There has been some cross communications in the way that news about the illness of the new Secretary of State has been managed by the Vatican. Purportedly to respect the right to privacy, there has not been any medical updates about the health conditions of the Vatican’s No. 2. It was reported that a surgery had taken place that would be followed by a convalescing period, without describing the surgery or informing about the length of time for recuperation. If the goal of this approach was to avoid scaremongering and managing expectations, it failed. Unfortunately, Parolin will arrive in Rome with an aura of mystery about his illness.

Pietro Parolin will not face an easy task.

A pupil of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli and raised in Angelo Sodano’s Secretariat of State, Pietro Parolin has proven to be a skilled and talented diplomat. Thanks to his work, the Holy See was able to “unfreeze” the unofficial rapport with China (the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China have not established official diplomatic relations). The rapport with China fluctuated when Parolin was sent as papal nuncio to Venezuela and stopped looking after this issue.

In addition to his diplomatic skills, Parolin will have to govern a changing institution, i.e. the Secretariat of State. Almost nothing is known about the way the Secretariat of State will work under Pope Francis. The Pope, it seems, wants to delegate the management of general affairs to the Vatican City State administration. This would be the reason for the Pope’s enhancing the authority of the Vatican City State administration head, Cardinal Bertello, and entrusting Bertello’s deputy with the pastoral care of all the inhabitants of the small city-state on the Vatican hill.

So, Parolin should be only the chief of diplomacy, as was –in effect– Angelo Sodano as well. Now Dean of the College of Cardinals, Sodano is still very powerful inside the Vatican. At 86, he continues to meet nuncios and friends who are bishops (he promoted and appointed many of them in 13 years as Secretary of State) and he is still very influential, since many feel indebted to him. In fact, there are many people – Angelo Sodano included – who have never accepted that their world was turned upside-down by Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI’s reform, as is Pope Francis’, was first of all a reform of attitudes more than of structure. Benedict did not touch the Vatican diplomatic corps. He worked to change the attitude and the work ethics of Vatican diplomacy and Vatican mentality in general. Benedict XVI did not just move aside the monsignors who narrowly focused on the bilateral relation (particularly with respect to financial issues) with Italy. What Benedict did was to give the Vatican a more international outlook and focus.

Unsurprisingly, this new outlook led many to lose privileges and influence. Looking back, some of Benedict’s appointees still came from those with the old, narrow mentality. For example, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who became President of the Council of Superintendency of the Institute for Religious Works (the so-called Vatican bank). Gotti Tedeschi was more committed to Italian interests than to the Vatican’s.

In any case, step by step, a change of mentality worked its way through and was increasingly more evident and concrete. Benedict XVI’s Secretariat of State was to become a sort of central coordinating point for the Church, and this is exactly why the Pope wanted Canon Law expert Tarcisio Bertone as Secretary of State. Following Benedict’s suggestions and requests, Bertone initiated a twofold reform: more collegiality and coordination among departments; and a new diplomatic doctrine which placed less emphasis on reaching particular understandings (like on the issue of humanitarian intervention) and instead aimed at shedding light on the Church’s commitment to the common good.

Resistance to these reforms was predictable. Collegiality required everyone’s collaborating towards the common good. Even if just one person goes against it, the risk of failing is very high.

When Benedict XVI held the famous lectio magistralis in Regensburg, nobody from the Secretariat of State warned him about the diplomatic tension his words were likely to cause with the Muslim world.  The Secretariat of State said they never had a chance of reading the Regensburg speech before it was delivered, but this is not a justification, since it anyway failed the way the case was handled, also in the relationship with media. It was the last trip managed by Angelo Sodano. The scandal and the rage of so many Muslims served as a warning alarm about some of the internal dynamics at the Vatican. 

The same journalist whose inaccurate reporting and commenting of Benedict XVI’s words sparked the Regensburg controversy is now attempting to rehabilitate the image of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a man no longer a part of anything relating to the Vatican but who nevertheless continues to exert influence over Italian newspapers, thus grabbing international press headlines as well.

Benedict XVI’s times were not a good time for «the men of compromise.»  In reaction, their rapaciousness within the Church was pervasive. Benedict XVI and Bertone had to confront and overcome many problems: bad information on the Polish bishop Wielgus appointed as archbishop of Warsaw and the appointment of Gehrard Maria Wagner as auxiliary bishop of Linz in Austria (the first one resigned, the second one renounced to take his new post); a deeply flawed communications strategy on pedophilia which could not shield, for instance, Bertone or Benedict XVI from gay activists’ uproar over Bertone’s comments about sex abuse and homosexuality and over Benedict XVI words about the use of condom to prevent HIV in his way to Africa; and Vatileaks, a widespread practice of leaking documents throughout Benedict XVI’s pontificate.

When the Vatileaks investigation led to the arrest of one of the most prominent characters behind the leaks, the butler Paolo Gabriele, it also became evident that there were many other leaks, including from traditionalists once considered enthusiastic about Benedict XVI but who could not stand some of the Pope’s decisions, like appointing Gerhard Ludwig Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Nowadays, the situation is different. Nobody can speak about Pope Francis in bad terms. Critical opinions of Francis or his choices have no impact or echo in the media. Critical views of questionable decisions are dismissed as «rumors and gossiping.»  The rumors and gossiping that Francis has said – even to the Vatican  Gendarme Corps – that should be done away with.

In the meantime, Pope Francis is setting off his overhaul. For the time, just a “government reshuffling” fueling conjecture of a return of the diplomats to positions of responsibility and also to speculation about a so-called gay lobby that is said to be gaining terrain and power around Pope Francis. Is it true? If it is, was Pope Francis properly informed? If he was, why did he make these choices?

Some venture that Pope Francis choices are thorough and intentional. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he never had a great rapport with the diplomats, a time when Angelo Sodano headed the Secretariat of State. And he cannot bear any kind of lobby, as he has said repeatedly, including on his way back from Rio de Janeiro. Ultimately, placing his enemies around him may not be merely a way of applying the Gospel commandment of “love your enemy.” It is the personal commandment of a Pope who lived under a dictatorship and felt exiled: the commandment of “control your enemies.”

