The Church in the community of nations

This is the reason why the Holy See is present within the diplomatic framework of the community of nations  –the only religious, not political, institution therein. «Reawake and inspire consciences», this is the task of the Church’s international agenda, according to Mamberti. The Social Doctrine of the Church, in fact, is rooted in the heart of man. As is the Charter of the United Nations. In the preamble of the Charter, 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.

Mamberti explains that «the Holy See has always worked to uphold the centrality of the human person. This vision comes from the human person’s true nature. No one should lose sight of the basic principle that man is at the center of the concerns of the international community».

The Church’s struggles

Mamberti presents an example. He remembers the Church’s struggles for life, he underlines that «even if the right to life is affirmed, it is also ever increasingly questioned. It suffices to think about the debate on abortion, on human embryo experimentations, on euthanasia. Countries speak about “reproductive health” euphemistically. And “to die with dignity” is just a slogan to support euthanasia. It is very important to be alert to defend the right to life».

The Holy See diplomatic work is never ending, and it is always more sophisticated. Diplomacy must «fight» a change of vocabulary that Silvano Maria Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the UN office in Geneva, described as the change of a way of thinking: «The change of the vocabulary –Tomasi wrote –  began with the sexual revolution of 1968 and asserted itself after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989». It was then that the two blocks of the Cold War were replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. «In this new situation – Tomasi explained in a debate on February 17, 2011– the United Nations felt freer.  Moreover: they felt charged with the specific mission to promote practical priorities that – according to the advisors involved – would have led to a more rightful and free world.»

From 1989 on, the new language to sustain this mission has been built up on a series of «key words»: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilizations, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, future generation rights, non-governmental organization, partnerships, civil society, participative democracy, transnational networks, consensus building, inclusive approach, agent-actor of social transformation, best practices, sexual and reproductive rights, right to choose, equal commerce, diverse forms of family.

On the other hand, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition are excluded, or even tend to disappear: truth, morality, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

The Church’s new (and old) challenges

This new vocabulary is – Tomasi explained – «a mix of words of authentic human aspirations and values with words that represent an individualistic ideology taken to the limit. The latter inspires and guides the managers of world governance. This is how we get to a systematic and lasting transition of words in the documents of the United Nations: from government to governance, from authority to autonomy and rights of the individuals, from spouse to partner, from happiness to quality of life, from given to built, from family to family in all of its forms, from dignity sufferance to the right to die, from majority decision to consensus, from dogma to freedom of interpretation.»

The language of specialized fields also evolved: the Holy See path to financial transparency forced Holy See officials to come to terms with the terminology of international financial law. How to be a «secure» country in the community of nations was the most important topic during the talks with MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the financial adherence of the member States.

Nevertheless, the diplomatic contributions of the Holy See, disseminated like gems inserted in several international documents, gave its fruits. For example, the right to assistance for victims of cluster bombs was a struggle fought by the Holy See in the drafting of the International Convention in Dublin in 2008. The Cluster Munition Convention was signed in Oslo at the end of 2008.

Mamberti reminded the students of Studium Aquinatis that «the Holy See has always been active in the diplomatic front of disarmament. The Holy See was among the founding members of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in 1957, which goal is to limit, reduce and eliminate nuclear armaments and to facilitate the shared use of atomic energy for pacific purposes. The Holy See has been and is among the countries that negotiated the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as other related international conventions and treaties. With regards to cluster bombs, the Holy See was one of the most active States: I personally signed on behalf of the Holy See the adhesion to the Convention and I deposited the ratification documents on the first day it was possible in Oslo on December 2008. The Holy See wanted to send a signal to the international community».

A piece of the history of the negotiations of the Cluster Munitions Convention shows the struggles the Holy See is facing in the international arena. After gaining acknowledgement for the right of victims to be assisted, a delegation wanted to amend the paragraph concerning this right, asking that the assistance needed to be «gender sensitive». The Holy See was very aware of  this: from this addition, each country could be forced to be «gender sensitive» and to develop legislation for a new kind of «health care system» – this process is called “soft law”. This is why the Holy See  worked in order to make clear that everything was applied according to the legislation of each State. It is the same reason why the Holy See did not want to sign the document for the UN declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, thus becoming the target of international complaints. It was not because the Holy See is against «LGBT rights». The Holy See maintains that, already, the Universal Human Rights Declaration covers all human beings. The so-called «gender sensitivity», or the declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, would in some ways assess that there are men that are more equal than other men. The question is: why to state the need to decriminalize the homosexuality, why to have anti-homophobic law, when Universal Righet already protect all the human beings from every discrimination?

The Church’s struggle for human rights

The Holy See cares deeply about human rights. The concern for religious freedom has always been one of the core commitments of the Holy See. «Christians or other believers – Mamberti says – are persecuted and discriminated in subtle ways, and this happens when religious freedom is reduced to freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. Religious freedom does not only deal with a personal religious component, it also deals with community». Mamberti recalled that «John Paul II said that religious freedom is the litmus test of human rights. Where religious freedom is under threat, all human rights are under threat. I can assure you that defending religious freedom is the main task of the Holy See, and this brings benefits not only to Christians and Catholic believers, but to all believers.»

