Vatican City State Law. Its History

Paolo Gabriele’s trial shows the attention to the human person of the Vatican legal order, which is far from «obscurantist», as some in the media have described it. In 1929, the Lateran Pacts are signed. It is the so-called “Conciliation” between the Italian State – that conquered Rome in 1871, ending the Papal administration of the city – and the Holy See. Pope Pius XI himself negotiated the economic aspects of the treaty with Benito Mussolini, then the dictatorial head of the Italian government. From 1871 until then, the Vatican had survived just with the leftover patrimony not taken away from it following the «Porta Pia» invasion, ecclesiastical taxes (a meager source of revenue), and with the deposits and contributions to Peter’s Pence – a distinctive sign of Catholics’ will to aid the Pope.

And it is Pius XI who «supervises» the building of Vatican City State. He walks up to the base of Saint Peter’s Dome to look down over the territory of his City-State. Then, he decides what and where to build up (one third of the Conciliation’s compensation would be used to build Vatican City State); and he delivers funds to restore Papal nunciatures – up to that moment crumbling – thus marking the return of Vatican diplomacy. A Vatican diplomacy that never stopped working. However, before Vatican City-State –in Pius XI’s words «that small piece of land that is needed to carry out our mission»– a diplomacy that was at the mercy of, and heavily influenced by, the countries it worked in. Finally, Pius XI asks Bernardino Nogara – who had previously worked in Banca Commerciale – to manage the funds of the Financial Convention of the Lateran Pacts. This is when Vatican finances begin to take shape.

At the same time, the legal order of the newly born State also takes shape. As it would have been too complicated to draft a brand new legal code, the Vatican City State adopted the legal code then in force in the Italian State. That code is the Zanardelli Code. Vatican City State kept the Zanardelli code even after a new code was promulgated in Italy in 1931, the Rocco code (Alfredo Rocco was the minister for Grace and Justice). The Vatican did not adopt the Rocco code not just because it had been written and promulgated under fascism — i.e. under an authoritarian  regime – but also because the Rocco Code was inspired in legal positivism. The juridical debate between the supporters of the liberal (but not libertarian) ideals underlying the Zanardelli Code and the “positivist” – modern but leading to authoritarianism – essence of the Rocco code still go on today.

What Is Vatican Diplomacy And Why Is It So Important?

It is evident in which side the Pope is.  One can see it in the noticeable new way Vatican diplomacy has been ran during this Pontificate. Benedict XVI has drawn attention several times to natural law, and he has focused every diplomatic speech on the truth and the human person, thus clearly steering the Holy See’s international agenda in new directions.

What is Vatican diplomacy? Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, explained it when he received the International Prize «Conde de Barcelona», on September 25. Bertone stated that Vatican diplomacy is not a relic of the past, and that often people fantasize about it rather than really knowing what it is.  «It is – Card. Bertone said – a never-ending pursuit of just and humane ways to consider individuals’ and States’ rights and responsibilities.» In essence – Bertone notes – Vatican diplomacy is «a privileged means of communication» which final goal is the common good.

One of the «primary goals» is – Bertone stated – to be «a herald of the Pope’s message» internationally, to underscore the solidarity of the Pope with people from all over the world. Bertone recalled a famous quote of father Vandrisse, who worked for the French magazine Le Figaro: «The Pope’s diplomacy is a necessity. If it did not exist, one would have to invent it. An ancient and well established praxis, a tool to defend the dignity of the human person and libertas ecclesiae (the freedom of the Church), an occasion to talk about values: this is Vatican diplomacy.»

