A Catholic Approach to Dialogue as a Tool of Diplomacy

The Review of Faith & International Affairs ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rfia20 A Catholic Approach to Dialogue as a Tool of Diplomacy Marián Sekerák To cite this article: Marián Sekerák (04 Jun 2024): A Catholic Approach to Dialogue as a Tool of Diplomacy, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/15570274.2024.2354660 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2024.2354660 Published online: 04 Jun 2024. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfia20 A CATHOLIC APPROACH TO DIALOGUE AS A TOOL OF DIPLOMACY By Marián Sekerák S everal statements and gestures by Pope Francis regarding the ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine have attracted international attention and even caused media and political uproar. Whether it was his personal visit to the Russian embassy at the Holy See shortly after the outbreak of the conflict in February 2022,1 his kiss of the Ukrainian flag2 and labeling the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill as “Putin’s altar boy”3 in April and May of the same year, respectively, or his call for Ukraine to “raise the white flag” of negotiations in March 2024.4 These and other signals have not only provoked interest in Francis’ genuine contribution to Catholic teaching on war and peace (De Volder 2023) but have also significantly exposed a diplomatic toolkit of the Holy See, which can be seen as a typical agent of faith-based diplomacy with mediation aspirations in world affairs (Barbato and Löffler 2022; Joubert 2017).5 In recent years, there has been a growing academic interest in this type of diplomacy covering different religions and their hierarchical representatives (Cox and Philpott 2003; Johnston 2003; Lehmann and McLarren 2023; Thompson 2015; Troy 2008). This article contributes to this expanding body of research by analyzing a Catholic approach to diplomacy, which appears to be in crisis and should be © 2024 Institute for Global Engagement reconfigured, as recently proposed by Pope Francis (2023, § 41). It will be done so through content analysis of authoritative statements of the leading representatives of the Catholic Church, i.e. the popes, as delivered in their diverse speeches, addresses, homilies, letters, exhortations, and encyclicals. The focus will be on the theoretical aspects of this approach applied in these documents, although some specific examples of diplomatic activities will be mentioned as well. A specifically Catholic approach could certainly encompass more than just what the popes have said or written. However, the focus Abstract: This article elaborates dialogue as one of the most important tools of faith-based diplomacy from the Catholic perspective, as presented by some post-conciliar popes. In the first part, after presenting the state of the art, some characteristics of dialogue are briefly outlined. Subsequently, its “ideal type” fulfilling some basic preconditions is introduced. The third part sheds some light on the levels of dialogue in public and multilateral diplomacy, explaining the ways dialogue promotion works in diplomacy. The final part presents some outcomes of dialogue in diplomacy and international politics in general. The content analysis applied in the article is based on various statements of the popes delivered in their speeches, addresses, homilies, letters, exhortations, and encyclicals. Keywords: diplomacy, dialogue, international relations, Catholic Church, Pope Francis the review of faith & international affairs | 1 marián sekerák will be narrowed to the head of the Church for at least three reasons. First, the Pope is a key agent in shaping Catholic doctrine, either individually or through chairing ecumenical councils, including in the area of morals, which encompasses human conduct in (world) politics. Secondly, Catholic doctrine in general, or the Catholic position on specific issues, is often perceived through the prism of what the Pope has uttered as an individual actor. Thirdly, his undisputable role as a religious authority and the head of a globally widespread Church with more than a billion members is widely accepted in contemporary international relations (Albert 2017; Barbato 2021; Genovese 2015). The article focuses on the Catholic perception of dialogue as one of the key instruments of the abovementioned diplomatic toolkit. The structure of the article will be as follows. The first part elaborates on the state of the art—more specifically, a theoretical reflection of the current pontificate and its role in international affairs. Consequently, some characteristics of dialogue will be briefly outlined. In the second part, the basic preconditions of dialogue will be introduced, laying down an “ideal type” of dialogue from the Catholic viewpoint. The third part will shed some light on the levels of dialogue in public and multilateral diplomacy and how dialogue in diplomacy can be promoted. The last part elaborates on some positive outcomes of dialogue in diplomacy and international affairs in general. This helps us to better understand not only some of the recent diplomatic activities of the Holy See and actions of Pope Francis but also the genuine Catholic contribution to the field of international relations (hereinafter, IR). State of the Art and Definition(s) of Dialogue At least since the pontificate of John Paul II, the post-conciliar popes have hoped to “make the Church again an active geopolitical player” as “the Catholic Church is, in fact, the world’s only georeligion” (Phillips 1991, 147). This has been undertaken through various initiatives with implications for foreign policy, since the papal institution, as well as the Holy See itself, are 2 | (2024) sometimes perceived as a kind of “ethical reservoir” capable of skillfully utilizing soft power tools on the diplomatic stage, especially their “institutional and moral capabilities” (Troy 2009, 1103). Pope Francis, in particular, is outstandingly active in this field, whether it involves his inter-faith encounters (Catalano 2022), inter-civilizational communication (Vukicevic 2015), the exposition of his own “doctrine of mercy” (Crespo and Gregory 2020), or participation in shared goals of the international community involving various state and non-state actors (Troy 2021). He thereby advances the diplomatic activity of his predecessors, especially Benedict XVI (Christiansen 2007; O’Connor 2006) and John Paul II (Gillis 2006; O’Connor 2005; Strzałka 2014), to a new level, which sometimes sparks controversies due to some of Francis’ statements, as mentioned earlier. Pope’s ongoing activity of this type is consistently bolstered by skillful dissemination of his thoughts and messages across the official Vatican social networks (Genovese 2019; Novak and Vilceanu 2021) while aiming to enhance his status as one of the foremost global digital leaders (Narbona 2016). The overarching concept and a sort of longterm leitmotif of diplomatic efforts (not only) of the current Pope and the Holy See is dialogue. However, to