Now, it remains to be seen how much the enemies may be able to control the Pope.

Pietro Parolin arrives in Rome and is put in the midst of this controversial situation. He started his service in the most unlucky way, and he will have to watch out for the rapaciousness that constantly “bit and devoured” into Benedict XVI’s pontificate, and was often directed against Cardinal Bertone. Will Parolin be able to fend off particular attitudes and behaviors, of the kind that his predecessor had to endure and became a victim of?

It is an important question. After influencing the Conclave, the old guard hopes to influence the Pope and his Secretary of State. If it succeeds, it could represent a retrocession of 40 years or more  for the Vatican. Ultimately, a shepherd Pope does not bother anybody. But a Pope able to deliver the Church to the world, and not just through pastoral reasoning, risks upsetting all the balances. In the encyclical Populorum Progressio Paul VI lamented that «it must be admitted that men very often find themselves in a sad state because they do not give enough thought and consideration to these things,» regarding development.  It is a lament that today is also applicable to thought and consideration about the future of the Vatican and the Church.

This is a rather sterile discussion, because it only looks at the practical aspects of the issues.  Actually, the Church is in fact out of date, but not because of those frequently mentioned considerations.  The Church is 200 years behind where it needs to be in order to build, in advance, structures and shape the intelligentsia allowing her to face future problems.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. We look back at a Church that understood, before the 1968 revolution came about, the need to step up to the challenges of the times.  The Church of the Council created brand new vocabularies and found a way to harmonize tradition (ultimately Faith, which tenets remain immutable) with the new times.  It is a revolution. But it is a gentle revolution – simply a change of perspective.  The decision to turn the altar and let the priest face the congregation while celebrating the Holy Mass is also a symbolic act: the priest faces the people because faith itself is directed towards the people.  A prophecy, more than a Council.

But the discourse that followed the Second Vatican Council was full of conflicting ideas.  The Church was so focused on itself that it was hardly aware of the new signs of the times.  This was a Church that seemed to lack in prophecy.

Recently, the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to the Japanese scientist Yamamaka.  He is working on the so-called «ethical stem cells», i.e. adult stem cells that he programs to «go back in time», enabling them to become a given organ, from a vast range of human body parts.  That news spread fast at the beginning, but then there was silence.  This denotes a Catholic world unable to advance its positions in the public arena.  Yamanaka’s research interests had been well known for a long time.  The Pontifical Academy for Life promoted discussions about this research.  But this «Catholic endorsement» took place within Catholic circles, often non-scientific circles.  This presented an image of Catholics favoring ideology over science.  Once that a Nobel prize had shown that there is no need to destroy embryos for research, the Catholic Church could have weight in to promote this finding, through her diplomatic and cultural means.  It does not.  Aside from some semi-official declaration, nothing is done at a diplomatic level, or even – more simply – at a communications level.  No one in the Holy See or Catholic newspapers use the occasion to, at the very least, make reference to prior Holy See international interventions to defend human life.

It is a missed opportunity. Just like with trans-humanism.  Trans-humanism touches on different areas of human life, including the military.  There are already projects to install electronic chips in soldiers, to enhance their human capacities through technology.  This is an issue of concern to the Holy See, which has discussed it in international congresses organized by Vatican dicasteries.  But the discussion has not reached a larger public.  There is a sort of gap between the top and the grassroots of the Church, a separation between academy and people.  This is the crisis of the Church.  This is what makes the Church 200 years out of date.

Almost unable to gain attention in the public square, unable to communicate because nobody thought about renovating the communication process, the Church’s image is that of an institution detached from reality.  In the past, parishes built communities.  Now they often don’t.  There has been a scarcity of priests able to «fill» vacancies in the parishes.  There are always fewer culturally learned priests.  All too often, the view is that a simple priest is all that is needed to head a parish.  But the role of a parish priest is one of the most delicate: he must transmit and have help faith and theology come alive in the community, while understanding and living within the community.

It is a problem that is evident at the highest echelons of the Catholic hierarchy.  As in the board of the Authority for Financial Information, tasked with monitoring Vatican finances.  The board is comprised by people coming from the Bank of Italy.   The former president of the IOR’s (the Vatican trust fund) Council of Superintendents, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, came himself from «outside the Vatican».  Even the «anti money-laundering expert» hired by the Holy See, René Bruehlart, did not have prior Vatican experience or expertise.  Can «outsiders» – with more of a technical than a humanistic formation – who are not fully aware of the Vatican’s universe serve the biggest institution in the world? Will they be able to understand how important she is? Will they be able to contribute deep and far reaching insights?

Another example: when the problem of religious sects erupted in the world in the 70s,  Massimo Introvigne – a lawyer – decided to study the phenomenon.  He had the funds to do it, so he began collecting data and studying new religions and forms of worship.  He became one of the most prominent experts on the issue. Why did not anybody within the Catholic hierarchy thought about studying new religions, before Introvigne did?

There is another, clear problem: regularization.  Initiatives in the Catholic world, but outside any «official control» or endorsement, are regularized.  Just like it happened to Aid to the Church in Need (ACN).  Last year, ACN became a Pontifical Foundation.  It is a big honor, in recognition of the work done.  But it is also a boomerang, with ACN obliged to be politically correct in its the Report on Religious Freedom in the World.

In the end, there is one problem that can comprise all the others. The need to divulgate Catholic thought both internally and externally has been so undervalued that the rights to the Pope’s third book about Jesus of Nazareth have been given to Rizzoli, a non-Catholic publishing house, thus leaving out the whole Catholic publishing world.  The rationale for this choice is that Rizzoli would guarantee a better distribution.  But this seems like the Church surrendering to a sign of the times: the preeminence of the market over ideals.  Few understand Christian utopia.  A concession that confirms it will take the Church many years to re-organize sharing her message in publications and the media, since at the moment Catholic medias have scant impact on the public opinion. On one hand, there is this lack of impact on the public opinion. On the end, there is the lack on vision to make Catholic medias (not institutional Catholic ones) compete with “lay” medias.

The Church is 200 years out of date, not because it is not able to adjust its moral position, but because there are no successors to her brilliant minds of the past.  In part because the Church did not invest in forming a new generation.

