection and glorious Ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit”. “Christ established the kingdom of God on earth” - that is the just world of Go’d as the feminist theologian rightly interprets the term (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. 2313. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus) -, “by deeds and words” that is by healings and blessings and preaching the Gospel. Dei Verbum 21 explicitly demands that “all the preaching of the Church”, the sacred liturgy, and the sacred tradition of the Church “must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture”. The Sacred Scripture of the New Testament is the center of all preaching, of all catechesis, of all liturgy, and of all theology. The New Testament, “the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life” (Dei Verbum 21). Biblical scholars, the French Dominican theologian Congar and the French Jesuit De Lubac welcomed the affirmations in Dei Verbum 21 that the Commission for Revelation reached by June 1964 (Vilanova 1998, 450–51). De Lubac identifies as the principal merit of Dei Verbum the establishment of the unity of the Revealed and the Revelator, and the unity of Jesus Christ as producer and consumer of our faith as the last sentence of Dei Verbum affirms (De Lubac, Henry. 1983. La Révelation divine. 174. Third revised and augmented edition by Henry de Lubac. Paris: CERF). Dei Verbum 26 affirms that the life of the Church and the life of the Spirit are strengthened by the celebration of the mystery of the Eucharist and by Scripture, the word of Go’d (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. 451. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). De Lubac had studied the Church Fathers and their coping with the Hellenistic world, culture and philosophy with the help of Sacred Scripture.

I take a look at the sentence “Jesus Christ healed by teaching and taught by healing” with the help of the logic of predication (Kamlah, Wilhelm, and Paul Lorenzen. 1973. Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. 78. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut).

I deal with faith-sentences, and I cannot prove the truth of faith, nor can I prove that a faith-sentence is false. I believe in my faith; I cannot know about empirical affirmation or negation of faith-sentences. Logical investigation of predications helps me to stay coherent in my theologizing and to say with clarity what I want to say.

Predication investigates how predictors refer to objects in speech-acts of empirical science (ibid. 77). “Healing”, “teaching”, “teaching by deeds and by one’s life” are predictors. Predictors are so to say characteristics, significant differences, descriptions of a small cutout of reality, or elements of a picture. I am theologizing, I am not doing empirical science. Therefore, I cannot define the name “Jesus Christ” as term. I want to describe what I experience as the social choices of Jesus.

I explicitly agree to the use of the predictor “healer” for Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a healer. Further, I agree explicitly to the use of the predictor “teacher” for Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ is a teacher. Further, I explicitly agree to pass from the predictor “healing” to the predictor “teaching” and to pass from the predictor “teaching” to the predictor “healing”. Now I am allowed to use “healing is teaching” and “teaching is healing” as predictors for Jesus Christ and understand the predication “Jesus Christ healed by teaching and taught by healing”. If I use the predictor “healing” synonymous for the predictor “pastoral” and the predictor “teaching” synonymous for the predictor “dogmatic” it becomes clear, that there is no need to prioritize doctrinal principals over pastoral concerns. If I do not study the New Testament, I will not experience the healings of Jesus and I will miss his message that healing is as well teaching, and teaching must realize healing.

Understanding the New Testament as expression of the unity of the revealed and the revelator allows affirming of Jesus Christ that he teaches by healing and heals by teaching. Healing and teaching are predictors for Jesus Christ. Dei Verbum 17 defines the activity of Jesus Christ as teaching the just world of Go’d by healing, and defines his mission as healing women, men and queer by his teaching. Right before the beginning of the last session of the Council in September of 1965, Congar had already observed in his diary that only by parting from Christology, the theologians are able to affirm the Christian anthropological view of women, men and queer (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 772. Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne OP and Mary Cecily Boulding OP. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press). The Good Shepherd represents the human face of Christian faith that is the hope of realizing the healing of women, men and queer on this earth with the Law of the Spirit that is love.

The Jewish-Christian Paul polemizes against the Law because there is no salvation or justification with the Law. At the same time Paul speaks of a Law of the Spirit that relates to Jesus Christ. We read in Romans 8, 2 of “the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ”. Paul was familiar with the prophets, who legitimized his claim. Jeremiah announces, 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 (Ezekiel 11,19; 18,31; 36, 25; 36, 27; 37, 14) (Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1989. Etudes sur l`Epitre aux Romains. 325. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico).

A third element of the historic context for the documents of the Second Vatican Council we find in the discussions of Council Fathers and their theologians, the work within the many commissions and sub-commissions, the collaboration of the commissions and the obstacles and difficulties as well as the successes of this collaboration that the history of the evolvement of the texts reconstructs. The relation of the theologians working on Gaudium et Spes with the scholars of the Bible is an important element of the historic context of Gaudium et Spes.

