[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E223-E224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOLY SEE ARTICLES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. FRANCIS ROONEY

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 21, 2017

  Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share 
with my colleagues several articles that I have written over the years 
regarding the Holy See. As a Member of the Europe, Eurasia, and 
Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to 
outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 
115th Congress.

                  Reflecting on Pope Benedict's Papacy

                          (By Francis Rooney)

       The decision by Pope Benedict XVI to retire February 28 is 
     a remarkable act of humility and selflessness, and should be 
     seen as a fitting closure on a papacy that was quietly 
     significant. When Joseph Ratzinger was elected in the 2005 
     conclave, many pundits viewed him as a temporary 
     officeholder. Yet, Benedict XVI fulfilled the legacy he set 
     out for himself when choosing the name of the World War I 
     Pope. For nearly eight years, Benedict was a firm advocate of 
     dialog with friend and foe. He bravely offered to the world a 
     gift cherished by the Catholic faith--the union of faith and 
     reason. In this capacity, the Pope was a bridge builder, and 
     lived up to his Latin title Pontifex Maximus. Much maligned, 
     Benedict put the Church in the perilous but necessary 
     position between extremist religious fundamentalism and 
     extremist secular materialism.
       As United States Ambassador to the Holy See (2005-2008), I 
     met the Pope on several occasions to discuss the symmetry of 
     values between the Holy See (colloquially referred to as the 
     Vatican) and the United States. In those private meetings and 
     his annual addresses to the diplomatic corps, Pope Benedict 
     XVI exuded a humility that reflected the solemnity of his 
     office. Elected to succeed the charismatic Blessed John Paul 
     II, he is to be commended for continuing the Holy See's 
     active role in promoting human dignity for all individuals. A 
     great scholar, Benedict reminds us that religious values have 
     an important role to play in the public square.
       In the span of eight years, Benedict visited 24 nations and 
     the Palestinian Territories. He is the oldest Pope to travel 
     outside of Europe. In each pastoral visit, his diplomacy was 
     understated and subtle, principally the act of Christian 
     love. His influence on Catholics, and also ``people of good 
     will'', is a testament to soft power. For example, the Pope's 
     letter to Iranian president Ahmadinejad was decisive in 
     resolving the disputed kidnapping of British sailors in 2007. 
     In his trips to Cuba and Lebanon in 2012, Benedict asserted 
     that politics is subordinate to moral considerations.
       Two trips epitomize the theme of Benedict's papacy--
     Regensburg in 2006 and London in 2010. In the former, the 
     erudite professor was quickly denounced by much of the 
     international media for a criticism against a corruption of 
     Islam that is intolerant and rejects human agency. The 
     complex lecture inspired violent reprisals by some 
     misinformed and radicalized Muslims around the world. Months 
     later a Saudi prince visited the Holy See to foster and 
     reciprocate the Pope's forthright dialog.
       Four years later, Pope Benedict traveled to London despite 
     vocal opposition from a small group of anti-Catholic critics. 
     Displaying tremendous poise, Benedict graciously spoke in 
     Westminster Hall. Learning from Regensburg the need for 
     clarity and concision more than academic merit, Benedict 
     shared his view that ``the world of reason and the world of 
     faith--the world of secular rationality and the world of 
     religious belief--need one another and should not be afraid 
     to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good 
     of our civilization.'' It was a high point for the Catholic 
     Church, and a statement that religion and spirituality are 
     not incompatible with modern life.
       The decision to retire is an act of humility. Benedict has 
     left an indelible mark on the Catholic Church, preserved his 
     theme of bonding faith and reason, and even maintained 
     integrity amidst a much-touted scandal over his trusted 
     butler. The Servant of the Servants of God, a phrase 
     introduced by Pope Saint Gregory I near the end of the sixth 
     century, leaves office in an act of selflessness.
       Soon after Benedict resigns, a papal conclave will be 
     called in Rome. The College of Cardinals will meet in the 
     Sistine Chapel and elect a new Pope. As decreed by Pope John 
     Paul II, Cardinals more than 80 years old cannot vote. As of 
     right now, 118 Cardinals are eligible to vote.
                                  ____