delve deeper into its forms and prerequisites as they have been formulated over decades, it seems to be useful to identify its main characteristics. Particularly, the ideas of a Belgian Dominican friar Dominique Pire, O.P. (1910– 1969), whose work helping refugees in postWWII Europe led to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1958, can be helpful in this effort. He stated that dialogue means to look beyond the boundaries of one’s conviction for the duration of the dialogue so as to share the heart and spirit of the other, without abandoning any part of one’s self, in order to understand, judge and appreciate the real goodness and usefulness present in the thoughts, feelings and actions of the other. One must really fill oneself with the other. It therefore requires one to bracket off a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy one’s self for a moment, who we are and what we think, so as to understand and appreciate the other positively, without necessarily sharing the other’s point of view. In this there is a profound renunciation of self. (as cited in Compagnoni and Alford 2007, 141) Dialogue here is understood, unsurprisingly, from a Christian perspective, which is strictly ethical and presupposes a capacity for selfquestioning, i.e. recognizing one’s own failures, weaknesses, and injustices. Such an intellectually and spiritually demanding way seems a bit unsuitable for international politics, which is often characterized by an inclination to pursue individual agents’ goals, national egoism and pride, economic calculations, or dishonest actions, which tend to contradict international law. However, the toolkit of diplomacy makes it possible to go beyond all these limitations, which are typical for international affairs, and effectively use rational dialogue as one of its oldest and most productive tools (cf. Sending 2015, 15–28). As rightly pointed out by the British IR theorist Adam Watson (1914–2007), one of the most prominent representatives of the English School of IR theory,6 “dialogue between states remains the central and indispensable element of diplomacy” (Watson 1984, xiii), which, broadly speaking, “covers anything short of military action” (Roberts 2004, 147). Diplomacy itself can thus be seen “as the process of dialogue and negotiation by which states in a system conduct their relations and pursue their purposes by means short of war” (Watson 1984, xvi). The papal approach to dialogue, as will be further shown, has somewhat broader connotations than its secular versions in various IR theories. For example, according to Paul VI [s]incere dialogue between cultures, as between individuals, paves the way for ties of brotherhood. Plans proposed for man’s betterment will unite all nations in the joint effort to be undertaken, if every citizen—be he a government leader, a public official, or a simple workman—is motivated by brotherly love and is truly anxious to build one universal human civilization that spans the globe. Then we shall see the start of a dialogue on man rather than on the products of the soil or of technology. This dialogue will be fruitful if it shows the participants how to make economic progress and how to achieve spiritual growth as well … (Paul VI 1967, § 73, italics added) On the one hand, such an understanding of dialogue among nations appears to be the outcome of the optimistic social atmosphere of the mid-1960s, as well as the enthusiasm arising from the Second Vatican Council, which ended shortly before. It is, then, necessary to analyze such a statement in this context. Later developments have shown that economic progress not always aligns closely with spiritual growth, as presupposed by Paul VI, which is evidenced by the plundering of natural resources, deepening economic disparities between nations, the gap in the standard of living between different social classes, poor social mobility in developing countries, or the unethical behavior of key economic agents and even states that led to the international financial crisis in 2007–2008, which was subsequently analyzed in some writings of the Catholic Social Teaching (hereinafter, CST; see Stummvoll 2018, Chap. 7).7 On the other hand, a similar type of rhetoric can also be traced much later, in the writings of Pope Francis, especially in his groundbreaking social encyclical Fratelli tutti (Francis 2020). So, it seems that this “ethos of fraternity” has been long present in Catholic thought about dialogue, however utopian or naive it may appear to observers outside the Catholic Church, especially secular ones. Seen from another perspective, the “negative” characterization of dialogue offers a list of what is not typical for it. It should be emphasized right from the start that such a list is a reconstruction of the typically Catholic approach to dialogue within diplomacy as a social practice, with its specific positive elements and prerequisites described below. First and foremost, dialogue should not be viewed as a sequence of parallel monologues. If the review of faith & international affairs | 3 marián sekerák each of the participating parties speaks only to itself, it is not communication or listening to each other. These are just monologues of various lengths that run concurrently but do not intersect at any point; they have no common points and thus do not lead to mutual understanding. Effective dialogue is also not a quarrel. A quarrel is an exchange of opinions in an aggressive, offensive, and sometimes hurtful way that often causes severe (psychological) harm to the other. If even a quarrel occurs and causes a dispute, only forgiveness can wipe out its negative consequences. This can happen not only at the individual level, but also at the level of relations among states. Even Pope Francis, in one of his prayers for peace, asked God to turn “our quarrelling into forgiveness” (Francis 2014). As it is evident, since CST primarily draws upon religious principles even when reflecting dialogue, a language imbued with spiritual dimensions is also employed in various documents. This is well illustrated by another idea of Pope Francis, who calls dialogue, together with encounter and patient negotiations, “the only means blessed by heaven and worthy of man” (Francis 2022c). Dialogue should not be viewed as zero-sum game, i.e. that one party’s gain means the other’s loss. If one party benefits at the expense of the other after the dialogue, it cannot be considered sincere and authentic. Such interactions lack the essence of true dialogue, as their intention from the outset was to belittle the other party, conquer them, and gain advantages at their expense. Furthermore, dialogue should not be seen as an instrument of intimidation or threats. When intimidation tactics are employed during negotiations, genuine dialogue becomes impossible. In such cases, any de-escalation of crisis is often temporary, as it does not result from dialogue between equal parties. Threatening harm is not a method of dialogue, although it is sometimes utilized in diplomatic negotiations to intimidate or exert influence and achieve desired objectives, such as through the threat of military invasion, economic sanctions, nuclear deterrence, and so forth. 