Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Reading Pacem in Terris, Part III

Reading Pacem in Terris, Part III

Last updated on: October 24, 2020 at 8:36 pm by David Cruz-Uribe

Reading Pacem in Terris, Part III 2020-10-24T20:36:13-05:00 David Cruz-Uribe

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This post is my third reflection on Pacem in Terris, the second social encycical of Pope John XXIII. Here are links to Part I and Part II. For this discussion we read the third section, paragraphs 80-129.

In this part John XXIII considers the relations between states. The previous section introduced and justified the concept of the state from the natural law. Indeed, the text almost seems to take the existence of the state as a given. Last time, I noted the problems this raised for any discussion of Christian anarchism. This time, more in passing, we noted that the conception of the state seems shaped by the 19th century evolution of the concept of the nation state, with the close link between ethnic/national identity and the state:

A special instance of this clash of interests is furnished by that political trend (which since the nineteenth century has become widespread throughout the world and has gained in strength) as a result of which men of similar ethnic background are anxious for political autonomy and unification into a single nation. For many reasons this cannot always be effected, and consequently minority peoples are often obliged to live within the territories of a nation of a different ethnic origin. (par. 94)

Since this is very much the present order of things, it is certainly warranted to frame the discussion around states as they are. This reflects the trend, noted elsewhere, of grounding Catholic social thought in an analysis of the current situation in terms of broader principles (the framework of “see, judge, act”). However, I think it is worth remembering that the notion of a nation state is not universal, and very much the product of historical contingency. This point was driven home to me when reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s The Reformation: A History. (1) In laying the historical groundwork for discussing the political implications of the Reformation, he rejects the terminology of “the state” and instead adopts the broader terminology of “the commonwealth” to describe the political structures we today loosely refer to as nations. (See pp. 43-45.) He writes:

The most prominent mark of secular identity in Europe [was not nationalism but rather] was a shared loyalty either to a dynasty (that is a family of rulers like the Tudors of England and Wales, the Valois of France, the Jagiellons of Poland-Lithuania or the Habsburgs of Central Europe), or on the other hand to a particular local corporation with ancient rights and privileges…When the conflicts of the Reformation broke out…many variations of such loyalties came into play, but dynasty and locality usually counted for more than any chimera of nationalism.

Turning to our discussion, we we very much struck by the explicit parallels drawn between states and individuals, and that relationships between states, like those between individuals, must be grounded in truth and justice, and in the recognition that states have reciprocal rights and duties, just as individuals do:

nations are the subjects of reciprocal rights and duties. Their relationships, therefore, must likewise be harmonized in accordance with the dictates of truth, justice, willing cooperation, and freedom. The same law of nature that governs the life and conduct of individuals must also regulate the relations of political communities with one another. (par. 80)

Relations between States must…be regulated by justice. This necessitates both the recognition of their mutual rights, and, at the same time, the fulfillment of their respective duties. (par. 91).

But, while there is this parallel, the encyclical never invests the state with a separate identity, something to be exalted above the individual. This was one (of many) failings of nationalism, reaching its nadir in both fascism and in the equation of people, party and state in communist regimes. Though the enyclical never says so explicitly, it seems clear that the individual is prior to the state, and the state exists solely for the good of people, both individually and collectively: “[state] authority must be exercised for the promotion of the common good. That is the primary reason for its existence.” (par. 84) This is not to say that the individual does not have duties vis a vis the state; but these duties are grounded in the rights and duties of individuals towards other individuals and the common good.

The encyclical goes on to present a model for how states ought to deal with one another: as with interactions between individuals, state interactions should be grounded in mutual respect and cooperation. States may act for their own good, but never in a way which is harmful to others.

There may be, and sometimes is, a clash of interests among States, each striving for its own development. When differences of this sort arise, they must be settled in a truly human way, not by armed force nor by deceit or trickery. 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. (par. 93)

The objection was raised (again, we have discussed this many times) that the encyclical never considers the reality of evil in the world, that this view of relations between states is inadequate because it does not recognize that there might be evil states and offers no guidance on how to deal with them. There is no sense of how one might police unjust actions by nations, just as one polices unjust actions by individuals. This obliquely referred to, but only in the negative:

no country has the right to take any action that would constitute an unjust oppression of other countries, or an unwarranted interference in their affairs. (par. 120)

The adjective “unwarranted” suggests that there might be situations in which intervention is warranted, but this is never discussed. In particular, what constitutes an “unwarranted intervention”? Looking to the period between WW II and the encyclical, was the Korean War warranted? Was the British/French seizure of the Suez Canal unwarranted? What about the US back coups in Iran and Guatemala?

