MondayVatican » MondayVatican – international affairs » Undermining Holy See diplomacy. An impossible mission?

Undermining Holy See diplomacy. An impossible mission?

Andrea Gagliarducci — Mon, 16 May 2011 05:14:38 +0000

Would it be possible to eject the Holy See from the international organizations? This not such a new idea. In 2007, The Economist - English weekly which is widely read in government foreign offices – ended an article about the Vatican diplomacy with this advice for the Holy See: «It could renounce its special diplomatic status and call itself what it is – the biggest non-governmental organization in the world». On a par with Oxfam or Doctors without Borders.

The idea of expelling the Holy See from the concert of nations is not new. Since 1995, “Catholics for a Free Choice” has tried to do this through petitions signed by various countries. The American group is led by a former religious sister, Frances Kissling – who has been officially excommunicated by the bishops of the United States. The campaign was called «See Change». and it was aimed at expelling the Holy See from the United Nations.
Because – they said – the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that sits at the UN as a permanent observer, with “privileges” similar to those of sovereign nations.

In the bureaucracies of the UN and of the other major international organization that is the European Union, in which the Holy See has the rank of observer, the desire to expel it is fairly widespread, and sometimes it comes to light. The reasons in support of this expelling Holy See from the concert of nations seems to be paradoxical. If the Church strives to bring peace in the world, that’s unobjectionable, but when it opposes abortion and euthanasia, no. «It is not right – said they who protest against the Holy See international status – that in order to support its own interests it should make use of an international juridical status that doesn’t truly belong to it». Even if the Church claims for religious freedom, world governments don’t seem to appreciate it.

The last Benedict XVI’s message for the World Day of Peace was precisely about religious freedom. Nowadays, religious freedom is a crucial challenge, and this was even more evident by analyzing the international reactions to the Message. The Pope underlined that «the same determination that condemns every form of fanaticism and religious fundamentalism must also oppose every form of hostility to religion that would restrict the public role of believers in civil and political life». Benedict XVI so outlined two risks for religious freedoms: the attacks coming from fundamentalism and the attacks coming from the secularism. No-one of the world governments underlined the attack coming from the secularism, but every-one declared to be on the Pope’s side in defending religious freedom from fundamentalisms. All right, but what about secularism? As Benedict XVI stated in the traditional speech held at the beginning of the year to the Ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, there are «Countries which accord great importance to pluralism and tolerance, but where religion is increasingly being marginalized. There is a tendency to consider religion, all religion, as something insignificant, alien or even destabilizing to modern society, and to attempt by different means to prevent it from having any influence on the life of society». The Pope also condemned the fact that «Christians are even required at times to act in the exercise of their profession with no reference to their religious and moral convictions, and even in opposition to them, as for example where laws are enforced limiting the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care or legal professionals».

These words remained unheard. While – on the other hand – governments’ foreign offices claim themselves as promoters of religious freedom. Recently, Mr. Franco Frattini, Foreign Affairs minister of Italy, met card. Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. They officialy talked about “Arab spring” and European Union issues. But it also was the occasion for Mr. Frattini to underline Italian efforts in favor of religious freedom. Mr. Frattini has certainly remembered the efforts of Italy to keep the crucifix exposed in Italian classrooms and his personal battle against the absence of the Christmas holidays in the calendar of the European Parliament. Anyway, when the aim to eject the Holy See from the concert of nations comes down to action, it never succeeds. In July of 2004, the UN general assembly approved a resolution that not only confirmed, but even reinforced the Holy See’s presence in the organization. The Holy See has been at the UN since April 6, 1964 with «permanent observer status».

Since the Holy See’s ejection is far away to come, there is a more subtle strategy, in order to undermine the moral power of the Church and of religions in general. It is brought on by considering religious freedom as one of the freedom of expressions, or by considering religions no more than a tradition. One example – according to many observers – is precisely the crucifix verdict. According to this verdict, crucifix is just a tradition and the Great Chamber does not pronounce about the traditions of the countries. So, the problem is only postponed to when the tradition will change.

Another strategy is to weaken the Social Doctrine of the Church. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is very fair: the Church has an evangelical vocation to take care of social issues. This social-evangelical vocation has an even important meaning nowadays. Fifty years ago, Pope John XXIII defined the world imbalances in the encyclical Mater et Magistra. Now, these imbalances need to be updated with new ones, as an international congress pointed out. But in Ubicumque et semper – the Motu Proprio which promulgates the new Vatican Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization – the Social Doctrine of the Church is never mentioned.

On the other hand, some of the Justice and Peace Commissions in the world are thinking to change their name from Justice and Peace to Caritas in Veritate. Caritas in Veritate is an encyclical considered by many Vatican insiders a “little miracle”, since many put their hands on the text. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi – now president of the I.O.R. (Institute for Religious Works), Giulio Tremonti – minister of Economy and accredited by many as the next Italian premier, Mario Draghi – governor of Bank of Italy and now running for the presidency of European Central Bank, had the opportunity to make their observations to the text of the encyclical. And the Italian bank world took possession of the topics of the encyclical taking part to a Congress about Caritas in veritate and organized by the Pontifical Council for Laity. No member of Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace – who had in charge the writing of the encyclical – had been invited.