At the very same time that Bertone was receiving the prize in Barcelona, Dominique Mamberti, Secretary of Relations with States of the Vatican State Secretariat (i.e. a sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs) was delivering a speech at the High Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

Respect for human dignity was the center of Mamberti’s speech. It is the litmus test that shows whether the rule of law has instead become the rule of rules. Respect for Human Dignity is reaffirmed in the Preamble of the United Nations Charter, where it is written that human rights must be protected by the rule of law. From this point of view, «the application of the rule of law – Mamberti states – embraces every aspect of social life.» But moreover, it is necessary to «go beyond setting up simple procedures in order to guarantee a democratic source for norms and to have the consensus of the international community in the background.» Because «the inalienable dignity and value of each human person» comes before any law or social consensus. And it is not sufficient to «formally abide» by treaties or other forms of international law. «Only – Mamberti affirms – going beyond these considerations, would national and international institution avoid manipulations and coercion from finding their way into the life of individual citizens.»

When the rule of law becomes merely a formal and uncritical adherence to laws and regulations, this can paradoxically degenerate into a means of «oppression of the human dignity and of the rights of persons, communities and States.» The result — also raised by Benedict XVI in his speech to the Bundestag last year – is the specter of ending up with authoritarian regimes. Integral humanism is the antidote.

This is why – Mamberti states – «when talking of the rule of law,» law should be understood as «justice». How to discern it? Starting from human rights – rights that must be ever more universal – and looking at the progression of the philosophy of human rights, a story which dates back to Greek thought and Roman law, is enriched by Jewish-Christian wisdom, the legal orders of other European peoples and by canon law (the only truly international legislation in the world). Principles that have been further elaborated in Christian, Arab, and Jewish renewals, up until the Enlightenment. It is  a complex stratification which leads to the United Nations Charter.

UN Charter Rooted In The Heart Of Man

The Charter is rooted in the heart of man. In its preamble, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed «faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.» The choice of the word «faith» is revealing. Faith makes reference to  deeply held beliefs. So, the United Nations is based on this faith in man’s rights that all peoples can relate to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

«Faith in transcendental human dignity – Mamberti says – or, better, the recognition of its transcendence, becomes the fundamental and indispensible reference point in understanding the rights codified in the foundational documents of the United Nations, and the key to their effective protection and promotion.»

Mamberti notes that lobbying is against the common good. In fact, lobbies influence States over norms that «under an appearance of legitimacy, are as a matter of fact an abuse on norms and international recommendations.» This happened – for example – with the financial crisis. Mamberti underlines that it is possible to have democratic systems produce new laws according to the will of just a few. And it also can happen that – if the human person is considered from a merely materialistic point of view and law is just something to be mechanically respected – the will of the most powerful prevails over the weakest: children, the unborn, the handicapped, the poor or – as it happened with the financial crisis – people deprived of correct information at the right time. «Juridical disorder on one hand – Mamberti says – and anthropological reduction on the other, undermine the ultimate and essential goal of every legal order: to promote and guarantee human dignity.»

That is why there is a need for a transcendental outlook. Because «human rights are linked to human dignity» and «are integrated in the rule of law, as the right to have a father and a mother, the right to make and maintain a family, the right to grow up and be educated within a natural family, the right of parents to educate their own children, the right to work and to a just wage for the wealth produced, the right to culture, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.» The right of rights is religious freedom, a core theme of Benedict XVI’s Pontificate. Religious freedom – Mamberti says – is «an essential part of every person, which to a degree is identified with his or her very own freedom.» Mamberti calls for a «legal order firmly rooted in humanity’s dignity and nature.»

A Case History: Rimsha’s Case.

These are the very reasons why the Vatican penal code is Zanardelli’s and not Rocco’s. This is a juridical struggle the Holy See fights at every level. The most recent and widely discussed case has been that of Rimsha, the 12 year-old Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy for allegedly setting on fire  – together with other pieces of paper –pages of Quran. Rimsha suffers from Down syndrome.

Rimsha Masih was imprisoned for several weeks. Then, on September the 7^th, she was released on bail, and the authorities moved her and her family to a secret location, in order to protect her from possible fanatic Islamists’ revenge. Her story is so bizarre that many prominent Muslims did not hesitate to state that the charge was absurd, even more so because Rimsha is underage and she cannot read. The trial will take place on October first.