This would be an interesting topic to discuss in the synod of bishops for the new evangelization.  A United  Nations document from the mid eighties mentions integral human development, a Christian/Catholic notion.  It was a time when international negotiations could be positively influenced by Catholicism.  Today, who will negotiate treaties? How will Catholic thought be represented?

Pope Paul VI was prophetic.  After the Second Vatican Council, he understood that a new profession of the Creed was needed. This same Pope wrote in the encyclical Populorum Progressio that the world suffers from a lack of thinking and reflection. Nowadays, even the Church suffers from her lack of thought.

Does complying with the principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church suffice to have a better future? Students at the Studium Aquinatis – a workshop on the Social Doctrine of the Church held in the Marian Sanctuary of Canneto, Southern Italy, July 21 to 23 – tried to give an answer to this question. A quick review of the discussions from the workshop allows us to understand two things: how much society is imbued by Christian values, even if nowadays nobody wants to define these values as “Christian”; and, secondly, that young people need to live out these values, and are searching for new reference points.

A new generation of Catholic politician. A glance at Europe

In Italy, this reference point has been for a long time the Democrazia Cristiana, i.e. Christian Democracy, a political party which for years represented the Catholic electorate. While not all Catholics supported Christian Democracy –which inherited the legacy of the Partito Popolare, the Italian People’s party founded by the Italian priest don Luigi Sturzo– the party offered a solid Catholic point of reference. It attracted the best people formed in Catholic associations. That of Christian Democracy was a 40 year-old story which came to a halt with the Tangentopoli scandal –the trial on the kickbacks that fed the Italian political system– and was never resumed fully. Nowadays, Catholics are said to be increasingly irrelevant in the Italian political landscape.

Benedict XVI has spoken –several times– of the need to give rise to a new generation of Catholic politicians capable of putting into practice the Social Doctrine of the Church. The Pope was not only appealing to Italians, but to peoples in all countries.  There is a living Catholic family in the world whose struggles are far from parochial.  The future of humanity itself is at stake in these struggles.

Just take a look at some European examples. In Finland, Timo Soini, a Catholic, has presided over a spectacular growth of his party.  His political program was mostly focused on the economy.  Soini did not defend the banks and the European Monetary System. He defended States and their sovereignty, even by accentuating Finnish Pride.  His approach stood in contrast to that of the euro-bureaucracy and the Europe of technocrats.  In fact, there are major differences between the European ideal early model and that of today.

In Hungary, the Fidesz political party won the elections with such an ample majority that it was able to push through constitutional reforms confidently.  The new Hungarian constitution considers Christian values the roots of the Hungarian state, forbids abortion and euthanasia, and limits the arbitrary power of judges.

Yet, both Timo Soini and Fidesz Leader Viktor Orban have been characterized as excessively nationalistic and conservative. In Hungary in particular, the new balance of influence has occurred within the Church itself.  The Hungarian Bishops’ Conference changed the name of its «Justice and Peace» commission to Commission Caritas in Veritate, a change later emulated by the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences.

Life in Christ. The principal factor of development

Caritas in veritate, however, is not the only encyclical which deals with justice and peace. It is one of the social encyclicals that -from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum on– has enriched in succession the history of the Catholic Church. The Social Doctrine is in some way a sort of summary of all the social encyclicals, each strongly influenced by the signs of their times. Caritas in Veritate itself, drafted in 2008, was strongly influenced by the global financial crisis that erupted that same year. The multiple revisions of the encyclical draft, with contributions also from people not involved in the Social Doctrine of the Church, underscored magnitude of the challenge.

Because many people contributed to it, Caritas in Veritate has been interpreted in several different ways. Its theological foundation, however, should not be underestimated. Drawing from Paul VI’s social teaching, paragraph 8 of Caritas in Veritate quotes the late Pope’s declaring how «life in Christ is the first and principal factor of development». This affirmation is revolutionary. It signifies a new hierarchy of predominant values. Go back to the Gospel and reinitiate your path from there, Benedict XVI has often said. Proclaiming Christ cannot be set aside, Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reminded the theologians of Liberation Theology who placed the poor, rather than Christ, at the heart of their doctrine. The Gospel cannot be set aside, Benedict XVI told the Church of Germany, underscoring the need for the Church to be less worldly, because a wealthy Church risks losing sight of the Good News announced in the Gospels.

To give rise to a new generation of Catholic politicians, the starting point must be the Gospel. «The rejection of the common or social good can lead to all kinds of sins». This admonition from Saint Thomas Aquinas dates back to the XIII century, yet it is extraordinarily pertinent to the present times. There has been a long debate on the role of Catholics in political organizations, and periodically there are parties that claim to be inspired by Christian values. Thomas Aquinas inverts paradigms, underscoring that it is not sin that brings about rejection of the common good; it is the rejection of the common good that leads to all kinds of sins.

What are the distinctive features of a politically and socially committed Catholic? How can this man/woman put into action this distinctiveness? These questions still beg answers. Occasionally, someone will propose a formula. Other times, the principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church will be presented in purely «secular» terms, as if the exponent would be afraid to affirm his own identity. As if it all amounts to just words, ultimately.

Look no further than to Thomas Aquinas

We need to look no further than to Thomas Aquinas and his «integral humanism» –as philosopher Jaques Maritain defined it– and more deeply into the heart of Catholicism to realize that being a Christian in society is simple and at the same time difficult, just as following Jesus is simple at the same time difficult. The starting point is the heart of the human person, an awareness of having been created in His own image.  This new persona then sets into action in history, relating to others in a spirit of fellowship. Are these «secular» terms? No, they are not. They are simply Christian terms. To embrace these dynamics is quite different from merely becoming a professional politician. It essentially means living the Gospel truly.

When Benedict XVI talked about a new generation of Catholic politicians, he is calling for a new generation of people committed in civil society and conscious of the challenge of the Gospel. This appeal risks but must not be misunderstood.  Often, the emphasis is on appearances and not enough on life itself.  For example, in Italy, groups on the Social Doctrine of the Church are established, and local and international special events around the Social Doctrine are organized, feeding an endless search for the right formulations that increasingly lose sight of teaching the Gospel.

