The International Community, Organization

THE CHURCH IN GENERAL views the role of international intergovernmental organizations (such as the United Nations) in a positive manner, since these seek to apply law or reason to the resolution of international conflicts or problems relating to the common good of all nations and peoples. But to a certain extent, the Church is the "loyal opposition" of those intergovernmental organizations. She has deep-seated "reservations," expressions of which she does not withhold, when these intergovernmental organizations "address problems incorrectly" by contradicting the natural moral law, infringing upon authentic human rights and human dignity, or infringing upon the rights of the Church and its propagation of the Gospel. She hammers the following truths:

[T]he Holy See seeks to focus attention on certain basic truths: that each and every person - regardless of age, sex, religion or national background - has a dignity and worth that is unconditional and inalienable; that human life itself from conception to natural death is sacred; that human rights are innate and transcend any constitutional order; and that the fundamental unity of the human race demands that everyone be committed to building a community which is free from injustice and which strives to promote and protect the common good. . . . . It is in the light of authentic human values - recognized by peoples of diverse cultures, religious and national backgrounds across the globe - that all policy choices must be evaluated. No goal or policy will bring positive results for people if it does not respect the unique dignity and objective needs of those same people.

JP II, Letter to Mafis Sadik, March 18, 1994 (re. 1994 International Conference on Population and Development)

United Nations Headquarters, N.Y., N.Y.

It is not might, but right that ought to govern relations between peoples and nations, and this is the underlying reason behind the Church's general if conditional support for continued development of intergovernmental organizations and international agencies.

Concern for an ordered and peaceful coexistence within the human family prompts the Magisterium to insist on the need to establish "some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with effective power to safeguard, on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

(Compendium, No. 441)(quoting VII, GS No. 82)

International relations will either operate under the rule of reason, i.e, the rule of law, or some rule outside of reason, i.e., exlex. There is no exercise of power or authority or influence, however, that may be said to be outside law, in particular the natural moral law. Natural law does not come from heaven ready-made, and man is obliged to implement its basic principles in determinations in the here-and-now. For this reason:

Political authority exercised at the level of international community must be regulated by law, ordered to the common good, and respectful of the principle of subsidiarity.

(Compendium, No.441)

It is important that this rule of law grow naturally from the relations between nations and peoples; that it be endogenous and not be exogenous.

[I]t is essential that such an authority arise from mutual agreement and that it not be imposed, nor must it be understood as a kind of "global super-State."

(Compendium, No. 441)

Whatever develops in the future (if it develops)* must respect the sovereignty of the nation states and of peoples, respecting further, the principle of subsidiarity: Quoting John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in terris, the Compendium observes:

"The public authority of the world community is not intended to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of the individual political community, much less to take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public authorities of each political community, their citizens and intermediate associations can carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and exercise their rights with greater security."

(Compendium, No. 441)

To a certain extent, the international organizations and institutions have been captured or manipulated so that they work against their very purpose, which is not the benefit of one group over another, but the common good. To a certain degree, the international organizations and agencies have shrugged off the moral limits under which they ought to operated:

The Magisterium recognizes that the interdependence among men and nations takes on a moral dimension and is the determining factor for relations in the modern world in the economic, cultural, political and religious sense. In this context it is hoped that there will be a revision of international organizations, a process that "presupposes the overcoming of political rivalries and the renouncing of all desire to manipulate these organizations, which exist solely for the common good," for the purpose of achieving "a greater degree of international ordering."

(Compendium, No. 442) (quoting JP II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, No. 43)

This "revision" is particularly important in the economic sphere. Political power tends to follow economic power. Moreover, the economic sphere clearly extends beyond the political spheres of the nation states. It is, in fact, inter-national in scope. For this reason:

[I]ntergovernmental structures must effectively perform their functions of control and guidance in the economic field because the attainment of the common good has become a goal that is beyond the reach of individual States, even if they are dominant in terms of power, wealth, and political strength. International agencies must moreover guarantee the attainment of that equality which is the basis of the right of all to participate in the process of full development, duly respecting legitimate differences.

(Compendium, No. 442) (citations omitted)

Some of the more significant players in the international scene are the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). Properly ordered, the NGOs can enjoy an independence from national or economic chauvinism, and so they tend to be a counterweight to political or economic self-regard.

The Magisterium positively evaluates the associations that have formed in civil society in order to shape public opinion in its awareness of the various aspects of international life, with particular attention paid to the respect of human rights, as seen in "the number of recently established private associations, some worldwide in membership, almost all of them devoted to monitoring with great care and commendable objectivity what is happening internationally in this sensitive field."