                     A Papal Bull for Foggy Bottom

                  (By Francis Rooney and Dan Mahaffee)

       Met by crowds inspired by both adoration (for the Pope) and 
     indignation (towards their government), the visit of Pope 
     Francis to Brazil provides valuable insights for how the 
     United States can better approach its Latin American 
     neighbors.
       The pronouncements of Pope Francis, a Pope of many firsts 
     (first Jesuit, first from the Western Hemisphere), reflect a 
     new Catholic evangelization based around human rights, social 
     justice, and basic dignity. His austere lifestyle, stretching 
     back to his days as a Jesuit priest in Buenos Aires, reflect 
     his desire to refocus the Catholic Church towards its social 
     mission of providing both physical and spiritual nourishment 
     to the masses.
       The message he sent to tens of thousands of Brazilians and 
     pilgrims from all over the world was one that sought to 
     balance the pressures of rapid growth in both economic and 
     geopolitical heft with the abject poverty in which many 
     reside. Not far from gleaming high rises and the sandy 
     stretches of Copacabana, he spoke to the favelas where many 
     feel that the economic boom of the past decade has left them 
     behind.
       While his message was to those gathered in Rio, it 
     resonates in Caracas, La Paz, Managua, Quito, and beyond. For 
     those steering U.S. policy in the region, it hopefully 
     resonates there as well.
       Similar to the Catholic Church, United States foreign 
     policy has been inconsistent and episodic concerning Latin 
     America. Distracted by the continued turmoil in the Middle 
     East and the complexities of the ``pivot'' towards Asia, we 
     have only furthered a belief that U.S. policy towards Latin 
     America remains unchanged since the days of the Cold War. As 
     the joke often goes, ``there are only two real differences in 
     U.S. Latin America policy: whether it is based in the 1960's 
     or the 1980's.''
       Without understanding the broader dynamics of the region we 
     will continue to view the region solely through the lenses of 
     counternarcotic operations, illegal immigration, and 
     competition with China. Just as the Pope has taken the 
     message of the Catholic Church directly to the people of 
     Latin America, we must also show how the interests of the 
     United States align with those of the people of Latin 
     America.
       While the anti-American leaders in the region certainly 
     have mastered the use of the democratic process, albeit at 
     times under suspicious circumstances, and deploy vigorous 
     anti-American rhetoric, the coalitions they muster are not 
     inspired by a ``struggle against the yanqui, the enemy of 
     mankind.'' Instead, as all politics are local, these anti-
     American leaders are leveraging a public eager for greater 
     economic and social equality and opportunity.
       Despite the poor performance of these leaders (ask any 
     Venezuelan about their access to basic staples such as 
     cooking oil and toilet paper), the U.S. lacks a counter 
     narrative to those espousing socialist or Bolivarian 
     ideologies.
       Just as the Pope said that ``no one can remain insensitive 
     to the inequalities that persist in the world,'' U.S. policy 
     must better reflect how we can assist the people of Latin 
     America and better encourage partnerships based on equitable 
     growth and shared interests. While we have strong ties with 
     the

[[Page E224]]

     globalized elites of these nations, we must also reach out to 
     those left behind.
       Again, the church provides the model in the various social 
     and educational missions conducted by Jesuits, Franciscans, 
     and countless other religious orders. These are the type of 
     programs that provide real benefits to Latin Americans, and 
     they can improve both perceptions of the United States and 
     regional stability.
       The United States can focus on aid programs that encourage 
     bottom-up development and reduce the corruption inherent in 
     top-down projects. We can provide assistance to promote 
     better policing and social services, in many ways supporting 
     the spread of innovative indigenous programs that ensure 
     social welfare.
       We can nurture investment in the people instead of capital 
     assets, and pursue projects that support open and fair 
     economic competition, and equal and transparent enforcement 
     of the law. Through improved access to U.S. markets, we can 
     empower small business owners and entrepreneurs and show that 
     the benefits of economic growth can be equitably distributed. 
     Finally, we can demonstrate through deeds, not words, how the 
     U.S. investments in the region stand in stark contrast to the 
     exploitative, mercantilist approach of China's state-owned 
     industries.
       In listening to the Pope's message, we can build our own 
     21st century approach towards a region that can no longer 
     afford to neglect.
                                  ____


