Holy See and the U.N.:
An important relationship

		The Catholic  Difference  George Weigel

Several years ago, Catholics for a Free Choice, a Potemkin village of an "organization" created by pro-abortion American foundations to muddy the waters of American politics and to harass the Church internationally, ginned up a campaign to eject the Holy See from the United Nations.

It was a born loser from the start: however goofy the U.N. is - and its goofiness is often titanic - it wasn't about to throw the Holy See over the side. In addition, no one really takes Catholics for a Free Choice seriously, and it made an unlikely broker for a non-starter of an idea.

Diplomatic status

Now, however, comes the London-based Economist, one of the world's most respected news magazines: in its July 21 issue, it suggested that, "instead of claiming to practice a form of inter-governmental diplomacy," the Holy See ought to "renounce its special diplomatic status and call itself what it is - the biggest non-governmental organization in the world."

Not surprisingly, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Holy See's "foreign minister," declined the invitation, citing the long history of Vatican diplomacy and the importance of a voice in international institutions that can speak "in defense of the dignity of each person and of the sacredness of all human life," a voice that "does not cease to promote the fundamental right to religious freedom, and to promote relations among individuals and peoples founded upon justice and solidarity."

Historical position

To Archbishop Mamberti's well-taken points, I would add the following:

(1) It was a tad insouciant for the Economist to write that the Holy See is in an "ambiguous situation" because it "enjoys many of the privileges of a state while also speaking for a faith."

The historical fact is that the Holy See - which is not identical with Vatican City State, or indeed with any territory, but is the juridical embodiment of the universal ministry of the Bishop of Rome as chief pastor of the Catholic Church - exercised a form of sovereignty, recognized in international law and diplomatic practice, centuries before there was such a thing as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland" (home to the Economist).

And the Holy See continued to do so between the demise of the Papal States in 1870 and the creation of Vatican City State in 1929.

Universal moral truths

Moreover, in its work at the U.N., the Holy See does not "speak for a faith" so much as it speaks from, and speaks for, universal moral truths that can be known by reason - that is, by everyone.

The Holy See does not come to the U.N. to promote the ideas that there are seven sacraments, or that there are two natures in the one divine person of Christ, or that God is a Trinity of Persons in a unity of Godhead.

The Holy See comes to the U.N. - as the Catholic Church addresses local and national politics - to remind governments of the first principles of justice, such as the inviolability of the right to life of the innocent and the fundamental right of religious freedom.

Politics and public good

(2) Further, for the Holy See to withdraw from the U.N. would be to concede, at least tacitly, that politics is exclusively about power (as exercised in and by states). That would be a sad diminishment of the idea of politics.

Since the days of Aristotle, "politics" has been understood in the West to mean our common deliberation about public goods, about how we ought to live together.

Those are, fundamentally, moral questions, not questions of power; politics engages questions of public goods and how we can know them, not just questions about how X imposes his will on Y.

Indeed, the answers to those questions of the common good are crucial in tempering power and bringing it under rational and moral scrutiny - and control. If the 20th century taught the world anything, it ought to have taught us that.

I expect that I'll continue to disagree, from time to time, with positions the Holy See takes at the U.N. But that the Holy See plays an important role in international public life is undeniable. The U.N. would be the loser if it failed to recognize that.

George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

The right to food: What is our rightful response?

		Rural Life  Robert Gronski

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops address the question of hunger and food in their 2004 reflection "For I was Hungry and You Gave me Food":

"Every person has a right to life and to the material and spiritual support required to live a truly human existence. The right to a truly human life logically leads to the right to enough food to sustain a life with dignity. The poverty and hunger that diminish the lives of millions in our own land and in so many other countries are fundamental threats to human life and dignity and demand a response from believers."

More than 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and the majority are children. Ending chronic hunger is an achievable goal if nations, industrialized and developing ones, work together and make the right policy decisions.

Alleviating hunger

	For more information on Catholic social teachings and food issues: • Catholic Campaign Against Global Poverty: www.usccb.org/sdwp/globalpoverty/ • USCCB, Social Development and World Peace: www.usccb.org/sdwp/ • Catholic Relief Services: www.crs.org • National Catholic Rural Life Conference: www.ncrlc.com • World Food Day, October 16, 2007; "The Right to Food": www.fao.org/wfd2007/
	Related article: • Seeing God in creation: Finding the importance of rural life

Throughout the 20th century, American farmers took great pride in helping to feed the world. But in this new century of globalization, what is the rightful response to food security and a dignified life?

In this harvest time of year when the American bounty seems plentiful, we are often asked to make charitable donations as a way to share our own blessings of food. We respond through contributions to local food pantries as well as to overseas appeals.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference (NCRLC) believes we can also act when it comes to federal policy. International food aid is the U.S. government's major response to reducing global hunger.

In the name of the American people, the federal government provides more than three million metric tons of U.S. agricultural commodities annually. However, the $2 billion spent each year in such assistance includes paying for time-consuming and long-distance shipping.

Expensive overhead

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that overhead expenses consume about 65 percent of our emergency food aid funding. That means most of the $2 billion goes elsewhere than actual food purchases for those who hunger.

The U.S. Farm Bill, currently under revision by Congress, has become a battleground over how the United States as the top international donor of food aid should help the world's hungry.

The current system of food aid benefits as much as anyone the handful of corporations who control commodity crops or the cargo ships. Their lobbyists and farm commodity groups who have a stake in the current system aggressively lobby to maintain the status quo.

Depressing local prices

The U.S. Bishops and NCRLC are concerned because agriculture and food policies in the U.S. should not adversely impact the agriculture and livelihoods of others around the world.

NCRLC takes seriously the argument that large shipments of food aid will often depress food prices below levels in which local farmers can earn a decent return and begin to rebuild the local economy.

Recently, the relief agency CARE turned down $45 million in U.S. government funding to make the point that this could be more rightfully spent purchasing available supplies within the countries or regions affected by pockets of crop losses.

The Bush Administration also acknowledges this rightful response, but no reform is forthcoming in the U.S. Congress. The House version of the Farm Bill does not change the outdated food aid system, and the Senate is only considering a pilot program of local food purchases rather than setting new and effective policies.

Reformed Food Aid

NCRLC believes we need a reformed Food Aid section in the Farm Bill that specifies a proportionate way to purchase "U.S. food aid" from farmers overseas. This provides more timely assistance while benefiting local producers and their nation's food security.

U.S. farmers won't lose out. U.S. crops will still be used as emergency aid, stored near countries at risk of food shortages.

At the same time, a rightful response is for Congress is to set aside funds (NCRLC agrees with $600 million a year) for longer-term food aid programs designed to bolster agriculture and health in fragile countries. These initiatives can be done in the visionary spirit of Joseph who oversaw the grain reserves of the Pharaoh.

Consider standing in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in developing countries by encouraging Congress to reform food aid programs.

At the same time, stand in support of farmers and ranchers in your own communities who work to develop local economies through farmers markets, community supported agriculture, food co-ops, and direct marketing.

In the end, it is the care of community and care of creation that will lead to food security for all.

Robert Gronski is the policy coordinator for the National Catholic Rural Life Conference.