Governments should feel encouraged by such commitments, which seek to put into practice the ideals underlying the international community, "particularly through the practical gestures of solidarity and peace made by the many individuals also involved in Non-Governmental Organizations and in Movements for human rights."

(Compendium, No. 443) (quoting JP II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 26 and 2004 World Day of Peace Message, 7)

___________________________________
*There are some real impediments to the development of an international political authority. Perhaps most patent (representing the elephant in the global room) is Islam. Islam's divine positivism rejects the notion of human rights built upon natural law, since it views these as limited by, or defined by, Shari'a. Islam's dual ethic does not mesh well, if at all, with the universal ethic of Christianity which provides the basis of the Church's vision. Its unjustified chauvinism is not conducive to dialogue. Finally, its advocacy of violence and end-justifies-the-means morality is a severe impediment to world peace. Perhaps Islam more than materialistic secularism presents the greatest threat to international peace.

The International Community, The Nation State and International Law

GIVEN HER UNIVERSAL MISSION by her Lord, one extended to all mankind without exclusion, the Church believes she "has the mission of restoring the unity of the human family lost at the tower of Babel."* That unity is not based upon some false, secular, materialistic notion of forced unity. Rather, the unity of nations and cultures sought by the Church is one brought "in Christ," and "through the Church, morality, and law."** Clearly, the unity of mankind in Christ, through the Church, morality, and law "is not yet becoming a reality."*** (Compendium, No. 433). There is much that impedes it.

The world is rent by divisions: of nation, of peoples, of cultures, of races, of religions, which--when viewed in non-personalistic, materialistic, ethnocentric, ideological, or chauvinistic ways--serve as a centripetal force that work against building an international community ordered toward the universal common good. It is as if nations and peoples are working at cross-purposes of humankind, and so we suffer from the evils of substantial injustice, violence, and war.

"The coexistence among nations," if it is to exist, must be "based on the same values that should guide relations among human beings: truth, justice, active solidarity and freedom." (Compendium, No. 433) There is not one morality for individuals, and another for nation states. All men and all nations are bound by their duties to God and to the natural moral law.

The Church insists in the ideal that the relations among "peoples and political communities be justly regulated according to the principles of reason, equity, law and negotiation," and that these should exclude "recourse to violence and war, as well as to forms of discrimination, intimidation, and deceit." (Compendium, No 433)

The relationship among political communities must not be lawless; rather, the relationship must conform with international law, the ius gentium or law of nations, a law which "becomes the guarantor of the international order." The sources of the international law are various and diverse, including from international customs, agreements, treaties, accords, charters, and protocols. Unique to international law, since there is no one governing or enforcing entity, international law is an endeavor largely voluntary. Nevertheless, because the relationship among nations is based upon law, it is a juridical community.

This international order should be distinguished from a one-world government, as the international order is one that seeks "coexistence among political communities," which is to say nations, each of which "seek individually to promote the common good of [its] citizens and strive collectively to guarantee that of all peoples." This sort of relationship, however, will be informed by the awareness that "the common good of a nation cannot be separated from the good of the entire human family." (Compendium, No. 434)

"The international community is a juridical community founded on the sovereignty of each member State, without bonds of subordination that deny or limit its independence." (Compendium, No. 434) There is no question of trying to establish an international community which violates this sovereignty, or which fails to recognize the "distinctive characteristics of each people." Indeed, the sovereignty of the nation states is an effort to give expression to such distinctive characteristics.

The Magisterium recognizes the importance of national sovereignty, understood above all as an expression of the freedom that must govern relations between States. Sovereignty represents the subjectivity of a nation, in the political, economic, social and even cultural sense. The cultural dimension takes on particular importance as a source of strength in resisting acts of aggression or forms of domination that have repercussions on a country's freedom. Culture constitutes the guarantee for the preservation of the identity of a people and expresses and promotes its spiritual sovereignty.

(Compendium, No. 435)

Though the Church supports the notion of national sovereignty as an essential component of the international order, it also insists that the nation-state, and the sovereignty which defines it, is not an absolute value.

National sovereignty is not, however, absolute. Nations can freely renounce the exercise of some of their rights in view of a common goal, in the awareness that they form a "family of nations" where mutual trust, support and respect must prevail. In this perspective, special attention should be given to the fact that there is still no international agreement that adequately addresses "the rights of nations," the preparation of which could profitably deal with questions concerning justice and freedom in today's world.

(Compendium, No. 435)

National sovereignty does not exist so that the mighty might reign. In the international order, where the natural law must reign, might does not make right. National sovereignty is therefore subordinate to the demands of justice, the principles of natural moral law, and, ultimately, to God to whom all mankind is ordered.