                  Holy See Diplomacy in the Modern Era

                          (By Francis Rooney)

       In the increasingly secular environment of the developed 
     western world, driven by rapid information exchange and an 
     unprecedented degree of inter-personal connectivity, one 
     might consider the role the Holy See might play in the 
     affairs of states and international relations as a quaint 
     anachronism, a vestige of a distant past, and seek to consign 
     the Holy See to obscurity. However, to do so would ignore the 
     ageless foundation upon which Holy See diplomacy is based, 
     and its relevance to humanity in the 21st century just as in 
     the past. It would also fail to account for the unique role 
     the Holy See plays now, lacking a territorial agenda, in the 
     cultural and religion-inspired conflicts in our world today.
       In fact, many leaders at Vatican II urged elimination of 
     the diplomatic role of the Holy See, arguing that the Church 
     should exclusively devote itself theological and pastoral 
     issues. In his papal letter of 24 June 1969, Sollicitudo 
     Omniam Ecclesiarium, Pope Paul VI articulated the rational 
     for continued diplomatic engagement as a means of helping the 
     community of nations ``achieve the implementation of great 
     human hopes, peace between nations, the domestic tranquility 
     and progress of each country.'' These words call to mind the 
     Preamble to our Constitution and the lofty goals of U.S. 
     foreign policy of protecting human rights and dignity and 
     spreading the essential freedoms around the world.
       A leading Vatican diplomat, Cardinal Jean Louis Tauran, 
     describes the diplomatic force of the Holy See more tangibly 
     as a ``moral authority'' able to ``contest systems or ideas 
     that corrode the dignity of the person and thus threaten 
     world peace.''
       As the only nation founded from its beginnings on the 
     principle that man is endowed with inalienable rights, 
     emanating from his being and not by the grant of some 
     government, and the creators of the 1st Amendment's 
     protection of the freedom of religion, often called ``the 
     first freedom'' from which others derive, the United States 
     is a natural partner to the Holy See and can leverage its own 
     goals and policy objectives by continued alignment with it.
       The Holy See is most effective when using its platform to 
     denounce actions which undermine human dignity, inhibit 
     freedom and oppress people. It has influence by moral 
     persuasion, often called ``soft power,'' which can accomplish 
     results hegemonic authorities often cannot on their own. It 
     is also effective in working quietly and bi-laterally on 
     certain types of issues which relate to its human rights 
     orientation, and in using the power of its global network of 
     clergy and Catholic organizations to advance its agenda. In 
     countries of high Catholic populations, there is even more 
     potential to have an impact.
       The successful alignment of President Ronald Reagan and 
     Pope John Paul II's efforts to undermine communism in the 
     1980's is well known. As Premier Gorbachev said, ``Everything 
     that happened in Eastern Europe would have been impossible 
     without the pope.'' In fact, the Russian KGB had identified 
     the future pope as a strong anticommunist in 1971 and upon 
     his election, the Communist Party of Poland called him ``our 
     enemy'' against whom ``all means are allowed'' in opposing 
     him.
       There are many less obvious examples of important work on 
     the part of the Holy See on conflict resolution and the 
     stimulation of dialogue. Pope John XXII played a critical 
     role in creating a window for conciliation during the Cuban 
     Missile Crisis in 1962, via a subtle, clandestine exchange of 
     communications among the pope, President Kennedy and Premier 
     Khrushchev, using the editor of the Saturday Review, Norman 
     Cousins, as an intermediary. This effort culminated with the 
     well-known papal message on Vatican Radio on 25 October 1962 
     and its publication on the front page of Pravda then next 
     day.
       The work of Myron Taylor at the Holy See during World War 
     II, as President Roosevelt's personal representative, is well 
     documented. In addition to the use of Vatican neutrality to 
     maintain his routine visits to Pope Pius XII and to allow his 
     assistant, Harold Tittmann, to remain in country throughout 
     the war, the Holy See diplomatic pouch was used to send 
     messages to the U.S. through Switzerland, all of which served 
     to maintain a robust and valuable channel of information 
