International Policy(3): The Vatican's Foreign Policy
This article from the archives of National Interest ( a quarterly journal of international affairs and diplomacy) gives an account of the history and dynamics of the Vatican's Foreign Policy. It was written over ten years ago but is still today a fascinating overview of the international policies of what author James Kurth calls "the most ancient and enduring of European institutions". The following extract is part of the conclusions reached by Kurth. To what extent do you think that the author is right in his judgement?. From findarticles.com:
"For more than two centuries, the Papacy has been engaged in a great struggle against the most modern products of the modern age, the ideas of the Enlightenment and the secular powers that have promoted and imposed them. The great struggle of the nineteenth century was against France and its protege, Italy, against the liberal nation-state. The great struggle of the twentieth century was against the Soviet Union, which, by carrying state power to its totalitarian extreme, represented the idolatry of the state. It is possible that the great struggle of the twenty-first century will be with the United States, which, by carrying liberalism to its individualist extreme, represents the idolatry of the self"
The Vatican's Foeign Policy by James Kurth - National Interest
Papacy and International Relations links
International Policy (2): United Nations Reform
International Policy (1): Web of Influence
posted by Robert Micallef at 4/06/2005 04:42:00 AM
Hmm...reading of this article was not an easy job. However, here you can find the fruits.
Firstly, the article compare things too varying in different fields to say at the end, that The Church (or Vatican) has "defeated" Soviet imperium, Nazi German...
Any state is an institution made on artificial basis. But The Church is not an typical institution with capital I. Any institution i am aware of has the basic principle (serves) to promote or ease reaching some objectives of the members (any state, EU, UN...). But church is the only Body whose members think that their interests are alike (or less)important than interests of the other people. Church needs no charts, no laws, no police ...it has its bible, sermons and conscience. But the think really making up the The Church are people, people who decided freely about their faith. To The Soviet empire people were born, to the Nazi army people were manipulated, but the way of God people choose.
I do not consider changes emerging in Latin America as a crucial,or endangering the formal Catolic Unity. A dialog has been started up among various Churches, at which a John Paul II had an enormous share. And I think this is the general trend. Not to go further away, but to come closer.
Idea that the great struggle of the 21st century will be hold between America and Vatican does not trully fit with my mind. The "idolatry of self" that should be the object of this war, could lead more likely to growth of the Church than fall of USA. Where else should people fed up with commerciality or consume society look for Consolation???
History of no other organisation has been as long-continuing as the history of Church. This entity influenced most of the world and as we can see in these days, its ideas and philosophy reached all continents. I do not want to think about all history of the Church, but I must mention that this organisation has committed lots of wrongs for its long period history. The silence (or non-response) of the Pope Pius XII at the time of the Holocaust was one of the worst faults of the Papacy for last century. I think that policy of Papacy has changed ever since, but what has not been changed is basic philosophy coming out of Bible. Furthermore, I think the Papacy’s attitude on international affairs has come closer to the people since the end of WW II.
As I see the basic philosophy of the Christianity and faith are tools which determine not only Papacy’s policy but can also inspire insomnious people to fight for their rights and independency as it was in Poland in 1989. Much more worshippers live in poor and advanced countries then in rich capitalistic countries. Distressful or poor people use to be much religious. Nowadays, there is a world trend of deepening gap between rich and poor countries (between first and thirst world) and this can be a matter of the struggle between USA as the richest world-power and Papacy with its socio-economic policy. This situation has been same for decades, but at the time of cold war there was a common enemy “Marxism” which partly connected USA and Church. I see this ‘struggle’ as positive and useful contrariety which can helps to solve some (economic) problems of poor countries and tries to reduce of US’s aggressiveness but it never really endangers US‘s world position.
when u read these artice ,u dont see a Vatican as a spiritual state but as a state who want to put his influenc in every part of the word and we can see the church as a institution which want more than just the people to belive in good or to read the bible but we see it as an important acter in the word politice. The history of the Vatican is made by comparison of its interse of the church with inters of the states and ,organization that are influance in the word .I dont think that the church ever in it history fight for the christian people or for the poverty in the word but for the diffusion of its power.Every stat that is no adaptable for
church ideas or that is aganist the church is a bed influence on the word fate.So the last one in these time is United States with its liberal ideas.
