Are all gods believed only one presence

Christian Social Ethics as Public Theology

The gods are back - but were they really gone? In terms of the sociology of religion and society, the theorem of advancing secularization, the repression and privatization of religion through progress, science and modernization had long been established. In spite of the disentanglement of religious and thus above all Christian belief and modern culture in Germany, religion has never completely left the public eye. In particular, the increasing presence of Islam in Western societies was and is a driver of controversy about the public role of religion. Religion matters - it attracts media attention and provokes public disputes and conflicts. Some appreciate religious values ​​and religious commitment, others criticize religious double standards or new fundamentalist excesses. As a conflict issue in particular, there is a new kind of public presence of the religious today.

It has long been about religion in the plural: The "return of the gods" [1] occurs as a polyphony in which religious and cultural pluralism has become a principle. However, this is accompanied by a variety of fears, be it in the form of a generalized suspicion of fundamentalist and violent Islam or in the form of new varieties of anti-Semitism in connection with conspiracy theories that have long been believed to be outdated. Representatives of the monotheistic religions in particular raise their voices in the struggle for public recognition. In the modern, liberal-democratic constitutional state of religious freedom, they are allowed to do so - whether and in what form they should, on the other hand, is an ongoing social controversy. In short: post-secularity and secularity coexist in what is ultimately a confusing mix of processes of social change.

The comeback of public religion on the stages of the late modern world also affects the church and theology. Public speaking of God through the proclamation of the Gospel is ultimately an elementary part of the mission of the Church. Jesus Christ emphasized during his interrogation before the Sanhedrin: “I have spoken openly before all the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple (...). I have spoken nothing in secret ”(Jn 18:20). Christianity does not belong in the private sphere in the sense of the gospel. It should and wants to be a public religion in terms of its self-image. That is reason enough to reflect on the role of theology as a scientifically reflected form of the Christian talk of God in today's public. It is not about the defense of privileges, but about the religious dimension of social cohesion.

The present booklet offers such a contribution to reflection with recourse to the concept of public theology. Our discussions are from the perspective of the theological discipline of Christian social ethics. This subject-specific perspective is obvious with this topic, as social ethics is the theological subject that reflects the mixed situation of public concerns outlined here in the context of the ambivalent developments of at the same time secular and post-secular, increasingly pluralistic and a new longing for homogenization through isolation of society. The digital structural change in the construction of the public sphere also requires normative reflection in a special way. In dealing with these issues, Christian Social Ethics operates a fundamental form of theological “public relations” in the literal sense.

In a first step we will shed light on which publics we mean, in which church and theology move or should move, with a special focus on the digital transformation of public communication. Against this background, we present the concept of public theology as a response to the public discourse that has been moving in a post-secular direction for years. This is followed by the profiling of Christian social ethics as public theology and finally some considerations on the digital science communication of Christian social ethics.

So if theology and the church want to work in and on the public, and thus speak in a perceptible and competent manner in public, they should make sure of what is for them Publicity each actually is. First and foremost, it is a central good and a basic requirement of modern free democracies. But the classic ideal of a spatially, temporally and content-wise clearly definable sphere of the “public sphere” in contrast to corridors of the private sphere has long since become unrealistic. As a distinguished public theorist, Jürgen Habermas essentially understood this to be a network for the communication of content, opinions and the like, in which the communication flows “condense into bundled public opinions” [2]. The public sphere is therefore not just a certain state, but rather an ensemble of communicative practices and processes of exchange about life together in a society in the form of principled unlimitedness. [3] In modern societies, however, this communication ensemble is highly fragmented - in this sense there is not “the” public, but various (partial) publics. The introspection of society, a common term for public communication, happens in today's pluralistic society with its basic right to freedom of opinion and freedom of the press from a wide variety of perspectives. In addition to this understanding of the public as a social space or social institution, which in fact only exists in the plural, the public can also be thought of as a certain mode of communication. [4] For such a type of communication “public”, the aforementioned institutions are needed as forums for social discussions. These, in turn, require a media public that, in the best case scenario, mediates, connects and integrates these “time conversations”.

