«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’».

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?