MondayVatican » MondayVatican – Holy See’s sovereignty » Pope Francis, the reform of charity

Pope Francis, the reform of charity

Andrea Gagliarducci — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:05:07 +0000

The guidelines for the management of the religious institutes have been outlined in a circular letter signed Aug. 2 by Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The letter did not grab media headlines, since the focus was rightly on the tragedies Christians are living in Iraq as well as in many other countries. Yet, this document may be considered one further step toward the Church’s “reform of charity.” This reform is aimed at improving the management of funds, highlighting a needed alignment between works and mission, and – in the longer term – informing a new approach of religious institutes to these issues.

As ever-more worrying news from Iraq arrived, the war in Syria is almost forgotten, the Ukraine crisis is overshadowed by other crises and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is sidelined, religious congregations continue to work on the ground side by side to the people. In North Korea only courageous missionaries are able to cross the 38th parallel border. And religious orders are also in the frontline in Africa, coming up with resources, running field hospitals and managing charities there, were the worst outbreak of Ebola of the last forty years has happened.

In scenarios of crisis, the principle of subsidiarity, one of the pillars of Catholic Social Teaching, becomes dramatically concrete. Religious orders, attentive to and meeting the needs of the people, turn for help to the Church’s institutional charities, which in turn are coordinated by the Holy See under the umbrella of a common vision and institution. Subsidiarity is in the end quite natural, but some juridical steps were needed to put everything in a proper framework. This kind of reforms took many years.

In establishing the Pontifical Council Cor Unum in 1971, Paul VI wanted to make of the Holy See the center of universal charity. Under the umbrella of Holy See sovereignty, the Church’s humanitarian experts could help coordinate efforts and ideas to help those who are poor and living in the existential peripheries. For this same purpose, Paul VI had promoted the institution of Caritas Internationalis during the 1950s, while he was the deputy at the Vatican’s Secretariat of State. And also for this same purpose, Paul VI backed the foundation of Italian Caritas in 1971.

For years, charitable activities have been managed through well tested procedures: collection of funds, distribution of goods, helping the people, and speaking up when fundamental rights were violated. Later, step by step, a more diplomatic angle came into play. Christian charities on the ground started to abstain from speaking up critically, in order to have a good working rapport with governments. This, they thought, would help the mission. It was true, to some extent. But this approach also gave rise to the perception that the Church’s charities were merely NGOs.

Pope Francis has often spoken about the risk of the Church being seen as just a “merciful NGO”. He has lived through this challenge in Latin America. There, priests go to the peripheries, and are considered social workers. The focus on the poor has become a humanism without God and without the announcement of the Gospel. This is one of the reasons behind the exodus of so many Catholics there toward the evangelical sects.

Benedict XVI was aware of the problem, and many of the interventions he made during his pontificate illustrate it. Increasingly often, Benedict XVI urged the Church to watch out for self-satisfaction with its own structures, underscoring that a Church without God at her center is at risk of fading away. He even welcomed secularizing trends that ultimately brought the Church to focus on mission by removing her from temporal power.

With these issues before him, Benedict XVI began his quiet revolution in two acts.

First: the reform of Caritas Internationalis’ statutes. The reform reinforced the collaboration between the institution and the Holy See, clarified the responsibilities of the Secretariat of State and offered a global theological vision, which can be summarized with the motto: charity in truth.

The same vision was at the core of the second act of the quiet revolution, i.e. the motu proprio “Intima Natura Ecclesiae,” through which Benedict XVI wanted to provide “an organic regulatory framework in order to put in order the diverse ecclesiastical forms organized to serve charity.”

The Motu Proprio goes to the roots of the Church’s service of charity and deals with functions and tasks of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum.

These two acts of government are an outcome of Benedict XVI’s reflections contained in his first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est.” The then Pope underscored that, indeed, the Canon Law Code describes in detail the duties of bishops for what concerns catechesis and liturgy, but it does not provide an equally detailed description for what concerns the service of charity.

