A release delivered at the end of the meeting reads that «the participants reaffirmed that it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor, always in accordance with international law. Nevertheless, the resolution of the problem cannot be entrusted solely to a military response; the problem must be dealt with
more radically by addressing the root causes which are exploited by fundamentalist ideology.»

In his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, for the first time since he has taken over the post, the Secretary of State put on the table the issue of reform of international law, which also includes the reform of United Nations.

The Holy See has been speaking for a long time about a reform of the United Nations, and the debate is very lively. Yet, Pope Francis did not mention it in his meeting with the heads of UN agencies, preferring to focus on other topics. It was a period of high tension between the Holy See and the United Nations, following the release of the concluding observations of the UN committees on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture. It almost seemed as if the Holy See had decided to note the charges levied against her and to carry forward the line of the diplomacy of prayer and dialogue, which is very close to Pope Francis’ heart.

The most recent developments of the international situation had instead suggested a turnabout. The attacks to the Holy See’ssovereignty are not new. As a moral authority, the Holy See has significant influence in international meetings. Though it is not a Member State of the United Nations (it is just a Permanent Observer) the Holy See is one of the most involved states in the organization of multilateral events.

Providence plays a big role in this work. When the Holy See experts negotiate treaties, they are always fewer than experts of bigger states. Despite this inferiority, they have succeed in inserting «positive viruses» within international treaties. Integral human development – a notion of Catholic Social Teaching – is mentioned in a 1986 UN document on development. The Holy See also introduced in many treaties “the right of protection” – a notion that Cardinal Parolin has reiterated in his speeches in New York.

With Pope Francis, diplomatic engagement seemed to have been left somewhat aside. The Pope loves to underscore the need for a culture of the encounter, and made of prayer its main diplomatic tool, focusing attention on some topics in which he has been interested since he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, i.e. human trafficking and fighting poverty. Vatican diplomats had naturally adapted to this approach, including these issues in their speeches and interventions more often.

A change of pace was needed in any case, at every level. The recently-released response of the Holy See to the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Convention for the Rights of the Child has been made on fine points of international law, with a firm rejection to the request of changing Canon Law. Then, on the basis of reports from the extraordinary network of information of nuncios, the Holy See decided for a more proactive strategy, at least for the Middle East.

Looking back to documents and data, it is possible to see that the Middle East crisis could have been widely forecasted, and it had. Not by chance, the post-synodal exhortation “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” – which Benedict XVI personally gave to the Middle East Church in Lebanon in 2012 – clearly invited Christiansto remain in the land of the Bible and not to flee, despite persecutions. The document also urged the international community to protect Christians.

In the meantime, Benedict XVI had inserted in his speeches references to Christiano-phobia, after a long discussion about the correct use of the word. The Holy See has always opposed this kind of categorization in an international context, because it labels the issue in category terms, and as if this category was “more equal” than others. There are the human rights, which are universal, and the Holy See advocates their full application.

The use of the word «Christianophobia» was the result of an internal discussion that also contemplated the notion of «Christ phobia;» i.e. fear of Christ and his message. This is a profound notion, which had not been properly developed. After Benedict XVI’s resignation and the change in the post of Secretary of State, Vatican diplomacy pointed in other directions.

The worsening scenario in the Middle East and in other usually overshadowed areas like Ukraine once more pointed to the need of pontifical diplomacy to take the reins of the international discussion about international law.

In the end, the current crisis may be seen as a failure of the United Nations, which had been unable to interveneat a multilateral level, and above all react very slowly. The Human Rights Council in Geneva finally held an extraordinary session on the plight of Christians in Iraq only in September, although the crisis had broken out months earlier. And it has been individual states, rather than multilateral forces, that have intervened in the Middle East until now.

This is the reason why a reform of international law and United Nations is needed, and Cardinal Parolin has decidedly reignited discussion about this reform. It was also a topic of discussion during the gathering of the Middle East nuncios to the Vatican, held Oct. 2-4. Even this meeting has taken place late in this crisis; according to some, it should have taken place a year ago.

