How Catholic Teaching about War Has Changed: The Issues in View

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

The decline in religious in Australia in the 35 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council has brought an associated withdrawal of religious from the staffs and governance of Catholic schools. Lay women and men have replaced religious principals, but the principalship has not changed sufficiently to accommodate the new life realities of lay people in that role. This article argues that there has been an emerging recognition in Church documents on Catholic education of Catholic education as a ministry of the laity, but such documents are largely silent about the role, ministry, and vocation of lay principals in Catholic schools. The article calls for a statement from the Congregation for Catholic education on the leadership of lay principals in Catholic schools which acknowledges the importance of this vital emerging lay ministry within the Church and which recognizes that lay people are shaping anew this administrative role, distinct from the quasi-monastic practice of preceding generations of religious principals.

Vatican foreign relations with Latin America comprise both bilateral diplomatic negotiations with states and the Holy See’s spiritual leadership of national Catholic Churches in the region. Apostolic nuncios—papal diplomatic representatives—are the principal intermediaries of Vatican foreign relations. Since the early 19th century, Vatican diplomacy has been the purview of the Papal Secretariat of State, the “foreign relations” branch of the Roman curia. The beginning of modern Vatican foreign relations with Latin America should be dated to the Napoleonic wars in Europe and the movements for home rule in Spain’s colonies. From 1810–1820, the papacy stood unwavering in its defense of Spanish absolutist claims to the peninsula and to its colonies. Latin American Independence shattered Spanish Royal Patronage and left a legacy of regalism in the region, with which the ultramontane papacy of the 19th century would contend. The professionalization of the Vatican diplomatic corps (1889–1914) conformed papal diplomacy to the norms of the international state system, incrementally increasing the political and spiritual legitimacy of the Holy See after its loss of temporal power to the Italian state, sparking the so-called “Roman Question” (1870–1929). During the interwar period, Vatican policy centered on concordats and Catholic Action, evincing both a pragmatic approach to diplomacy and a highly regimented and non-party political model of lay activism. Mexico’s Cristero Rebellion (1926–1929) represented the most strident conflict in the period, where Rome’s concordat/Catholic Action policy neither negotiated a durable modus vivendi nor managed to pacify radical lay Catholics until the 1940s. During the pontificate of Pius XII (1939–1958), a strident anti-communism marked the policy of the Holy See, aligning the Catholic Church in Latin America with conservatives and authoritarian leaders. After the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the policy of Ostpolitik guided diplomats towards rapprochement with communist and revolutionary states such as Cuba and Nicaragua. The end of the Cold War temporized the relationship between progressive sectors in the Latin American Church, which had been influenced by Liberation Theology, and the Vatican under John Paul II (1978–2005). A “New Evangelization” campaign was heralded by Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013). Argentine Jesuit and Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio crafted many of the seminal documents for the New Evangelization. Bergoglio, elected Pope Francis in 2013, emphasized the socio-economic and the spiritual aspects of Vatican policy, bring issues of poverty, economic inequality, and justice to center stage, fostering a diplomacy of piccoli passi (small steps) and brokering improved relations between the United States and Cuba.