________________________________________
*J. Brian Benestad, Church, State, and Society: An Introduction to Catholic Social Doctrine (Catholic University of America: 2010), 381.
**Benestad, 381, 382.
***It is unfortunate that the Church in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church does not address the claims (increasingly truculent) of her rival in universality: Islam. Islam, at least in its traditional form, views the world in a markedly different way from the Church. Islam broadly divides the world into two: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam, دار الإسلام‎) where Shari'a, a law against the natural moral law and human dignity in numerous particulars, is enforced and Islam is superior and the House of War (Dar al-Harb, دار الحرب). Some groups further seek the revival of a central governing authority, the caliphate or khalifa (خلافة). Islam, it hardly need be noted, is thoroughly anti-Christian in spirit in the sense that its foundational documents (the Qur'an, Ahadith) and law (the shari'a) roundly condemn central tenets of the Christian faith (Trinity, Christ as God, the crucifixion and redemptive death of Christ, the natural moral law (as distinguished from divine positive law) as indicating the will of God, the authority of the New Testament). Islam is also biased toward violence (e.g., the "Verse of the Sword," Surah 9 (at-Taubah), which abrogates any revelations to the contrary) in the imposition of its credo, which is largely one of submission to law. In comparing the two religions, one might point out the obvious: Christian flags typically bear the Cross, a symbol of suffering violence; Muslims flags sport the sabre, the sword, a symbol of wielding violence. There will be no workable international order as long as Islamic chauvinism exists.

The International Community, Stoic Contributions

WHEN DIOGENES OF SINOPE WAS ASKED from whence he came, he answered, "I am a citizen of the world." The word he used when he uttered somewhere around 412 B.C. was kosmopolitēs, from which we obtain the word cosmopolitan. In the Greek milieu in which he answered--focused so much upon the individual city, the polis--Diogenes's concept transcended the conventional.

That concept was taken by the Stoics and expanded as a central them of their political philosophy. For example, the "grave and holy"** Hierocles (f. 2nd century A.D.) describes the Stoic cosmopolitanism as a series of concentric circles of community, from self, to nuclear family, to extended family, to local community, etc. extending more broadly until the outer circle of humanity itself. At this outer level was the cosmopolis. Each and every man was composed of a layered reality, and just as it was a false conception to focus only and self in disregard of outer layers, so likewise it was a false conception to focus on the most general layer--humanity--and neglect the interior core of self. Though the concept was Cynic in origin, it was embraced by the Stoic philosophers, and we find it in full flower with the Roman Stoics. For example, we find the notion peppered in the writings of Cicero.*** The Roman concept viewed the cosmopolis as an outermost community of men governed by natural law.

"Hierocles's Circle"

The early Church found an affinity between the moral teachings of Christ and the Stoic philosophers. For example, it found an allied philosophical thought in the Stoic notion of the natural law and the Stoic notion of the cosmopolis. However, the Church did not accept the Stoic philosophy wholesale, but adapted it, conformed it, and synthesized it with the truths of the Gospel. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:

Nowhere was Stoic cosmopolitanism itself more influential than in early Christianity. Early Christians took the later Stoic recognition of two cities as independent sources of obligation and added a twist. For the Stoics, the citizens of the polis and the citizens of the cosmopolis do the same work: both aim to improve the lives of the citizens. The Christians respond to a different call: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21). On this view, the local city may have divine authority (John 19:11; cf. Romans 13:1,4,7), but the most important work for human goodness is removed from traditional politics, set aside in a sphere in which people of all nations can become “fellow-citizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:20).†

It is therefore from this confluence of a biblical stream and the Stoic stream that the Church sees, at the outermost circle of our obligations, an obligation to humankind which it calls the "universal common good." This Stoic notion of men bound by one God and one universal moral law, and the compatible Scriptural notion of one God, one Redeemer, and one Golden Rule, is at the heart of its vision of the international order.

______________________________________
*Diogenes Laertius, The Lives of Eminent Philosophers VI.63. (κοσμοπολίτης). The work κοσμοπολίτης is a word derived from world or universe or cosmos (Κόσμος) and city or state or polis (Πόλις). A citizen of the city was a πολίτης (politēs) Thus a κοσμοπολίτης is a citizen of the State.
**The description is from Aulus Gelius, Attic Nights, ix.5.8. Hierocles of Alexandria wrote a book called Elements of Ethics and a book (of which only extracts survive) entitled On Appropriate Acts. It is from this latter text that the notion of the Hierocles's Circle is drawn. See Ilaria Ramelli, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 123-27. (trans. David Konstan). The fragments are found in Stobaeus (Eclogai, 4.671-3, 11). Related to this is the doctrine of oikeiōsis which describes how these various levels interact and ought to accommodate to each other.

Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles, some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person has draws as though around a center, his own mind. This circle encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For it is virtually the smallest circle, and amost touches the center itself. Next, the second one further removed from the center but enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife, and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then the circle of fellow tribesmen, next that of fellow citizens, and then in the same way the circle of people from neighboring towns, and then the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race. Once these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well-tempered man, in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together somehow towards the center, and to keep zealously transferring those from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones. It is incumbent on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they were those from the third circle.

(A. Long & D. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), §§ 53B, 57C-D, p. 349)
***Cicero, De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), II.78, 154; De finibus bonorum et malorum (On the Ends of Good and Evil) III.64, and Paradoxa Stoicorum (Paradoxes of the Stoics) 18. We might cite to De finibus for an example:

Again they hold that the universe is governed by divine will; it is a city or state of which both men and gods are members, and each one of us is a part of this universe; from which it is a natural consequence that we should prefer the common advantage to our own. For just as the laws set the safety of all above the safety of individuals, so a good, wise and law-abiding man, conscious of his duty to the state, studies the advantage of all more than that of himself or of any single individual. The traitor to his country does not deserve greater reprobation than the man who betrays the common advantage or security for the sake of his own advantage or security. This explains why praise is owed to one who dies for the commonwealth, because it becomes us to love our country more than ourselves.

Mundum autem censent regi numine deorum, eumque esse quasi communem urbem et civitatem hominum et deorum, et unum quemque nostrum eius mundi esse partem; ex quo illud natura consequi, ut communem utilitatem nostrae anteponamus. ut enim leges omnium salutem singulorum saluti anteponunt, sic vir bonus et sapiens et legibus parens et civilis officii non ignarus utilitati omnium plus quam unius alicuius aut suae consulit. nec magis est vituperandus proditor patriae quam communis utilitatis aut salutis desertor propter suam utilitatem aut salutem. ex quo fit, ut laudandus is sit, qui mortem oppetat pro re publica, quod deceat cariorem nobis esse patriam quam nosmet ipsos. quoniamque illa vox inhumana et scelerata ducitur eorum, qui negant se recusare quo minus ipsis mortuis terrarum omnium deflagratio consequatur (quod vulgari quodam versu Graeco pronuntiari solet), certe verum est etiam iis, qui aliquando futuri sint, esse propter ipsos consulendum.

†Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (s.v. "Cosmopolitanism").

The International Community, Biblical Aspects-2

JESUS IS THE UNDERSTOOD in the New Testament as the "new Adam" or the "last Adam." Whereas "in Adam all died, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life." (1 Cor. 15:22) "So, too, it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living being,' the last Adam a life-giving spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)

Church iconography reflects this unity between the first Adam--whose disobedience brought death and division into the world--and the second Adam--whose obedience brought life and the promise, as indicated in the new Adam's highly priestly prayer, that man "may be one" even as the Father and the Son are one(John 17:21)--by showing Christ's death on the Cross occurring at Golgotha, Calvary the "place of the skull" (Matt. 27:33, Mark 15:22) understood as being Adam's skull.

Adam's Skull below the Cross
(Detail from a Crucifixion by Fra Angelico, ca. 1435)

Jesus, the "new Adam," is at the center of the Church's understanding of the international community of nations, the nations to which she addresses the Gospel and seeks to baptize with its truths. "The Lord Jesus is the prototype and foundation of the new humanity." (Compendium, No. 431) Not Moses, not Muhammad, not Buddha, not Kant, not anyone or anything else.

In [Christ Jesus], the true "likeness of God (2 Cor. 4:4), man--who is created in the image of God--finds his fulfillment. In the definite witness of love that God has made manifest in the cross of Christ, all the barriers of enmity have already been torn down (cf. Eph 2:12-18), and for those who live a new life in Christ, racial and cultural differences are no longer causes of division (cf. Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:26-28; Col. 3:11).

(Compendium, No. 431)

This same Jesus promised to his disciples the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Counselor, the helper who he stated would not come until he went away. "And when he comes," Jesus told his disciples, "he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned." (John 16: 8-11)

Thanks to the Spirit, the Church is aware of the divine plan of unity that involves the entire human race (cf. Acts 17:26), a plan destined to reunite in the mystery of salvation wrought under the saving Lordship of Christ (cf. Eph 1:8-10) all of created reality, which is fragmented an scattered. From the day of Pentecost, when the Resurrection is announced to diverse peoples, each of whom understand it in their own language (cf. Acts 2:6), the Church fulfills her mission of restoring and bearing witness to the unity lost at Babel. Due to this ecclesial ministry, the human family is called to rediscover its unity and recognize the richness of its differences, in order to attain "full unity in Christ."