4 | (2024) An Ideal Type of Dialogue from the Catholic Perspective The abovementioned definitions of dialogue likely set the bar too high for it to be adequately implemented in diplomatic practice. However, it can be useful to illuminate a kind of “ideal type” of dialogue from a Catholic perspective, as will be presented in this section. Certainly, this does not mean that all the conditions listed below must always be cumulatively fulfilled. Nevertheless, they effectively illustrate what Catholic morality envisions as authentic and effective diplomatic dialogue, and why the approach of Pope Francis and the Holy See in seeking solutions to some of the ongoing conflicts in the world, such as those in South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, or Ukraine, is so specific and sometimes misunderstood. Authentic and true dialogue, as Pope Francis emphasized, “entails listening to one another, sharing different views, coming to agreement and walking together” (Francis 2022a). Moreover, it means “to put oneself in the other’s place, it is to form a bridge, and within the dialogue, if I have a different opinion, not to argue, but rather to seek to persuade with gentleness” (Francis 2016). Dialogue, seen from this perspective, entails being ready to listen to each other, embracing pluralism, and therefore not suppressing different opinions. On the contrary, moving towards dialogue “presupposes to clearly name the actions and attitudes that threaten dialogue and standing against them; however, with dialogic respect for human dignity, with patience and the ability to forgive” (Poláková 2008, 27). An example of such dialogue can be seen in the reconciliation between Poles and Germans after WWII, which was characterized by several strong gestures and political declarations aimed at mutual forgiveness and the pursuit of new paths towards friendly cooperation (see Feldman 2014; Wiatr 2014). This basic premise is applicable not only to interpersonal dialogue, but also to dialogue in diplomacy, including states and non-state actors. This can happen, as John Paul II put it, only if there is no. compromise with the truth … The state of mind, the convictions, the culture may be different; the interests and the objectives a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy pursued may be opposed; but in a negotiation, the search for an agreement or for a compromise can never be conducted at the price of a concealment of truth or of a contempt of the partner. To arrive at an agreement, it is necessary that the partners listen to each other and at the same time respect each other and that they be able to trust the word spoken. (John Paul II 1989, § 2) However, this seemingly banal assumption of mutually sharing objectively determinable truth, which this approach assumes, appears to be challenging, even difficult to achieve, under real political circumstances. This is well evident in numerous, sometimes ideologically distorted perceptions of what constitutes “truth” by the individual actors to the conflict. True dialogue also “demands basic trust between the participants” (Francis 2022a, italics added). This excludes the use of any deceptive practices (for example, when it comes to arguments in the case of possible war crimes, torture, maltreatment of military prisoners, or civilians) and includes patience, and “honesty in the supply of information, equity in legal systems, and openness in democratic procedures” that give citizens “a sense of security, a readiness to settle controversies by peaceful means, and a desire for genuine and constructive dialogue” (John Paul II 2003, § 8, italics added). This is well evidenced when dialogue is attempted by the parties to the conflict, which can have heated, even violent, aspects. In such cases, the prerequisite for dialogue is a shared desire for genuine reconciliation or at least a mutually beneficial compromise. Therefore, dialogue requires a willingness and readiness to compromise. This has been reiterated several times even by Pope Francis, who accentuated that “[a]uthentic reconciliation does not flee from conflict, but is achieved in conflict, resolving it through dialogue and open, honest, and patient negotiation” (Francis 2020, § 244, italics added). As he vehemently emphasized elsewhere, “[t]rust in dialogue between individuals and between nations, in multilateralism, in the role of the international organizations, and in diplomacy as an instrument for appreciation and understanding, is indispensable for the building of a peaceful world” (Francis 2019, italics added). Therefore, from the Catholic perspective, the diplomatic dialogue is intertwined to an authentic effort to achieve peace. Even political realists embrace peace as one of the goals of all diplomatic efforts. This could be attributed to diplomacy’s fundamental tools and methods, which primarily involve “conversations, negotiations as a form of communication, or dialogue among individual politicians, governments, states, and all subjects of international law” (Rusiňák 2012, 77–78). Achieving mutual understanding, or peace in the case of armed conflicts, is the reason why all these diplomatic tools are regularly applied in interstate relations, which is probably why Pope Francis pointed out that “[p]eace (…) triumphs through solidarity. It generates the desire for dialogue and cooperation which finds an essential instrument in diplomacy” (Francis 2017a, italics added). In inter-state relations, dialogue should be seen as an explicit obligation of states (regardless of their political regime or system) arising not so much from the principles of international law as from natural law. “A commitment to dialogue and cooperation must be the hallmark of every institution of the international community, as well as of every national and local institution, for all are charged with the pursuit of the common good,” as accentuated by Pope Francis (2017b, italics added). Another important precondition of a successful diplomatic dialogue is respect for different opinions. Dialogue is usually carried out by parties that differ more or less in mutual assumptions, starting points, ways of argumentation, or even in ideas about the goal that should be achieved. It is therefore important to lay a good foundation for the dialogue and to expect that its course may have an impact not only on the parties involved, but also on the environment that surrounds them—and in the case of diplomatic dialogue, also on public opinion. Occasionally, there may also be situations where this is the purpose of the the review of faith & international affairs | 5 marián sekerák dialogue. Nevertheless, “even a dialogue intended to influence public opinion may be more or less purposefully influenced—such as by the selection of the topics discussed, through which it is possible to establish certain ‘opinion limits’ within the discussion” (Pajtinka 2019, 29). Regardless