Reviewed by: The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform by Shaun Blanchard Kenneth L. Parker The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform BY SHAUN BLANCHARD Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020. 346 pages. Hardcover: $99.00. ISBN: 9780190947798. This book takes as its point of departure Pope Benedict XVI's articulation of the "hermeneutic of reform," found in that pope's 2005 Christmas speech to the Roman Curia. Shaun Blanchard seriously engages Benedict's point that "reform" must be understood to include "continuity and discontinuity on different levels."1 The twinning, in a single study, of the Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II at first glance might appear to be a work motivated by harsh reactions to the post-Vatican II era, or an enthusiastic embrace of changes that have occurred, particularly in the era of Pope Francis. However, true to Dr. Blanchard's stated intentions in the introduction, he takes the historical theological project seriously, and teases out the historical threads that demonstrate decisively the important connections between the teachings of Vatican II and the contested legacy of the Synod of Pistoia. This volume is a striking contribution to the field of historical theology, an important contextual study for a wide range of subdisciplines in Catholic theology, and a reminder that responsible historical research is an enterprise that Roman Catholics need not fear.2 The Synod of Pistoia (1786) is remembered, if remembered at all, as a routed effort by leaders of the Catholic Enlightenment in Italy to introduce significant reforms through synodal deliberations. The list of reforms Blanchard provides is long: "ecclesiology, grace and predestination, theologies of the seven sacraments, the place of religious orders, relations between church and state, Bible reading, the veneration of Mary and the saints, and the celebration of the liturgy" (5). Resolutions included regulation of processions, indulgences, images, relics, feast days, devotional [End Page 173] life, and stipulations regarding marriage. The bishop of Pistoia-Prato, Scipione de' Ricci (1741–1810, bishop from 1780–1791), hoped to provide a model for a "national council" of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (5–6). Instead, he experienced rejection at an episcopal assembly in Florence (1787), and by the people of Pistoia and Prato, in the form of two riots against his liturgical and devotional changes. By the time Ricci resigned his bishopric in 1791, the Pistoian reform was decisively in retreat (7–8). Pope Pius VI condemned many propositions of Pistoia in 1794 (11–12). Yet, if the Synod of Pistoia and its reform agenda receded to the margins of historical consciousness, the parallels between what was attempted in the 1780s and what was accomplished in the 1960s were not lost on advocates and critics of Vatican II, as attested by Jose Maria Fuentes (12) and leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (8–9). The former conciliar paritus, Joseph Ratzinger, found the parallels between Pistoia and the early years of the post-conciliar era "eerily familiar" (11). A Butterfieldian critique of this book might be that it is whiggish—a study of the past for the sake of the present. However, this is not a "subordination of the past to the present," but rather "making the past our present and attempting to see life with the eyes of another century than our own."3 While one might hesitate to apply twentieth and twenty-first century terms retrospectively to eighteenth-century developments, like ressourcement and aggiornamento, Blanchard has the skill to use them in ways that does not suggest an anachronistic imposition of a "presentist" agenda. Much of the reason for this is that the author patiently guides the reader through the tangle of words that have taken on a myriad of meanings—Gallicanism, Richerism, Febronianism, Josephinism, and the varied mutations of Jansenism—reviewing the literature on these subjects in multiple languages, which enables one to move clear-eyed into his account of the eighteenth century events he explores, and how they came to impact the developments leading up to, and during, the Second Vatican Council. I found his reading of Lodovico Muratori particularly helpful...

For centuries the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has been marked by disputes and conflicts. It was impossible, and still remains troublesome, to clearly identify the reasons for this. Some tend to blame the Vatican for its excessively ‘obtrusive’ intention to establish its hierarchy in the East. Others tend to claim that it is the Russian Orthodox Church that has triggered conflicts in its pursuit to unify the Orthodox churches and ‘dethrone’ the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations have mainly been clashing in Central and Eastern Europe, where new factors generating conflicts are constantly emerging, whether religious or – more frequently – political (e.g. the historical conflict between Catholic Poland and Lithuania and Orthodox Russia; or the establishment of Catholic dioceses in the Russian Federation, which the Moscow Patriarchate considers to be the canonical territory of the Eastern Church). Sometimes it may even seem that the dissenting denominations do not even try to communicate. The pontificate of John Paul II was ecumenical, but it did not produce the results the Vatican would consider desirable with respect to the Orthodox Church. At present we can observe slow changes in the behavior of religious leaders – Benedict XVI and the Patriarchs of Moscow (Alexii II, followed by Cyril I). The authors of the paper present selected issues in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue during the pontificate of John Paul II and the present Pope – Benedict XVI, and they attempt to answer the question of what changes have recently taken place in the mutual relations of the two denominations, and whether the steps taken stand a chance of resulting in a permanent conciliation.

This article examines how the hermeneutical traditions within Roman Catholicism can be employed to address a question regarding Catholic views on the religious freedoms that should be accorded to Islam in any society. The key Catholic documents examined originate from the Second Vatican Council. This particular question was not the focus of the key documents inspected, but those documents can be applied to this question. The first part of the article examines the complex hermeneutics involved in reading Council documents. The second part of the article examines the way in which the ‘Declaration on Religious Liberty’ can be applied to the question of Islamic religious freedoms. The article also attempts to show that the Council's teachings were a real development in Catholic teaching and were also continuous with an earlier stratum of tradition. Attention is given to the serious debate within the Catholic Church regarding the claims made in this document.