The idea strugge of US and Vatican in this centry i think will not be so important as the article want to show ,but the Vatican alweys will have its psychology of makeing people belive in its bless power.
aurora
There was nothing in this article that I would find especially interesting except a couple of paragraphs at the end, which make a remark to the Post-Modern Age, American liberalism and its fight against the communism.
No thoughtful authors could ever write that the struggle between liberalism and communism ‘was likely to go on for centuries’. Communism always was a cul-de-sac (and it’s no Monday morning quarterback). I truly believe no such regime could last for centuries. No thoughtful author could ever compare the economic struggle with the religious one (between Christianity and Islam), either. It might be kind of a heretical notion, but the existence and spreading of free market institutions (and one may call them liberal) have nothing to do with the goings-on in our heads. In other words there is a significant difference between the struggles mentioned above and one cannot compare them.
I am not so interested in Vatican´s polisy. As my Granny says: One religion will be fine. I think that there will not be such a big fighting between USA and Vatican in next 20 years. One more rival exists. Luckily USA and Vatican can join power against Islam. James Kurth can revide his article.
I saw Pope once in my life by chance. I admired John Paul II, he was a great person. But I do not want to spend end of my life like he.
Now it is not clear, who will be a new Pope. Oldest one? Or Italian? I do not know. And I do not want to know. It will not change world so much.
I especially do not agree with Vatican view to condoms, homosexuals and so on. Their opinion will not improve situation for exemple in Africa.
I would like to point out one distinctive difference between Vatican and any other state. I agree with Jan Sklenar in many things. This is one of them. Vatican as a Holy Seed is in fact something like Head of the biggest body anyone could imagine. Christianity is without a doubt the most widespread religion in the world (33% of world population, second to Christianity is Islam with “only” 20%). Since the believers are widespread all around the globe, we cannot talk in this case about any form of state.
There is as well completely different attitude in making Vatican’s diplomacy than there is in other “normal” states. Holy Seed is I think focusing its policy towards any repression of human rights or where power is being abused. Where as e.g. USA`s diplomacy deals with political, economical and other-factors problem-countries. So it happened that in times of formar USSR Vatican and USA stood together and were applying very similar diplomacy. But I would say that in some way it was just coincidence because USSR was both a threat to USA and violating human rights.
When I read about Christian Democratic Party, I started to realize on how many people it can have influence and vice versa, how many people can through this particular party influence politics. This article definitely helped me to make a connection between world of religion and politics. But when you think about it more, even now, when Christian Democrats don’t have as many votes as they would wish to have, this party is very important and powerful in politics. People tend to vote right or left wing. It may look like voters don’t actually vote the party according to the program but they vote every time for opposition. Once a government with big party (this time Social Democratic Party - CSSD), and in case of elections opposition party – ODS would win. It looks that every time one party gets a chance to rule a country and since it looks like an impossible task, they don’t accomplish promised things and are changed for opposition. Definitely after the era of ODS, there will be left-wing government again. But because big parties cannot rule by themselves only (it is very hard to receive more than 50 of all votes), they usually need a coalition partner. It usually is centered party like Christian Democrats. And because a consensus (between coalition partners) has to be made every time some law needs to be approved, Christian Democrats in fact can in certain way rule the country as well. If they don’t like prepared law, they can disagree with its approval and so it will not pass. If the agree, law becomes valid (after additional agenda, like signature of Presidents etc.). So even though Christian Democrats are a small party, to a certain extend they can still dictate conditions to its big coalition partner.
Everything is about influence. If you look at a history of church as an institution, you can find plenty of proofs.
Why all of these "struggles" took part in past? Church always tried to defend their interests (to shape as much people as possible) and when came anybody, whose effort was to dilute an influence of the church, they naturally reacted against him. Of course I don’t want lighten a contribution in falling of communism in Middle Europe. But I am trying to focus on church as institution from global view (my view :-))
There was a lot of violence caused by church, when they tried to enlarge their numbers in the past. In 15th century there was a movement of John Hus in Czech Kingdom. John Hus preached that the true faith is inside the people not in institution and its wealth. What did the church made? They applied strength in several battles against this movement. Because of these events and few others (Habsburg monarchy, communism) there are a lot of atheists in Czech rep.
I appreciate the role of Vatican in inter-religion relations and many others (social).
But there will be next struggles because of keeping this influence.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home