{"id":823,"date":"2014-02-17T02:44:52","date_gmt":"2014-02-17T02:44:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cornellilj.org\/?p=823"},"modified":"2014-02-17T02:44:52","modified_gmt":"2014-02-17T02:44:52","slug":"piercing-the-vatican-veil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/2014\/02\/17\/piercing-the-vatican-veil\/","title":{"rendered":"Piercing the Vatican Veil, Vol. 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Image provided courtesy of the Art Renewal Center, www.artrenewal.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Piercing the Vatican Veil<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Jordan Calazan Manalastas*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a sign of intelligence and integrity not to confuse the wrongness of one\u2019s acts with the wrongness of one\u2019s beliefs. To impute the Catholic hierarchy\u2019s failure to deal adequately with the sexual predators among its ranks to the Catholic faith itself would thus not be entirely fair. Everyone agrees that enabling child abuse is generally not the brightest idea. The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child\u2019s recent report condemning the Holy See\u2019s contemptible handling of clerical predators is the assessment\u2019s least controversial point. More contentious are the report\u2019s wide-ranging critiques \u2014 critiques that seem to condemn some elements of the Catholic faith itself, critiques that signal that religious freedom is not a sacrosanct right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Committee\u2019s concluding remarks in its Holy See review, released last month,[1] could launch a thousand scholarly inquiries. For one: was the Committee right to consider the Holy See the rightful authority over a worldwide, extra-territorial disgrace? Would the respective states in which the abuse took place be more appropriate targets for the blame? The report\u2019s most interesting turn, however, comes when the Committee\u2019s critique leaves the world of deeds<\/em> and enters the world of doctrine<\/em>. As if the global, systematic cover-up of abuse suggested in the report wasn\u2019t quite damning enough,[2] the Committee urged the Church to change her conservative views on abortion, homosexuals, and contraceptives, claiming that those conservative views were inimical to children\u2019s rights.[3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Vatican\u2019s response was, in a bit more than so many words, \u201cfat chance.\u201d[4] Granted, the Committee\u2019s recommendations are not binding, and there is also no consensus to support the Committee\u2019s \u201caggressive\u201d interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (\u201cCRC\u201d).[5] Yet the procedural and interpretive quibbles of this discussion obscure what may well become a cardinal issue in international law: must the modern liberal rights paradigm accommodate the quirks of an ancient institution?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument for<\/em> accommodation is relatively straightforward, and the Vatican issued it almost instinctually.[6] The Committee\u2019s ambitious remarks are, at the day\u2019s end, an attempt to interfere with Catholic doctrine. So long as religious freedom remains an indispensable child (not to mention human) right,[7] the hypocrisy of the Committee seems apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, as it happens, the case is not so clear. As an initial matter, the non-binding nature of the Committee\u2019s recommendations makes this different from the average case of religious persecution. The Holy See is also not a simple religious organization. It instead exists as a sovereign entity, and it has been so since it was recognized (perhaps regrettably) by the Fascist totalitarian Benito Mussolini.[8] A permanent observer state of the United Nations,[9] the Vatican is legally bound to comply with the terms of the CRC.[10] So one would not be unjustified to find the \u201creligious freedom\u201d defense not wholly satisfactory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a similar example, consider Iran: it is not a religious institution \u00e0 la<\/em> the Catholic Church, but it is purportedly and proudly an \u201cIslamic Republic.\u201d Its laws are grounded in the divinely inspired recitations of a seventh century prophet, and its Supreme Leader is a Shi\u2019a cleric. Among its many proud traditions, the Iranian regime considers it a fitting punishment to execute ex-Muslims[11]\u2014a mandate grounded in the Qur\u2019an.[12] But when Western liberals criticize such barbarism,[13] the doctrinal interference defense does not seem to hold much water. Between the right of Iran to determine its religious practices, and the right of Iranians not to be killed so pettily, it is clear with whom the sympathies of the modern rights paradigm lie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granted, this analogy is not perfect. The unpleasant nature of some Catholic teaching is neither comparable to, nor repugnant as Iran\u2019s capital punishment for thoughtcrime. And while the Church has enjoyed some great success in imposing its vision on others,[14] there is a world of difference between moral indoctrination and violent coercion by a state. Moreover, the Committee\u2019s interests in promoting access to contraception and in combating sexual discrimination hardly approach the level of fundamentality<\/em> that the rights to life and to belief can boast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, there remains the general sense that the mere invocation of a state\u2019s religious concerns does not end the discussion of rights. Instead