We are here to celebrate 60 years since a landmark document, one which my illustrious predecessor, Stefano Zamagni, notes in his contribution to this meeting “was deposited in the archives of the United Nations” and “was the first papal encyclical to be published in full in the New York Times”. It is also noteworthy because it was inspired by the Pope John XXIII’s experience in the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which he sent a message to Kennedy and Khrushchev that was subsequently read as a radio address. Later on, Khrushchev acknowledged that he had been moved by the message, contributing to the easing of the crisis. From the point of view of the Church, it is interesting to note that this is the first “social” encyclical that is written not as a celebration of, or updating of, Rerum Novarum (all of the social encyclicals up to that point had been written on an anniversary of that 1891 document), and thus stands on its own.
In 1963, memories of the Second World War were still fresh, and the prospect of a new war, one fought with nuclear weapons, led Pope John to reflect on the conditions for peace in a world on the threshold of a new millennium, a world marked by dramatic social transformations, a new framework for international relations (the UN), and, on the negative side, new forms of weaponry with the potential to extinguish human life on earth. The Pope’s goal in writing the encyclical was to offer a comprehensive vision of peace, both its positive aspects (what humankind could aspire to), and its negative aspects (what outcomes should be avoided). The first led him into a discussion of personhood, justice, rights, duties, equality, and the common good (both within and between nations). As to the second, he concentrated on the dangers represented by weaponry, nuclear weapons especially, and the attendant risks of an arms race.
In our meeting today, we have decided to focus on the “obstacles to peace”, and, among those, to give special attention to the most severe of those obstacles: the prosecution of war. Therefore, I would like to present this “overview” of Pacem in Terris in relation to the obstacles to peace. What does Pacem in Terris suggest that we need to do to overcome those obstacles?
The first thing is to recognise the basic structure of reality, or the key characteristics of the world we live in. In the face of the climate crisis, which leads us to recognize that we cannot treat the natural world just as we like, but only as it is, we may be more open to recognizing this today than in the 1960s. The main word that Pope John uses is “order” – a word that we know from international relations (international or global order) and that we also use in general, such as when we say things are “in good order”. Order always refers to goals that are to be achieved, and goods to be created – if something is “ordered” or in “good order”, it allows us to achieve those goals. This term forms a kind of frame for the whole of Pope John’s text: it is very present at the beginning of the document, then again at the point where the Pope talks about relations between states, and, finally, at the end of his text. The order in the world can be described partly in scientific terms, as the Pope mentions, but it also refers to the overall goals of human beings and their relationships, which brings us to a philosophical and even theological level. Pope John focuses on the recognition of one key principle: “that each individual man is truly a person. His is a nature, that is, endowed with intelligence and free will. As such he has rights and duties, which together flow as a direct consequence from his nature. These rights and duties are universal and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable (§9)”. After discussing some of these rights (economic rights get particular attention), he moves to the corresponding duties; it is interesting to note here that the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also wanted to include duties in their document, but since they could not get agreement on the duties, they ended up publishing the Declaration only with the rights. After discussing rights and duties, then, the Pope turns to the question of state authority and its relation to citizens. On the one hand, he will argue that authority ultimately comes from God, so there is a presumption that each person should follow it, but on the other, human authority needs to know its limits, which come from the “moral order” (§47); for instance, it cannot control the conscience of a person, hence the right to freedom of belief.
A second stage in recognizing the world as it is concerns the relations between states. States do not exist in a condition of anarchy, where the goal of each is to protect itself from the others, seeking its own advantage (despite the so-called “realist” position in international relations that holds to that view). For the consequences of this approach – fear and deterrence – can never provide a secure foundation for international order, showing that they do not recognize the real state of affairs. Rather, he urges states to recognize how their relations must be guided by the exigencies of truth, justice, charity, and freedom. “Love, not fear, must dominate the relationships between individuals and between nations” (§ 129). The centrality of truth entails that propaganda (today we would speak of “disinformation”) must be excluded as a poison in the social body (§90). Because human relations pertain first and foremost to the spiritual order, human beings must seek out ways of communing in truth. Scientific inquiry and the search for new technologies can have an important role in this regard (§ 3). This primacy of truth also entails that human beings, and indeed nations, must strive to sort out their differences through speech – not arms, deceit, or trickery (§93). “There must be a mutual assessment of the arguments and feelings on both sides, a mature and objective investigation of the situation, and an equitable reconciliation of opposing views” (93). A realistic view of our situation would encourage states to pursue mutual collaboration, pooling their material and spiritual resources when needed (§98), for the common good. To this end he praised the work of international agencies (§108) and looked for their further development.
Only after this presentation of the “way things really are” does the Pope move to considerations regarding the things we need to stop or prevent, things that we might regard as the usual ones concerned with peacebuilding. At this level, Pope John cautioned against the arms trade. While acknowledging that powerful weapons can sometimes act as a deterrent (§ 111), this alone does not provide a basis for international order, which cannot be built up on fear alone (§110 and §113), as he has already said, since mutual trust (§113) is its only solid foundation. Heavy investment in weaponry, as spurred by perceptions of an arms race (with states trying to keep pace with one another) drains intellectual and material resources away from other more vital needs, and, in so doing, detracts from economic and social development (§109).
Moreover, nuclear weapons are particularly nefarious insofar as their testing can despoil the earth and its atmosphere (§ 111). Their very existence intensifies the danger that miscalculation, accidents and unforeseen circumstances could lead to conflagration on a global scale. “Nuclear weapons must be banned” (§112) he stated emphatically. He added that the ban should come about as the result of a “general agreement”, reached on the basis of a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control” (ibid.). While we are accustomed to such speech today, when uttered by Pope John XXIII in 1963, at a time when the very notion of “arms control” was just beginning to emerge, it brought the imperative of nuclear disarmament before the public eye in a striking way. Reflecting on the “ghastly and catastrophic consequences that would follow from the use of nuclear weapons”, he concluded that any resort to armed force, even by conventional means and perhaps for worthy reasons, would risk tipping the world into a downward escalatory spiral. Hence the most memorable line from his encyclical: “In this age which boasts of its atomic power, it no longer makes sense to maintain that war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of justice” (§127).
Finally, Pope John emphasized that disarmament is not a task for governments and statemen alone – although the chief responsibility rests with them – but must be assumed into the outlook of each and every person, “and reach into men’s very soul’s (§ 113)”. This prefigured the teaching of later popes, Pope Francis most especially, who have spoken about the importance of establishing a “culture of peace”, with non-violent means of conflict resolution at its core.
As we open our discussions regarding “war and other obstacles to peace”, let us keep in mind the approach of this great and influential text that we are celebrating in this meeting. Let us keep in mind the “reality of things”, just as economists now need to keep in mind the reality of the environment in a way that they did not do before, so that this influences our deliberations on the various developments in warmaking, on what needs to be prohibited and how other developments need to be regulated, all with a view to moving towards the situation where, as Pope St John Paul II put it so eloquently, war has become “part of the tragic past”.