Julius Kardinal Dopfner. Konpilstagebucher, Briefe und Notizen pum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil Edited by Giudo Treffler. [Schriften des Archivs des Erzbistums Munchen und Freising, 9.] (Regensburg: Schnell und Steiner. 2006. Pp. li, 730. euro19,90. ISBN 978-3-7954-1771-0.)Joseph Ratzinger, Zur Kehre des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils. Formulierung- Vermittlung-Deutung [Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Schriften, edited by Gerhard Ludwig Muller, 7/1-2.] (Freiburg: Herder. 2012. Pp. 1250. Vol. 7/1: euro60,00, ISBN 978-3-451-34124-3; Vol. 7/2: euro60,00, ISBN 978-3-451-34043-7.)Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962-1965). Stand und Perspektiven der kirchenhistorischen Forschung im deutschsprachigen Baum. Edited by Franz Xaver Bischof. [Munchener Kirchenhistorischen Studien. Neue Folge, 1.] (Stuttgart: Verlag W Kohlhammer, 2012. Pp. 242. euro39,90. ISBN 978-3-17-022220-5.)Erneurung in Christus. Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962-1965) im Spiegel Munchener Kirchenarchive. Edited by Andreas R. Batlogg, S.J.; Clemens Brotkorb; and Peter Pfister. [Schriften des Archivs des Erzbistums Munchen und Freising, 16.] (Regensburg: Schneu und Steiner, 2012. euro19,95. ISBN 978-3-7954 2686-6.)Personenlexikon pum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil Edited by Michael Quisinski and Peter Walter (Freiburg: Herder, 2012. euro38,00. ISBN 978-3-451-30330-2.)This review article continues the work of four earlier presentations of newly published source-documents and scholarly studies on the Second Vatican Council.1 Discussed here are the following recent German contributions: (1) an edition of the Council diaries, selected letters, and notes of Cardinal Julius Dopfner, archbishop of Munich and member of the main directive bodies of the Council; (2) the collection of the writings of Joseph Ratzinger concerning the Council from 1960 to 2005; (3) a multiauthored survey of research on the Council in the German-language area; (4) an exhibition catalog, with twelve studies, of Council materials and documents from three archives in Munich; and (5) a one-volume prosopological dictionary of persons active at the Council.Documents of Cardinal Julius Dopfner's Participation and Leadership at the Second Vatican CouncilIt has been a commonplace of Second Vatican Council research that German scholarship has lagged behind that of other nations, especially Belgium and Italy, mainly because German diocesan archives observe long periods of closure to researchers.2 A breakthrough came in 2001 when Cardinal Friedrich Wetter of Munich opened the Council archive of his predecessor, Cardinal Julius Dopfner, for scholarly research. Four years later, the Munich diocesan archivists brought out an inventory of Dopfner's Council papers, which is a model of its genre.3 The work presented here offers documents that make easily accessible the diaries and 474 selected texts of correspondence and notes of this leading figure of the Second Vatican Council.Dopfner, a priest of the Diocese of Wurzburg, was bishop of his home diocese from 1948 to 1957. Named bishop of Berlin in early 1957, he became well known for hosting the Katholikentag of 1958. Pope John XXIII created him cardinal in December 1958 and in July 1961 appointed him archbishop of Munich. Dopfner served on the Council's Central Preparatory Commission, the body that evaluated in 1961-62 the draft schemas produced by the particular preparatory commissions. As the Council opened in 1962, Dopfner was named to the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs. After Period I, John XXIII made him one of the seven members of the Commission for Coordinating the Work of the Council, which supervised the conciliar commissions during their revision of schemas in early 1963 and then during further work on the Council documents. In September 1963 Pope Paul VI named Dopfner one of the four Council Moderators, along with Cardinals Gregorio P. Agagianian, Giacomo Lercaro, and Leon-Joseph Suenens.4The 2006 publication gives Dopfner's diary notes that add to what is known about the 1962 meetings of the Council's Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs. …

