Papal Diplomacy – Infobae

The Pope has recently been called for a more energetic intervention in the Venezuelan crisis.

Those who, with more vehemence, demand that Francisco condemn the current regime are usually the same ones who ask for a church-state separation; something that already exists in countries with a Catholic majority. The pope is invited not to intervene in matters which, they say, are of a civil nature or of the exclusive jurisdiction of the lay state, but if the problem is complicated, it is asked to intervene and even to resolve crises that are a state.

These are claims that sound more like excuse to criticize that a real desire of the Vatican to intervene in one way or another.

In fact, the crisis in Venezuela is not the only one in the world to generate civil clashes, bloody repression, poverty and refugees. and the Pope intervened in all his possibilities.

The authority of the sovereign pontiff is of a moral order; he does not have the material resources to put pressure on a government, baduming he deems it appropriate. "The pope has no divisions," Stalin would say. He has something more important than the material power which is the spiritual authority. But if the actors on the ground do not refer to it, this authority remains on the potential plane. This is not seen, but it is a resource of last resort, a reserve to appeal in case of extreme necessity. It can be transformed into even greater power than that of other states.

historically The Holy See maintains an attitude of prudence and equidistance to act with the greatest degree of equanimity when the circumstances warrant it. At that time, the comparison between Jorge Bergoglio and Karol Wojtyla was not lacking. John Paul II would have been a brave and hard pope in their definitions, say some, as if in life they had not criticized him with the same parameters as today with Francisco.

At the time of the Argentinean dictatorship (1976-1983), Paul VI intervened on behalf of several victims of the repression – including Che's brother, stemming from the opening of the Vatican archives – and John -Paul II mediating between the Argentine dictatorship and Chile to stop a fratricidal war.

But neither of the two popes has publicly condemned or broken relations with these de facto regimes, because the Vatican has a responsibility to keep open a channel of dialogue, however narrow it may be. The Holy See, for example, never interrupted diplomatic relations with Cuba, even though the Castro regime banned it until Christmas.

The status of Vatican diplomacy is unique. Papal "foreign policy" can not be badyzed with the same parameters as that of any representative of another state. The Holy See has parishioners – "citizens" – around the world, which is decisive in their diplomacy.

The Vatican State has representatives – announcements – in more than 170 countries. A nuncio can be expelled, but rarely removed. He is not a mere ambbadador: he fulfills a diplomatic function but also a more important function, namely the link between local congregations and Rome.

The balance and prudence that are generally the rule in the foreign policy of the Holy See have two objectives: protect the local flock from possible arbitrariness and avoid in turn to be part of socio-political fractures. Indeed, the Catholic congregation is heterogeneous, both socially and ideologically. The Catholic Church, by definition, is ecumenical.

Vatican diplomacy is "disarmed" diplomacy. But for this reason, he usually plays an important role in peace negotiations. In addition to the aforementioned mediation between Argentina and Chile, think about the former Yugoslavia, Burundi (where the negotiation cost the life of Nuncio Michael Courtney, killed in an ambush in 2003), Cuba or sooner than later in Korea.

Now, Nicolás Maduro has appealed to this intermediation. And Francisco replied that he is ready, provided that the order also comes by Juan Guaidó.

The moral character of the papal authority is precisely what allows the "parties" to refer to an "all" on which it is possible to recognize.

To pretend that, to please a handful of personalities who only provoke the indignation of the media, the Vatican sacrifices this potential for authority on the altar of the short term is absurd and even contrary to the interests of the countries and people in question.

Finally, prudence in the Venezuelan case was not only pontifical, against what may appear at first sight.

United States It's the country that has more pressure tools on Venezuela for the simple reason that it's its first trading partner: it buys just over 40% of its oil production. However, On January 28, Washington applied, for the first time in all these years, sanctions against PDVSA and its American subsidiary, Citgo: freezing of badets worth $ 7,000 million and deriving sales income from a trust that Venezuela can not dispose of, while Maduro remains president.

Despite repeated provocations by the Bolivarian government, Hugo Chávez described President Bush as "devil" to the UN, the diatribes of his successor and the worsening of the economic, social, political and political crisis. institutional, The United States has taken the time necessary to evaluate the opportunity to take such a radical step.

The sanctions applied by Barack Obama in previous years specifically targeted certain high hierarchies of the regime, but not the strangulation of the country 's economy. Something that should have been positively valued by international supporters of Chavez is always ready to denounce the "blockades" of the "powerful".

This patience served to emphasize the inefficiency of the regime that can not claim an external boycott as justification for the current disaster.

And the pope's attitude, criticized for his historical ignorance, now offers a wider range of possibilities in Venezuela.

The eventual dialogue between the parties may be sponsored by other states that may impose a physical order or unfold in the context of spiritual authority.

Leaders have the floor.