of the type of dialogue conducted or the goal pursued, there is no doubt that dialogue presupposes a willingness to agree with another party’s rational arguments as well as inclusiveness. If there is no prior willingness among the parties to listen to and understand each other, or even to agree with well-intended and rational arguments presented by another party, such a dialogue can hardly become successful. It will either end up as a complete failure and lead to more misunderstanding or even an escalation of tensions, as mentioned earlier, or as a zero-sum game where only one party wins at the expense of the other. It would be contrary to the basic principles of diplomacy and its activity, which is “patiently applied to containing these tensions and to maintaining room for dialogue, enabling rational solutions to be worked out,” as highlighted by Paul VI (1977, italics added). Another mentioned aspect, i.e. inclusiveness, assumes the inclusion of all stakeholders in the dialogue. No one who is concerned by the matter under discussion and is authorized to enter the dialogue (mainly in the sense of democratic representation and legitimacy) can be excluded from it in advance. As Pope Francis emphasized, “[m]ultilateral diplomacy is (…) called to be truly inclusive, not cancelling but cherishing the differences and sensibilities that have historically marked various peoples. (…) This calls for reciprocal trust and willingness to dialogue … ” (Francis 2022b, italics added). All these preconditions, delineating an ideal type of a dialogue constructed within the Catholic framework, can be supplemented by four special ones offered by Paul VI in his semiforgotten encyclical Ecclesiam suam of 1964. Some of them are quite similar to those presented earlier. It should be remarked, however, that he perceived dialogue in general as “a recognized method of the apostolate,” as “a way of making spiritual contact” (Paul VI 1964, § 81). Although his successors also developed their 6 | (2024) thoughts on dialogue (generally or specifically in diplomacy) from Christian foundations, dialogue in his understanding, as is obvious, was strictly a method of evangelization, which must have some qualities directly derived from the Gospel. Therefore, he assumed that the dialogue demands intelligibility, meekness, confidence, and prudence. Regarding the first prerequisite (or quality), Paul VI presupposes that through dialogue a man can exercise and develop his highest spiritual and mental powers. This could allow a dialogue to manifest itself as one of “the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture” (Paul VI 1964, § 81). Meekness, as the second quality, is derived from Christ who was “meek and humble of heart.” The dialogue must therefore avoid the use of arrogant or vulgar vocabulary, as well as “offensive bitterness” (Paul VI 1964, § 81). Without any doubt, all kinds of dialogical interaction between participants are marked by a broad spectrum of emotions. These can help the dialogue to be constructive, but also lead to conflict situations that can give rise to the language of “offensive bitterness” that the Pope warned against. Therefore, when analyzing public diplomacy, “scholars should consider emotion’s role in dialogue and persuasion. Emotions are also relevant to the question of persuasive discourse and values because they constitute values: They show what people value, how they value them, and how they express and experience values. Values are a reflection of the intentional character of emotions—emotions are judgments, as are values themselves” (Graham 2014, 532). The third quality of dialogue proposed by Paul VI, i.e. confidence, should be based on the good will of all parties involved in dialogue. Prudence as the last prerequisite means learning to perceive the sensitivity of the audience, that is, in this case, one’s dialogue partner. If the circumstances require it, the party in the dialogue is ready and able to adapt itself and the way of its presentation to the level of its partner’s readiness and epistemic (or cognitive) abilities. This seems to be good advice from this Pope, since even now it is obvious that the parties to a diplomatic dialogue may have different levels of ability and a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy may not possess all the epistemic qualities for a well-structured and argumentatively qualified dialogue. Quite recently, Pope Francis added a fifth to these four qualities, which is kindness. It is, as he assumes, “an important aspect of the culture of dialogue, and dialogue is indispensable to live in peace, to live as brothers and sisters, who do not always agree—this is normal—but who nevertheless speak to each other, listen to each other, and try to understand each other and to move toward one another” (Francis 2022d, italics added). of successful initiatives of the Holy See is the dialogue with Cuba regarding the consolidation of Church-state relations (Kuivala 2017), as well as the facilitation of rapprochement between Cuba and the US (Stafford 2016). In light of the increasing influence of various non-state actors—primarily transnational corporations, global internet empires, and their representatives, including business elites, philanthropists, opinion-makers, and trendsetters—it is crucial to recognize another significant level of dialogue in multilateral diplomacy: the dialogue between states and international non-state actors, both individual and group entities. Today, it is commonplace to Levels of Dialogue in Public and see CEOs of major global Multilateral companies negotiating Diplomacy ITS DIPLOMATIC APPROACH IS alongside state When considering the PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE representatives, even with Church as a religious agent, it is worthy to mention the Holy entities like the Holy See. GOAL OF FOSTERING AND See, which has been known for Examples include Pope MEDIATING DIALOGUE Francis’s meetings with its diplomatic activities and a AMONG CONFLICTING wide network of contacts. This Mark Zuckerberg in 2016 PARTIES can be seen either as a and Elon Musk six years later. This dialogue is consequence of historical causes, or as the revival of its prestige in the post- essential not only due to the economic and social conciliar era, marked by retreat from impact of these actors in international politics but also because of the emergence of new ultramontanism and abdication from triumphalism (Conway 1979, 458), especially security threats, particularly in cyber security. In during the pontificate of John Paul II. In this other words, “the new security agenda necessitates a more collaborative approach to regard, it should be noted that “the diplomatic dialogue in which the Holy See engages is foreign policy, demanding a new dialogue-based conducted neither on confessional nor on paradigm for public diplomacy” (Riordan 2005, pragmatic grounds but on the basis of universally 180). applicable principles that are as real as the The diplomatic engagement of the Holy See physical elements of the natural