Writing against this backdrop, in which powerful states regarded their actions as always being just, and in the time after the Cuban Missile Crisis, John XXIII is proposing a model for state action which is very different. He wants to establish the guiding principles for how states should act in order to prevent both oppression and unwarranted interference.

One member of our group suggested that this vision has in fact guided state interactions since 1960. Despite many obvious failures, cooperation among nations has increased, and massive wars, particularly another world war, have been prevented. He made reference to the decline in the absolute number of deaths by war since WW II, as shown by this table:

(Downloaded from: Our World in Data , used with permission.)

This interpretation was challenged, noting that while there have not been any major power wars since the Korean War, there have been many surrogate and proxy wars. And while the total number of deaths are down, they are down from a horrifically high number, and war still remains a scourge and no less deadly for the people involved. On the other hand, despite the many obvious failures, the idea that states should exist peacefully and interact with one another through cooperation has had a powerful impact on how states view themselves. Even when they do not act in this way, it remains an ideal they subscribe to, albeit at times hypocritically. (As some wag put it, hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue.)

This led to a discussion of the just war theory, or rather its absence from the encyclical. War is not seen as an instrument of statecraft that must be only be conducted in a civilized way for the right reasons: war is regarded as a failure with potentially catastrophic consequences. With the threat of nuclear war front and center, the encyclical begins to lay out a Catholic theory of non-violence:

Men nowadays are becoming more and more convinced that any disputes which may arise between nations must be resolved by negotiation and agreement, and not by recourse to arms.

We acknowledge that this conviction owes its origin chiefly to the terrifying destructive force of modern weapons. It arises from fear of the ghastly and catastrophic consequences of their use. Thus, 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. (par. 126-127)

There has long been a quiet thread of non-violence in Catholic thinking, but it is only in the 20th century that it has emerged from the shadows: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement, Oscar Romero, Pax Christi, Caritas International, and the Community of Sant’Egidio. The last two, in particular, were identified by one member of our group for their work to not just discuss non-violence as an abstract ideal, but to actively promote peacemaking and non-violence as a practical alternative for relations between states.

The encyclical focused on one specific goal of peacemaking: nuclear disarmament. The arms race, involving both conventional and nuclear weapons is condemned:

Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. (par. 112)

The balance of power, maintained through vast stockpiles of weapons, is no longer seen as a legitimate way of keeping the peace: peace must proceed from justice and cooperation for the mutual good, as outlined above:

the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today’s world [must] be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. (par. 113)

Many factors–including in some small but significant way, Vatican diplomacy–led to nuclear disarmament becoming a real possibility. The first treaty, the limited test ban treaty, was signed in August, 1963, just months after PT was published. It was followed by a series of treaties that reduced nuclear stockpiles. Though the process has stopped and in some cases reversed, with the US and Russia withdrawing from various treaties, there remains substantial grounds for hope. Since 1998, when Pakistan tested a nuclear weapon, only North Korea has had a nuclear test blast. Forty nine nations have signed the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Though not a governmental priority, many organizations in the US and abroad continue to press for nuclear disarmament. I want to give a shout out to the Consistent Life Network (full disclosure, I am on their board) for their work, and the work of their member organizations for nuclear disarmament.

Our discussions concluded with some reflections on the interplay between the individual and the state in peacemaking. We cannot have peace and justice between nations until we live peace and justice in our own lives. This peace cannot be an internal thing–peace at home for “us” but war and violence abroad for “them”. We need to build a peace in our lives that extends the bonds of fraternity to include all people and all nations. The final paragraph of this section shared this goal in the language of love:

We are hopeful, too, that they will come to a fairer realization of one of the cardinal duties deriving from our common nature: namely, that love, not fear, must dominate the relationships between individuals and between nations. It is principally characteristic of love that it draws men together in all sorts of ways, sincerely united in the bonds of mind and matter; and this is a union from which countless blessings can flow. (par. 129)

(1) Beginning today, I am going to make an effort to no longer give links to books at Amazon. Rather, I am going to give them to Bookshop.org, a website dedicated to helping independent book stores survive and thrive in an online retail environment. Neither I nor the blog receives financial consideration for this, just as we received no money from Amazon. I got this idea after I followed a link on a fellow blogger’s post. (Thanks for the idea Julia!)

Catholic Social Teaching

David Cruz-Uribe

Papal Social Encyclicals

arms race

Catholic non-violence

Just War Theory

nuclear disarmament

Pacem in Terris

Previous Post

October 24, 2020

On Structural Racism and the Lives of Saints: A Failed Draft

Next Post

October 29, 2020 Reading Pacem in Terris, Part IV

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the key message of Proverbs about how to live?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Win battles Amass riches Seek power Pursue wisdom