A new commitment of Catholics in the public sphere

These were the key issues that Msgr. Mario Toso, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, addressed to the students of the Studium Aquinatis who listened attentively to prominent speakers during the three-day workshop. Toso focused on the Gospel and the importance to start again from the Gospel. Then, he underlined the need for a new commitment. It can be a political party, but not necessarily. It can take the shape of a new project.   How this «venture» will take form is not crucial.  What is most important is to begin in the heart of the human person, which is ultimately at the core of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the heart of the Gospel. Starting again from the Gospel, and learning to apply it to everyday life, and thus to society.  Only thus the common good will not be discarded.

A new venture can only take off from two places: families and parishes. One must start from our immediate surroundings and work our way to the international arena, to live the Gospel also there.  That is how we make a U-turn in the misguided political path of the present and inaugurate a different kind of politics.

This new political season can begin from the grassroots. Father Francesco Occhetta, SJ, a regular contributor and editorial staff member of Civiltà Cattolica –the oldest magazine in Italy, whose drafts are reviewed, before printing, at the Apostolic Palace of the Vatican.– shared three fascinating insights with the young participants of the workshop.  First of all, he talked about a personal experience: when he was in Chile doing apostolic work, he was asked to celebrate a funeral for a woman who died in an isolated village in the desert. He thought no one would attend the funeral. But when he got to the church, a crowd was there. That woman had committed her life to resolve conflicts in his parish and in her village, from a place and position that was essentially a center of power.  The people acknowledged her commitment, celebrating her funeral as if it were that for a Head of State. «What kind of justice model do we want for ourselves?» Father Occhetta asked the students, challenging them to fundamentally change the prevalent political mindsets of today.  He did not seek practical answers, but rather to stir a fruitful reflection.

Justice and reconciliation are two pillars of the Social Doctrine of the Church. «From South Sudan to the Middle East, from Latin America to Congo, from Colombia to the Philippines, the Catholic Church is a powerful force of peace, freedom, justice and reconciliation. But this impressive and courageous commitment to peace-building of Catholic communities is often not acknowledged, it is hardly studied, and it is not valued», Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, wrote on the Osservatore Romano.

There have been many justice and reconciliation commissions that have built peace in countries, especially in Africa. The students of Studium Aquinatis considered this model for Italy, but concluded that each country must set its own path, based on its particular experience and identity. For Italy, they proposed other venues of reconciliations. For example, the project Cesare deve morire  (Caesar must die) of the Rebibbia prison in Rome – where prisoners are encouraged to be part of theatrical plays that in some ways re-enact the crimes they committed.  More broadly, the students noted that reconciliation is fully meaningful from the certainty of the punishment applied, and also that the rights of the inmates should be fully restored after sentences are fulfilled.

Father Occhetta highlighted the importance of the education dimension. Nowadays, everybody uses overtly technical and specialist vocabularies, hindering our collective capacity to define the horizontal landscape of reality. Even politics – father Occhetta said – has become technocratic, losing sight of achieving development in the medium term. Politics have also fallen to the power of the mass media, which now controls consensus building in society.

Solutions and practices

Fortunately, in the midst of these problems –which were identified in Caritas in Veritate– there are also solutions and best practices about how to live the Social Doctrine of the Church. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace shed light on some of these best practices last May, during a conference to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the promulgation of John XXIII’s encyclical Mater et Magistra.

Centers for the Study of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church rise up in very difficult conditions –just think of the Institut des Artisans de Justice et de la Paix in Benin and the Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection in Zambia. While in Mexico anticlericalism is going through a sort of revival, the  Imdosoc (Istituto Mexicano de Doctrina Social Cristiana) continues to facilitate networks, train social entrepeneurs, and teach the Social Doctrine.  In Brazil, a popular initiative supported by the Episcopal Conference brought about the approval of the Ficha Limpa national law, which sets standards for the eligibility of candidates who run for public office.

Is this enough? The «diplomatic path» of Catholic Church has its sight on the long term, favoring a reform of the United Nations. «Justice – Msgr. Toso says – must be founded on the acknowledgement of the universal human good. Social conscience must be applied and advanced within the market economy. A world governance based on cooperation among nation is needed. It must be a true ‘world authority’, able to take objective decisions. A new economic, political and financial architecture is required». Above all, the primacy of politics over the economy must be restablished. What is now missing is a “Catholic laity” capable of assuming and advancing Christian values. There must be politicians Christianly trained, who can grasp the positive challenge to embrace the Social Doctrine of the Church. Confronted with world imbalances, this Christian laity must be capable of specifically contributing to greater equality». The time has come for the Social Doctrine of the Church to take action.

Unchain the Social Doctrine

There is also a need to unchain the Social Doctrine, as the last «Van Thuan Observatory» Report on the Social Doctrine of the Church states. What are the shackles of the Social Doctrine of the Church? There are external shackles – the report says – i.e. «the aggressive lay culture that violently mobilized to secularize society not only from religion, but also from ethics and finally from the sense of the common good.  At the international level, these forces are planning a brutal and sustained attack on life and family, by using huge sums of money to have all countries adopt laws that favor abortion and destroy the family.  These forces are the cultural agencies that impose unilateral views on individual freedom, relations among sexes, and procreation.  They are the strong economic interests, and the absence of a Christian and ethical perspective regarding business administration and finance resulting in poverty and sufferance». And then, there are the internal shackles, i.e. «the disregard for the Pope’s teachings, which are often considered, sadly, as just one among many different perspectives» and even «not applying to the Social Doctrine of the Church the hermeneutic criteria that Benedict XVI suggested with respect to the Second Vatican Council, and instead continue to speak of two Social Doctrines, one pre-Council and one post-Council. By doing so, the faithful are deprived from having a Social Doctrine of the Church in its integrity and fully inserted in tradition».

