Website accessibility
Show or hide the menu bar
Main home
Section home
|
Content
Calendar
Links
|
Log in
|
Home

What are Concordats?

These church-state accords generally give the Church massive state subsidies and other privileges. They also permit Church employees to be hounded about their private lives. Yet as “international treaties”, concordats bypass the democratic process, making parliaments powerless to modify, let alone revoke them.

 
 “International treaties”

International law has been called “war by other means”. [1] Among the most effective of these “other means” are the papal documents called concordats. A concordat is an agreement between the Vatican and a foreign state. Since the Vatican claims to be a country [2], these accords are supposed to be as binding as international treaties ― yet also to exist on a higher plane and possess a “spiritual” dimension: “A concordat refers to a cordial agreement, a union of wills, the successful meeting of hearts and minds in Christian harmony.” [3]

Concordats are thus treaties but, in view of the strategems used to get concordats past democratic legislatures, it could be argued that in some respects they resemble the treaties of the colonial era whose “primary aim was less the creation of legally binding commitments and more the economic and political infiltration”. [4]  The Roman Catholic Church tries to make concordats with any state wherever and whenever this becomes politically possible. This strategy has proven so successful that now other powerful churches (even ones that don’t claim to be countries) are clamouring for equivalent “church-state treaties”. These include the Lutheran Church in Germany and the Orthodox Church in Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. In fact, if a future concordat is signed between the Vatican and the Czech Republic, even the Seventh Day Adventists have said that they want one, too. [5] As a recent study by a Catholic theologian concludes, “the Catholic Church has opened the way for all religious communities to enjoy the same rights. [6] By sharing the spoils, this delivers a fundamental blow to separation of church and state.
 

Set in stone

Concordats differ in detail from state to state, as they codify the already existing church privileges ― and try to slip in as many more as the local political climate will allow. This is erosion of church-state separation is dangerous because it is a one-way street. For in a democratic country there is always the possibility of any privilege being revoked if circumstances change. [7]

 But the main point of a concordat is to remove Church privileges from democratic control. It does this by means of a contract which cannot be altered except by mutual consent. All other laws are under parliamentary control and can be amended by it. However in a concordat, because one of the parties is the Church, it is hardly going to be willing to give up any of its privileges. A cardinal frankly admits that the advantage of concordats resides precisely in this independence from democratic control:

[Other agreements] are subject to local law and therefore will always be fragile, insofar as they are dependent upon the hazards posed by the political regimes or parliamentary majorities of the future. [8]

By the back door

Originally concordats were agreements between two monarchs: the pope who ruled the Papal States and the ruler of the other country. John Paul II was able to make such an agreement with King Hassan II of Morocco in 1983-1984. In such cases there is no parliament to complicate matters. Today, however, with both absolute monarchs and dictators hard to come by, concluding a concordat is not so easy. This has obliged the Vatican to develop many ways of getting concordats approved by sceptical parliamentarians.

Sometimes the text of the concordat may be kept secret until it has been signed which prevents any discussion of its terms by parliament or the public. By the time the legislators and the public find out what the concordat says, it can no longer be altered, only approved or rejected as a whole. And sometimes parliament is even expected to vote on this complex ― and permanent ― legal document too quickly for any real scrutiny. If that doesn't work a concordat may sit unratified for years until some opportunity presents itself to get it cast in stone. In addition to the hundreds are already in force worldwide, others, like the Slovak “Conscience Concordat”, are drawn up and waiting for the right political climate to be ratified. For more on this, see Fifteen tricks to get a concordat through
 

Tithes without worshippers

By hook or by crook the Church tries to get itself concordats. This convenient document allows the Church to extend its privileges, including massive state subsidies, even as, in some of the wealthier countries, its membership is decreasing ― and it also locks these payments in. This is why the Slovakian government wants to introduce a “church tax” (a fixed percentage of the income tax paid by church members), whereas the Church wants to maintain the status quo, (an annual donation according to present needs). [9] If the Church succeeds in getting “present need” funding enshrined in the upcoming concordat on finances, there will be no realistic possibility of reducing the state contribution ― ever. 
 

 

Conclusion

A concordat does three things.

