Czechia’s new treaty with the Vatican: what are its uses – and its problems?
In October 2024, Czechia signed a treaty with the Vatican, becoming one of the last countries within the European Union to do so. Such a treaty has been a long time in the making, having been rejected by the Czech parliament back in 2003. The 2024 treaty, signed by Prime Minister Petr Fiala, was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in December, but has now met with criticism by members of the Senate, some of whom have recommended a review of it by the Constitutional Court. Dr Daniel Bartoň, an independent lawyer with a focus on religious freedom and human rights, and an assistant professor at the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Charles University, joined me to discuss the treaty and the objections to it.
Let's start with a general question: we have Vatican City, this landlocked micro-nation entirely immersed within the city of Rome, with no exports or imports to speak of, no trade deals to make or anything like that – why then do countries sign treaties with the Vatican?
“It's rather complex when it comes to the legal status of the Vatican, or the Holy See, or both. The thing is, these treaties are usually signed because the Holy See doesn't only represent the little piece of land in Rome, but also represents the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. These treaties are usually signed in order to settle relations between the Roman Catholic Church in a particular country, with the government that is currently in place there.”
What then is the modern history of diplomatic relations between Czechia and the Vatican? This is not a new thing to have deals with the Vatican, right?
“It is not a new idea to have some kind of dealings, but the history is rather complicated. The Czech lands, or at least some parts of their political representation, haven't really been fond of forging any treaties or any kind of more concrete and binding documents with the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy See.
“The last attempt, which happened more than twenty years ago, failed basically after it was negotiated. It failed in the parliament, and that was still at the time when the property situation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches in the Czech Republic was not settled. So, that's changed since the year 2003. So, [the current government] had more freedom, I would say, in negotiating this.
"One could ask the question, why negotiate any kind of agreement like this at the moment, in the current world situation?"
“On the other hand, one could ask the question, why negotiate any kind of agreement like this at the moment, in the current world situation? The content of the treaty doesn't really offer much that is new. Even the government says that the point of the treaty is not to come up with any kind of new obligations, but rather to state what's currently in place when it comes to the freedoms of believers in the Czech Republic, and the relations between the state and the Roman Catholic Church, especially when it comes to cultural heritage, church buildings and these kinds of things.”
You mentioned property there; you're referring to the difficult issue of restitutions, right? This is where the Communists seized a lot of Church property, then communism falls with the Velvet Revolution, then that property is handed back –
“Well, it was supposed to be handed back fairly quickly, but because of the political situation, it took more than twenty years for this to happen.”
And what would you say is the status of that issue today? Is it largely settled?
“It is largely settled.”
So, Czechia has changed then as a country, in terms of its, shall we say, religious landscape. Now, we’ve mentioned already the treaty in 2003, which failed. It would have been agreed by both parties, someone from the Vatican and someone from the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but it then failed in parliament. Why has this current government, led by Mr. Fiala, been successful so far in this new attempt at a treaty? And why is this government interested?
“I would like to know why the government decided to pursue this matter, because to me, it seems like a lot of work, and the gains for anybody are difficult to identify.
“I think one of the reasons is that it looks good when you can claim, ‘we managed to make a deal with the Holy See’. I treat it more as a political gesture than a matter of content, something that would change the situation for believers in the Czech Republic. When it comes to the content of the treaty, it is, as with most international treaties, rather general, with broad formulations, not much concrete wording. So, it's difficult to see why this should be a matter of great national interest.
"To me, it seems like a lot of work, and the gains for anybody are difficult to identify."
“But one thing I could see as a benefit for the Church, for example, is that the treaty somehow stipulates or makes a general legal framework for pastoral care in different institutions, such as hospitals, prisons, the army, police, which is a matter that hasn't been really dealt with properly in Czech law. What has happened over the past years is that the state and Churches negotiated agreements, relating to different institutions and forces, but there is no general legal framework.
“Some people have been afraid that this could disappear if there's no will to maintain it. So, the treaty could give some kind of higher guarantee to these rights. On the other hand, the Czech Republic is party to many international treaties and human-rights treaties. These cover freedom of religion and would cover also the right of a believer to have, for example, spiritual care in hospitals or in the army.
“So, I don't think that this is necessarily the best way to deal with the problem of spiritual care in institutions. I think it would be better to prepare a good legal framework in Czech law that would clarify all the rights and obligations, but there hasn't been the political will to do that. It's interesting that the state decided to do it through an international treaty.”