The way in which the Social Doctrine is followed, ignored, or contrasted in different parts of the world is addressed in the second section of the report. Among the issues discussed are the work of U.N. agencies, and the change of vocabulary that is masquerading the emergence of worrisome changes in the world.  Silvano Maria Tomasi, the Holy See Permanent Observer at the UN in Geneva, has talked about the change of the U.N. vocabulary several times.  Most recently, Tomasi appealed the international community to defend the «universality of Human Rights», that already «foresees and provides for the prevention of discrimination.  To propose particular rights [for specific groups] weakens the principle of the universality of rights».

The drafters of the report conclude its introduction stating that «we think that the salient need evident in 2010 is the urgency of witnessing, sanctifying and martyrdom of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Our suggestion for the future is not to separate the diverse aspects of the Social Doctrine of the Church, but to keep them together in the authentic Christian life of the Church. Witnessing, sanctity and martyrdom remind us of this need. Without it, the Social Doctrine of the Church would surrender to the ferocious secularization currently under way, and would lose sight of the primacy of God».

Ultimately, there is the need to free the Social Doctrine of the Church for it to become the path to peace.

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 final goal is the integral disarmament. The path to reach it is the human integral development. And the diplomatic impact is a necessary tool in order to let all the countries be conscious of the need to gain the integral human development, as well as they need to gain an international multilateral policy brought to the common good.

This underlined Francis Assisi Chullikat, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, in his address to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, the last February, 13^th. One of the reasons why the Holy See is Permanent Observer – and not Full Member – to the United Nations Assembly resides in its participations to these sessions. As a Full Member, the Holy See would be obliged to vote, and its vote could be politically used. As a Permanent Observer, the Holy See maintain its super partes prerogatives, and at the same time it can have a considerable diplomatic impact.

In his speech, Chullikat underlined five aspects. First, the scope of the ATT, that – according to the Holy See – 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 criteria for application of the treaty maintain reference 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». And then, Chullikat admonished that «the capacity for 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». More: «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 organisations – 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».

These five aspects are part of a well defined program. On one side, the need to diminish the demand for the arms market, favoring the peace and education processes. In this sense, Holy See internationally sustained the proposal not to patent inventions that can be dangerous for human being. This lack of patenting would make the arm production unprofitable, and could be a strong deterrent in the fabrication and invention of new arms and a good tool to get to the integral disarmament.

On the other side, it is obvious that favoring peace and education processes means that Holy See is to pay more attention to the people’s development («The new name of peace is development», Paul VI wrote in the encyclical letter Populorum Progressio in 1967) and to develop the most possible multilateral diplomacy, in order to take into consideration the need of all the countries – even the smallest ones (several times Holy See criticized the G-meetings – G8, G20 – and auspicated a reform of the United Nations). It is to defend the poorest countries that Holy See requested to frame the Arms Trade Treat in order to protect all the arms – and not the restricted group considered in the United Nations Register – from the illicit traffic. An illicit traffic that – in case of war – would favor the richest countries and would disadvantage the poorest countries.

The final draft of the document will be in July. But, until now, Holy See brought on an almost solitary fight to broad the Treaty, even if recently United Kingdom – at the end of the visit of the Delegation sent by Cameron administration to celebrate the 30 years of diplomatic relations between United Kingdom and Holy See – backed Holy See in its effort.

And also Mexico is now officially backing Holy See effort. Organized crime  also cherishes from the  black marketeering  of the small weapons. And the fight to the organized crime – that cause about 60 thousand victims a year -  i.e. the narcoguerra launched a couple of years ago by president Calderon, is topical in Mexico. So, in July Holy See will be able to count on the backing of United Kingdom and Mexico for the ATT. Hopefully, other countries will back Holy See’s effort, and another brick will be put in the wall of peace.

«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’».

Saturday, the 3^rd of March 2012, Antonio Fazio got the Fiaccola d’oro, the golden torch – a prize inspired to the vision of the mother of Saint Dominic de Guzman: when she gave the saint to light, she saw a dog with a torch in his mouth that was running enlighting world. The prize, conferred by Circolo San Tommaso d’Aquino Onlus, is dedicated to people that are able to “enlight” with their ideas. In Aquino, when he got Fiaccola d’Oro, he chronicled the monetary European politics from the end of the Second World War to now; from Bretton Woods Conference– when the dollar became the only currency convertible in gold – to the Nixons’ decision to unilaterally suspend the convertibility of Us dollars in gold. From there, a laissez-faire economy followed: the banks now strike currency (not coins). Fazio underlined that  the root cause of today’s economic woes is the growth of excessive credit and monetary liquidity in the past few decades, which, in turn, inflated asset bubbles and set off a succession of debt and confidence crises. It also held that the lack of regulatory controls on international finance exacerbated the problem — in other words, that the pace of economic globalization has been out of control.

What to do now? Look back to the Treaty of Rome (1957), that gave birth to the first embryo of European Union, in order to «adjust» the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), which is the basis of the European Union of today. «The treaty of Rome – Fazio remindes – emphasizes development; the treaty of Maastricht emphasizes the market. The treaty of Rome also contains a strong reference to subsidiarity – it was Pius XI to introduce this issue in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno».

Europe and supranational authorities

Is sufficient to look back to the treaty of Rome? «Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority», the reflection published last October by Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, went beyond: because of the instability of the economy, the world now requires «a system of government for the economy and international finance». Once world leaders recognize – the Council argued – that increasing global interdependence is forcing countries to move beyond a Westphalian, or State-based, international order, they will be more prepared to cede their own sovereignty in the interests of global humanity’s common good.

Considering the Church’s history and its social doctrine, the call for a supranational authority is not a surprise. The devastation of World War II brought senior European Catholics to outline a project for peace, to overcome the shadows of the past. Prominent Catholics such as the former French Prime Minister Robert Schuman were central players in the processes set in motion by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Six years later, Pope John XXIII endorsed the idea of a world authority, a call reiterated in all subsequent Popes’ social teachings.

Where, if not in Aquino?