(Compendium, No. 431) (quoting VII, LG, 1)

The Church's universality is explained by this "new humanity" that is to arise as the Church preaches its Gospel and fulfills her Lord's command to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19). This is a "new humanity" not to be brought out by man's efforts, but a "new humanity" wrought by the mission of God in Christ.

The unity of mankind envisioned by the Church is deeply, fundamentally Patrological, Christological and Pneumatological, that is to say Trinitarian. It is informed by Christ, who taught us of the Father, and who promised the Holy Spirit. It is informed by the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Church therefore has a "divine agenda," a holy agenda, a Trinitarian agenda entirely separate and apart from the machinations and designs of men.

"The Christian message," to wit, the Gospel, "offers a universal vision of the life of men and peoples on the earth that makes us realize the unity of the human family." The Compendium makes clear that this unity is the work of God, and not the work of man:

This unity is not to be built on the force of arms, terror or abuse of power; rather, it is the result of that "supreme model of unity, which is a reflection of the intimate life of God, one God in three Persons, ... what we Christians mean by the word 'communion'"; it is an achievement of the moral and cultural force of freedom.

(Compendium, No. 432)

The unity of all mankind, as the Church understands it, is a fruit of the Gospel, and not of any other religious, philosophical, or political tradition.

The Christian message has been decisive for making humanity understand that peoples tend to unite not only because of various forms of organization, politics, economic plans or in the name of an abstract ideological internationalism, but because they freely seek to cooperate, aware "that they are living members of the whole human family."

(Compendium, No. 432) (quoting J XXIII, Pacem in terris, 296)

This is part and parcel of the mandate given to the Church by her Lord to preach to all nations, and bring them into her fold. The unity of men in nature, the nature of the Old Adam, is to made real in the supernatural unity promised them in Christ.

The world community must be presented, over and over again and with ever increasing clarity, as the concrete figure of the unity willed by the Creator.

(Compendium, No. 432) The "figure of unity" is, of course, the new Adam, Christ.

Grace, one may recall, supposes, builds upon, and does not destroy nature. Hence it is that the unity willed by God as reflected in the expressed will of Christ, the new Adam, recognizes a pre-existing unity of all men upon which this supernatural unity in Grace is to be achieved. It is with this understanding that the Compendium closes the introduction to its handling of the international community by quoting John XXIII's encyclical, Pacem in terris (292):

"The unity of the human family has always existed, because its members are human beings all equal by virtue of their natural dignity. Hence there will always exist the objective need to promote, in sufficient measure, the universal common good, which is the common good of the entire human family."

(Compendium, No. 432)

Why does the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church spend its opening paragraphs on the international community on the Biblical narrative? Why this sort of excursus?

Because the Compendium wants to communicate the fact that the Church's vision of the international community is not a secular humanistic vision, but is a Biblical vision, indeed a Christological vision, where "God may be all in all," omnia in omnibus, πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. (1 Cor. 15:28)

The Church is not interested in building a "tower of unbelief," but she is interested in building the City of God. She looks to the Lord on the Cross, who uttered the words, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani (Matt. 27:46), a reference to the opening words of Psalm 22, a Psalm which itself contains the intendment of the Church's teaching, a Psalm which we may quote in the same languages as those contained under the sign that Jesus languished in the eyes of the world, but, in the eyes of God, emerged a victor over sin and death:

μνησθήσονται καὶ ἐπιστραφήσονται
πρὸς κύριον πάντα τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου
πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν
ὅτι τοῦ κυρίου ἡ βασιλεία
καὶ αὐτὸς δεσπόζει τῶν ἐθνῶν

recordabuntur et convertentur ad Dominum
omnes fines terrae
et adorabunt coram eo
universae cognationes gentium,
quia Domini est regnum
et dominabitur gentibus

יזכרו וישבו אל־יהוה כל־אפסי־ארץ
וישתחוו לפניך כל־משפחות גוים׃
כי ליהוה המלוכה ומשל בגוים׃

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD;
All the families of nations
will bow low before him.
For kingship belongs to the LORD,
the ruler over the nations.

(Psalm 22:27-28 [21:28-29])

These are the words of the New Adam, the Son of Man.

______________________________________________
*Quoting from, and citing to, John Paul II, Address to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 12: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 11 October 1995, p. 9.