environment” highlights another important level of dialogue: Church-state dialogue. Especially in liberal(Benedict XVI 2011). Although the Holy See is indeed involved in democratic states, this level of dialogue is a international politics, including its relations with significant component of social reconciliation, expected to contribute to calming conflict entities such as the UN (see Sekerák and Lovaš 2022), its diplomatic approach is primarily situations in society. As noted in the driven by the goal of fostering and mediating Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, “[t]he good of people and human dialogue among conflicting parties. Simultaneously, it upholds “universal principles” communities is served by a structured dialogue between the Church and civil authorities, which that all international actors should adhere to. also finds expression in the stipulation of mutual Despite the Holy See’s unique position in the global community (see Kelly 2023), one can agreements. This dialogue tends to establish or observe an example of inter-state dialogue among strengthen relations of mutual understanding and nations as one level of dialogue. A good example cooperation, and also serves to prevent or resolve the review of faith & international affairs | 7 marián sekerák eventual disputes. Its goal is to contribute to the progress of every people and all humanity in justice and peace” (Pontifical Council … 2004, § 445, italics added). A structured dialogue of this type presupposes clear and respected rules, mutual understanding, and good will on both sides. It has a clear goal, which, from the Church’s point of view, is the maintenance of religious freedom in the state,8 and from the state’s perspective, is the harmonious coexistence of believers and non-believers, as well as the active engagement of the Church and all believers in civil society, which will benefit the whole of society. Closely related to the dialogue between the Church and the state is interreligious dialogue, which can take various forms, such as dialogue between religious leaders themselves. A good example of this has been the long-term lively ecumenical contacts between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Holy See, the longstanding friendly communication with representatives of Hinduism (Barbato 2020), or the rapprochement of the post-conciliar popes with Muslim religious leaders, culminating in the so-called Abu Dhabi Declaration of 2019 (officially “A Document on human fraternity for world peace and living together”), co-signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. Documents of this type are not only a sign of reconciliation and a tangible outcome of this type of dialogue, but also an indication of the correct path for states and non-state actors and their diplomatic interactions, which are often characterized by misunderstanding and sometimes even by violence. Security threats, such as terrorism, pose a significant challenge in this context because “terrorism motivated by fundamentalism (…) obstructs dialogue between nations” (Benedict XVI 2009, § 9, italics added). The example of functioning interreligious (or, more specifically, ecumenical) dialogue is applicable also to diplomatic relations, because it is “a function of the diplomatic dialogue to mitigate and civilize the differences between states, and if possible to reconcile them, without suppressing or ignoring them” (Watson 1984, 7). 8 | (2024) Lastly, another crucial level of dialogue, namely the intercultural one, should be mentioned. It is closely intertwined with the aforementioned interreligious dialogue and could be seen as its complement. Dialogue between religions often occurs alongside dialogue between cultures, as both are rooted in the shared values of the community and historical traditions. This was emphasized by Benedict XVI, that progress in interreligious and intercultural dialogue is essential in today’s world and is even “more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him” (Benedict XVI 2007). He also pointed out that promoting various initiatives in both types of dialogue helps “to encourage collaboration on themes of mutual interest, such as the dignity of the human person, the search for the common good, the building of peace, and development” (Benedict XVI 2008). Outcomes of Dialogue It is supposed that any successfully implemented diplomatic dialogue can bring significant benefits to all parties involved, as well as additional benefits to external agents. Especially in highly diversified societies the main point is that such dialogue enables diversity, as Pope Francis reminded a few years ago when pointing to “the key role that dialogue plays in enabling diversity to be lived in an authentic and mutually enhancing way in our increasingly globalized society” (Francis 2017b, italics added). Diversity, which is the fruit of dialogue, goes hand in hand with inclusiveness, which is one of its preconditions. From the Catholic Church’s point of view, diplomacy is an important link in building mutual understanding, an inclusive community of nations and, indeed, the whole human family. Its unity “based on the fact that each person is created in the image and likeness of God, requires that all diversity should serve to strengthen solidarity among people” (John Paul II 1992). It should be noted that CST takes the fact of globalization seriously. At the very beginning of a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy the New Millennium, John Paul II (2001, § 2) noted that “[g]lobalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it” (see also Himes 2008). His successor Benedict XVI added a few years later that it is “a multifaceted and complex phenomenon which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all its different dimensions, including the theological dimension” (Benedict XVI 2009, § 42). Thus, the popes have traditionally offered a broad understanding of globalization, drawing attention to its positive as well as its negative aspects. In recent years, however, Pope Francis has pointed out the necessity of changing the approach to globalization and the need to face the challenges it brings. It presupposes active and direct political interventions, which can modify globalization processes so that they do not become harmful, especially to vulnerable and marginalized social groups. As noted in his abovementioned encyclical Fratelli tutti, “[g]ood politics will seek ways of building communities at every level of social life, in order to recalibrate and reorient globalization and thus avoid its disruptive effects” (Francis 2020, § 182). As it turned out, even globalization processes, which have led to long-term interdependence, cannot prevent (local) military conflicts representing a fundamental security threat even for non-belligerent state actors. This is why CST assumes the crucial role of diplomatic dialogue, to which all conflicting parties are open and willing in good faith, because “building peace through dialogue is no longer a choice but a necessity!” (Benedict XVI 