COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS THE REPORT OF THE HOLY SEE

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined sixteenth to twenty-third periodic report of the Holy See on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Silvano Tomasi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva, stated that the Holy See maintained that all members of the human race were equal in inherent dignity which was grounded in the image and likeness of God and the common rational nature shared by all humans as persons. The Holy See, as a member of the international community, was related, but separate and distinct from the territory of Vatican City State, over which it exercised sovereignty. The Catholic Church, throughout the world, over which the Holy Father as Bishop of Rome exercised religious authority, was a spiritual society composed of those persons who freely decided to adhere to the doctrines and religious practices of the Church. The new Supplementary Norms of the Vatican City State promulgated by Pope Francis provided a clear and strong piece of legislation for the elimination of racial discrimination.

In the discussion which followed, Committee Experts asked for further clarifications on the fine distinction between the Holy See, Vatican City State and the Catholic Church. They raised the issue of the territoriality of the Convention and the scope of jurisdiction by the Holy See. The Experts emphasized the intersectionality of human rights and expressed their disappointment with the position of the Holy See regarding the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Other issues raised included the claims by certain indigenous groups for redress over the injustices committed by the Holy See in the past, the rescinding of the papal bull Inter caetera, institutional oversight within the Holy See, personal attribution under the Canon Law, and prevention of discrimination in schools operated by the Catholic Church around the world.

Manuel Carlos Vasquez, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Holy See, in concluding remarks, appreciated that the Holy See did not object to intersectionality. He welcomed the indication that more might be done on the Holy See’s relations with indigenous peoples.

Mr. Tomasi expressed gratitude to the members of the Committee for their work on the promotion of the Convention. The many questions raised provided the delegation with the material to which further consideration ought to be given.

The delegation of the Holy See included representatives of the Secretariat of State and the Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Jose Francisco Cal Tzay, Chairperson of the Committee, informed that today was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 2015 and expressed the support of the Committee for the comprehensive fight against such violence.

The Committee will next meet in public in Room XX of the Palais des Nations on Thursday, 26 November, at 10 a.m. to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Report

The combined sixteenth to twenty-third periodic report of the Holy See can be read here: CERD/C/VAT/16-23.

Presentation of the Report

SILVANO TOMASI, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that when the Holy See became a State party to the Convention, it was much more than a symbolic gesture; it was a manifestation of the solid conviction that racial discrimination was absolutely intolerable because all persons shared the same human dignity and enjoyed the same fundamental and inviolable human rights. Relying upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Holy See maintained that all members of the human race were equal in inherent dignity, which was grounded in the image and likeness of God and the common rational nature shared by all humans as persons. That equality did not mean that all people were all alike in all ways. What mattered was, in fact, the respect of the dignity of every person, stressed Mr. Tomasi.

The Holy See, as a member of the international community, was related, but separate and distinct from the territory of Vatican City State, over which it exercised sovereignty. Its international personality had never been confused with the territories over which it exercised State sovereignty. Vatican City State, in its present form, had been established in 1929 in order to ensure more effectively the absolute and visible independence of the Holy See. The colloquial references to the Holy See as the “Vatican” could be misleading. The Catholic Church, spread throughout the world, over which the Holy Father as Bishop of Rome exercised religious authority, was a spiritual society composed of those persons who, by their own free choice, decide to adhere to the doctrines and religious practices of the Church. The Holy See, while having religious authority over its members residing in different countries, recognized the jurisdiction of national authorities where members of the Catholic Church were located or resided. The Holy See exercised the same authority upon those who lived in Vatican City State. The Holy See had no civil jurisdiction over each and every member of the Catholic Church.

The new Supplementary Norms of the Vatican City State promulgated by Pope Francis in July 2013 provided a very clear and strong piece of legislation for the elimination of racial discrimination and included a punishment of five to ten years for those guilty of such crimes. The same Norms prohibited a vast array of crimes against humanity, including those directly motivated by considerations of race, such as apartheid, persecution and genocide, imposing sentences of up to 35 years for those convicted. In addition to implementing such legislation within the territory of Vatican City State, the Holy See conveyed the message behind those laws and the principles which underlay them to members of the Catholic Church around the world. The Holy See also used its media services to promote the abovementioned principles and to condemn racial discrimination. History showed that the truth that all men and women were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, had to be constantly reaffirmed, re-appropriated and defended. That moral appeal was universally applicable and had been echoed in the numerous statements by national bishops’ conferences, individual bishops in their dioceses and in the pastoral work of many priests, religious and lay people.

