In a recent interview, Curia Cardinal Walter Brandmueller bluntly declared the Vatican II declarations Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae meaningless: “These are time-bound declarations of the Council that are now outdated—just think of the statements made at the time about Islam or the means of social communication.”[1]
Both documents are well esteemed in the theological scientific community for their epoch-making teachings as to the Catholic Church’s relations with other religions and to the right of the person to freedom of religion and conscience. They contributed substantially to building a constructive relation of Catholicism to modernity. Church historian Cardinal Brandmueller deliberately ignores the fact that both declarations are inextricably linked to the Council’s fundamental positions on divine revelation and on human dignity stated in the constitutions Dei verbum and Gaudium et spes.[2] He interprets the temporal reference as purely contingent on the times. Moreover, he denies the relevance of context-specific experiences that led to the inclusion of the respective topics on the Council’s agenda. Finally, he seems unable or unwilling to reflect that doctrinal development is constitutive of a vivid tradition and that tradition in itself is a process of constant learning, translation and the cultivation of hermeneutical awareness. This insight seems to be beyond the imagination of a traditionalist way of thinking, which contrasts with a tradition-conscious attitude.
A problem statement
The global rise of not only political, but also religious forces of right-wing thinking seems to be a sign of our times. It provokes theological reflection on whether and how Catholic models of thinking may trigger such an inclination. In this essay, I argue that Catholic positions are susceptible to right-wing thinking to the extent that they subscribe to an ahistorical and contextless conception of order.[3]
It is not the inclination to order-oriented thinking as such that causes a problem, but rather a tendency to absolutize and to essentialize certain figures of (religious) ordering, be it in the name of truth (in the field of dogma) or in the name of nature (mainly in the field of morality). Such an attitude ignores the need to reconcile the normative content and demands of a specific (doctrinal, moral or political) order with the historicity, contextuality, and dynamics of the (social, intellectual, scientific, religious) ‘world’ it refers to. As a consequence, this attitude fails to engage in a self-critical and open-minded approach to features of order found in the religious tradition. And it makes such thinking both susceptible and attractive to right-wing—authoritarian, exclusionary, and retrospective—thinking. In what follows, I would like to explain my hypothesis with reference to certain interpretations of the freedom of religion and conscience in magisterial positions of the last decades.
Doctrinal claims and the freedom of conscience
Let us have a look at the pontificates of popes John Paul II (with Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) and Benedict XVI. The Polish pope undoubtedly contributed substantially to developing the Roman Catholic Church as a defender of human rights and, specifically, of the right to freedom of religion in the world. But at the same time, major indicators during his pontificate show how magisterial continuations of the Council’s teaching on freedom of religion and conscience tend to a restrictive understanding of this basic personal right. It is read in a way that raises doubts as to the acceptance of its character and dignity as a basic, universal, and indivisible human right. Unsurprisingly, the traces lead to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the domain of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the later Pope Benedict XVI.
Full continuity with the 19th century teachings?
Major proofs can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) and in the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (2002) of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.[4] Both documents emphasize the limits of religious freedom. The 2002 document argues that, since the right to freedom of religion is based in the dignity of the human person, it does not adopt the idea of equal validity of all belief systems.[5] But remembering this important point, it also underpins the fullcontinuity with the positions of the popes of the 19th century—remember that Gregory XVI condemned the freedom of conscience as a “madness and pestilential error.”[6] To claim Vatican II‘s “full continuity” with this position implies a rejection of a constitutive implication of the dignity of the human person, namely the freedom of conscience. One can assume that this is not by chance but relates to views about how Catholic claims on moral issues should be advocated in politics.