SOMMARIO: 1. Riforma del Terzo settore e servizio della carità nella Chiesa - 2. La riforma del Terzo settore e le nuove sfide per gli enti ecclesiastici - 3. Il Motu proprio “Intima Ecclesiae natura” e l’evoluzione dell’ordinamento canonico - 4. Il Codice del Terzo settore e la sua applicazione agli enti ecclesiastici - 5. Implicazioni per gli enti della Chiesa: l’esigenza di trasparenza - 6. Il principio della trasparenza nella dottrina canonistica - 7. Il “patrimonio destinato”: implicazioni nell’ordinamento canonico - 8. Attività diverse e controlli canonici: la sfida della governance e della gestione in un contesto concordatario - 9. Osservazioni conclusive. Catholic Church entities and the reform of the Third sector in Italian legislation. Canonical implications ABSTRACT: This paper deals with the canonical implications of Italy’s recent Third sector reform in Italian legislation (d. lgs n. 117/2017) for Catholic Church entities and/or agencies for charitable purposes. It starts with some preliminary remarks on the recent evolution of Canon Law concerning the discipline of charitable organizations and agencies that followed the Motu proprio Intima Ecclesiae natura, issued by Pope Benedict XVI in December 2012. It then examines the general framework of the new regulation of non profit organizations in Italian law, emphasizing the pros and cons (opportunities and risks) of its application to religious entities, particularly those connected to the Catholic Church, which in Italy traditionally enjoy a special discipline safeguarding their canonical structure and purposes. The paper then focuses on the impact of the new civil regulation that allows a wide range of charitable initiatives on behalf of religious organizations, on the governance of Catholic Church entities, which are submitted to the directives and authorizations of ecclesiastical authorities. Finally, it draws some conclusive remarks on the need to update and reform some administrative rules and praxis concerning the administration and finance of charitable institutions in Canon Law.

Catholic Education – the International Context Paul Meany The Irish education system, like others around the world, has evolved from a combination of religious, political, philosophical and economic factors. However, we are inclined to think that our history has created an almost unique system of mostly non-governmental schools, underpinned by the 1937 Constitution and dominated for a long time by the Catholic Church, which must now change in the light of the rapidly changing Ireland of the twenty-first century. The purpose of this article is to show that, while there are singular features of the Irish system, it is actually underpinned by the same principles and philosophies that operate in most of the countries of the world. In particular, I want to show that parents and other groups throughout the world have the right (underpinned by internationally agreed covenants) to set up nongovernmental schools with a particular philosophy, and I will look at the situation of Catholic education in Europe to demonstrate this point in some detail. Secondly, I want to show that those covenants also oblige each state to provide monies to pay for compulsory education, whether that education takes place in a state school or in a recognised non-governmental school. In this regard, I will again use Europe to demonstrate the widespread use of state funds for non-governmental Catholic schools. Finally, at a time when the place of faith-based schools is under discussion, not just in Ireland but in many countries around the world, I want to suggest some reasons why there has never been a more important time for Catholic voluntary schools to present their message to students of all faiths and none. Setting the scene AfterthefalloftheRomanEmpireandthenearextinctionofearlyChristianity, sixth century Irish missionaries spearheaded the re-Christianisation of the continent, a second coming which has left its legacy on the map of Europe Paul Meany Studies • volume 108 • number 429 32 to this day. With the exception of the 500 years of the Moors’ presence in Spain and the 550 years of the Ottomans in the south-east, Europe was and has remained an essentially Christian continent up to the start of the current century. (Indeed, the re-emergence of Islam, as a result of immigration from Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East, is now a central issue on the European political agenda today). Two great schisms (1054 AD and 1517 AD) have divided Christian Europe into three parts: the East (with Orthodox majorities in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Macedonia and Greece), the North (with ‘Protestant’ majorities in Iceland, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Northern Germany, Denmark and Northern Netherlands) and the South/Central area (with Catholic majorities in Portugal, Spain, France, Southern Netherlands, Belgium, Southern Germany, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, Malta, Italy and, of course, Ireland). The Christian religion has been, thus, a major pillar underpinning European education systems as they developed from Church schools and universities in the nineteenth century. A second pillar has been the influence of the medieval Renaissance in art and culture, together with the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment, with its fervent development of philosophy, politics, science and economics. The final pillar was constructed in the nineteenth century with the emergence of the ‘nation state’. As national identity came more to the fore, states began to create education systems to serve both the needs of the people and the needs of the state. Since most early schools had been associated with religious organisations, the states incorporated religion and other aspects of the national culture into the new state systems that they were keen to create. Furthermore, with the exceptions of Cuba, North Korea and Gambia (which only have state schools), to this day every education system that evolved around the world has allowed for a diverse mixture of state and nongovernmental schools. Rights and covenants: what civil society aspires to Having set the scene, let us now return to the question raised at the outset: the right of parents and other groups to set up non-governmental schools with a particular philosophy. As civil society was re-established after the Second World War, states began to agree...