2013, italics added). Moreover, dialogue, when combined with other elements of interpersonal, interstate, and interinstitutional interaction, can also serve a preventive function. It has the capacity to timely halt military activities with their destructive force, as demonstrated, for example, in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Pope Francis also highlighted this in the preface to the book Against War: Building a Culture of Peace, which compiles his various texts and speeches: “If we had a better memory, we would know that the war must be stopped in our hearts before it is transferred to the front lines (…) To achieve this, we will need dialogue, negotiation, listening, diplomatic skills, creativity, and a far-sighted politics that can build a new system of coexistence that no longer relies on weapons and their power, on intimidation” (Francis 2022e, 7, italics added). This also underscores the interconnectedness of the spheres of diplomacy and politics, which can be seen as two realms that “form separate systems that are mutually independent (…) and yet dependent” (Nishikawa-Pacher 2023, 10). Conclusion This article opened with several statements and gestures by Pope Francis regarding the current Russian military aggression against Ukraine. Although they may not always elicit understanding from the global public and are subsequently explained either by the Press Office of the Holy See or by its Secretary of State, they are always framed within a call for authentic dialogue, which alone can bring real results, primarily reconciliation and peace. In this article, not only were these potential fruits of dialogue identified, but also its characteristics, prerequisites, and levels in the field of multilateral diplomacy, as developed by the Holy See. Content analysis of authoritative ecclesial documents from the period after the Second Vatican Council has shed light on the long-standing Catholic perspective on dialogue in a broader context. This enables a better understanding of some recent diplomatic activities of the Holy See, as well as statements by the current pope. Especially concerning the set of the prerequisites or conditions for authentic dialogue from the perspective mentioned, we can speak more about its ideal type. It is not necessarily required for all these conditions to be cumulatively fulfilled. Moreover, some types of dialogue, such as inter-faith dialogue, are often open-ended, both in terms of timeframe and goals that should or can be realistically achieved. Examples include Catholic-Protestant dialogue or dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Church. A specificity of perceiving dialogue from the Catholic perspective is also the language used, which is often marked by religious expressions referring to the spiritual realm or the review of faith & international affairs | 9 marián sekerák directly to theological insights. This, of course, may to some extent complicate understanding on the part of the secular public or people practicing religions other than Christianity. Nevertheless, a Catholic conceptualization of the nature of authentic dialogue can be a powerful inspiration in the practice of diplomacy at all levels. v About the Author Marián Sekerák is the head of the Department of International Relations and Political Science at AMBIS College and a researcher at the Centre for Higher Education Studies in Prague. He is also a member of the CREATE Expert Group for Catholic Social Teaching, which was established at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He specializes in political theory, the theory of democracy, Church-State relations, the diplomatic activities of the Holy See, and higher education research. Acknowledgments This article was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of AMBIS College, Prague. Notes 1. https://www.reuters.com/world/pope-went-russian-embassy-express-concern-over-war-moscow-envoy-2022-02-25/ 2. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-holding-ukrainian-flag-condemns-atrocities-such-massacre-bucha-2022-04-06/ 3. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-no-agreement-reached-possible-meeting-between-putin-pope-francis-202205-04/ 4. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-says-ukraine-should-have-courage-white-flag-negotiations-2024-03-09/ 5. Throughout this article, the term “Holy See” will be used, referring to the entity that enjoys international recognition and is diplomatically represented in states and international organizations, headed by the Pope, who as the Bishop of Rome is also the head of the Catholic Church. It is noteworthy that the Code of Canon Law interchangeably uses the terms “Apostolic See,” “Holy See,” and “Roman See,” referring “not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia” (Can. 361). 6. In this article, I do not aspire to contemplate about the relation between this theoretical current within IR and Catholicism; for more about it, see Troy (2022) and Rozario (2024). 7. Wherever in this article CST is mentioned, the corpus of its documents is referred to, primarily consisting of official papal documents, but also including some documents of the Second Vatican Council and dicasteries of the Holy See, including the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. 8. See, e.g., Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae (December 7, 1965), Message of John Paul II on the value and content of freedom of conscience and of religion (November 14, 1980), Message of John Paul II for the celebration of the World Day of Peace “Religious freedom: Condition for peace” (January 1, 1988), Address of John Paul II to the participants in the Congress on secularism and religious freedom marking the thirtieth anniversary of “Dignitatis Humanae” (December 7, 1995), Message of Benedict XVI for the celebration of the World Day of Peace “Religious freedom, the path to peace” (January 1, 2011), or Address of Pope Francis to the participants at the International conference on “religious freedom and the global clash of values” (June 20, 2014). ORCID Marián Sekerák http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1263-935X References Albert, M. 2017. “Beyond Integration and Differentiation? The Holy See and the Pope in the System of World Politics.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 15 (4): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2017.1392121 Barbato, M. 2020. “‘Dear Hindu Friends’: Official Diwali Greetings as a Medium for Diplomatic Dialogue.” Religion 50 (3): 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2020.1754599 Barbato, M. 2021. “International Relations and the Pope.” In Handbook on Religion and International Relations, edited by J. Haynes, 289–301. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Barbato, M., and J. Löffler. 2022. “Die diplomatischen Beziehungen des Heiligen Stuhls: Hybride Resilienz in der Multiplizität internationaler Beziehungen.