In times of the megatrend digitalization It is not only the traditional journalistic media that have long guaranteed the existence of such arenas, but increasingly also the Internet and digital platforms such as forums, blogs and social media. The emergence of filter bubbles in the sense of separated discourse corridors in which fake news, conspiracy theories and hate spirals flourish is, however, their most obvious downside at the moment. It has long been a truism that digitalization has radically changed and continues to change public communication - for better and worse. The claim of Christian social ethics to promote responsible contemporaneity therefore requires constant reflection on the structural change in the way in which the public is created.

Shaping the change in the church's public presence in a constructive manner

From a Christian point of view, the “return of the gods” is highly ambivalent, as it is by no means associated with an increased popularity with the people's churches. In stock market jargon, one could rightly speak of a “profit warning” [5], because the return of religion is a highly fragile profit that is associated with considerable loss potential for the churches. For the Christian faith, post-secular society is neither a bear nor a bull market. The only speculative bubbles that have to burst are exaggerated hopes for “re-Christianization” on the one hand and gleeful prognoses of an alleged imminent collapse of the churches in Germany on the other.

It cannot be denied that the large churches are increasingly becoming marginalized. They lose influence on individual questions about the good life and public questions about the just organization of society. This development is enormously intensified by the loss of credibility, especially of the Catholic Church in the context of the abuse debate and the dispute over reforms of the Church. It is not through its own fault that the Church is a controversial subject of public debate. It must therefore repeatedly clarify its role in the public beyond apologetic Catholic lobbying, as the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) recently highlighted in the remarkable position paper "Awakening instead of retreating". [6] The church ultimately learns to understand the gospel better if it does not shy away from a critical, open and also willing to learn dialogue on the Areopagus of today's public. If it acts without the exaggerated, increasingly questioned habitus of a “moral agency” [7] that is actually alien to its religious mission, it is able to create meaning and orientation in public questions more credibly. The simultaneity of the post-secular public interest in religion and the increasing marginalization of the churches is in any case the defining characteristic of the development in Germany. She calls for a readjustment of ecclesiastical and theological forms of communication.

The new, complex structural change in the public sphere and the changed public role of the churches also have an impact on academic theology and theological ethics. Today's public change rubs off on the contents, forms and especially communication modes of theology or should do so. This does not only apply to their presence in the scientific community, the scientific public. With a view to science communication, it is also considered to be the transfer of the results of theological research and academic debate into social discourses and their language games. It goes without saying that theology and the church should not bury their heads in the sand in the face of these diagnostic findings, but should instead take up these developments creatively and constructively. According to Pope Francis, Catholic theology should ultimately be a "cultural laboratory" (Veritatis gaudium No. 3), who picks up new developments with enthusiasm for innovation and engages in an all-round dialogue. A certain model of Christian theology is particularly suitable for this: the Public theology.

The concept of “public theology” [8] as a reflection on the relevance of Christian orientations in the public discourse space of today's plural, post-secular society was initially established within Protestant theology. This understanding of a public theology connects two key concerns: An account of their genuinely biblical-religious foundations as well as the argumentation for Christian positions in public discourses with "greatest possible communicability" [9], accompanied by a critical reflection of these discourses and their communication cultures.

The focus of public theology is proactive reflection on the changed publicity of religion outlined above. It ties in with the basic ideas and methods of Political theology but is more geared towards civil society communication and interaction and less towards directly influencing state action.

(New) political theology as a "mother concept"

The concept of political theology has its roots in the Stoa. In ancient Rome, the "theologia civilis" (Varro) served to legitimize state power. In the Renaissance, Machiavelli and Hobbes took up this political metaphysics of the state. In the 19th century it found resonance above all in France, as well as throughout Europe in the restorative idea of ​​a “Christian state” of political romanticism.

This is to be distinguished from the more recent, strictly theological use of the term political theology by Johann Baptist Metz. His understanding is rooted in a “theology of the world” [10] and a re-evaluation of the Enlightenment and the liberal differentiation of state and society as well as in a fundamental criticism of theological legitimation of power as a consequence of the disastrous experiences of the Holocaust. The goals of this New Political Theology The Christian talk of God must be wrested from privatization, the eschatological message of Christianity must be reformulated under the conditions of a structurally changed public sphere, the church must be defined as an institution of socially critical freedom of belief and Christian spirituality must be characterized in its unity of mysticism and politics . Metz ‘" Mysticism of Open Eyes "urges you to work for more humanity, for peace and justice and for the preservation of creation. The new forms of political theology are therefore reminiscent of the (social) prophetic character of the Christian message and its power to change society. An essential part of Pope Francis' social proclamation can also be assigned to this tradition.