In three days, nuncios and Secretariat of State top officials, together with some heads of Vatican dicasteries, discussed how to help Christians in the Middle East. Among the heads of dicastery, Cardinal Tauran. In his capacity of President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, he advocated for his dicastery to draft a strongly-worded declaration that called on the main actorsin interreligious dialogue to take a strong stance against the Caliphate’s crimes.

Tauran, one of the main actors of pontifical diplomacy, had understood the need to restore a diplomacy of truth. Unpleasant as truth sometimes is, only truth leads to real dialogue.

In the 3-day meeting, the lack of coordination between those who provide assistance, local bishops and the Holy See was also discussed. A key issue. The amount of financial aid delivered in the last five years has been high. Globally, Aid to the Church in Need has sent 3 million euros to Iraq and 2,4 million to Syria – and we are just speaking about emergencyassistance. It was calculated that Catholic institutions globally have sent 100 million euros to the Middle East, at the beginning applied only to the Syrian crisis and then extended to the whole region.

Given this data, it is surprising that the initial response to the crisis was to provide emergency aid and to build bridgesof prayer and dialogue, while going beyond pontifical diplomacy.

Pope Francis, it seems, has now opted for a change of pace. He will not abandon his commitment to a culture of the encounter, nor to the diplomacy of prayer. Even though a conflict broke out in Gaza a few weeks after the historical meeting for peace in the Vatican, the Pope has always maintained that the meeting was not in vain.

The Pope’s efforts were more successful when he launched the day of prayer and fasting for Syria. That day was however preceded by a meeting between the Vatican’s “foreign minister” Archbishop Dominique Mamberti and the corps of ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. Archbishop Mamberti outlined the Holy See’s views on adiplomatic roadmap for peace.

Now, Pope Francis upcoming voyage to Turkey becomes crucial. There, the Pope will meet with the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew. The Pope and the Patriarch have started a dialogue on topics of common interest and carried forward a joint effort for peace. During the trip, Pope Francis will likely be called to take a stance. And he will have to do it in a Turkey that had just decided to authorize the possibility of sending land troops to Iraq and Syria.The stance the Pope will take, whatever it may be, will be of extreme importance.

This is how the big international organizations promote their agenda. The agenda of the counter-ideology of gender and personal freedom is promoted in a subtle way. Often, a “soft law” process is followed. The ‘soft law’ consists in pressuring states to adopt legislation domestically that reflect principles embraced in international forums (general articles in conventions and treaties, optional protocols, etcetera). Other pressures come through the “final observations” of the UN committees that oversee the implementation of conventions by the states parties. The observations are non- binding, but are nevertheless a means to influence legislation in states.

Secular media has already started to speculate that the Holy See will want to hide information about the abuse of minors by the clergy. This line of argument is misleading. The Convention Against Torture addresses different issues. And – since it is torture that it deals with – the Committee Against Torture should really be looking at the cases of children born alive after an attempted abortion and left to die (600 in Canada from 2001 to 2011). Or late-term abortion methods, such as that of “dilatation and evacuation” that really constitute forms of torture.

These are issues that may come to the fore when the Holy See presents its report regarding how the Convention is applied in Vatican City State and how the Holy See, as a moral authority, is committed and promotes around the world a culture against torture. The presentation of the report may also show some of the biases in the public controversy about the Church’s response to sex abuse of minors by the clergy, because the Holy See did reform its laws to address the issue and new Vatican procedures brought about a decrease in the number of cases of clergy abuses of minors, as data from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shows.

But these arguments may not be sufficient.

Public opinion is now very accustomed to attacks against the Holy See. Vatican communications advisers have tried to insert “positive viruses” in the secular media stream. For example, by leaking to the Associated Press that about 700 priests had been defrocked by Benedict XVI because of sex abuses of minors. The Holy See’s communications gurus have even tried to ingratiate themselves with the secular media by favoring it when it comes to breaking news, or transmitting the Pope’s words or visual footage.