     exchange throughout the war. The role the Holy See played 
     soon thereafter in nudging newly elected (over strong U.S. 
     opposition) Argentine President Juan Peron to send food to 
     alleviate post war famine in Europe is not so well known.
       Recently, while I was serving as ambassador, we engaged the 
     Holy See to work to unify the Christian block in Lebanon 
     prior to the 2006 war, so as to fortify the power sharing 
     coalition of Druze, Hezbollah and Christian which had brought 
     relative stability to the country for several years, and to 
     bring the Holy See's influence to bear in Latin America as 
     several leaders, Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales 
     in particular, became increasingly hostile to U.S. interests. 
     It was also during my time in Rome that Pope Benedict 
     intervened to help a group of sailors from Britain who had 
     strayed in to Iranian waters, at the request of Prime 
     Minister Tony Blair.
       It is worth noting that in June 2009 when Manuel Zelaya, 
     having been removed after provoking a constitutional crisis, 
     attempted to return to Honduras and contest the successor 
     government of Roberto Micheletti, Cardinal Oscar Andres 
     Rodriguez Maradiaga played a significant, if not decisive 
     role in keeping him out of the country.
       While these examples of tactical diplomatic engagement are 
     interesting, and demonstrate how effective the Holy See can 
     be, the more sustaining and impactful recent expressions of 
     the Holy See's exercise of its ``soft power'' come from 
     Benedict XVI's Regensberg speech and subsequent visits to the 
     United Kingdom, the United States and Germany.
       When the pope spoke at Regensberg, Germany, in September 
     2006 against the misuse of religion to incite violence and 
     advance extremism and intolerance in the Islamic world, he 
     used a poignant and controversial metaphor to make his point, 
     and brought the attention of the entire world to bear on the 
     question of how to temper the religious fervor of some 
     interpretations of Islam with the reason and rationality of 
     the modern world. Subsequent to this speech a group of 38 
     Muslim scholars has convened and explored avenues toward 
     accomplishing this goal, seeking ``a consonance between the 
     truths of the Koranic revelation and the demands of human 
     intelligence.'' While there is much to achieve in this 
     regard, the position of the Holy See, as both global 
     interlocutor and one of the three Abrahamic faiths, has a 
     special role to play.
       In a similar vein, the pope and clergy from around the 
     world have discussed the risks to freedom and democracy from 
     degradation of religion in modern society and its replacement 
     with a material secularism. Pope Benedict XVI summarized the 
     position in an address to the German parliament on 22 
     September 2011, ``Politics must be striving for justice, and 
     hence it has to establish the fundamental preconditions for 
     peace . . . systems of laws have almost always been based on 
     religion: decisions regarding what has to be lawful among men 
     were taken with reference to the divinity.'' Whether the 
     internal national politics of a country, or the external 
     pursuit of relations among states, the thesis is that without 
     the ``moral compass'' and values of human decency and respect 
     for individual rights inspired and taught by religion, it is 
     difficult to have justice and freedom for long. The 20th 
     century examples of totalitarianism, in Hitler's Germany and 
     Stalin's Russia come to mind.
       We will see how the new pope, Pope Francis, takes these 
     principles forward just as Pope Benedict expressed them in a 
     context different from his predecessors, but nonetheless they 
     remain the same, fundamental principles. Popes have 
     consistently applied these concepts through the years, John 
     Paul II focused on Communism, Benedict XVI on radicalization 
     secularism, John XXIII on nuclear war and Benedict XV and 
     Pius XII on the evils of the two World Wars which dominated 
     their papacies.
       I am hopeful that this ``new world'' pope, appearing to be 
     more conversational and less formal, will be able to broaden 
     and deepen the message, and deploy the ``soft power'' of the 
     Holy See more effectively than ever to challenge abhorrent 
     and oppressive behaviors in the world. So far, his emphasis 
     on the social mission of the Church squares well with a 
     diplomacy based on the inalienable rights of man and the 
     protection of human dignity for all.

                          ____________________