Human life and technological developments are closely related to the legal awareness of the international community. The discovery of nuclear weapons for the first time was by the United States (US). It was used in World War II to attack and bomb the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The incident resulted in the death of 160,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand) people, and damage to almost all the ecosystem. The devastating negative effects resulting from the use of nuclear weapons were then regulated and contradicted the norms outlined in Additional Protocol I of 1977, to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which regulates the methods and methods of war. Although it has been regulated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions (international humanitarian law), however, it turns out that there are still many countries that continue to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of national security. The research method used is a type of normative juridical research and uses a statutory approach and conceptual thinking. The results of the study indicate that the governing norms regarding; research and possession of nuclear weapons are still discriminatory. In practice, there is a distinction between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state. Furthermore, in the current reality, there are still countries that are classified as not having good intentions to carry out the agenda of disarming and stopping the development of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, according to the results of this study, to overcome these problems, it is necessary to have new legal principles that can be universally binding.

The fact that every government in Britain since World War II has answered yes to this question obviously does not foreclose debate on such a vital issue of the nation’s security. Indeed it is right and proper that the reasons behind the expenditure of billions of pounds on weapons capable of killing millions of people should be constantly scrutinised, questioned and subjected to the most rigorous analysis. This is especially so at a time when there is widespread concern in Britain, as in other countries of Western Europe and North America, about the possession of nuclear weapons and current western strategy. The position of Britain is, of course, not unique. Britain was, however, the first country to decide to acquire nuclear weapons, and, if supporters of the new, revitalised Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) have their way, it would be the first to renounce unilaterally such weapons. As such, Britain provides an interesting case study for this final chapter. We do not claim that arguments which follow are wholly exhaustive but they do at least give the reader some insights into the debate that is currently taking place.KeywordsNuclear WeaponNuclear ForceMilitary PowerDefence PolicyNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganisationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Unknown Pope: Benedict XV (1914-1922) and the Pursuit of Peace. By John E Pollard. (London: Geoffrey Chapman. 1999. Pp. xv, 240. L16.99 clothbound; L12.95 paperback.) Benedict XV (1854-1922), born Giacomo Della Chiesa, was probably one of the most capable and best prepared for his high office of all of the Roman pontiffs of the last two centuries. Yet of the ten popes who have held the papal office since Pius IX's election in 1846 we known much less about him than we do about all the others, except for John Paul I, who died shortly after his election in 1978. Benedict XV's pontificate was to be obscured by the great catastrophe of World War I and the widespread political disorders that followed it. Like Leo XIII (1878-1903) and Pius XII (1939-1958) Benedict XV came from an aristocratic and urban background and from an earlier career in diplomacy. Before leaving his native city of Genoa he took a doctorate in civil law at its university. He then went on to Rome to study for the priesthood and next to enter the Gregorian University, where he would take doctorates in theology and canon law. However, the turning point in his career would come when he met Msgr. Mariano Rampolla, who would soon serve as the papal nuncio to Spain (1881-1886) and then become the papal secretary of state in 1887. Rampolla brought the young priest with him to Madrid to serve as his secretary and later took Della Chiesa into the secretariat of state after he became its head. Della Chiesa eventually secured the position of under secretary in that department, an important position in it. However, Rampolla suffered a deep tragedy in his career and life when Cardinal Puzyna of Cracow in Austria cast a veto ballot against him in the papal election of 1903. Cardinal Puzyna had made use in the election of a right that the Holy See had conferred on the Habsburg dynasty several centuries earlier.1 Naturally enough, Della Chiesa's career also experienced a setback because of his patron's historic defeat. 1Many years ago while in Germany I came upon a statement by a prominent PolishGerman nobleman who knew much about German Catholic affairs before World War I. He said that Cardinal Puzyna had cast his veto against Rampolla because he had come under the influence of Cardinal Georg Kopp, the archbishop of Breslau, Germany. I later learned that Cardinal Kopp had enjoyed the confidence of the German chancellors and Emperor William H until Leo XIII and Cardinal Rampolla began to cultivate close relations between the papacy and France. The author is undoubtedly right in saying that the seemingly serious setback to Della Chiesa's career in 1903 actually turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Old foes eager to push him out of Rome were apparently responsible for his appointment as archbishop of Bologna in central Italy in 1907. It would give him experience in domestic church administration to put alongside of his experience in diplomacy. He took up his new duties with the utmost seriousness and determination. His archdiocese contained nearly 500 parishes of which 100 were in the mountains and could only be reached on horseback. By December, 1913, he had visited all but sixty-five of them. He was certainly a concerned and active ordinary. His biographer implies, however, that the new archbishop had basically old ideas in his approach to modern social problems. The region in which his archdiocese lay, earlier part of the old papal states, was still mainly agricultural. While the agrarian and mercantile upper classes were usually well off, the tenant peasants, sharecroppers, and landless laborers often lived in poor circumstances. Trying to counteract the Social Democratic call to the working classes that they should engage in class conflict, the Archbishop preached the doctrine that the class system was of divine making and could not be altered. Still he did also preach that employers had to be just to their workers, and he early said that workers had a right to form and join class organizations. …