Mr. Tomasi stressed that the role of the Holy See in promoting reconciliation, tolerance and friendship among nations and ethnic groups was not limited to moral exhortation, which was evident in the international activities that the Holy See carried out. There were, for example, 215,784 schools run by religious communities and local parishes throughout the world, educating over 64 million young people, the majority of whom were not Catholic. For centuries, the Catholic Church had promoted the right to education without distinction as to race, colour, national or ethnic origin. Through its educational system, the Catholic Church had been effective in combatting prejudices which led to racial discrimination. Another example was the system of health services managed by Catholics which provided care without any racial distinction

The Holy See expected the dialogue to remain within the specific area of concern of the Convention.

Questions by Experts

MANUEL CARLOS VASQUEZ, Committee Member and Rapporteur for the Holy See, expressed appreciation for the valuable work of the Holy See to promote the aims of the Convention and condemn racism. Pope Francis had made powerful statements condemning racism and asked for the acceptance of migrants. Pope Francis had also contributed to bringing attention to the intersectionality of poverty and racism.

The Holy See saw the Committee’s recommendations as “non-binding suggestions” which could not create new obligations. The Convention, however, empowered the Committee to make suggestions and general recommendations based on its consideration of States parties’ reports. Much of what the Committee recommended could be regarded as setting forth best practices under the Convention, said Mr. Vasquez. It was difficult to maintain that the recommendation on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action exceeded the Committee’s mandate.

Regarding the territorial scope of the Convention, the Expert noted that the Holy See had not attached an Interpretive Declaration to its ratification of the Convention. The provisions of the Convention did not contain a territorial limitation, with the exceptions of Articles 3 and 6. Some of the activities and statements by Holy See leaders had not solely focused on eliminating discrimination within the 44 square kilometres of the Vatican City State.

Were there articles penalizing and declaring invalid racist organizations? Was there a prosecutorial discretion concerning racist offences? Clarification was sought about the applicability of the criminal law – did it refer to public officials of Vatican City State or did it also include those of the Holy See? Were all officials of the Holy See “citizens” of Vatican City State, the Expert asked.

A question was asked whether complainants seeking compensation were held to a lower burden of proof even though their contentious proceedings were part of a penal case. The victim’s right to compensation should not be placed at the mercy of the prosecutor. Further information was sought on how the laws concerning remedies operated in practice.

The data on the racial or ethnic make-up of the leadership of the Holy See was not provided. Currently more than half of the 219 cardinals were from Europe even though only about a quarter of the Catholic faithful were from Europe. It was noteworthy that the current Pope was from Latin America.

Regarding education, the Expert said that Catholic schools performed commendable work in many countries around the world, but there were also reports of racial discrimination within some such schools. What was the Holy See doing to prevent such discrimination?

A shadow report strenuously objected to the failure of the Holy See to explicitly disavow the papal bull titled Inter catera from 1493, which was clearly racist at its core. The report also strongly objected to the recent canonization of Junipero Serra, the Spanish missionary, because of his role in the abuses against indigenous peoples in the Americas.

The problem of racism among the Catholic clergy in the United Kingdom was raised, and several racist incidents listed. Out of 5,600 priests in England and Wales, only 30 were black.

The Committee was not advocating interference by the Holy See in the domestic jurisdiction of the countries in which Catholic institutions operated, but often concurrent ability existed to address those issues. The State party’s responsibility could be engaged if it failed to take appropriate measures to prevent or redress the conduct of its citizens or others under its authority or control.

Another Expert praised the ratification of the amendment of Article 8 of the Convention by the Holy See. He asked about the relations of the Holy See with the Sovereign Military Order of St. John.

An Expert expressed disappointment by the approach taken in the report when it came to territorial limitations. It was also regrettable that there were no women on the delegation. Intersectionality of human rights ought to be acknowledged, she stressed.

Could admission policies to Catholic schools be made more inclusive of minorities? Was there a particular policy on the education of clergy? What were the criteria for promotion?

The Expert said that she was disappointed about what the Holy See said in the report regarding the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Was the Holy See considering establishing a national human rights institution?

