Patrick and Rick directly on this site and Steve indirectly have raised an important and relevant question about the Holy See’s recent, unsigned statement concerning the publication of cartoons in European media that has enraged members of the Islamic world. I am an insignificant voice in these matters, but I have tried to study carefully, objectively, and truthfully how the Holy See conducts itself in the manner that it does in the international order. What I say has no official voice; rather, it is simply the collected observations of a student of these matters. Still, the little I have gathered in my studies may be beneficial to those who read MOJ and to those who contribute to it.
A starting point is the need to remember that presently the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 174 countries in the world, including the US, members of the European Union, many Arab or Moslem countries, and others. Absent from this list are the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia. One can argue the merits of diplomatic relations, but they are a fact of life. It is sometimes said that diplomats—like lawyers—do not receive high marks in the public’s estimation. Regardless of one’s take on diplomats, they often provide the last opportunity for using reasoned discourse rather than force to resolve the problems of the world. An illustration follows: not all that long ago at the UN—a place where the tensions of the world are often evident, the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not speaking to one another at all. Even their harsh exchanges no longer took place. A delegate of the Holy See happened to be in the vicinity of an American diplomat and an Iranian diplomat who were not talking to one another. He introduced a topic of conversation that attracted the attention of these two diplomats. Then they were drawn into a conversation with one another. Did the conversation lead to improved relations? That I cannot answer. But this seems certain: a small door was opened a crack, a door that had been previously sealed from both sides. Did the world become a better or safer place because this conversation took place? Josef Stalin was correct: the Pope has no divisions of military power. He does, through his diplomatic service, have a small group of professional diplomats whose job it is to use moral argument and reasoned discourse to make the world a better place for all, including the Catholic community.
Let me add a few observations about this last point. In the US we do not have much evidence that the Catholic community is persecuted today as it was in the past. As Rick’s link to the Jody Bottum’s article points out, it has not disappeared entirely. Indeed, in the last few years the tone of anger and criticism has increased by members of the Church and those outside of it including influential elements of the mass media. With the exception of the one priest in Baltimore who was shot by an abuse victim several years ago, no one is yet taking deadly aim at Catholics in the US as best I can tell. But this is not the situation in other parts of the world. Clerics, men and women religious, and many laity have been physically targeted, sometimes with deadly force. Why? Because of their faith. The Holy See’s diplomatic service is well aware of this and, in its typically discreet way, tries to alleviate matters in dangerous, hostile environments. Sometimes this careful and prudential activity has led to the death of papal diplomats as the assassination of Archbishop Michael Courtney, the then papal nuncio in Burundi, demonstrated just a little over a couple of years ago. Early this week a Jesuit priest was assassinated in the same country. Last week another priest was assassinated in Turkey. In sub-Continent countries, Catholics—lay and clerics alike—have suffered harassment, torture, threats of death and death itself, and the reason for this is simple: they are Catholic. In these environments strong diplomatic rebukes uttering outrage and indignation may help but outright condemnations can increase the suffering and intensify dangers rather than curb hostility and bring calm. The papal diplomatic corps found this to be the case in Europe during the 1930s and early 1940s. One’s words must be carefully crafted because good intentions do not always ensure the desired results in this far-from-perfect world of human relations. Put simply, the mission of papal diplomacy in these contexts is simple: try to do good, and avoid evil, to borrow from Thomas Aquinas. The opportunity for criticism for pursuing this task can be manifold.
But these observations need to continue a bit more. Catholic Legal Theory begins to emerge, assuming that the rule of law has a place in CLT—and I believe it does. Papal diplomacy has upheld the need of juridical instruments and institutions to further good and to forestall evil in the world. Why? Sometimes a piece of paper does not mean much to a tyrant, but it means a great deal to the Church because it is the basis for demonstrating to the rest of the world that someone has a protection which someone else has threatened. Back in 1933 Eugenio Pacelli concluded a concordat with the nascent National Socialist regime in Germany. The future pope was criticized by many for concluding an agreement with Hitler, but as lawyers, we might reflect a bit more on this concordat with Germany. Concordats are designed to protect Catholic interests in a country. When you think about it, there is no need for a concordat if the country in question respects the Church and the People of God within its territory. But if it does not, a concordat is the basis to show that the Church and God’s people have legitimate interests, and if they are violated the rule of law can help right the wrong. Cardinal Faulhaber, the Archbishop of Munich who was no friend of the Nazis, realized that Hitler wanted an agreement with the Holy See for his own propaganda purposes. That is why the Cardinal said that the Church would be hanged with this agreement; but he hastened to add: without the concordat, the Church would be hanged, drawn and quartered. Hitler may have benefited from some propaganda, but the Church, which still suffered, could point to Hitler’s infractions and his lack of good faith. If nothing else, the Church had the law on its side, and Hitler did not.
A final observation needs to be made in this posting. Papal diplomacy, while usually mindful of the local consequences of its actions, typically realizes that what it does in one area of the world will sooner or later have implications elsewhere. This is a reality of the world in which we live. To some, it may seem that there should have been far more criticism by the Church of the acts of violence and none concerning the publication of some satirical images. And that is all, but is that really all? I just spoke of an historic concordat, but today the Church continues to pursue them to protect the right of the local Church in specific countries. Recently, the Holy See has concluded several concordats with a number of European countries. These agreements contain a “protection of the right of conscience and religious beliefs” clause. These provisions are designed to protect Catholics, who out of conscience and religious belief, who might be pressured into doing some act that violates their conscience and belief. Many European States, in the exercise of their sovereignty (an exercise of subsidiarity?) have agreed to these provisions, and they are now a part of these treaties. Sadly, elements within the European Union, which have agendas to further “reproductive health rights” and universal access to “reproductive health services” (just to mention a few items), have begun to question the “legitimacy” of these concordat provisions protecting conscience and religious belief. That is strange because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acknowledge these rights of Catholics and everyone else. But, the very recent published Opinion of the Network of Independent Experts of the EU does not appear to agree with this assertion.
Like the rest of us, papal diplomats are human beings trying to do the right thing. Sometimes they succeed, but other times, they do not. For those who may be skeptical of them and their activities, we need to remember this: they are the ones who are asked to keep one eye on what they see nearby but the other eye must scan the distant horizons across the world. Why, because God’s Church and His people are everywhere, and it is this Church and these people that the diplomats have been called to serve. If their unsigned statements are disappointing to any of us, we might pause to think about what these words might mean to our sisters and brothers on distant shores. They may only be words, but words can mean a lot in a world where the rule of law is relevant. RJA sj
I've often criticized evangelicals' political priorities as being largely indistinguishable from the GOP platform. (And to be fair, many mainline denominations' priorities are curiously coextensive with the Dems' platform.) At least on the issue of global warming, that may be changing. Even aside from the substance of the global warming debate, we should welcome this development if it proves to be a harbinger of evangelicals' rediscovery of their prophetic role in American politics.
Rob
