Recent and numerous articles in the secular and religious press on the appearance of officials of the Roman Catholic Church before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Children have rekindled the ruminative nature of a topic that occasionally haunts my quiet moments.
The issue that has troubled me for sometime is the co-mingling of a sovereign territory (Vatican City State) and the Roman Catholic Church (a religion). These two entities do not necessarily share common goals, objectives, and means; they can be mutually supportive, even if by confusion or subterfuge--intended or unintended. Each entity has its own rights and duties within the international community of nations and among the religions of the world. In an earlier day, these two dimensions were co-mingled as European adventurers explored the New World and lay claim to these "newfound" lands for their sponsoring monarchs and in the name of a universal deity known only to themselves. Today this comingling is seen in the Roman Catholic Church's response to the sexual abuse of children by members of its clergy.
Wikipedia has been very helpful as I fleshed out these thoughts on this topic and attempted to organized them in such a way that they reflected "the facts." (I will not cite this source other than to credit the website in general; any errors in my use of this background material are mine alone.)
The pope is the "absolute elected monarch" of the Vatican City State and the infallible leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The governance--spiritual and pastoral--of the latter is properly referred to as the Holy See. The Vatican City State does not have its own diplomatic service; the Holy See conducts diplomatic relations for both bodies. The Holy See has permanent observer status in the United Nations General Assembly. Why does the Holy See have this status? Why doesn't the Vatican City State have this status, even if the former conducts diplomatic relations on behalf of the latter? Are there any other religious bodies that enjoy such status or would be so eligible?
How does this comingling create problems? The Holy See's representatives before the UN Committee claimed that whomever they represented only had responsibility for children residing within Vatican City State. Therefore, it could not be held responsible--directly or indirectly--for the sexual abuse of children occurring in any other country. Yet the Holy See clearly oversees the credentialing of clergy and sets and enforces standards of behavior. A cursory read of the secular press provides amply evidence that the arm of the Holy See charged with this task ignores or overrides the recommendations of local bishops in disciplining local clergy who have abused children. As a sovereign territory, which maintains diplomatic relationships (embassies) with numerous countries around the globe, the Vatican City State (Or is it the Holy See?) claims diplomatic immunity not only for members of its diplomatic corps but also bishops, archbishops, and cardinals (for example: Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston). The claim for those not members of the diplomatic corps may be more properly a claim of dual citizenship and thereby an enjoyment of protection from the judicial system of a foreign power. How is it that church officials, not just members of the diplomatic corps, have Vatican City State passports? Who qualifies for such dual citizenship with the Vatican City State--lay persons, missioners (lay or ordained), leaders of religious orders and societies, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals?
In my judgment, these issues need to be clarified. In terms of its relationship to the United Nations as a permanent observer member and signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Children, is the Holy See representing the Vatican City State or the Roman Catholic Church or both? As noted above, the Holy See, responsible for the spiritual and pastoral governance of the Church, performs diplomatic relations for both itself and the Vatican City State. If it is acting in the name only of the Vatican City State, then the very narrow sphere of responsibility its representatives claim may well be technically accurate. If that is the claim, how can these same individuals in the very same context take exception to selected terms of the Convention which was accepted by the Vatican City State and possibly by the Holy See? This appears to be comparable to the question that forms the core of those court cases wherein corporations claim lay claim to an exercise of its religious freedom to avoid compliance with certain elements of the Affordable Care Act.
The responsibility to sort out these issues rests with Church officials (either the Holy See or Vatican City State or both), United Nations leadership, and the governments with which the Holy See and/or the Vatican City State have diplomatic relations. I seriously doubt this will occur, with the possible exception of the United Nations. These other parties have much to lose, if such a distinction is made and implemented. Nation states get to claim the sanction (or is it sanctification?) of a religious authority and the deity which it represents; this sanction may not be deserved. The Church is able to maintain itself as a geo-political entity legitimizing the trappings of a monarchical Medieval Europe and the associated historical claim to a kingdom of this world. The "maintenance costs" of the Church's position may well be: (1)an incalculable loss of credibility among the world religions, (2)an incentive for other religious denominations to ally themselves with those currently in power in their host countries at the expense of their otherworldly visions, and (3)a restraint on the national and international moral voices with which religions claim to speak.