Speech of God in the post-secular society

A new framework for the discourse about the legitimacy and the limits of the divine speech in late modern society was triggered by the paradigm shift already mentioned, which Habermas in his peace prize speech "Faith and Knowledge" [11] under the heading post-secular society summarizes. The philosopher assumes that the cohesion of society and an adequate understanding of its basic concepts cannot be ensured solely through abstract moral standards formulated with abstinence from religion. Religions also have the right, in the sense of Habermas ‘, to feed their offer of orientation in their genuine language into the public discourse:

“Secularized citizens, insofar as they appear in their role as citizens, are not allowed to deny that religious worldviews have the potential to be truthful, nor deny their fellow citizens the right to make contributions to public discussions in religious language. A liberal political culture can even expect secularized citizens to participate in efforts to translate relevant contributions from religious to publicly available language. ”[12]

The basic concepts of modern Western societies such as morality and morality, person and individuality, freedom and emancipation are - according to Habermas - not seriously understandable without reference to the salvation-historical thinking of the Judeo-Christian tradition. [13] In the context of this thinking, public theology is not concerned with a restorative romanticism beyond the Enlightenment or with a supposed monopoly of interpretative competence, but rather with keeping the normative ideas of reason, humanity and human dignity open to the horizon of the transcendent.

The churches should consciously take up this Habermas’s encouragement with the help of theology. In particular, the concept of a public theology, as it was significantly shaped in the area of ​​German-speaking Protestant theology, can provide impetus for the design of public communication of Christianity in today's society. The EKD Council Chairman Heinrich Bedford-Strohm formulated the following five concise guidelines for public theology: [14]

1. The speaking of the church must be grounded in its tradition - the importance of biblical and theological-ethical accountability: In order to be able to work authentically, public theology must not put its spiritual profile behind the ethical profile. Public theology stands by its religious “seat in life” and makes it transparent. The loss of an identity that is recognizably rooted in one's own sources through self-secularization, on the other hand, can lead to Christians no longer being perceived as attractive interlocutors who productively bring the Christian perspective of meaning into the public discourse.

2. The speaking of the church must be bilingual - the meaning of biblical reasoning and reasoning: Likewise, public theology must also align its contributions to the idea of ​​public reason. It has to provide information about its sources as well as to speak a language “that can be understood by the public as a whole” in order to show “that biblical perspectives are understandable even for non-Christians and can provide helpful orientation beyond religious traditions. "

3. The Church's speaking must be appropriate - the importance of interdisciplinarity: Public theology must live up to the claim to speak appropriately of realities. An ecclesiology that starts from the general priesthood of the faithful offers a resource that should not be underestimated: Christians, especially with their diverse everyday practical and professional skills, belong to the churches and bring their respective specialist knowledge both to internal church dialogue and to the public Talk to the churches.

4. The Church's speeches must be critical and constructive - the importance of political advice: Public theology must be careful not to serve as a legitimation for ideological convictions and to place itself one-sidedly on the side of a certain political agenda. In the sense of the New Political Theology, it exercises radical criticism where the inner-worldly is posited as absolute. However, it always does this in the interest of practical problem solutions and does not refuse to accept the democratic necessity of compromises.

5. Church speaking is in a global context - the importance of ecumenism and interreligiousness: Another characteristic of public theology is its universal horizon. This aspect finds its core in the Christian love law, "which is not based on the national comrades, but overcomes the barriers of international and cultural borders." This fact must be taken into account in every public announcement and judgment. Public theology takes place within the horizon of the universal church and interreligious and intercultural openness.

In dealing with the criticism of public theology, this became a concept on the Protestant side public protestantism further developed. [15] If this is not to lead to a relapse into denominationalism, which is exactly the opposite of the original concept, an ecumenical expansion of this discourse is required through a thorough reception of the idea of ​​public theology on the part of the Catholic community as well. The profiling of a public Catholicism enrich the discourse significantly. This can be done so that the sources of the Catholic social teaching in the context of the specialist discipline Christian social ethics and the tradition of New Political Theology. Reference is also made here to the politically long-lasting tradition of German social Catholicism, which has played a key role in shaping democracy and civil society in the Federal Republic.