of a totalizing commitment to religious freedom above all else, the reality hints at a more ad hoc balancing of religious freedoms against other, potentially more fundamental, rights. If this analysis can yield a broader lesson, it would be that there is nothing necessarily<\/em> illiberal about meddling in a state\u2019s religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What then are we to ultimately make of the Committee\u2019s report? The Holy See may find refuge in the recommendations\u2019 lack of teeth, or perhaps in the lack of consensus surrounding the Committee\u2019s rather ambitious interpretation of the CRC. The chief virtue of the report itself might thus not be its impact on the future policy of the Holy See, but to reaffirm, and to make manifest, this axiomatic principle: though some entity may present its laws as beyond mortal scrutiny, one is not compelled to buy that, or to sacrifice modern rights to accommodate it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a PDF of this article in formal, law-journal format, click here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citation:<\/strong> Jordan Calazan Manalastas, Piercing the Vatican Veil<\/em>, 2 Cornell Int\u2019l L.J. Online 1 (2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

* Jordan Calazan Manalastas is a J.D. candidate at Cornell Law School, where he is the Cornell International Law Journal\u2019s Associate on Middle Eastern Affairs and a research associate for the Legal Information Institute. He holds an A.B. in political theory from the University of California, Los Angeles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1] Comm. on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Second Periodic Report of the Holy See, U.N. Doc. C\/VAT\/CO\/2 (Jan. 31, 2014) [hereinafter Report].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2] See<\/em> id.<\/em> at 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3] See<\/em> id.<\/em> at 5, 12\u201313.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4] See<\/em> Federico Lombardi, Note on U.N., Holy See, Child Rights Committee<\/em>, Vatican Radio, Feb. 7, 2014, http:\/\/en.radiovaticana.va\/news\/2014\/02\/07\/fr_lombardi:_note_on_un,_holy_see,_child_rights_committee\/en1-771163\/ (criticizing the Committee for going \u201cbeyond its powers\u201d and imposing its \u201cown ideological vision of sexuality\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5] Emma Green, Can the U.N. Change the Church\u2019s Views on Abortion and Gay Rights?<\/em>, The Atlantic, Feb. 6, 2014, http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/international\/archive\/2014\/02\/can-the-un-change-the-churchs-views-on-abortion-and-gay-rights\/283642\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6] See<\/em> Lombardi, supra<\/em> note 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7] Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 14, opened for signature<\/em> Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8] See<\/em> Treaty of Conciliation, It.-Vatican, Feb. 11, 1929.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9] See<\/em> Permanent Observers: Non-member States<\/em>, United Nations, https:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/members\/nonmembers.shtml.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10] See<\/em> Report, supra<\/em> note 1, at 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11] See<\/em> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor, U.S. Dep\u2019t of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2010: Iran 3 (Sept. 13, 2011), http:\/\/www.state.gov\/documents\/organization\/171734.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12] See<\/em> Qur\u2019an sura an-Nis\u0101 4:89, available at<\/em> http:\/\/quran.com\/4\/89 (\u201cThey wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike . . . . [I]f they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them . . . .\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13] See, e.g.<\/em>, Iranian Christian Pastor Accused of \u2018Apostasy\u2019 Must Be Released<\/em>, Amnesty International, Sept. 30, 2011, http:\/\/www.amnesty.org\/en\/news-and-updates\/iranian-christian-pastor-accused-apostasy-must-be-released-2011-09-30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14] See, e.g.<\/em>, Tom Hundley, Philippines Reproductive-Health Law Tests Power of Catholic Church as It Lobbies Supreme Court<\/em>, Washington Post, June 17, 2013, http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/asia_pacific\/philippines-health-law-tests-power-of-catholic-church\/2013\/06\/16\/36bc3bdc-d36a-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image provided courtesy of the Art Renewal Center, www.artrenewal.org Piercing the Vatican Veil by Jordan Calazan Manalastas* It is a sign of intelligence and integrity not to confuse the wrongness of one\u2019s acts with the wrongness of one\u2019s beliefs. To impute the Catholic hierarchy\u2019s failure to deal adequately with the sexual predators among its ranks…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":836,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,17],"tags":[104,115,221,226,309,335,414,420],"class_list":["post-823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-2","category-forum-archive","tag-committee-on-the-rights-of-the-child","tag-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child","tag-holy-see","tag-human-rights","tag-pedophile-priests","tag-religious-freedom","tag-united-nations","tag-vatican"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=823"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/823\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}