: The February 2007 agreement reached with North Korea to shut down its nuclear reactor and give up its nuclear weapons program was heralded by many as a significant breakthrough following the shock of North Korea's nuclear weapons test in October of the previous year. This optimistic assessment, however, fails to consider the significant hurdles that will confront negotiators as they attempt to fulfill the promise of the February accord. The North Korean regime s hierarchy of nuclear motivations including its perception of the security, leverage and prestige offered by the possession of nuclear weapons as well as the significant time and energies it has invested in developing a nuclear device, make an actual verifiable dismantling of this program unlikely. Further, the historical tendency for negotiations with North Korea to produce few positive results bodes ill for future success. Extant hurdles are further compounded by a U.S. negotiation position that heightens North Korea's security concerns, leaves little room for compromise, and has, unwittingly, encouraged North Korea s development of nuclear weapons. Without some unforeseen and dramatic change in position by either side, the ongoing negotiations regarding North Korea s nuclear weapons program are unlikely to succeed in the near term. The best hope lies in gaining a complete understanding the North Korean position and developing a flexible strategy of engagement and containment. Such a strategy could address the security concerns of the Kim regime while limiting North Korea's ability to proliferate nuclear technology and providing security for the U.S. and its allies. Such an approach, however, would likely require the U.S. to set aside, at least temporarily the potentially costly and unrealistic goal of North Korean denuclearization.

Over the past eighteen months, a substantial breakdown has taken place in the domestic consensus on nuclear policies in Europe and the United States. In Europe, mass demonstrations have occurred against the deployment of new US cruise and Pershing II ballistic missiles. These include not only young protesters, ecologists, and other cause-adopters. Many middle-aged, middle-class, conservative Europeans have also joined. Especially among the Protestant churches, leaders have condemned in ethical and religious terms the development and possession of nuclear weapons, nuclear deployments, nuclear strategy and nuclear deterrence.

India does not currently exercise a great deal of influence in the Middle East, but as a rising economic and political power on the world stage, it will likely play a critical role in the future of the region. New Delhi’s engagement with the Middle East, in configuration with its general approach to foreign policy, has been driven by a policy of non-alignment. However, recent dialogue between New Delhi and Washington, which started after the end of the Cold War, challenges this policy. Given the current international configuration of threats, challenges, and power, India finds itself at the crossroads of decisions regarding its foreign policy. In its approach to the Middle East, five factors impact New Delhi’s strategy: 1) regional power of China, 2) conflict over Kashmir with Pakistan, exasperated with possession of nuclear weapons by both states, 3) threat of Islamic terrorism, 4) increasing dependency on energy imports, and 5) existential need to uphold friendly relations with the United States-which also serves as the main frame for outlining India’s policy in the region.