Because public theology not only revolves around the question of the public role of religion, but often in particular around socio-ethical issues and questions, is precisely the subject Christian social ethics suitable to be profiled as public theology. It is Christian social ethics that can make the relevance of the Christian faith for a just organization of society in the sense of an ethical-political real presence of the Gospel plausible. With such participation in public reason, she does not reveal her theological identity, but understands it as a source of social commitment. Such a commitment is still inspired among Catholics by a socio-ethical orientation under the brand of Catholic social teaching, which is still tried and tested, especially in church preaching and educational work. Public theology derives its specifically Catholic form from the triad of the closely interwoven, albeit by no means conflict-free, relationship between social doctrine, scientific reflection and social practice.

With their social ethical competence on both sides of the Catholic social doctrine, the church and theology fortunately repeatedly speak out in public, for example in the debates about inequality, migration, climate change, populism, bioethics or vaccination justice in times of the corona pandemic, to name just a few of the ethical issues that are publicly discussed today To name topics. Christian social ethics is thus at the same time in the best case theo-logical and journalistic and cosmopolitan. First of all, it therefore makes sense to think about a theology of social ethics, about its specific theo-logic. [16]

The re-theologization of Christian social ethics

In the background is the dominant character of social ethics from the neo-scholastic doctrine of natural law. In the two-storey thinking of natural world truths and supernatural truths of faith at that time, Christian social ethics in the traditional guise of Catholic social teaching had to settle in on the “secular ground floor”. For a long time there was no explicit theological foundation, which was justified above all with the connectivity of a theology-abstinent natural law social ethics to non-church philosophical and sociological discourses. Since today one can no longer score points in such discourses with the specifically Catholic natural law, social doctrine and social ethics have taken advantage of the opportunity to become theological again since the Second Vatican Council with its readjustment of the church's self-understanding and relationship to the world.

One consequence is that the Bible, with its prophetic social criticism and the message of Jesus' kingdom of God, has since acquired a new status in social ethics, without claiming that its norms are exclusively valid for believers. On the contrary: It is precisely the Christian horizon of meaning with its “scent of the gospel” (Pope Francis in Evangelii gaudium No. 39) gives social ethics a critical, stimulating and inspiring force. And a social ethic, understood as public theology, as it is proposed here, relies on this power. After all, it is not just abstract moral justifications, but also the underlying, mostly religious world and human images as well as meaningful “great narratives” that give a moral validity. The key here is to keep modern life and social plans open to the horizon of the unavailable.

Pluralism and the equal dignity of the different

The decisive communication condition of Christian ethics in the claim of public theology is today pluralism as the signature of postmodern societies, which is a precondition for all post-secular tendencies. [17] The pluralization of religious attitudes is faced with an equally differentiated variety of secular options. In addition, there is the phenomenon of Christianity being entangled by right-wing anti-pluralistic-identitarian metapolitics, which publicly propagates the narrative that Europe's identity as the “Christian Occident” must be defended against the outside world, especially in the form of Islam and refugee migration. [18] Basic motives of Christian social ethics such as readiness for dialogue, human dignity and the option for the poor are turned into their opposite. This is another important reason for theology and the church to interfere in public discourses about the social role of religion and to maintain the interpretative sovereignty over the self-understanding of Christianity or to criticize misinterpretations.

In addition, it is important to bring out the real meaning of pluralism: “It lies in the same dignity of the different, for which the Christian faith stands out from the awareness that all human beings are able to answer and are called to account for the use of their freedom . ”[19] Applied to the experience of difference in our plural society, this means respect for mutual diversity and respect for each other's uniqueness. “In such a situation, pluralism means nothing other than the explicit affirmation, convinced support and legal enabling of the coexistence of the different.” We consciously speak of different and not of difference. Because dignity can only be bestowed upon its bearers, the persons, not the difference as such. Keeping the horizon of meaning of the belief in this unconditional human dignity in its uniqueness and diversity open is a central task of Christian social ethics, which is highly topical and explosive, especially in view of the increasing phenomena of isolation. [20] The socio-ethical personality principle culminates in this strong concept of human dignity.

If theological social ethics is to be taken into account in public discourse and taken seriously, pluralism competence, which mediates between theological and secular language games in social issues, is an increasingly important condition for communication. In order to be able to act polyglot in this sense, Christian social ethics is dependent on an intensified reception of knowledge from communication studies. Such an accent is obvious, not least against the background that journalism and communication science is still underrepresented in the interdisciplinary discussion of Christian social ethics in today's (media) society, despite the immense importance of media communication.