In the end, it was discovered that the same maulvi (responsible for the administration of the Mosque) accusing Rimsha had torn out a page of the Quran and put it over the ashes. The muezzin (who makes the calls to prayer) and other witnesses confirmed this version of events. It was noted that Khalid Jadoon Chishti (that is the maulvi’s name) wanted to expel Christians from the city block where he led the Muslims’ prayer.

This story has stirred a lot of debate in Pakistan. Even Muslim newspapers and magazines accuse Chishti of blasphemy. In Pakistan, people have become aware that the law on blasphemy is too often used for false accusations or even personal vendettas. Hundreds of Muslims – more than Christians – are imprisoned because of this law.

Where Shabahz Bhatti did not succeed, Rimsha’s story did. Bhatti was the Catholic Minister for Religious Minorities killed on March 2, 2011 by a commando of Islamic fundamentalists because he was trying to modify the law on blasphemy. Benedict XVI made of him a symbol in his last speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. One year after Bhatti’s death, Rimsha’s case has helped to open the eyes of the whole country.

Is a law Against Blasphemy Useful?

Just one week after Pope Benedict XVI ended his successful visit to Lebanon, the country’s most senior Catholic leader called for a United Nations resolution «that will ban denigrating religions.»

Meanwhile, in Pakistan – Religion News Service reports – the country’s only Catholic cabinet member, Minister of Harmony Paul Bhatti, told an interfaith gathering in Lahore that he will press U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to pass a UN resolution that condemns «defamation and offenses against religions.» Bhatti said «we must not allow anyone to break our harmony» between Christians and Muslims.

Since 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – an umbrella group of 57 Arab and Muslim nations – has promoted a non-binding U.N. resolution against «defamation of religion,» although support for the measure has steadily eroded in recent years. Even Obama, addressing the UN General Assembly on September 25, made it clear that the U.S. Constitution could never sanction anti-blasphemy laws, and challenged Muslims who are offended by insults to Muhammad to take a broader view. The Vatican, too, has generally opposed efforts to introduce international legislation against defamation of religion, though for different reasons.

Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in 2010, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the U.N., Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, warned that «introducing a vague concept of ‘defamation’” was not an effective way of “combating offensive attitudes towards religion,» and might actually lead to «further oppression of religious minorities.»

As in the Rimsha’s case, it shows how the law on blasphemy is often used as an instrument for personal revenge or abuses of power or – as in this case – to «free» villages from religious minorities. «Freeing villages of Christians – Tomasi maintains – has an economic, more than religious, goal.» Fides Press Agency explains how «behind Rimsha’s case there is the ‘real estate mafia’: some speculators wanted to expel Christians from the Mehrabadi quarter for financial reasons, since the value of houses in that part of Islamabad had risen. That is why they concocted the blasphemy claim. Most of the families in that neighborhood are faithful [Christians] who escaped from Gojra, a town set on fire by Islamic radicals in 2009, for an alleged case of blasphemy.»

This is one of the most recent examples of how Vatican diplomacy operates. Instead of legal positivism (a law to prevent an action), it is based on natural law and on the heart of man. This is a key principle that addresses criminal procedures within the walls of Vatican City State, and for the Holy See positions in negotiating UN resolutions. The human person is the focus, and the common good is the goal of its international agenda. So, looking closely to the law applied for the butler’s trial, one can understand a lot about the underlining principles of the Church.

Vatican sidelined

Churches commitment for the ATT was strong. The last week WCC joint appeal reminded all that saving human lives is the most visible and concrete aim of the ATT.  And saving human lives is the reason why the Holy See – which has always been committed to policies and negotiations for disarmament – decided to take part in the drafting of the ATT.  In the end, the Treaty is the «least bad» solution, a hurdle on the path to integral disarmament, which is the great utopian ideal of the Church. A «utopian ideal» that is not an unreachable goal: on the basis of the Social Doctrine of the Church and comprehensive human development, step by step, the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement has been able to achieve important milestones.  It is a path toward the «disarmament of the heart», the necessary pre-condition to reach full disarmament. In fact, Holy See did not have such a considerable weight in the U.N. conference, because of a tense debate over the seating of a Palestinian representative, which was fiercely opposed by Israel and the US. The Palestinian Liberation Organization has observer status at the UN, as does the Holy See. The dispute was eventually resolved when both Palestinian and Vatican delegates agreed to accept lesser status, making them able to participate in the discussions, but not as recognized members.