The human person is at the core of the Holy See International agenda. That is why the Holy See is committed to the common good. «Human rights – Mamberti says – are a common patrimony to defend, without any alteration. Fundamental rights are not the fruit of a consensus or of majorities, they do not come from the State or from any other human institution. Human rights are part of the human being: they are  a gift  that God gave to humanity».

Recently, the Church has been accused of being a champion of a New World Order, because of the recent reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace about an «authority with universal competences», a super partes international organization to regulate international finance and also the relations among States in order to get to the Common Good – as John XXIII put it in Pacem in Terris. Is this authority a sort of great Leviathan? Or is international finance the Leviathan, as msgr. Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, maintained? The United Nations seems to aim to a New World Order, and this is the reason why it is creating – in its documents – a sort of new anthropology.

A book has been published in Italy that brings to light for the first time in a direct and detailed way the anti-Catholic aversion of the UN and the EU: «Contro il cristianesimo. L’ONU e l’Unione Europea come nuova ideologia  [Against Christianity: The UN and the European Union as a New Ideology] », by Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia.  In the introduction to the volume, Roccella and Scaraffia identify the roots of the new ideology as the «separation between sexuality and procreation». «More –they write– than a different model of sexual behavior, but conceptually analogous to those that have preceded it in history, this is a question of a real and true utopia, because it is based upon the idea that human beings can find happiness in the realization of their sexual desires, without the moral, biological, social, and relational limitations linked to procreation. This utopia has its roots in the sexual revolution in the West during the 1960′s, and it has not yet been disputed, even though it seems not to have kept its promises. It is a utopia that echoes another, one that brings painful memories: that the selection of new human beings can create a better, more healthy, more beautiful humanity».

It is not just a matter of words. It is a matter of ideology. The conceptual scenario has its own dynamics, and this leads to concrete transformations in several branches of social and political life. Religious freedom and the way it has been handled is an example. An approach to religious freedom linked to intolerance was first included in the Declaration on the principles of Tolerance of UNESCO in 1995 and was then promoted in the Resolution 2004/36, adopted in the 60th session of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 2004. A new chapter was then opened with resolution 61/164 (Combating the defamations of religions), adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations December, 19th, 2006. In that resolution, religion is used to limit other basic freedoms (the right to freedom of expression) and to oppress religious minorities when some impose with force and terrorism their religious ideologies, and deny a place in the public sphere to others’ faith and beliefs.

As always, one should look back in time. It was in 1981 – when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief – that the concept of tolerance  was placed side by side to religion or belief. «But tolerance – Tomasi explained – is a tool, not a right. In fact, while with religious freedom we mean the guarantee of Government that individuals have freedom of belief and the guarantee of freedom of worship for individuals and groups – including the freedom not to believe in any god– religious tolerance is about accepting or permitting beliefs or religious practices that are different from one’s own.»

These are just some of the hurdles the Holy See faces in its commitment to the Common Good. A commitment that comes out from believing in the inherent dignity of human beings. The same belief that the founders of the United Nations identified in reaffirming «faith» in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

Just a few know the obscure work of Silvano Maria Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations in Geneva. Scalabrinian missionary, born in 1940, long-term diplomat, from his post of permanent observer he fights against the dictatorship of relativism, that is also maybe the favorite battlefield of Benedict XVI – the Pope dedicated to this topic one of his first papers, New Pagans and the Church. It is a fight for the truth. The same Pope, in his book Light of the World, observed that a large part of contemporary philosophies affirm that the man is not able of truth. «The consequence is – Tomasi comments – that man is not any more able of ethical values, cannot have objective standards and ends by accepting as the only standard the opinion of majority».

Not casually the first message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace was titled: «In Truth, peace». And not casually the major part of battles on this topic had been brought on – during the last years – by msgr. Tomas from Geneva. His speeches, interventions, papers had been rarely highlighted by medias. Yet, they have a strong diplomatic impact.

In some ways, there will be a little of Silvano Maria Tomasi in the next Concistory. The red hat given to Antonio Maria Vegliò, president of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, is the signal that the Pontifical Council gained a renewed importance, and this is also thanks to the entrance of the Holy See as a full member in the International Organization for Migration. This entrance, Tomasi proposed and strongly supported.

Holy See is accredited as a full member in several international organizations – e.g. IAEA, as a founding member – while it keeps the status of permanent observer to the United Nation. Holy See has no intention to get a “political” weight by becoming a full member of the United Nations – what if the Holy See would vote in a session to finance a military intervention? What would be the international and political backlashes? On the other hand, is very important that the Holy See have a “political” weight when political on migrations are on discussion. During the 100th session of the Council of the International Migration, Tomasi underlined that «the achievement of an adequate global management of migration flows, a positive understanding of them , and the approach to human development may seem long range goals. But the speed of the journey is less important than proceeding in the right direction».