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 29 (2): 5–39. https://doi.org/10.5771/0946-7165-2022-2-5 Catalano, R. 2022. “Pope Francis’ Culture of Dialogue as Pathway to Interfaith Encounter: A Special Focus on Islam.” Religions 13 (4): 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040279. 10 | (2024) a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy Christiansen, D. 2007. “Benedict XVI: Peacemaker.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 5 (4): 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15570274.2007.9523307 Compagnoni, F., and H. Alford, eds. 2007. Preaching Justice: Dominican Contributions to Social Ethics in the Twentieth Century. Dublin: Dominican Publications. Conway, J. S. 1979. “Vatican Diplomacy Today: The Legacy of Paul VI.” International Journal 34 (3): 457–474. Cox, B., and D. Philpott. 2003. “Faith-based Diplomacy: An Ancient Idea Newly Emergent.” The Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs 1 (2): 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435725.2003.9523161 Crespo, R. A., and C. C. Gregory. 2020. “The Doctrine of Mercy: Moral Authority, Soft Power, and the Foreign Policy of Pope Francis.” International Politics 57 (1): 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00187-7 De Volder, J. 2023. “Pope Francis’s Contribution to Catholic Thinking and Acting on War and Peace.” Theological Studies 84 (1): 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639231153574 Feldman, L. G. 2014. “German-Polish Ties: Special Relationship, Friendship, or Reconciliation?” In Friendship and International Relations, edited by S. Koschut, and A. Oelsner, 123–143. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Genovese, F. 2015. “Politics Ex Cathedra: Religious Authority and the Pope in Modern International Relations.” Research & Politics 2 (4), 205316801561280, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015612808. Genovese, F. 2019. “Politics @Pontifex: International Crises and Political Patterns of Papal Tweets.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (1): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518001038 Gillis, Ch. 2006. Political Papacy: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Their Influence. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Graham, S. E. 2014. “Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and Persuasion.” International Studies Review 16 (4): 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12156 Himes, K. R. 2008. “Globalization with a Human Face: Catholic Social Teaching and Globalization.” Theological Studies 69 (2): 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/004056390806900202 Johnston, D., ed. 2003. Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Joubert, B. 2017. “La diplomatie du Saint-Siège.” Pouvoirs N° 162 (3): 47–61. https://doi.org/10.3917/pouv.162.0047 Kelly, B. 2023. “The Power Politics of the Holy See: The Church, the State, and its Citizens.” Politics and Religion, 16, 682–707. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S175504832300024X. Kuivala, P. 2017. “Policy of Empowerment: Pope Francis in Cuba.” The International Journal of Cuban Studies 9 (1): 19–36. Lehmann, J., and K. McLarren. 2023. “Faith-Based Diplomacy as a New (and Old) Practice in Foreign Policy: Concepts and Cases.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Thought and Practice in the Digital Age, edited by F. Onditi, K. McLarren, G. Ben-Nun, Y. A. Stivachtis, and P. Okoth. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28214-0_11. Narbona, J. 2016. “Digital Leadership, Twitter and Pope Francis.” Church, Communication and Culture 1 (1): 90–109. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23753234.2016.1181307 Nishikawa-Pacher, A. 2023. “Diplomacy Versus Politics: Two Mutually (In)Dependent Systems.” Political Studies Review, 1–16. https:// doi.org/10.1177/14789299231169860. Novak, A. N., and M. O. Vilceanu. 2021. “Pope Francis, Twitter, and Collective Identity.” In Understanding Pope Francis: Message, Media, and Audience, edited by J. R. Blaney, 61–78. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. O’Connor, B. J. 2005. Papal Diplomacy: John Paul II and the Culture of Peace. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press. O’Connor, B. J. 2006. “A Diplomacy of Candor: Pope Benedict XVI on the Global Stage.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 4 (2): 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2006.9523249 Pajtinka, E. 2019. “Public Diplomacy as a Theoretical Problem: Searching for a Definition.” European Journal of Transformation Studies 7 (2): 21–32. Phillips, R. 1991. “Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order.” Ethics & International Affairs 5: 135–147. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1991.tb00235.x Poláková, J. 2008. Smysl dialogu: O smě ̌ rování k plnosti lidské komunikace. Prague: Vyšehrad. Riordan, S. 2005. “Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm?” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by J. Melissen, 180–195. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Roberts, D. 2004. The Routledge Dictionary of Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. the review of faith & international affairs | 11 marián sekerák Rozario, M. 2024. “Theorizing Catholicism in International Relations: An English School Framework.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 22 (1): 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2024.2303290 Rusiňák, P. 2012. “O charaktere diplomacie ako vedeckej disciplíny.” Almanach: Aktuálne otázky svetovej ekonomiky a politiky 7 (3): 58–61. Sekerák, M., and K. Lovaš. 2022. “The Diplomacy of the Holy See and its Transformation in the Context of Relations with the United Nations.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 20 (1): 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2022.2031071 Sending, O. J. 2015. “Diplomacy and Dialogue.” In Dialogue and Conflict Resolution: Potential and Limits, edited by P. Rieker, and H. Thune, 15–28. London: Routledge. Stafford, E. G. 2016. “The Vatican’s Role in the Reconciliation Between the US and Cuba.” Hemisferio Revista del Colegio Interamericano de Defensa 2: 149–160. https://doi.org/10.59848/16.1207.HV2n9 Strzałka, K. 2014. “Dyplomacja czasów przełomu: Jan Paweł II i kształtowanie się dyplomacji publicznej Stolicy Apostolskiej.” Politeja 11 (29): 219–243. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.11.2014.29.18 Stummvoll, A. A. 2018. A Living Tradition: Catholic Social Doctrine and Holy See Diplomacy. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Thompson, L. 2015. “Religion and Diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (2): 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X12341306 Troy, J. 2008. “Faith-Based Diplomacy under Examination.