In the spring, summer and autumn of 1965, Haubtmann, the French theologian in charge of the text for Gaudium et Spes, and his group were not systematically collaborating with biblical scholars and exegetes. A few biblical scholars were members of sub-commissions working on Gaudium et Spes, and Haubtmann occasionally asked for advice from the experts of the Bible studies. Cardinal Bea and his biblical scholars of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity were busy promoting the Bible studies. After the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic biblical scholars and exegetes concentrated their work and all their energies on producing “editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes” and the curricula at the Catholic Theological Faculties all over the world considerably enforced the Bible studies, fulfilling the demands of Dei Verbum (Dei Verbum 25).

On the other hand, we must affirm, that the Catholic exegetes and biblical scholars did not reach out to the theologians who tried to analyze the problems of the modern world. For decades, there was no systematic interaction between Catholic exegetes and Catholic theologians working on the tradition of the Christian faith. Exegetes studied the Bible, but they did not reflect and did not work out the relevance of their studies for the life of the Christians. There are precious exceptions like the French Stanislas Lyonnet, professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute at the Gregorian University in Rome (Lyonnet 1989). Lyonnet worked before, during and after the Second Vatican Council interpreting the Letter to the Romans and the theology of Paul. Lyonnet cultured an understanding of the Bible as word of Go’d that corresponded with many Catholic intellectuals who had learned to differentiate between empirical science and religious faith and who recognize and claim their dignity, freedom and rights. Lyonnet presents the Bible and teaches Christian faith, he masters exegesis and systematic theology on questions like redemption, creation, original sin, freedom of conscience, spiritual sacrifice and the Law of the Spirit that is love (ibid. 325). Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine, the Holy Office, on June 6, 1961, suspended Lyonnet and his colleague Maximilian Zerwick from teaching at the Biblical Institute of the Gregorian University in Rome (Holland F. 2005, 114). It seems that in 1963, Paul VI reinstated Lyonnet and Zerwick as professors at the Biblical Institute on the condition that they would not teach on the exegetic opinions that previously had been found unacceptable (Harrison, Brian W. 2012. “Paul VI’s ambivalence toward critical biblical scholarship.” Living Tradition. Organ of the Roman Theological Forum 157: 1–10. 6). The results of modern critical biblical research were not allowed to touch on defined dogmas such as original sin or sacrificial redemption (ibid). The few scientists, exegetes and theologians who were experts in exegesis and interpreted the Christian faith with an understanding of the needs of their contemporary Catholic intellectuals were not at the center of the commissions of the Second Vatican Council, they stayed at the periphery of the redaction of the texts. On December 14, 1964, Haubtmann asked Lyonnet in a letter for advice on some biblical questions concerning scheme XIII, but Lyonnet was never asked to become an expert member of a commission (Burigana, Riccardo, and Giovanni Turbanti. 1999. “L’intersessione: preparare la conclusione del concilio.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L’annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del oncilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 554. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Exegetic publications during the Council and after the Second Vatican Council did not speak on ecclesiology, Christology, eschatology, on the questions of international cooperation, on war and peace on justice and the social life. 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 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).

The white male celibate exegetes working for the Second Vatican Council succeeded in bringing the Bible back to the center of the Christian faith and their efforts were tremendous. Therefore, I am surprised that Dei Verbum, as Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate and eleven other documents of the Second Vatican Council, do not refer to the Law of the Spirit that is love and do not refer to the threefold commandment of love by Jesus Christ. The post-conciliar generation of Catholic exegetes tried to consolidate the acquired biblical foundation of the Christian faith. Women Catholic exegetes and theologians brought new stimuli “for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God” (Dei Verbum 26). For the moment, the voices of these Catholic women scholars suffer the same fate as the prophets and Jesus Christ had to endure. Women theologians speaking up for equal dignity within the Church are ignored and silenced within the Pontifical Catholic Universities around the world.

The Council Fathers were tired and exhausted and had no energy left to study and discuss the problems of the world. From 1963 to 1964, the Majority of the Council Fathers worked for reform of the Catholic Church. In the end, the Council Fathers were not able to build a consensus on the collegiality of the bishops and the reform of the government of the Church (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 promulgation of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, proclaimed an inspired chapter on the mystery of the Church. A chapter on the people of God that is founded in the Scriptures followed, before Lumen Gentium assured the primatial powers of the pope and the hierarchical government of the Church as a society. It is clear the reform of the Church government failed. The Council Fathers failed to reform the government of the Roman Catholic Church, because they lacked a coherent theological program. They failed to reform the teachings on marriage and family life for lack of a coherent theology, and a coherent theological program would be the possibility condition for building consensus (ibid).