What is the right direction? «Nowadays – Tomasi wrote – it is not easy to indicate a clear date when a way of thinking began. Therefore, the change of the dictionary and the prevalence of a new one began with the sexual revolution of 1968 and imposed with more coherence and insistence after the fall of the Wall of Berlin in 1989». It was then that the two blocks of the Cold War had been replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. «In this new situation – Tomasi explained in a debate on February, 17 2011  – United Nations felt freer. More: they 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».

From 1989 on, the new language to sustain this mission has been built up on a series of «key words»: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilization, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, future generations rights, non-governmental organization, partnerships, civil society, participative democracy, transnational networks, consensus building, inclusive approach, agent-actor of social transformation, best practices, sexual and reproductive rights, right of choice, equal commerce, diverse forms of family.

On the other hand, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition are excluded, or even tend to disappear: truth, moral, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

This new dictionary is – Tomasi explained – «a mixture of words of authentic human aspirations and values and of words that represent an individualistic ideology brought to the limit. This latter inspires and guides the managers of the world governance. This is how we get to a systematic and lasting transition of words in the documents of United Nations: from government to governance, from authority to autonomy and rights of the individuals, from spouse to partner, from happiness to quality of life, from given to built, from family to family in all of his forms, from dignity sufferance to the right to die, from majority decision to consensus, from dogma to freedom of interpretation».

These changes of the dictionary are part of a long term battle, whose seeds can be seen back in international conference and interventions.  For example, in the 1995 Conference of Beijing. Mary Ann Glendon, who was part of the Vatican delegation at the time, was not lenient towards the UN’s intentions:  «Many who promote abortion as a woman’s right do not by any means have women’s real interests at heart. The movement for abortion rights conceals irresponsible men, trafficking in prostitution, industries that make their profits from women’s bodies».

And a book has been published in Italy that brings to light for the first time in a direct and detailed way this anti-Catholic aversion of the UN and the EU: «Contro il cristianesimo. L’ONU e l’Unione Europea come nuova ideologia [Against Christianity: The UN and the European Union as a New Ideology]», by Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia.  In the introduction to the volume, Roccella and Scaraffia identify the roots of the new ideology as the «separation between sexuality and procreation». «More – they write – than a different model of sexual behavior, but conceptually analogous to those that have preceded it in history, this is a question of a real and true utopia, because it is based upon the idea that human beings can find happiness in the realization of their sexual desires, without the moral, biological, social, and relational limitations linked to procreation. This utopia has its roots in the sexual revolution in the West during the 1960′s, and it has not yet been disputed, even though it seems not to have kept its promises. It is a utopia that echoes another, one that brings painful memories: that the selection of new human beings can create a better, more healthy, more beautiful humanity».

It is not just a matter of words. It is a matter of ideology. The conceptual scenario has its own dynamics, and this leads to concrete transformations in several branches of social and political life. Religious freedom and the way it has been handled down is an example. An approach to religious freedom linked to intolerance is first brought on in the Declaration on the principles of Tolerance of UNESCO in 1995 and is then promoted in the Resolution 2004/36 adopted from the 60th session of the Human Rights Commission in the United Nations in 2004. A new chapter of the quest is then open with the  resolution 61/164 (Combating the defamations of religions), adopted from the General Assembly of the United Nations December, 19th 2006. In that resolution, religion is used to limit other basic freedoms (the right to the freedom of expression) and to oppress religious minorities when some impose with force and terrorism their religious ideologies and others deny a place in the public sphere to faith and belief.

As always, one should look back in time. It was in 1981 – when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief – that the concept of tolerance has been placed by side to religion or belief. «But tolerance – Tomasi explains – is a tool, not a right. In fact, while with religious freedom we mean the warranty of Government that individuals have freedom of belief and the warranty of freedom of cult for individuals and groups – including the freedom not to believe in any god, religious tolerance is the condition to accept or permit beliefs or religious practice that are different from his own one».

Holy See is one of the few sovereign entities that is aware of the risks of this change of dictionary, and that understood that this is a crucial battle. The efforts of the Holy See in this battle are probably on the basis of the initiatives to undermine the Holy See diplomacy, from the outside and from the inside.

In this crucial battle, archbishop Tomasi is one of the paladins of the Church.  He works behind the curtain, but he is one of the few intelligences able to understand what are the things on the play. United Nations have the ambition of a New World Order, and to follow this goal they create a new anthropology. «The implication – Tomasi explained – is that adaequatio rei et intellectus (the accordance of the intelligence with reality) – gained from the reason and theology – is to be replaced from a reality that is socially and subjectively built, so that truth and reality has not a stable and objective contents and every interpretation of this content is equal. This dictatorship of relativism does not use visible and brutal methods as political dictatorships. It works from inside the institution and – through consensus – promote a neutrality that let impose their own norms».