Even Vatican diplomacy can be undermined. Rumors from diplomatic environments said that there is the intention to let some lay take important charges in Vatican Diplomatic Corps. Pontifical Legates must be priests, because they represent the Pope. This rule is valid only for Papal nuncios. Papal nuncios are the Pope’s ambassador, but at the same time they work as bishops. They weigh up candidates for episcopate in the countries in which they are nuncios, they speak to Episcopal conferences, and they also have relationships with governments. On the other hand, nuncios who are appointed as permanent observer (at United Nations, Unesco, Fao, European Parliament) just have in charge to maintain relationships among Holy See and States. Appointing lay people as permanent observers would not be out of Canonical Law. Would this be a defeat for the Holy See diplomatic tradition?

Holy See, diplomatic risks on its future?

Andrea Gagliarducci — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:52:01 +0000

Does the Vatican still have any International weight?

If you look at its whole diplomatic network, spread all over the world, the answer would be yes. The last time Pope Benedict met his ambassadors, their number was of 178 diplomats and two special relationships. As for the number of diplomatic relations, the Holy See follows only the United States.

But the times when the moral authority of the Catholic Church still used to hold a substantial weight seem now light-years away, and the Pope’s recent speech to his Ambassadors is the proof. In that speech, Pope Benedict only made some generic appeals about the Egyptian situation. It was just a few days after the terroristic attack in a Coptic Church in Alexandria – the riots had not started yet- when the Pope underlined that «this series of attacks is yet another sign of the urgent need for the governments of the region to adopt, in spite of difficulties and dangers, effective measures for the protection of religious minorities».

These words had somehow an impact on the Egyptian hierarchies. The Egyptian government decided to call back Aly Hamada Mekhemar -the Egyptian ambassador to the Holy See- for consultation, a choice with an international political significance. Ambassadors are often called to report about the country they’re living in, and this is definitely the case. Neverthless, some Vatican insiders have hazarded a guess which opens new scenarios. And that, after all, does not sound that weird. In fact, the crisis between the Holy See and Egypt might just be the first of many in which diplomatic bodies will justify their future choice to close their embassies to the Holy See. What is the reason why states should keep two embassies in Rome, while one -dealing with both Italy and the Vatican at the same time- would be enough?

Good question. Even more because, in the public debate, the Holy See seems to be totally absorbed by Italians matters. The Holy See Permanent Observers do a great job, with their wide-range speeches and their sound international perspectives. Take, for example, the message for the World Day of Peace, «Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace», which showed a clear shift of paradigm by the Holy See. By focussing on the freedom of the individual subject of national and international law, no space is left for collectivism (expressed by the various “phobias” of international organizations: Islamophobia, Christianophobia, omophobia) or individualism. «We want – a Holy See official explains – that communities are protected, not to protect the ideas of the communities».

Nunciatures too (the Holy See embassies) do a great job on the field. Because of the nuncios’ great knowledge on the field and their skills, the *Osservatore Romano* is widely considered – even by a large number of diplomats – the best newspaper in Italian language for foreign politics issues.

In the end, there is the hard work coming from below, from those missionaries of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and from those in the ecclesial movements who have represented the real novelty in the Church of this century.

However, not much is known about the international activity of the Holy See. The Secretary of State seems busier getting involved in the political issues of the ‘Belpaese’ than in promoting wider projects. During the so-called ‘Ruby gate’ (the series of sexual scandals involving the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi), the Italian media have spent weeks attacking the Holy See because of its silence. However, it was obvious: the Holy See is a diplomatic subject. Asking the Holy See to give its opinion on the matter wouldn’t be different from asking Obama a statement about Berlusconi’s morality. However, the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone could not resist the media pressure, and decided to speak. He talked about a general “morality” for public people. But his words were sufficient for the media to flag Bertone’s attack on Berlusconi.

This is just an episode. But it is not an isolated one. In the meantime, Christianity is on the move. Throughout the last 100 years, the percentage of Christians in the world population was stable at 33 per cent. However, it’s the Christian ethnic background that has globally changed. And it changed significantly, modifying in fact the global profile of the Christian individual. In 1900, 81 percent of Christians were white and European. Nowadays, white European Christians are less than 45 percent of the total, and they’re on the decrease. At the same time, the number of Asian, African and Latino-American Christians has surged. According to forecast, in 2025 and 2050 the Christian prototype will be much less European and much more coming from the South of the World. With one only exception, though, as the United States will be on the top of “Christian” chart. In 2050, eventually, some European countries might have disappeared from the chart of Christian Countries. Latino American, Asian and African countries, instead, will be the “new entries” of the chart. Moreover, if we compare the Christian and the Muslim presence, we can notice another significant data, as some countries -such as India and Nigeria- figure in both charts.

This data is food for thought. It shows the need for a much more internationally-oriented presence of the Holy See in the in the debate, to meet the faithful of a global and globalised world, less and less Italian and -let alone- European, and to bring the religious phenomenon in the midst of the debate, through presence and dialogue. Less Italy, more world; this is the next challenge of Roman Curia.