ATT, a least bad solution

That the ATT is for the Catholic Church the lesser evil solution is clear in the speeches that Francis Chullikat, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, addressed to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, last February 13^th.  One of the reasons why the Holy See is a permanent observer – and not a full member – of the United Nations lies on decisions taken on sessions like this.  As a full member, the Holy See would be obliged to vote, and its vote could be politically manipulated.  As a permanent observer, the Holy See maintains its super partes prerogatives, and at the same time has a considerable diplomatic impact.  The Holy See’s main objective is not to have arms considered an «economic good» like any other.

ATT, five Vatican points

Chullikat’s intervention at the committee comprised five points.  First, the scope of the ATT, which should be broad, «comprising not solely the 7 categories of arms which the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms considers, but also small arms and light weapons, together with their relevant munitions, which enter the illicit market often with greater ease and give rise to a series of humanitarian problems».   Second, the request that the Treaty refer to human rights, humanitarian law and development.  At the same time, Chullikat affirms that it is «necessary to find terminology which limits subjective possibilities open to political abuse, and which will facilitate the ascertainment of modalities for application of such criteria».

Chullikat admonished that «the success of the Treaty will depend also on its ability to promote and reinforce international co-operation and assistance between States»; underlined that «provisions relating to assistance for victims must be maintained, and if possible, strengthened, giving attention also to the prevention of illicit arms proliferation, by reducing the demand for arms which often feeds the illicit market». And: «It seems opportune, from this perspective, then, to introduce references in the Treaty to educative processes and public awareness programmes – involving all sectors of society, including religious organizations – that are aimed at promoting a culture of peace.» Finally – Chullikat said – «mechanisms for treaty review and updating need to be strong and credible, capable of quickly incorporating new developments in the subject matter of the ATT, which must remain open to future technological developments. »

On his last interventions to the negotiations in New York, Chullikat re-underlined these five points, remembering that «the ATT debate gave us the opportunity to point out once again the pernicious impact of the illicit arms trade on development, peace, humanitarian law and human rights. Arms cannot simply be compared with other goods exchanged in global or domestic markets. They need a specialised regulation, one capable of preventing, combating and eradicating the irresponsible and illicit trade of conventional arms and related items». Chullikat also said that «this effort calls for the involvement of all members of the international community: States and international organizations, NGOs and the private sector. All of them are responsible for promoting an interrelated action aimed at the “establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” (cfr. Art. 26 of the UN Charter) ».

Arms are not a conventional economic good

The Chullikat’s five points are part of a well defined program.  On the one hand, the five points underline the need to diminish the demand for an arms market, favoring peace and education processes instead. In this sense, the Holy See supports the proposal not to allow the issuance of patents to inventions that can be dangerous to human beings.  This would make arms production unprofitable, and thus a strong deterrent to the invention and manufacturing of new arms and a good means to get to full disarmament.

On the other hand, it is obvious that favoring peace and education processes means that the Holy See wants more attention paid to people’s development («The new name of peace is development», Paul VI wrote in the encyclical Populorum Progressio in 1967) and to favor the greatest degree possible of multilateral diplomacy, in order to take into account the needs of all countries – even the smallest ones (several times the Holy See has criticized the G-meetings – G8, G20 – and advocated for a reform of the United Nations).  It is to protect the poorest countries that the Holy See requested that the Arms Trade Treaty include all arms – and not just the types included in the United Nations Register –in illicit traffic prevention efforts.

