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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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’».