“Societies can only take responsibility for their future if there are places in them for communication-oriented discourses in which, as far as possible, all those affected are involved from different perspectives. Christian social ethics with its academic, social and church discussion forums was such a place in the past and has helped shape the basic ethical and political orientation of the Federal Republic of Germany. "[21]

The church also benefits from Christian social ethics as a university and interdisciplinary theological subject with its wide range of research fields. It helps the public speaking of the church to avoid a hasty moralization of political discourses through cheap trivial morality. Social ethics does this by taking into account the complexity of social questions and problems with its socio-analytical competence and, on this basis, providing the church proclamation with differentiated and well-founded ethical standards, taking into account the specific rationality of the political. A politically sensitized Christian style of faith that cultivates a mysticism of open eyes requires the scientific analysis of what it calls sign of time observed in society in order to arrive at a carefully thought-out normative judgment that serves a convincing action orientation. See - judge - act is in this sense still the guiding method of social ethics. As public theology, Christian social ethics constantly mediates between the See current societal diagnoses, the To judge in the light of the gospel as well as ethical distinctions and the Act in complex social conflict areas.

The fact that there is still an interest in this socio-ethical perspective of church and theology in today's secular-post-secular society is reflected not least in ethical educational work and in the demand from state institutions, parties, associations, trade unions and companies for ethical advice on social issues . The reception of church-social-ethical positions in the broader society will only succeed in the future, however, if church and theology also focus more strongly than before digital Places are present. You can and should help to use the specifically digital media attention and communication logics for communication-oriented public discourses.

Digital communication channels in particular enable the representatives of the social-ethical discipline to attract more public attention than before with their socially current and controversial topics. Through digital science communication, communication barriers between experts and laypeople can be lifted. In this way, the academic and church discourse can be transcended, and Christian social ethics with its orientation knowledge can be made accessible to more interested parties than before. It is also about access to the young Digital nativesthat are almost impossible to achieve using traditional communication formats. Science PR can take advantage of a variety of opportunities on the web to prepare scientific knowledge in an audio-visual and generally understandable manner. What good science communication can look like in concrete terms was demonstrated in particular by virology in the course of the corona pandemic, if you think of the successful NDR podcast by Christian Drosten or the award-winning science journalistic activities of chemist Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim.

There are also practical examples for digital communication of Christian social ethics. Reference should be made, for example, to the successful theological online feature section, in which socio-ethical issues are also regularly negotiated. Another example is Ordo socialis, the scientific association for the worldwide promotion of Christian social doctrine, which reaches people interested in social ethics in a wide variety of countries with its digitized range of publications. The Catholic Social Science Center also has its website with the online ethics portals and including its own podcast format expanded considerably. The Yearbook for Christian Social Sciences has been in the open access accessible. The Forum social ethics as a network of young scientists has also expanded its website and social media channels. It thus offers a digital platform on which the latest news, conferences and tenders from the Christian-social-ethical cosmos as well as from neighboring disciplines can be found bundled.

Christian social ethics as public theology needs such websites in order to remain visible. In general, it requires strategically reflected science communication and a noticeable social presence in both analog and digital.

On the one hand, Christian social ethics should humbly recognize that in pluralism it is only one scientific and social voice among many. The massive loss of confidence in the Catholic Church also casts its shadow on Christian social ethics and limits its scope. Therefore, if it wants to be publicly perceived as an independent voice that also accompanies the church itself as a social entity in a socio-ethical manner, it should further strengthen its digital communication channels. Methodically, the five criteria of public theology mentioned above can be groundbreaking in order to offer self-confident and profiled social-ethical orientation based on Christian belief and thinking. Especially in the sometimes disruptive development processes of late-modern society, which generate diverse fears and the need for normative orientation, the voice of Christian social ethics as public theology can be a sought-after discussion partner both inside and outside the church.


[1] Cf. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Die Wiederkehr der Götter. Religion in Modern Culture, Munich, 2004.

[2] Jürgen Habermas, factuality and validity. Contributions to the discourse theory of law and the democratic constitutional state, Frankfurt a. M. 1992, 436.