And, as you say, this treaty is a little light on content in terms of what's new, apart from a few benefits for believers in Czechia. Nonetheless, there have been objections. In the view of Czech lawmakers, such as the deputies in the Chamber of Deputies and senators in the Senate, who object, what are the main problems with this treat?
“I would say the main problem is Article 4, which deals with the seal of confession. Basically, this is about how the state treats secrecy related to the confessional. This is quite an interesting thing because there is a difference between how Czech law understands these matters of secrecy, and how Roman Catholic canon law deals with them.
“The approach of the Roman Catholic Church is that the seal of confession can't be broken under any circumstances. Even if the penitent, for example, wanted the confessor to release some of the information, such as in court, this can't be done. It can't be done even in cases when somebody would confess that he is about to commit a serious crime, for example, a terrorist attack.
“The approach of Czech law is that it guarantees this area of freedom and secrecy to priests and other religious workers when it comes to past actions. So, if somebody confesses to a crime committed sometime in the past, then they don't have to report it to the police. This makes perfect sense, because if you want some kind of a trustworthy relation and a possibility to talk openly about something grave that burdens you, it's good that you've got some kind of environment where you can talk about it, without the fear of repercussions.
“On the other hand, Czech law currently states that if, during the confession, somebody says that he is about to commit a serious crime, for example, a murder, or says that he has been committing a crime, for example, abusing a child, then the confessor has to act somehow to prevent this from happening.
“There are many ways to prevent such a crime from happening. One option is reporting it to the police. Another is, for example, persuading the person not to do it, or taking care of the potential victims, so that they get out of reach of the perpetrator. There are many options, but Czech law requires the confessor to act, otherwise he would be criminally liable. This is a matter only when it comes to serious crimes, no petty offences included.
"The problem with the treaty is that it says that the Czech Republic recognises the seal of confession full stop, without any limitations, without any reference to current Czech law."
“The problem with the treaty is that it says that the Czech Republic recognises the seal of confession full stop, without any limitations, without any reference to current Czech law. There can be easily the interpretation that the treaty basically says that the Czech Republic has to accept the seal of confession in the ordinary understanding of this concept; in Roman Catholic tradition, this is that the Seal can't be broken under any circumstances.”
So this then is a change to the law – this is something new that this treaty would bring about?
“I would say that this would bring a change, yes. However, the government says that this is not supposed to change anything, and that the treaty is just supposed to confirm the current status.”
To be clear, this is not just an argument happening within the Czech parliament. Do I understand right that there have been serious objections from certain sections of Czech society, outside of politics?
“There have been, for example, victims of sexual abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Church that have objected to the treaty. They haven't been treated ‘nicely’ by the Church. I would say one of the problems or issues here might be that the treaty might not make such a big noise if the Church had acted responsibly towards past crimes that happened by their members. Yet this hasn't been always the case.
“There are obviously parts of the Roman Catholic Church that have been really responsible when it comes to dealing with victims of sexual abuse by priests, but there have been also parts, especially, I would say, some bishops and their dioceses, that deal with these matters in a way that [critics] claim mostly protects the Roman Catholic Church, to the detriment of the victims.
“So, for example, what has happened – and I've encountered it numerous times – is that the Church refuses the request of the police to provide them with legal documents, like documents from internal procedures, canon law procedures, which they had with perpetrators, the argument being that even these files are covered by the seal of confession. This is nonsense, even from a canon law perspective, but they maintain this argument.
“I would say that, if we have this kind of experience of abusing the seal of confession, even under current law, then if these people receive a gift called the treaty, they would abuse it. They would use it to deny any cooperation with state authorities, when it comes to the investigation of serious crimes – be it sexual offences or also fraud, of which the Church might be a victim herself.”
So, what should happen now? In your view, would you, for example, revise this treaty or even reject it?
“The matter as it now stands is that the parliament has to decide whether they give their consent with the ratification or not. Both chambers have the possibility of rejecting the ratification, but the parliament cannot renegotiate it.
“One of the problems, although an understandable one, is that the text of the treaty was publicly released only after it was signed. The public didn't have any chance of commenting on the content. So, as to what could happen, there are basically just two options: either the agreement is ratified, or it's rejected, and then it could be renegotiated.
“I could easily imagine that if the text of the treaty didn't include anything about the seal of confession, which was the case even with the previous treaty in 2003, then the chances of it passing through the parliament would be much higher.”