Truth claims, freedom of conscience, and political deliberation
With regard to Catholic parliamentarians, magisterial positions demand that those politicians are obliged to adhere uncompromisingly to the magisterial understanding of truth, in particular to a focus on protecting unborn life and the rejection of emancipatory gender politics. Such a claim seems to lack awareness that to stick to the magisterial position absolutely in the political arena causes results that contrast with the normative aim of protecting basic rights of the human person. It does not allow for political solutions beyond an “all-or-nothing-decision”, and it weakens the respect for the personal conscience (which binds the individual in their decision making) in difficult political deliberations.[7] Pope Benedict‘s encyclical Caritas in Veritate (2009) interprets religious freedom in terms of Christian dominance over other religious and belief systems.[8] This means that his interpretation makes a shift from the personal freedom right (which applies regardless of the faith or belief to which a person adheres) to the doctrinal truth claim – a clear backlash towards the 19th century position of the Roman popes.
Postulates that Catholic parliamentarians fully apply Catholic moral teaching in political decision-making are formulated decisively. It is barely recognizable that the person’s religious freedom and their freedom of conscience are inseparably connected. Such a position shows not only a considerable distance from the rules of democratic decision-making, but also a continuing scepticism about the full recognition of indivisible human rights.[9]
The positions outlined seem to strive to “understand the Council not as modernization, but as a commitment to a ‘Christian modernity’ that includes a clear rejection of relativism, indifferentism, and liberalism. This overlooks the fact that in the 19th century, the Church not only rejected anti-Christian ‘-isms’, but also had a fundamentally ‘broken relationship’ with the modern history of freedom […].”[10]
Such an interpretation effectively paves the way for mutual pressure from politics and the Catholic Church to strengthen or enforce their respective positions in the political arena. In recent years, such tendencies have been observable in the Catholic Church in the U.S. and in several European Church contexts.
Bridges to right-wing thinking
Such an interpretation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience is problematic in terms of human rights for at least two reasons. First, it rejects the claim to freedom in the sense of moral autonomy of the subject. This is because of its supposed arbitrariness in the name of a ‘truth’ available to the magisterium. Second, it implies a dominant, if not exclusive validity claim with regard to a specific religious truth in the pluralistic political arena. Therein one can recognize an authoritarian mode of thinking—a potential interface with right-wing thinking. To conclude, I will sketch central aspects of this mode of thinking.
Criticism of a modern understanding of freedom
A certain Catholic criticism of freedom, as is found in the official contributions of Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict to magisterial teaching, is rooted in the 19th century-based rejection of political modernity and the associated processes of emancipation. It attempts to assert dogmatic and moral claims to order and power over the lifestyles of believers, but also over social and political morality. In the 21st century, this kind of criticism extends to postmodern, power-critical discourses and movements (including the gender movement). Religion that presents itself in this way can easily be exploited for authoritarian political interests and may itself succumb to the misconception that its concerns are well represented by such political currents.
A fragile relationship with human rights
The outlined tendencies in Catholicism with regard to the freedom of religion expresses a claim of the church rather than expressing a basic individual right. It exemplifies a reception of human rights that is at best half-hearted and incomplete; it shows a continuing “strangeness” towards the modern history of freedom in the name of an ahistorical and objectivist understanding of “truth.” Such an approach to the modern human rights system has inspired not only traditionalist movements within the Catholic religious arena as such but also serves as a source of political orientation for inclined Church people and believers. Thus, it inspires support and legitimizes coalitions with authoritarian forces in the political arena. I am convinced that if such inclinations gain influence, then they will severely endanger the evangelical identity of Catholicism. Authoritarian inclinations weaken the potential for resistance inherent in the biblical narrative of God and the Christian tradition of faith against tendencies that are hostile to freedom and contemptuous of human dignity.
Essentialism
Essentialism carries the risk of absolutizing the idea of order. By defending an eternal (and thus static and unchangeable) order in the name of truth, it is directed against historical and social dynamics, which are interpreted one-sidedly as drivers of religious, moral, or cultural decline. When an appropriate hermeneutics for dealing with historical change and an appreciation of the dynamics and contingency of knowledge are lacking, order-oriented thinking and interpretation of the world becomes rigid. On such a breeding ground, right-wing thinking can easily flourish and weaken forces of change that defend (precarious) human freedom and dignity. Moreover, the embrace of essentialism carries the danger of religion or religious institutions being used to legitimize political power grabs in the name of a “true” order sanctioned by a religious authority.