Until now, the Holy See was alone in the fight to broaden the Treaty.  Only recently the United Kingdom – at the end of the visit of the delegation sent by Prime Minister Cameron to celebrate 30 years of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Holy See – joined the Holy See in this effort. And then also Mexico – during the Papal trip – backed the Holy See positions at the ATT negotiations.

An “intellectual” and economical struggle

The Holy See’s position on disarmament impinges upon, in a very particular way, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIP is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets minimum standards for mutual recognition of many forms of intellectual property among member states.  It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Article 27.2 of TRIP allows States to withhold patents on inventions which application could threaten public order or human life or health.

Not to patent weapons inventions would make the development of arms less attractive to industries, and States may be less interested in producing and trading them.  The risk that technological and scientific progress may be used to elude international regulations on disarmament and arms control, or as a means of economic and military hegemony, remains.  Highly developed countries could claim that sophisticated – so called “intelligent” – arms are compatible with disarmament and arms control regulations, and with international human rights. This could lead to a controversial scenario: only the arms held by less developed countries – not as sophisticated – would be incompatible with regulations, i.e. illicit.   Another problematic area relates to the development of genetically modified biological weapons, or bio-technological military applications, were rich countries would also have the competitive advantage.

Economic-financial issues always press on. The «civilian» economy tends to overlap with military-driven technological advancements and spending.  Much of the concerns of the Holy See have been on dual use, i.e. on the possibility that that the same good could be used for both civil and military purposes. There is a need for clarity, since «dual use» technology can bring confusion to trade regimes unable or unwilling to properly distinguish between the civilian and military applications of a product.

These are some of the key points of the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement on disarmament.  The Holy See acknowledges there have been positive developments on disarmament and arms control, and closely monitored the negotiations at the United Nations.  The Holy See is also aware that UN negotiations can always get «stuck» because of the resistance of particularly influential States – as happened in the last U.N. conference. But there are also some encouraging developments, like the adoption of the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention – conventions adopted out of the context of the Conferences on disarmament.

A new diplomacy reveals that not only States are interested in disarmament

This model for new diplomatic activity shows the application of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the merits of the principle of subsidiariaty. It reveals that not only States, through traditional diplomatic channels, are interested in disarmament. This new diplomacy can also be very appealing to Non Governmental Organizations. Diplomacy inspired by religious belief – it is worth noting – should not be undervalued.  In the past, documents like the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace. The Challenge of Peace: God’s promise and our response, released by US bishops in 1983, contributed significantly to the debate on arms control, despite Cold War proliferation dynamics. More recently, bishops’ conferences of Scotland, England and Wales campaigned against the renewal of Great Britain’s Trident nuclear system.

More broadly, the fruits of the Holy See’s diplomatic work are like gems shining in many international documents. For example, the right to assistance for cluster munitions victims was included in the Cluster Munitions Convention thanks to the Holy See’s relentless efforts during the Convention’s drafting in Dublin in 2008 (the Convention was signed in Oslo that same year).

Building upon this history of engagement, the Holy See worked on the ATT in New York, and will keep on working on the new talks on this issue.  Reaffirming the perspective of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Holy See upholds the centrality of the human person. This approach perhaps makes disarmament an even greater challenge.  It is, however, an approach that is about the healing of the heart and thus sets a path more conducive to full disarmament and the common good.

«The attainment of the common good – John XXIII wrote in the Pacem in terris –  is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities. In working for the common good, therefore, the authorities must obviously respect its nature, and at the same time adjust their legislation to meet the requirements of the given situation».

The «world authority» issue

The reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace -  titled «Towards reforming the international financial and monetary system in the context of global public authority» and released the last October, at the vigil of the G20 in Cannes – highlighted once again the «world authority issue», since the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace called for the advent of a new world centered on a universal political authority.

The idea was not unprecedented. It was previously evoked in the Pacem in Terris. And Paul VI, in the encyclical Populorum progressio, wrote – in a paragraph meaningly titled Toward an effective world authority – that «such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority».