«Where, if not in Aquino? [...] If you are not the first disciples of Thomas Aquinas, what could the others say?» It is September, 14^th 1974. Paul VI addresses to the town of Aquino at the end of his journey in the places of Sain Thomas (Montecassino abbey, where Thomas studied; Fossanova Abbey, where Thomas ended his life, while travelling to the Council of Lyon; a passage – not a stop – to the Castle of Roccasecca, that in Thomas’ times was part of the territory of Aquino, and where the Doctor Angelicus was born), the Pope finally reaches Aquino. There, Thomas wrote his last autograph letter to Bernardo Ayglerio, abbot of Montecassino, while he was heading to the Council of Lyon in 1274.  The crowd that welcomes Paul VI is incredibly warm. And the Pope speaks off the cuff.

His speech arouses consciences.  «What am I going to say to you, citizens of Aquino? Needles to say to be happy and proud to be descendents and fellow citizens of such a great man, a saint, a doctor of the Church, one of the biggest characters in the history of humanity, that uncased the doctrine of the Church in a way that maybe no one else in the story was able to do. […] Let us wish you – recommend you – what is now of your responsibility and of your spiritual responsiveness: be worthy to have the name of Thomas Aquinas».

The story of Thomas Aquinas reminds us that the Middle Ages were already a globalized world. Thomas studies in Montecassino, then in Naples, then in Paris, then in Koln with Albert the Great, then in Paris again, and finally he goes to Naples to found a stadium generale. Nowadays, he would be called visiting professor. In the Middle Ages, he was just a cultured person. A cultured person to value.

There is much to reconsider about the Middle Ages. The Black Legend that depicted Medieval Age as «dark centuries» had been invented during the 18^th Century during the Enlightenment, and it resisted through Romanticism and Evolutionism. But – in the “long” millennium between 5^th and 15^th century – everything and the reverse of everything happen. In that time – and not only in that time – there had been the Barbaric invasions and the stakes of Inquisition; but there had also been the starting of modern sciences and techniques, the splendor of Gothic Cathedral and Scholastic Rationality, the Foundation of Universities and of the economic-financial system that still exists today.

Middle ages and population growth

«Between 1000 and 1200 – Antonio Fazio, former governor of the Bank of Italy, said the last May to a convention about the encyclical Mater et Magistra – world population rapidly increase. In Europe, Medieval civilization flourishes with towns, trades, universities of Paris, Bononia, Naples, Oxford. Until 1350, the population growth continues: population in Europe is more than the double of year 1000. At the half of the 14^th century, the number of men and women passed from 30 million to about 75 million. During the Centuries when the power of Rome rose and developed, European population – from 400 b.C. to 200 b.C. – doubled. Then, a period of demographic decline that last until 600 after Christ follow. During these years, the power of Rome disappears. Southern Europe and Italy are invaded by barbarous, civil and economic life reverts. Just the ecclesiastic (Christian) centres of power and civilization are saved. At a later time, the culture of the big Benedictins monasteries will develop. Only after the crisis of the last Medieval Age – the second half of the 18th century – and so during the 19^th and 20^th Century, there had been in Europe and in the World an always higher demographic resumption».

The problem of «common good» comes out from there: how could we manage economy in favor of the wealth of the globality of the population of the world? Yet, Thomas Aquinas was already aware of it. So aware that he outlined it in De regimine Principum (On the government of princes), a small treatise sketched out to answer the King of Cyprus that asked Thomas how to govern. «When men – Thomas writes – see that the common good is not under the command of one only person, they do not take care of it as it was another’s, but as it was their own thing. This is the reason why, when the administration of a town is in the hands of annual magistrates, this town is more powerful than a king that owns three or four towns». This is a pivotal principle of the Social Doctrine of the Church: the subsidiarity. On the bases of this principle, recently Benedict XVI praised the cooperative credit banks, actually the fourth banking group in Italy. «What impelled supporters – the Pope said – to associate with each other in cooperative-type organizations, often with the crucial contribution of priests, was not only financial need but also the wish to experience unity and solidarity that might lead to bridging the financial gaps and social conflicts between the different groups».

The «social question»

Let us get back to the story of demographic development. The development of population provides economical, political and especially cultural responses. Industrial revolution brings an income that is excessively concentrated in the hands of capitalists. Workers are used. They are only rich of children: the proletarians workers. The social question arises. Cultural, moral and then political responses to the social question are the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and – at a later time – the encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII. This encyclical is anticipated by actions and intervention in favor of the new poors brought on by ecclesiastical people (bishop von Ketteler in Germany; Frederick Ozanam in France; don Giovanni Bosco and Giuseppe Toniolo in Italy). The social question is then moved to an international level. Paul VI writes the encyclical Populorum Progressio in 1967. Pope Montini prophetically tackles the new issues, that are connected with globalization. But the International Monetary Fund will take 40 years to make of Globalization and inequality the headline of his annual report. It is 2007.

«Economy and its development – Fazio explains – are human actions. Benedict XVI, in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, makes a relevant step forward in defining the Social Doctrine. He takes the teachings of John XXIII, Paul VI and finally of John Paul II on the importance of Christian values of the announcement of the Gospel in order to improve society, and economy as well. Benedict XVI affirms that these values can, must influence the choices for the investments – by the ones economic and social development definitely depends – in order to orientate them to realize an integral humanism. Economic wealth and global peace descend from this integral humanism».

Fazio combines the solidity of his economic thought with the passion for the Aquinas. The reinforcement of Italian banking system was one of the key points of the Fazio’s economic job. He fell the risk that the possible indiscriminate takeover of Italian banks by big international banks would eventually let fall the “architecture” of Italian economy, made up by the little credit institution promoted by don Luigi Sturzo. The system gave birth to several credit institutions: Banche Popolari (Popular banks), Casse di risparmio (mutual savings banks) and Casse Rurali. All of these institutions were attentive to the small companies and anchored to the real economy.

Don Luigi Sturzo was a Catholic priest and politician. He founded the Partito Popolare, and his the «father» of Christian Democracy – the Party of Catholic inspiration founded in Italy after the World War II. The fathers of Christian Democracy met in Camaldoli in 1943, to write the so-called Codice di Camaldoli (code of Camaldoli), the document that contained the “Catholic” proposals to rebuild Italy after the war.