The assumption behind this course of action is that it will finally make the media take note of the Catholic Church. However, this approach does not actually work. The media, under the control of publishers and financial interests that pursue specific agendas, will report objectively about the Church when there is a major event, but will not hesitate to lead the charge against her if it advances their interests.

The work of Accuracy in Media provides insights about how the “media pendulum swings according to convenience.” Accuracy in  Media is a conservative watchdog group which mission is to promote accurate, fair and balance media reporting.  Even if conservative, Accuracy in Media  raises issues to be taken in consideration.

In 2010 the New York Times stood as one of the newspapers most active in criticizing the Catholic Church over the scandals of the clergy sex abuses of minors. But before that, Accuracy in the Media had launched the campaign “Boycott the New York Times”. Accuracy in the Media showed that the weight of the leftist lobbies (those who promote the “right” to an abortion and individual freedoms, and claim the gender ideology as the only legitimate view on gender issues) swung the pendulum of every single article to fit within a preset agenda.

The qualitative jump that Vatican communications must take means going beyond the secular media. Informing public opinion about the Church correctly is something that has been perhaps missing in recent years. Sensationalism won over information. The same Pope Francis seems to be a victim of this general climate in which there are attacks against the Church, yet the Pope’s character is exalted. Pope Francis’ pontificate risks to be known as what it is not.

Last week, Pope Francis launched via twitter an appeal to politicians to defend the dignity of all.  He has upheld the indissolubility of Christian marriage. In the last general audience, he asked God, and requested all present to do the same, for the gift of understanding, which means seeing through God’s eyes. At the same time, he met the Council of Eight cardinals looking into the reform of the Curia (and the streamlining the Curia was discussed yet again). He met the newly established Council for the Economy for its first meeting, held May 2, when it discussed its statues. Finally, the members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors gathered in Rome from the May 1 to 3 and started their works.  

The Pope’s statements on the position of the Church on different issues have underscored continuity. The Pope’s series of meetings show that a reform, not a revolution in the Church, is what’s being carried forward. After one year of pontificate, the challenge for the Pope remains balancing a huge popular wave of positive feelings around his pontificate, the need for a sensible governance of the Church, and the defense of that very same Church from the attacks of the secular media.

Until now, everything seems to be going smoothly. Even the Irish premier Enda Kenny has invited Pope Francis to visit the country, following the news a month ago that Ireland would re-open the Rome’s residence of the Irish Embassy to the Holy See. The embassy was closed in November 2011, purportedly for economic reasons.

In fact, the strong disagreements between the Irish government and the Holy See about the Church’s response to the clergy abuse of minors weighted heavily on the decision to close the embassy. Nowadays, according to Enda Kenny, that issue has been overcome, since «Pope Francis has made it clear that his pontificate focuses above all on issues like social justice, poverty and human rights.»

The pendulum of Vatican communications has swung away from highly contested topics and towards social issues, which find more echo in public opinion and with governments. However, it is also true that behind the words “human rights” there are many hidden dangers. Since the Cairo and Beijing conferences, the Holy See has argued for the notion of human rights as individual rights, trying to focus on the defense of the most poor and helpless. This is something rarely encompassed in the States’ agendas and hardly ever fostered by international organizations.

Attention to the poorest and helpless is always secondary in coverage that praises the Pope only if he does take a strong stand on a sensitive issue. A coverage by a media ever ready to attack him as soon as he uses his moral authority to enlighten consciences. At the same time, the news put out by the secular media keep on eroding the notion of the Holy See as an entity recognized under international law which can legitimately engage in diplomacy. It is part of a specific plan begun many years ago, meant to exclude the Holy See from the international community of nations-states and its deliberations.

Will Pope Francis and his team be able to defend the Church from the attacks? A good response to this questions will be provided May 10, when Pope Francis reportedly would address all the heads of the agencies of the United Nations.

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), said the meeting «could be  very important» if the Holy Father «takes the opportunity to call the agency heads back to their original purposes, rather than pursuing radical agendas.»