Finally, Benedict XVI evoked a reform of the United Nations in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate. «In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence – Benedict XVI wrote – there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making».

Where does the «global authority issue» come from? Holy See is highly attentive to the need for adequate institutions, and this institutions must – according to the Holy See vision – express the primacy and the responsibility of policy, and at the same time they must give effective voice to the largest number of nations.

Today, the «global authority issue» is even more topical. The goal is to reach for the global common good.  And to reach the global common good there is the need of global institutions, referred to people, to their Parliaments, to their juridical references. «The establishment of a world political Authority  - Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said – should be preceded by a preliminary phase of consultation from which a legitimated institution will emerge that is in a position to be an effective guide and, at the same time, can allow each country to express and pursue its own particular good. The exercise of this Authority at the service of the good of each and every one will necessarily be super partes (impartial): that is, above any partial vision or particular good, in view of achieving the common good. Its decisions should not be the result of the more developed countries’ excessive power over the weaker countries. Instead, they should be made in the interest of all, not only to the advantage of some groups, whether they are formed by private lobbies or national governments».

The reform of the United Nations

Today the Holy See will take part to the World Water Forum in Marseille. Holy See position is against the water as a commercial good, in favor of an enlarged right to the water (not enclosed only to the right to get potable water to drink, but enclosing the right to have water to use for food safety and personal hygiene). Holy See will also auspicate a global authority to manage the water.

Now, the question is: will the Holy See propose a global authority for every single issue? In fact, what concerns finance, safeguard of the environment, peace, water and energy is global issue, and this is the reason why it needs to managed by global institutions. So, one should not think that the Holy See wants to promote a World Authority for each issue: Holy See auspicates an affective world authority, with universal competences, and not a World Authority for each specific competences. This World Authority would be the result of the reform of the United Nations.

This reform – according to the Holy See – should be aimed to give certain and common good-oriented rules, to have true decisional powers and to deviate from the logic of G-meeting (G7, G8,G20), where the big leaders countries meet to take decisions, albeit they are not meeting with a political legitimacy, and this is exactly the reason why Holy See often criticized this international congresses – e.g. in 2009, the Holy See asked the Doha round to be enlarged to the opinions of the excluded countries.

There had been several and different ideas to carry out a reform of the United Nations. In 1985, Marc Nerfin proposed a Governmental Chamber (present General Assembly), a Citizens Chamber and a Business Chamber (the multinational companies) as the new structure of the United Nations. Campaign for a UN reform (the lobby affiliate of the World Federalists in the U.S.A.) proposed a Second Chamber for the UN composed of the delegates selected by member States (in any way they wish, direct election being a possibility) on a modified population basis; and/or an advisory board of Parliamentarians, and/or NGOs representatives. Ken Coates of the Bertrand Russel Peace Foundation in London proposed in 1987 an elected Un consultative assembly. And Harry Lerner proposed in 1983 that the Un second assembly could be effectively implemented through a system of local community council and/or regional constituent assemblies, elected directly or through the local branches of NGOs and CBOs (Community Based Organization).

Since the late 1990s, then, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations (UN). However, there is little clarity or consensus about what reform might mean in practice. Both those who want the UN to play a greater role in world affairs and those who want its role confined to humanitarian work or otherwise reduced use the term «UN reform» to refer to their ideas. The range of opinion extends from those who want to eliminate the UN entirely, to those who want to make it into a full-fledged world government. On June 1, 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Atul Khare of India to spearhead efforts to implement a reform agenda aimed at streamlining and improving the efficiency of the world body. Khare, will lead the Change Management Team (CMT) at the UN, working with both departments and offices within the Secretariat and with other bodies in the UN system and the 193 member states. The CMT is tasked with guiding the implementation of a reform agenda at the UN that starts with the devising of a wide-ranging plan to streamline activities, increase accountability and ensure the organization is more effective and efficient in delivering its many mandates.

What kind of reform?