Injustices of the past in which the Catholic Church had played a part should not be forgotten, another Expert said. Consequences of some of those injustices persisted. In what circumstances could the Vatican City State contribute to resolving the issue of stateless people in the Dominican Republic, for example?

Would the Vatican City State consider the possibility of the Pope making a statement on the International Decade for People of African Descent? An encyclical in that regard, or on the past events in which the Church had partaken, would also be very welcome.

The courts in Vatican City State had very few cases to deal with, an Expert noted and asked about details of civil and penal cases addressed in the courts.

Details were asked about the applications of the Penal Canon Law to persons who committed serious crimes.

Just because the Holy See was not a “regular” State did not mean it was not a subject to the international law, an Expert stressed.

He said that the Committee’s recommendations were not binding, but it was hoped that they would be taken up when possible.

What was the position of the Holy See regarding the extremely worrying situation gripping Burundi today?

Another Expert said that the Committee was perplexed regarding the intersection of the Holy See and Vatican City State, both of which were led by Pope Francis. Questions of overlapping authority and jurisdiction would need some more explanation.

What was meant by personal attribution under Canon Law? With the values upheld by the Holy See and those enshrined in the Convention, what penalties could be applied to a person found guilty of racial discrimination? Could adversarial proceedings take place before the Vatican courts?

One could support the Durban Declaration without agreeing to the full text. It should not be dismissed out of hand, an Expert said.

The concept of intersectionality, while not mentioned in the Convention, was widely relevant; minority women, for example, were particularly vulnerable to discrimination. What was the delegation’s position on the intersectionality of race and religion? There were cases of racial discrimination based on religion, which was being increasingly recognized.

Another Expert admitted that it was still not clear to him whether the delegation was representing the views of the Catholic Church or of the Holy See stricto sensu. One had to stress the moral aspect of the State party’s report. The finesse was very thin; the Catholic Church could thus be seen as the only religious organization to come to interact with the Committee.

The clergy of Poland had reportedly taken a harsh position against the acceptance of refugees to that country. Was there any legal norm to force that clergy to change its position.

Unfortunately, certain Catholic priests around the world violated the laws of the countries in which they were serving, which was understandable, as they were human beings. To what extent did the Holy See encourage the punishment of such priests in line with the law of the countries where such crimes were committed?

Did the Holy See ensure that Italian laws were in conformity with the Convention and that Italian judges in the three Tribunals in Vatican City were fully aware of its provisions?

The Committee always took the Convention as a starting point in its deliberations. Adopted 50 years ago, it had to be seen in today’s context and the full potential of all of its articles had to be harnessed. The Committee’s recommendations, while not binding, were the means the Committee used to express its current views on the Convention.

The Convention had been at the origin of the Durban Declaration, and some members of the Committee had helped draft the outcome document, which had been an object of consensus. By encouraging States to implement the Plan of Action, the Committee was not going beyond its mandate, and no States saw it the same way, an Expert noted.

When the Pope spoke, people listened, said another Expert. He inspired confidence and promoted peace, which was a value that could not be measured.

The issue of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa and the role of the Catholic Church in combatting it was brought up by an Expert; the mention of that was regrettably missing in the report. The Expert encouraged the State party to have another look at the Durban Programme of Action.

The convening power that the Church had should be used to promote justice and substantive equality around the world.

In the case of the Holy See, which body had an oversight capacity and how did it work in practice?

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation said that the Holy See and the Committee were on the same page, trying to improve the respect and protection of every human being.

Caritas was very active in the Dominican Republic and was trying to resolve the issue of the people of Haitian origin who had been declared stateless.


The delegation said that if the Committee’s recommendations were not binding, the Holy See believed that they did not create new obligations. The Holy See was not against the activities of the Committee in applying the Convention to new situations, but was concerned about adding new substantive aspects not agreed to by States parties.

The Holy See promoted the aims of the Convention, but was concerned that a possibility of intersectionality with other conventions to which it was not a State party would add to the Convention some aspects that the Holy See could not accept. There were many examples of intersectionality which could clearly not be ignored, such as the connection of racism and poverty. Pope Francis had stated that poor people had a role in history, and everyone should do their utmost to eradicate social inequalities.