[3] Cf. Horst Pöttker, The job for the public. On the task, principles and perspectives of journalism in the media society from the point of view of practical reason, in: Publizistik (2010) 55: 107–128; DOI 10.1007 / s11616-010-0083-4 (accessed on February 15, 2021), 110f.

[4] See ibid., 110.

[5] See Hans-Joachim Höhn, profit warning. Religion - after its return, Paderborn 2015.

[6] Cf. Central Committee of German Catholics, Departure instead of Retreat. The Roman Catholic Church in public today. Download from: (accessed on February 15, 2021).

[7] Cf. Jochen Sautermeister (ed.), Church - just a moral agency? A self-assessment, Freiburg i. Br. 2019.

[8] On the concept of public theology, see in particular José Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago 1994, as well as the 38-volume series “Public Theology” published by Heinrich Bedford-Strohm and Wolfgang Huber at the Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Leipzig .

[9] Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, Public Theology in Civil Society, in: Ingeborg Gabriel (ed.), Politics and Theology in Europe. Perspektiven Ökumenischer Sozialethik, Ostfildern 2008, 340-357, here 345. On the application of these criteria to a comparative analysis of Catholic publications in the environmental sector, see Julia Blanc, Ökokatholizismus. Social-ethical analyzes of selected countries and institutions in Europe, Marburg 2017.

[10] Johann Baptist Metz, Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz 1973; Johann Baptist Metz, On the Concept of New Political Theology, Mainz 1997.

[11] Cf. Jürgen Habermas, Faith and Knowledge. Peace Prize Speech 2001, in: Ders., Zeitdiagnosen. Twelve essays (Frankfurt 2003) 249-262.

[12] Jürgen Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion. Philosophical essays, Frankfurt 2005, 115.

[13] Already Jürgen Habermas, Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Philosophical essays, Frankfurt 1988, 23; cf. also comprehensively the two-volume retirement work: Ders., Auch Eine Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin 2019.

[14] For the following, see Bedford-Strohm (2008), loc. Cit., 349ff.

[15] Cf. Christian Albrecht / Reiner Anselm, Public Protestantism. On the current debate about social presence and political tasks of Protestant Christianity, Zurich 2017.

[16] Cf.on this and on the following Markus Vogt, Theo-Logic Christian Social Ethics, in: Johann Platzner / Elisabeth Zissler (eds.), Bioethics and Religion. Theological Ethics in Public Discourse, Baden-Baden 2014, 143-173; see also the articles in Markus Vogt (ed.), Theologie der Sozialethik (Quaestiones disputatae vol. 255), Freiburg i. Br. 2016.

[17] Cf. Arnd Küppers, Postmodern Pluralism and Theological Ethics, in: Peter Schallenberg / Arnd Küppers (eds.), Interdisciplinarity of Christian Social Ethics. Festschrift for the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Social Science Center in Mönchengladbach (Christian Social Ethics in Discourse Vol. 4), Paderborn 2013, 181-197; Markus Vogt, Divisional Ethical Structure in the Sign of Pluralism, in: Wilhelm Korff / Markus Vogt (eds.), Structure systems for applied ethics, Freiburg i. Br. 2016, 613-641.

[18] See Lars Schäfers, Europe, Refugees and the Appropriation of the Foreign. A Christian-social-ethical analysis based on the Europe picture Rémi Bragues (Forum Religion & Sozialkultur, Vol. 30), Berlin 2016.

[19] This and the following quotation are taken from Wolfgang Huber, Ethics in Pluralism, in: Friedrich Graf / Christoph Levin (eds.), The Authority of Freedom, Munich 2011, 17-29, here 27.

[20] Cf. on this Franziskus, Fratelli tutti. Encyclical on fraternity and social friendship (pronouncements of the Apostolic See 227), published by the Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference, Bonn 2020, esp. No. 9-52.

[21] Working Group Christian Social Ethics, The Importance of Christian Social Ethics for Society, University, Theology and Church, in: Marianne Heimbach-Steins (ed.), Yearbook for Christian Social Sciences (JCSW) 59/2018, 381-389.

The writers

Prof. Dr. Markus Vogt, holder of the chair for Christian social ethics at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich.

Mag. Theol. Lars Schäfers, research assistant at the Catholic Social Science Center (KSZ) in Mönchengladbach and research assistant at the seminar for Christian social studies at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.