Actually, all the reforms proposed are intended to give a better functionality to the United Nations. Holy See thinks to a wider reform. In 2009, while presenting to the press the encyclical Caritas in veritate, Stefano Zamagni, economist and consultor of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, affirmed that «there is already a proposal for a second assembly of the United Nations (being the present General Assembly not sufficient) with representatives of co-ops, civil society and Churches». And – he added – «there is the need for the institution of a Social-Economic Security Council. As the present Security Council intervenes when any country threaten to throw bombs and make a war, there is the need of a second Security Council with the power to prevent speculation ».

To better understand what kind of reform of the United Nations the Holy See would carry out, it is sufficient to go and see what Popes said when they visited and held speeches at the Glass Palace. Paul VI, in1965, remembered to the delegates: «Your Charter goes even farther, and our message moves ahead with it. You are in existence and you are working in order to unite nations, to associate States. Let us use the formula: to bring them together with each other. You are an association, a bridge between peoples, a network of relations between States. We are tempted to say that in a way this characteristic of yours reflects in the temporal order what our Catholic Church intends to be in the spiritual order: one and universal. Nothing loftier can be imagined on the natural level, as far as the ideological structure of mankind is concerned. Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers. A difficult undertaking? Without a doubt. But this is the nature of your very noble undertaking». Paul VI concluded his speech by underlining that «the edifice of modern civilization has to be built on spiritual principles, for they are the only ones capable not only of supporting it, but of shedding light on it and inspiring it. And we are convinced, as you know, that these indispensable principles of higher wisdom cannot rest on anything but faith in God».

In 1995, John Paul II said: «Fifty years after its founding, the need for such an Organization is even more obvious, but we also have a better understanding, on the basis of experience, that the effectiveness of this great instrument for harmonizing and coordinating international life depends on the international culture and ethic which it supports and expresses. The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a “family of nations”. The idea of “family” immediately evokes something more than simple functional relations or a mere convergence of interests».

Finally, Benedict XVI went to speak to the General Assembly of United Nations in 2008. He affirmed that «the United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience “of humanity”, developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world. Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to sustain humanity’s hope for a better world and if we are to create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and guarantee of rights for future generations».

The differences among the three speeches are evident. In the meantime, the world had changed. After the fall of the Wall of Berlin, the two blocks of the Cold War had been replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. In this new situation United Nations felt invested of the precise mission to promote practical priorities that – according to the advisors involved – would have led to a more rightful and free world. This new mission has been marked by a change of the dictionary of the United Nations, a new language to sustain this new mission, whose keyword where, for example: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilization, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, etc.

A reform for the common good

While this new dictionary prevailed, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition have been in some ways excluded: truth, moral, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

With Christian realism, Holy See –sustained by Benedict XVI vision – is working to follow the utopia of a global common good and integral human development. Holy See statements are the only ones, in the international concert, that speaks about an «intergenerational pact». Obviously, it is a hard and slow work: Holy See make step-by-step proposals, trying to establish International institutions that are a sort of mini-realizations of what the future would ideally be.

A future of solidarity and subsidiarity, as the Pope outlined in 2008, when he received the participants in the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, who met to study the theme: «Pursuing the common good: how solidarity and subsidiarity can work together».   Solidarity and subsidiarity – the Pope said – «have the potential to place men and women on the path to discovering their definitive, supernatural destiny. … The responsibility of Christians to work for peace and justice, their irrevocable commitment to build up the common good, is inseparable from their mission to proclaim the gift of eternal life to which God has called every man and woman».

This discussion – the Pope assured – «will be of service to all people of good will, while simultaneously inspiring Christians to embrace more readily their obligation to enhance solidarity with and among their fellow citizens, and to act upon the principle of subsidiarity by promoting family life, voluntary associations, private initiative, and a public order that facilitates the healthy functioning of society’s most basic communities.  When those responsible for the public good attune themselves to the natural human desire for self-governance based on subsidiarity, they leave space for individual responsibility and initiative, but most importantly, they leave space for love, which always remains ‘the most excellent way’».