Looking back to the roots

And who could ever think that there is a lot of Thomas Aquinas inspiring those who wrote the Code of Camaldoli? They had been taught in the Movimento Laureati  (Movement of the Catholic Graduates) of the Azione Cattolica by mgr. Giovambattista Montini – who will then began Pope Paul VI. Montini loved to go stick to the point: first of all, he wanted his boys to go and study the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. «All the Social Doctrine of the Church – Marcelo Sànchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, says – is around the issues raised by Thomas Aquinas: the Common Good, the Human Person, the Justice. According to Thomas Aquinas, justice is the first attitude of the social conscience. Justice has not been invented by socialists, Marxist or Liberation Theologians. There are also other issues that originated in Christianity and that have been then secularized. As well».

The problem is even deeper than this. And it was Benedict XVI himself, in his conference «Europe in the crisis of cultures» (the last one he held as cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) to notice that «there is a new moralism today whose key words are justice, peace, and the conservation of creation—words that evoke some of the essential moral values that we do in fact need». But – Ratzinger added – «this moralism remains vague and so slides, almost inevitably, into the sphere of partisan politics. It is above all a claim made on others, and is all too little a personal duty for our daily lives. What, in fact, does “justice” mean? Who defines it? What is conducive to peace? In the last decades we have seen in our streets and in our squares how pacifism can deviate into destructive anarchism and terrorism. The political moralism of the Sixties, whose roots are far from dead, succeeded in drawing young people full of ideals. But its basic thrust was wrong, because it lacked a serene rationality and because, in the end, it valued political utopia above the dignity of the individual man; indeed, it proved capable of going so far as to despise man inthe name of its lofty goals. The political moralism that we have lived  through, and are living through still, not only does not open the way to regeneration, it actually blocks it. The same also holds, therefore, for a Christianity and a theology that reduce the core of Jesus’ message, the “kingdom of God,” to the “values of the kingdom,” while identifying these values with the main watchwords of political moralism and proclaiming them, at the same time, to be the synthesis of all religions—all the while forgetting about God, despite the fact that it is precisely He who is the subject and the cause of the kingdom of God. What is left in his place are big words (and values) that are open to every kind of abuse.».

The document of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is ponderously titled – «Towards reforming the international financial and monetary system in the context of global public authority» -  and its remarks were the most specific. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace calls for the advent of a new world centered on a universal political authority. The idea is not unprecedented – it was previously evoked in the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris of John XXIII. The document also proposed taxation measures on financial transactions (and suggested that revenues could contribute to the creation of a “world reserve fund” to support the economies of countries hit by crisis); forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds that make support conditional on “virtuous” behavior aimed at developing the real economy; more effective management of financial shadow markets that are largely uncontrolled today. Such moves would be designed to make the global economy more responsive to the needs of the person, and – the document says – less «subordinated to the interests of countries that effectively enjoy a position of economic and financial advantage».

The path to the document had been long and transparent. In May, after a media briefing with journalists to announce a conference about the Mater et Magistra, mons. Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, announced the journalist that another media briefing was up to come, and it would have been about a future note for the reform of the monetary system. The Vatican Secretary of State was obviously informed. There had been several sketches of the document, as usual. The first sketch was drawn down by Michel Camdessus, former president of the International Monetary Fund, consultant of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and  part of the French delegation at the last G20 meeting. Then, document passed through several hand, bankers like Antonio Fazio – former governor of the Bank of Italy – and Ignazio Musu – economist and part of the advisory board of the Bank of Italy. The document shields itself with many citations from previous social encyclicals, and actually there is nothing so new.

In the Caritas in Veritate there is also a paragraph – the so-called «world authority paragraph» – in which it is stated that

«in the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a trongly 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. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority. . . »

Even Caritas in veritate had been sketched by many hands. An encyclical is such an important text – it is addressed to all the men of good will, and it is inspiration and part of the diplomatic work of the Holy See – that everybody would like to stress it to its own part. Among the people that glossed the Caritas in veritate,  there were economist like Stefano Zamagni and Luigino Bruni, but also the then governor of the Bank of Italy Mario Draghi and the then Italian minister of Economy Giulio Tremonti. Even Ettore Gotti Tedeschi had been involved in “glossing” the encyclical. He was still not president of the IOR (Institute for Religious Works), but he was already sure that the economical collapse came from the lack of children. No children, no creativity, no hope for the future, no economy: this simple four-words-speech-scheme is the Gotti Tedeschi’s favorite one.

After the release of the encyclical, there had been a sort of split on how to consider Caritas in veritate. Laissez-faire theorists were critical about some economical analysis, but always underlined how good was the “make more sons” line. Social economy theorists loved more the part that evoked the tunes of Populorum Progressio, the Paul VI social encyclical, in which the Pope claimed that «the new name of peace is development». The fight of interpretations was – and still is – intense. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was invited to talk to the meeting about Caritas in veritate without either informing  the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. And the medias were in some way divided between these two lines of the encyclical, and were totally unaware that the truth is in the middle.

The most prophetical part of the encyclical was the so-called “world authority” paragraph. In fact, this has been interpreted by many Catholics a sort of “big leviathan”. But there is a deeper reason why the Holy See has been doing this proposal. And one can find these reason looking back in history to see when this world order had been stated. The Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October of 1648 in Osnabrück and Münster. The treaties resulted from the big diplomatic congress, thereby initiating a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of a sovereign state governed by a sovereign. In the event, the treaties’ regulations became integral to the constitutional law of the Holy Roman Empire. It was there that the Holy See began to the fight not to be ejected from the concert of nations. It was there that the Holy See became to be subjected to the secularizing process. An increasing lack of influence that brought the Vatican State to be attacked and then defeated by national States, and to sign agreements with the States – which are the various Concordats.

Peace of Westphalia is quoted in the last document released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and it is not a case. In the last years, many have talked about a New World Order. This new world order had been theorized in several think-tanks all over the world – from the Trilateral Commission to Bildeberg Group – and in the mean time finance prevailed on policy. The new world order will be an economic-based one. This seems to be the time for the change to come. So, while the Holy See was going on in signing Concordats with the national States, the world governance got always more supranational. The scenario is similar to the one of the Peace of Westphalia times. Within the Holy See, many are aware of the risk for the Church – and religions as well – to be put aside. This is the sense of the call for common rules and a world authority with universal competences.