Retrospection
When taken to extremes, the pursuit of order combined with the interpretation of change as decline leads to retrospection. This, too, provides a welcome starting point for right-wing thinking, which typically seeks models for strong identities in an idealized past (which is exemplarily seen in the MAGA-movement, but also, for example, in the history politics and memory politics of the German right-wing party “Alternative fur Deutschland”). Such backward-looking attitudes stand in stark contrast to the biblical dynamic, which, in the tension between dynamic order (creation), liberation (promise), and criticism of disturbed order (prophecy), is fundamentally oriented toward a future promised to humanity by a God who has promised to constantly accompany the path of God’s people and of humankind as such (cf Ex 3, 4-15).[11]
—
[1] Cardinal Brandmüller in an interview with Ludwig Ring-Eifel, November 13, 2025, cf. https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/65648-kardinal-brandmueller-fuer-ein-neues-konzil-ist-es-noch-viel-zu-frueh (November 17, 2025)
[2] Tück, Jan Heiner: Lernverweigerung: Brandmüller hätte zum Konzil besser geschwiegen (Refusal to learn: Brandmüller would have been better off remaining silent at the Council), https://katholisch.de/artikel/65670-lernverweigerung-brandmueller-haette-zum-konzil-besser-geschwiegen (17 November 2025); Theobald, Christoph: Zur Rezeption und Fortschreibung von Dei verbum und Nostra aetate (On the reception and continuation of Dei verbum and Nostra aetate), in: Böttigheimer, Christoph/Dausner, René (Hg.): Vaticanum 21. Die bleibenden Aufgaben des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils im 21. Jahrhundert, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 2016, 387-399.
[3] The text presents a longer version of my essay „Die katholische Angst vor Un-Ordnung“, which will be published in German on www.feinschwarz.net on 21 January 2026.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2104–2109; Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith: Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html.
[5] Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith: Doctrinal Note, No. 8.
[6] Encyclical Mirari vos, 1832 (DH 2730).
[7] Cf. Heimbach-Steins, Marianne: The Catholic Church and Modern Human Rights – Potentials, Learning Processes, Provocations. Social-Ethical Explorations, Starting from the Second Vatican Council, in: Delgado, Mariano/Leppin, Volker (eds.): Historia magistra ecclesiae. History as a Place of Learning for the Church, Basel: Schwabe-Verlag, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2024, 459-477.
[8] See CiV 55f; Heimbach-Steins, Marianne: Religionsfreiheit – ein Menschenrecht unter Druck (Religious Freedom – A Human Right Under Pressure), Paderborn: Schöningh, 2012: 72-77.
[9] See, among others, Heimbach-Steins, Marianne / Hilpert, Konrad: Anerkennung der Religions- und Gewissensfreiheit. Konsequenzen und neue Fragen (Recognition of Freedom of Religion and Conscience. Consequences and new questions), in: Martin Baumeister et al. (eds.): Human rights in the Catholic Church. Historical, systematic, and practical perspectives (Society – Ethics – Religion Vol. 12), Paderborn: Schöningh, 2018, 175-194.
[10] Delgado, Mariano: Vierzig Jahre ‚Dignitatis humanae‘ oder Die Religionsfreiheit als Bedingung für Mission und interreligiösen Dialog (Forty Years of ‘Dignitatis humanae’ or Religious Freedom as a Condition for Mission and Interreligious Dialogue), in: ZMR 89 (2005), 297-310, 301 (translation mine).
[11] Cf. Heimbach-Steins, Marianne, Border Shifts and (New) Perspectives, in: JCSW 66 (2025) 21-51, esp. 39-44.