Moreover. In that encyclical, Benedict XVI affirmed that «as our preceding reflections have made clear, the true subject of the various Catholic organizations that carry out a ministry of charity is the Church herself—at all levels, from the parishes, through the particular Churches, to the universal Church,» thus underscoring that the service of charity is as substantial in the Church’s life as the preaching of the Word and the administration of sacraments. Charity is one of the Church’s constitutional dimensions.

Reading Benedict XVI’s words, it is easy to see their strong echo in Pope Francis’ words and spirit. In fact, Pope Francis does no more than follow his predecessor’s trail. Pope Francis does not love institutionality, but the institution and the juridical framework are important: they ensure freedom.

The circular letter with guidelines for the financial management of Religious Institutes follows this trail. True, the letter is full of technical/specialized issues: it recommends having contingency budgets, to plan the distribution of resources, to manage balance sheets and to analyze eventual deficits. The letter also requires the use of external auditors, says that transparency may be achieved through external consultants (but not for any purpose and above all not depleting the institutes’ funds), but above all giving priority to hiring people from Catholic circles and nurturing people within the institutes themselves.

In education lies the third act of the big reform of charity. Following the letter’s recommendations, everybody is co-responsible. The letter even recommends to use the balance sheet «not only for works, but even in community, as a tool of education to the economic dimension, in order to achieve more common awareness in this area and to verify the real state of the personal and communitarian poverty.»

The message is clear: there is a need to educate professionals within the congregations, since «in almost all the institutes, just one person is entrusted with the economic issues, the treasurer, with specific duties,” and this “generated disinterest toward economics within communities, thus favoring a detachment from the cost of life and management issues and giving rise to a dichotomy between reality and mission.»

This dichotomy between reality and mission is to be avoided. Religious people with a concrete sense of reality can be even more supportive on the ground of the Church’s mission and are able to coordinate with charities. Their contribution is even larger. On the background is the notion that the Church’s financial management is not only for the sake of good housekeeping. There is also the notion of a reform of hearts, as requested by Pope Francis.

As the Church is at the frontline in all the international crisis and Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, this new awareness may help to recover the sense of mission which has sometimes been lost.

The works need to be framed in a clear and transparent framework, so that the capacity of carrying on the mission is not just linked to some personal skill. Pope Francis understands this. He always underscores the need of doing charity and going to the existential peripheries and he has highlighted it by giving a new role to the Papal Almoner, bishop Konrad Krajewski, who is informally dispatched all over to deliver the Pope’s charity. According to an urban myth, Pope Francis has asked for a stipend, i.e. a personal fund for him to pass on to the most needy, with no filters: it is a myth conceived by someone’s wild imagination, but one that befits the Pope’s persona.

Beyond the practical exercise of charity, clear guidelines are needed to shed light to the inner sense of mission and to better manage finances. Pope Francis has ultimately carried forward Benedict XVI’s quiet revolution. In Paul VI’s spirit.

Arms Trade Treaty negotiations failed. And the integral disarmament seems to be so far away

Andrea Gagliarducci — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:37:01 +0000

«The governments’ efforts will be judged by how many lives the treaty helps to save.» Christian leaders representing some of the world’s two billion Christians have issued a joint appeal to the 194 governments that negotiated the first global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). But this appeal remained unlistened. Having started on 2 July, the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty concluded Friday . The negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty have been called off after governments were not able to reach agreement on international regulation of arms exports. The negotiations so failed to establish the first international treaty meant to regulate the multi-billion-dollar arms trade. U.N general secretary Ban Ki Moon said he was «disappointed» the member states failed to clinch an agreement after years of preparatory work and four weeks of negotiations, calling it a «setback»; some member nations blamed the United States for halting an agreement at the end of the month-long negotiations in New York. – and U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland answered in a statement that while the U.S. had wanted to conclude the negotiations with a treaty, «more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue» –; and the World Council of Churches’ general secretary Rev. dr. Olav Fykse Tveit maintained that «Churches are concerned with the postponement in this long process, but we will plead for stronger controls of conventional weapons for a more peaceful and just world. Recent conflicts in several countries show the need for that».

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.