  • First, it installs a ratchet. The concordat itself cements previously-granted privileges and adds new ones. And the ratchet effect doesn’t end there, for a “general concordat” may be used to sets up the framework for more detailed ones to come. The general concordat acts as the thin edge of the wedge: its terms are vague enough to make it easy to get through parliament [10], but if the parliamentarians later balk at the more detailed concordats, they are told that they have already agreed to them in principle. And if the general concordat has included an "aim" to conclude them within a certain time, this can be used to apply more pressure, by presenting it to the media as a “promise”. [10] A framework concordat is like a Russian doll containing more.
  • Second, and even more ominously, because a concordat claims the status of international law, it prevents Church privileges, including massive state subsidies, from ever again being brought under democratic control.
  • And third, a concordat stipulates that “Church institutions” are governed by Canon Law (the law of the Catholic Church). However, since the Church is permitted to run various social services ― with state support, of course ― the laws which govern these Church institutions also affect those who work and those who are served by them. This legal manoeuvre means that a concordat can set up a theological fiefdom where certain Human Rights do not apply ― and where they can never be reintroduced without the consent of the Church.

By means of concordats Vatican diplomats and lawyers are mounting an attack on many of the freedoms that we have won since then ― rights that we had come to think were unassailable. The Vatican’s concordats pose an increasing threat to both democracy and Human Rights.
 

Notes

About the picture: In shining silver armour and brandishing his sword, the bearded pontiff himself rode forth at the head of his army. When it came to spreading papal influence Julius II ― il papa terribile ― was refreshingly direct. However, since the time of the irascible “warrior pope”, legal and diplomatic means have come to be preferred. A modern pontiff heads an army of lawyers and diplomats, brandishing documents. Back in the 1500’s the “warrior pope” was merely bickering with other feudal monarchs. However today, when the target is democratic institutions, much more is at stake.

Julius II, the warrior pope, blessed the first contingent of Swiss Guards, the only foot soldiers who could withstand a cavalry attack. Their halberd combined a curved axe to cut a horse’s legs, a hook to grab the rider and pull him down, and a long spike to run him through.

1. John Fonte quoted in Scott Malcolmson, “Lawfare”, New York Times, 12 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12LAWFARE.html

2. Muriel Fraser, "The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and country".

3. The History of Ideas, Vol 6: Treaty - Linguistic Issues, Science Encyclopedia.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/11506/Treaty-Linguistic-Issues.html

The concordat is supposed to pass its provisions spiritually, requires no diplomatic "handling," and its conclusion is avoided by the Holy See if it foresees complications in the ratification process from the other side. It is a euphemism through which papal treaty practice is rendered sui generis, supposed always to operate in concord, thus rhetorically separating itself from the worldly bargaining and crude pursuit of national interest associated with conventional treaty-making.

4. The History of Ideas Vol 6: Treaty - Jurisprudence, Science Encyclopedia.  http://science.jrank.org/pages/11510/Treaty-Jurisprudence.html

5. “Czech Republic: Adventists continue to seek own agreement with state”, Adventist News Network, 4 November 2003. http://news.adventist.org/data/2003/1067958815/index.html.en

6. Roland Minnerath, "The Experience of the Catholic Church in Structuring its Relationship with States in the XX Century", 2000. [The author is Professor at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Marc Bloch University, Strasbourg.] http://www.vob.ru/public/bishop/istor_vest/2000/5-6_9-10/1_16.htm

7. For example, the Vatican tried, by way of a "conscience concordat" in Slovakia, to ensure that patients could be denied treatment or even health information if this was in conflict with the religious scruples of the health providers (or the Catholic institution that employed them). If ratified, enshrining it in a concordat would have made it irreversible. By contrast, the similar "conscience clause" which was passed by executive order in the final days of the Bush regime may soon be reversed by his successor. See "Abortion foes, supporters, clash over new rule", AP, 18 February 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-18-abortion-rule_N.htm

8. Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran, speech before a French bishops’ conference in Lourdes, 5 November 2003. Translated excerpts available at "Vatican Foreign Ministers on concordats: Tauran (1990-2003)".

9. Frans Hoppenbrouwers, "Nationalistic tendencies in the Slovak Roman Catholic Church", Religion in Eastern Europe, Volume XVIII, Number 6, December 1998. [The author is a Roman Catholic Church historian and secretary of studies of the Dutch Roman Catholic relief organization, Communicantes.] http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/soc-swk/ree/Hoppenbrouwers_Nationalistic_Dec%201998.pdf

10. See the Introduction to the [Slovak] Basic Concordat (2000) http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=849&kb_header_id=755&order=kb_rank%20ASC&kb_id=1222

11. "US Lawmaker prods Israel on pact with Vatican", Catholic World News, 20 June 2006. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=44870

 

(Last updated 15 June 2010)


Go to Notanant menuWebsite accessibility

Access level: public