Despite the wide-spread aspirations to build an authentic universal community, the unity of the human race had still not become a reality. Any theory of racism or racial discrimination was morally unacceptable. The Durban message had been accepted and utilized, stated the delegation. Racism was a sin, a fundamental lie deliberately created to stir divisions in humanity. The Holy See had hoped that one of the outcomes of Durban would be an enhanced dialogue between religions and civilizations.

The Holy See did not take the position that the Convention was territorially limited to Vatican City State, as it was the Holy See, and not Vatican City State, that was the party to the Convention.

The delegation explained that the Holy See was the sovereign subject of international law, with diplomatic relations with more than 180 States and a member of numerous international organizations. The term “Holy See” referred not only to the Pontiff, but also to institutions of the Roman Curia. The Holy See was a sovereign and unique subject of international law having an original, non-derived legal personality independent of any authority or jurisdiction, which exercised its sovereignty over the territory of Vatican City State. When the Holy See acceded to an international agreement, it exercised its moral authority and encouraged other States to follow suit.

The Catholic Church had an inherent right independent of any civil authority to lead moral Christian lives. Penal Cannon Law of the Catholic Church differed from criminal laws of sovereign States. Its proper purpose was to repair the scandals created, reform the offender and restore justice. The juridical system of the Church did not use physical force to exercise coercive punishment.

The majority of crimes prosecuted in the Vatican City State were of less serious nature and normally led to alternative punishments, which were not solely retributive, but also served educational and rehabilitative purposes. Vatican City State had no penitentiary system, but could request the Italian State to try and punish offences committed within Vatican City State; it did not interfere in such judicial proceedings. One case in example was the prosecution of the attempted murderer of Pope John Paul II.

Not all the officials working for the Holy See were citizens of Vatican City State, but the State’s criminal law applied to them.

The delegation informed that there was still no jurisprudence under Law 8. Modifications made to that law would be subsequently reported to the Committee.

Regarding the make-up of the leadership of the Holy See, the delegation said that as of 2013, the College of Cardinals had been composed of about 120 members, with the following breakdown: from Africa - eight per cent, from Asia - 9.6 per cent, from Europe -57 per cent, from Central America - one per cent, from North America - 12 per cent, from South America - ten per cent, and from Oceania – 2 per cent. In the Roman Curia, the central Government of the Church, about 180 officials were European and 120 came from other parts of the world. Among the younger functionaries, due to the demographic changes, there was a much higher percentage of those coming from developing countries. There was an increased effort to internationalize, in a progressive way, the management framework of the Church.

The Sovereign Military Order of John Malta was an international subject of international law. Its members were divided into religious and non-religious. The religious ones were consecrated in line with the Cannon Law, where the direct relationship between the Order and the Holy See came into picture. The Grand Master of the Order was not a cardinal.

There was no further information on the reported cases of racism among the Catholic clergy in the United Kingdom, whose national Government needed to look into those cases, as national jurisprudence came first.

In India, the Government had been trying to eradicate the caste stratification, which was regrettably still prevailing, leading to de facto discrimination, especially in some parts of the country. In the educational structures of the Church in India, there was an understanding that children from Catholic families, especially from Dalit families and the underprivileged strata, should be given a privileged status in admission. A Dalit person had been elected the President of India in 1997.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine. The civil legislation in each State treated cases of their respective citizens and residents.

The Catholic priest who had allegedly been involved in the genocide in Rwanda had had charges against him dropped by a French court, as recently reported in the media.

On Burundi, the delegation said that the conference of Catholic bishops of Burundi had issued a statement in September 2015, alerting the nation with a long message, which pleaded for peaceful cohabitation.

Reports on racist behaviour by Catholic priests around the world vis-à-vis refugees were saddening, but not all local parishes could be controlled by the Holy See. The Holy See would continue to pursue the spirit of solidarity towards those in need.

Poland had reportedly started to accept refugees from Ukraine in recent days, and one could hope that local communities would open their doors to people in need from elsewhere, regardless of their religion.

On the issue of indigenous populations, the delegation said that apologies had been issued by the Holy See regarding the crusades. Pope Francis had clearly asked for forgiveness from native peoples for the crimes committed during the so-called “conquest of the Americas”. In his last encyclical “Laudato Si’”, the Pope said that particular attention ought to be paid to the indigenous communities, for whom the land was not a commodity, but rather a gift from God. The Holy See also made annual contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples.

