Die digitale Transformation führt zu umwälzenden Veränderungen in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Wie verändert sich vor diesem Hintergrund die Ausgestaltung von Solidarität in Fragen von Sozialstaatlichkeit, betrieblicher Mitbestimmung und Beteiligung?
Solidarität ist eine der entscheidenden Kategorien christlicher Sozialethik und wichtiger Grundpfeiler aller sozialstaatlichen Überlegungen sowie der sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Was bedeutet Solidarität vor dem Hintergrund der Digitalisierung im Bereich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft? Die Reihe Sozialethik konkret greift diese vielschichtige Problematik auf und diskutiert Lösungsvorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung des Solidaritätsbegriffs und der konkreten institutionellen Ausgestaltung von Solidarität vor dem Hintergrund der Digitalisierung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
Decisions at ecumenical councils required ‘unanimous’ consensus. This paper treats two councils, Constantinople III (680–81) and Constantinople IV (869–70), which issued decrees where the claim to unanimity was particularly contrived. Although the Acts of Constantinople III try to hide the fact, the account in the Liber pontificalis shows that it took imperial pressure and months of debate before the bishops of the patriarchate of Constantinople came over to the ‘orthodox’, dyothelete side. At Constantinople IV the lack of support for its anti-Photian decrees is shown by minimal number of bishops who chose to attend. These two councils are examples of ‘ecumenical’ decisions that, so far from being unanimous, enjoyed the genuine support of only a minority.
The Council of Constantinople of 869 was convoked by Emperor Basil I on the demand of pope Hadrian II aiming at concluding the causa Ignatiana et Photiana, actually at the definite condemnation of Patriarch Photius and his followers. The Council in Western historiographical and canonical tradition labelled as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, was in fact a minority council. The instruction of Pope Hadrian II to his representatives in Constantinople that they should collect handwritten libelli emendationis or satisfactionis by all invited bishops as a conditio sine qua non for being permitted to participate at the Council, forced hundreds of invited bishops to choose – with the exception of merely 102 of them – to abstain from participation.
The principle of majority elections has been developed in canon law, especially in the area of episcopal und papal elections. The ecclesiastical majority principle has also shaped the forms of voting in secular law. Controversies concerning the system could easily arise, when members of the minority refused to comply with the majority’s decision, as happened in 1437 at the Council of Basle with regard to the removal of the council to another city, or in 1529 at the 2nd Diet of Speyer concerning the Edict of Worms. To avoid open dissension after elections in the early Middle Ages unsuccessful voters were compelled to adopt the majority’s decision (Folgezwang). Later on proceedings were developed to avoid controversial elections altogether.