When the document of Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace had been released, there had been a slight disagreement within the Vatican Curia. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the IOR, complained to have not been even consulted during the preparation of the document. No consulation was the fact that when one then delves into the analyses and specific proposals, it is also stunning how strong the divergence is between what is written in the document of the pontifical council for justice and peace and what has been maintained for some time in the financial commentaries published in L’Osservatore Romano by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. For example, not even one line in the document attributes the global economic and financial crisis to the collapse in the birth rate and to the resulting higher and higher costs of population aging.

 Gotti Tedeschi did not remain silent. On November 4  L’Osservatore Romano published an editorial by him that reads like a complete repudiation of the document of the Pontifical Council for justice and Peace. Gotti Tedeschi wrote that «the true origins of the collapse of birthrates and the consequences of the increase of taxes on the GDP to absorb the costs of the ageing of the population were wrongly interpreted. The effects of the decisions made to compensate for these phenomena were underestimated, especially with the de-localization of production and consumer debt». For the president of IOR,  «to deflate the total debt – public, banking, business and family – and bring it back to pre-crisis levels, that is, to around 40% less, it is possible, though not advisable, to cancel a part of the debt with a type of “preventive agreement,” where creditors are paid at 60%».

More. Someone inside the Roman Curia – sources whisper that it was Gotti Tedeschi himself, very active indeed (he also wrote down an article for the Italian magazine Tempi) – complained about the document with the cardinal Bertone, secretary of State. Medias report that Bertone complained to have not been even informed by document. It was not true, since he had been constantly kept informed of the document. And this is what he said, sources from inside the Curia report. Probably, the truth is in the middle: pressed by the vain discontents memeber of the Curia that were protesting, Bertone said that he knew about the document, not about his contents, and he managed a summit to solve the question. The news about a summit convened in the Secretariat of State on November, 4^th leaked to the press. The conclusion of the summit was that this binding order would be transmitted to all of the offices of the curia: from that point on, nothing in writing would be released unless it had been inspected and authorized by the Secretariat of State.

This is how the red alarm for the new document of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has been defused. In the mean time, very few know about the international activities of the Holy See, and the financial transparency brought on with the establishment of the Authority for Financial Information can have some contraindication. The game is on the international impact of the Holy See. The same game the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace played by asking for an World Authority with Universal Competences. Since the world is now globally ruled, the Holy See want to give is contribution to write common rules. In order these common rules will be for the common good of humanity, and not just for the good of few. Will this commitment be consumed in the bonfire of vanities?

Public opinion got again aware of the Green Pope when Wikileaks began publishing the Us Embassy dispatches about the Vatican. The first cable about the Holy See was titled «The Green Pope Supports US Path Forward From Copenhagen». It tells about a meeting that took place on the 20^th of January between an embassy officer and Dr. Paolo Conversi, according to the cable the  «point person on climate change» for the Holy See’s Secretariat of State. Conversi agreed to encourage countries «discreetly to associate themselves with the Accord, as opportunities arise». The Copenhagen Accord is a non-binding expression of commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions and to help developing countries adapt to anticipate climate changes.

Other cables talk about the pressure of Us government on the Vatican to make the Holy See change its position about Gmo. The Holy See refused, but promoted a sophisticated criticism stating that «a large diffusion of Gmo Food in developing countries would create a form of economic imperialism useful to enrich multinational corporations». Then, Marcelo Sanchezo Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, held a speech during which he stated that transgenic agriculture can be useful only in order to alleviate hunger in the world, but – on the other hand – transgenic agriculture should not become a way of speculating against the social justice. Sanchez Sorondo underlined that developing transgenic seeds to fight hunger is «a positive fact» that may help the assertion of «justice among goods and people». This statement was considered as a Vatican statement in favour of Gmo. That’s not true. The speech opened the debate inside the Church itself, which offers various standpoints about the issue.

Actually, there is not an official Vatican position on climate change, nor on Gmo because there is still nothing certain. The contribution of the Vatican to the debate is in order to alleviate world hunger. Osservatore Romano, Holy See newspaper underlined a couple of years ago that the problem was that everybody wanted the Church to be part of the debate, and everybody wanted the Church to be in favour of any topic. Vatican opinion is highly requested and it has a strong impact on public opinion. Another Wikileaks cable reports that «even more important than the Vatican’s lobbying assistance, however, is the influence the pope’s guidance can have on public opinion in countries with large Catholic majorities and beyond».

These are misleading analysis. True, the Vatican installed solar panels on Aula Paolo VI (its 10,000-seats main auditorium building), and it arranged to reforest land in Hungary to offset Vatican City’s carbon emissions. Benedict XVI considers the respect of the creation as a more in deep topic. Taking care of creation implies a relationship between the creator and what the creator created. So, the Vatican as a prudent approach to eco-issues: take care of the earth, but don’t consider the man as an intruder, and don’t fall on “Malthusian” adrift. Human being lives on the earth, and needs to take care of the earth to respect himself and the future generations. From Genesis to Kyoto Protocol, it’s always the same. Even former Popes deserved to environmental issues the same attentions. Pope Paul VI, in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, linked heavy consumption to injustice, declaring that «no one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lacks the bare necessities of life… The earth belongs to everyone, not the rich». John Paul II added a spiritual dimension in Centesimus annus, critiquing «a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards having rather than being». The late Pope so urged people to «create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of the creation».

Benedict XVI is in continuity with this statements of his predecessors. He indissolubly links the care to creation to the car to human being. A proof is in the themes the Pope chose for World Day Peace: truth (In Truth, Peace, 2006), dignity of human being (The Human Person, the heart of peace, 2007), unity of human family (The Human Family, a Community of peace, 2008), the poverty issue (Fight the poverty, build peace, 2009) and finally guardianship of creation (If you want cultivate peace, protect the creation, 2010). This is the path: from human being, to the community of human beings, to the care human being must have to the freedom of the other, as stated in the last message for the World Day of Peace, Religious Freedom, a path to peace. From Genesis to Kyoto, attention is always focused on the human being. Ecology of nature, but of the man first.