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3 (3): 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 187119108X378088 Troy, J. 2009. “‘Catholic Waves’ of Democratization? Roman Catholicism and its Potential for Democratization.” Democratization 16 (6): 1093–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340903271753 Troy, J. 2021. “International Politics as Global Politics from Below: Pope Francis on Global Politics.” Journal of International Relations and Development 24 (3): 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00202-y Troy, J. 2022. “Intermediation Between International Society and World Society: The Pope and the UN Secretary-General on “the Figure of the Refugee”.” International Studies Review 24 (3). https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac044. Vukicevic, B. 2015. “Pope Francis and the Challenges of Inter-civilization Diplomacy.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 58 (2): 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201500204 Watson, A. 1984. Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States. London: Routledge. Wiatr, J. J. 2014. Polish-German Relations: The Miracle of Reconciliation. Berlin: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Ecclesial Texts and Documents Benedict XVI. 2007. “Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue,” February 1. Accessed January 1, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/ february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070201_dialogo-interreligioso.html. Benedict XVI. 2008. “Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI on the Occasion of the Study Day Organized by the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Culture on the Theme ‘Culture of Religions in Dialogue’”, December 3. Accessed January 1, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/pont-messages/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20081203_culturereligioni.html. Benedict XVI. 2009. “Encyclical Letter Caritas in veritate”, June 29. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/ benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html. Benedict XVI. 2011. “Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to H.E. Mr Joseph Weterings, New Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Holy See,” October 21. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/ 2011/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20111021_ambassador-netherlands.html. Benedict XVI. 2013. “Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See,” January 7. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/january/documents/hf_ ben-xvi_spe_20130107_corpo-diplomatico.html Francis. 2014. “Prayer for Peace”, June 8, 2014. Accessed December 30, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/prayers/ documents/papa-francesco_preghiere_20140608_invocazione-pace.html. Francis. 2016. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Participants in the World Congress of the “Scholas Occurrentes” Pontifical Foundation,” May 29. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/may/documents/ papa-francesco_20160529_scholas-occurrentes.html. 12 | (2024) a catholic approach to dialogue as a tool of diplomacy Francis. 2017a. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See for the Traditional Exchange of New Year Greetings,” January 9. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/ en/speeches/2017/january/documents/papa-francesco_20170109_corpo-diplomatico.html. Francis. 2017b. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to New Non-Resident Ambassadors Accredited to the Holy See: Yemen, New Zealand, Swaziland, Azerbaijan, Chad, Liechtenstein and India,” December 14. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican. va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2017/december/documents/papa-francesco_20171214_nuovi-ambasciatori.html. Francis. 2019. “Video Message of His Holiness Pope Francis and UN Secretary-General António Guterres”, December 20. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2019/documents/papa-francesco_ 20191220_videomessaggio-guterres.html. Francis. 2020. “Encyclical Letter Fratelli tutti,” October 3. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html. Francis. 2022a. “Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the Celebration of the 55th World Day of Peace,” January 1. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/20211208-messaggio-55 giornatamondiale-pace2022.html. Francis. 2022b. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See,” January 10. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2022/january/documents/20220110-corpodiplomatico.html. Francis. 2022c. “Opening and Plenary Session of the VII Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions: Address of His Holiness”, September 14. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2022/september/ documents/20220914-kazakhstan-congresso.html. Francis. 2022d. “Homily of His Holiness Pope Francis; First Vespers on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and Te Deum in Thanksgiving for the Past Year,” December 31. Accessed January 1, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/ 2022/documents/20221231-omelia-te-deum.html. Francis. 2022e. Proti válce: Odvaha budovat mír. Brno: Lukáš a syn. Francis. 2023. “Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum of the Holy Father Francis to All People of Good Will on the Climate Crisis”, October 4. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/20231004-laudatedeum.html. John Paul II. 1989. “Discorso di Giovanni Paolo II ai partecipanti al colloquio promosso dall’Accademia diplomatica internazionale,” November 3. Accessed December 30, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1989/november/documents/ hf_jp-ii_spe_19891103_accademia-diplomatica.html. John Paul II. 1992. “Address of His Holiness John Paul II to the New Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago to the Holy See,” November 28. Accessed January 2, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1992/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_ 19921128_amb-trinidad.html. John Paul II. 2001. “Address of the Holy Father to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences”, April 27. Accessed November 17, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2001/april/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010427_pc-social-sciences. html. John Paul II. 2003. “Message of His Holiness John Paul II for the celebration of the World Day of Peace,” January 1. Accessed November 10, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20021217_xxxvi-world-dayfor-peace.html. Paul VI. 1964. “Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam,” August 6. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html. Paul VI. 1967. “Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio”, March 26. Accessed November 12, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/ paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html. Paul VI. 1977. “Address of His Holiness Pope Paul VI to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See,” January 15. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1977/january/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_ 19770115_corpo-diplomatico.html. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2024.2354660 the review of faith & international affairs | 13