Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Józef Krukowski: The Issues of the Negotiations of Concordats
22 J. KRUKOWSKI Starting an analysis of this kind of problems one should remember that concordat is not an aim in itself but that it is the best possible means of stabilising the relations between two communities of different character, that is between Church and state, the members of which are the same people (as the faithful and citizens). 3. Problems Which Need Explanation at the Negotiation State of Concordat The key to satisfying results in negotiations are good pre-negotiations which consist in proper understanding of the subject of negotiations by all the interested parties. Before starting formal negotiations it is then necessary to undertake a public debate whose aim is to understand the proper meaning of concordat not only by the negotiating parties but also by the whole society of a given country, and especially by its political elites. 3.1. Understanding the Essence of Concordat The first step to achieve good results in concordat negotiations is to realise by all the interested sides what concordat is both from the formal and the substantial points of view. Etymologically, “concordat” comes from a Latin word “concordare — to agree”. This is a technical notion to mean international agreement between the Holy See and a given state concluded in order to regulate the matters which are of common interest to both sides. Other terms are also used to signify an agreement of this kind and these are: convention, tractatus, pactum, accordo, modus vivendi. The differences between these terms pertain to the formal procedure. The term “concordat” in the strict meaning of this word means a solemn international agreement (conventio sollemnis) which is subject to ratification, while “modus vivendi” means an international agreement of temporary character, the one which is signed by the sides but which is not ratified with an approval of the parliàment. The source of understanding the essence of concordat is an evangelical paradigm of religious-political dualism which distinguished two sovereign authorities, the highest ones in their order (spiritual and seular ones). This dualism follows from Christ’s command: “Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give God what belongs to God” (Luke