The Promoter of Justice was an equivalent of a public prosecutor, a delegate explained. In penal proceedings, he brought the accusation on behalf of the Church, and prosecuted it before the tribunal.

Replies on how victims of racial discrimination received compensation would be provided subsequently.

Follow-up Questions by Experts

An Expert said that he understood the position of the Holy See on intersectionality, but expressed hope that a common position between the delegation and the Committee could be found. Another Expert was pleased that the Holy See did not object to the concept of intersectionality. There was undoubtedly overlap between different human rights conventions, he said.

Regarding Law 8, the Expert said that he was looking forward to possible additional changes in order to bring it closer in line with the Convention. Remedies depended on the existence of penal violations.

More details were sought on the reported wall and segregation at a Dalit cemetery in India.

What was the State party’s position on the need to have more dialogue with the indigenous groups regarding their historical claims.

Replies by the Delegation

The path of an encyclical on racial discrimination would be pursued, the delegation said.

The Holy See agreed with the Expert’s position on intersectionality, which would also be pursued.

A committee of indigenous peoples would be meeting with Pope Francis in Rome, which would hopefully lead to some clarifications on the relations between the two. The recent canonization of Junípero Serra could also be discussed.

Follow-up Questions by Experts

An Expert welcomed the dialogue between the Holy See and indigenous groups, in the context of historical grievances and their current human rights situation.

She reiterated the question on the education of Church personnel. Divesting of some Catholic schools in predominantly Catholic societies in order to promote diversity was brought up.

A question was asked about the hiring of non-Catholic personnel.

Inclusion in the delegation of women from communities who might be experiencing racial discrimination would have been welcome.

How was the delegation planning to disseminate the concluding observations?

General comments by the Committee ought to be taken into consideration when the Convention was implemented by States parties, an Expert said.

Territoriality of the Holy See in other territories was largely seen in the context of the moral authority exercised by the State party.

Had Vatican City State ever refused an entry to someone on the basis of race, and would that constitute a criminal offence? Would there be a civil remedy in that case?

What was the State party’s position on Inter caetera and the Doctrine of Discovery?

Trust and monitoring of local Church institutions around the world were not mutually exclusive, an Expert stated.

Replies by the Delegation

The Conference of the Bishops of the United States had an office that dealt with indigenous issues.

The delegation would pass on the observation on the presence of women in the delegation to the decision-makers. There were no obstacles to having women present.

The language and the substance of human rights was becoming increasingly part and parcel of the education system of schools run by the Catholic Church.

The majority of students in Catholic schools worldwide were non-Catholic. Decisions on divesting were largely left to local and national Church authorities. The Holy See was also not directly involved in the hiring practices of local dioceses.

The control of the Holy See over local churches was evident in the appointment of local bishops. The Holy See did not interfere directly in the management of local institutions, such as schools, hospitals and seminaries, which were handled by local bishops.

Intersectionality of religion, race and minorities had to be addressed case by case, so that religion would become a support force for the equality needed by minority groups, who needed to be integrated into society in an inclusive manner.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had mostly canonical and less civil law responsibilities. A cleric could be declared as no longer entitled to perform his duties.

On Inter caetera, the delegation said that that papal bull had been made effectively inoperable shortly after its issuance, when Spain and Portugal had concluded the Treaty of Tordesillas.

Priests and bishops could not hold public office, as that was banned by Cannon Law. If they committed legal offences, they could be pursued by the civil authorities of their respective countries. The Holy See could interfere when the Canon Law had internal applicability.

All laws and legal provisions of the Holy See were publicly available, the delegation said.

Concluding Remarks

CARLOS MANUEL VASQUEZ, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Holy See, appreciated the fact that the Holy See did not object to the concept of intersectionality. On extraterritorial application of the Convention, the Committee and the State party might hold divergent views. The State party drew a distinction between legal and moral obligations in that regard. Racist activities by Church officials in various parts of the world could have a detrimental effect on the praiseworthy work that the Holy See conducted in many aspects. The indication that more might be done regarding the Holy See’s relations with indigenous peoples was appreciated.

SILVANO TOMASI, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva, expressed gratitude to the members of the Committee and esteem for their work on the promotion of the Convention. The many questions raised provided the delegation with the material to which further consideration ought to be given. The Holy See looked forward to receiving the concluding observations, which would be given serious study.