John XXIII encyclical Pacem in Terris

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

In the encyclical Pacem in Terris by Pope John the 23rd, four clear principles were ennumerated as criteria for the proper establishment of a humane peaceful order in the world...

They are: Freedom, Justice, Faith, and Solidarity.

The two vying "World Orders" of Pope John's time were Atheistic Marxism/communism and the Western style capitalistic democracies.

Today's world is divided much more into political and ideological positions that span a spectrum from atheistic regimes (communist: PRC, PRVietnam, PRCuba, etc. or socialist-positivist: EU, others), to regimes whose constitutions and representatives acknowledge some form of theism - Muslim and Christian.

Clearly, the Church did not endorse every element of Western governance as "perfect" - indeed it had warned the West of serious errors in thinking as far back as 1889 in the encyclical Rerum Novarum - warning that those capitalist/socialist governments (chiefly in Europe) that mistreated workers and ignored their rights (such as to a just wage, days of rest for religious practice and family time, and other things) were preparing the stage for terrible consequences...

But Capitalism and Democracy or to be precise Constitutional Republican-ism... do provide more guarantees and safeguards for freedom, faith, justice, and solidarity than any other competing human frameworks.

But all this rests on our belief of what the human being is, and where human "progress" is going.

As the Popes have acknowledged, the American experiement in limited and representative government which posits the existence of God and a divine origin for human rights is by far the best current example of human attempts to socially construct a framework that respects the 4 primary rights of man.

This is why politics is so important an area for Christians (and indeed all believers) to attend to.

If your concept of the human person is Theistic - that is, the human person is an spiritual being who is beloved by God and is destined for eternal beatitude with God and other blessed souls... then your idea of political and social interactions will fall into place accordingly: you will be honest with God, yourself and others. You will respect others rights and obey your duties... you will help others in need, while restraining your own whims and desires...etc.

You will above all ask not: what can I do? but rather "What ought I do? You will thus base your actions not on questions of power, but on questions of what is good.

But if on the other hand your concept of the human person is atheistic - man being merely an animal, and life having only an arbitrary and subjective meaning or value... well then, everything in life will be reduced ultimately to a matter of power and control - power seen as "economic" or sexual, or military or terrorism.

This being so, it readily becomes apparent that in world diplomacy, when one side believes in eternal truths and the other doesn't things will necessarily break down. War - while not inevitable, will certainly always remain a threat.

The Church recognized this in the 1960's as well - and sought to delay wars while striving to convert both Western secular-humanists and Eastern atheistic-communists.

Vatican II was launched to energize the Western laity into an organized force for evangelization - to bring Catholic values and belief into all sectors of society... and in so doing, show the glory of truth and the beauty of God's beatitude and grace to those souls who were lost in atheism and immorality.

Obviously, the high hopes of a united Catholic laity were immediately dashed to pieces since few clergy and bishops cooperated -or even listened to the Pope's aims and teaching...

So we come to today in which the world is divided into two camps: one in favor of war in Iraq, the other united only by the concern that whatever is the solution, the US action is not the right way to go...

I suggest that those Catholics on this board at least, who are opposed to the current US action in Iraq, should begin to study and pray and ponder on what a truly just "world order" should look like and how practically it should be established - not on paper, not in their mind's eye, but in the lives of real people....

How do you promote a politics or public morality that respects freedom without perverting into license? How do you promote social and interpersonal justice? How do you promote faith? How do you promote and establish habits of solidarity?

How do you do all this with and in the face of vast numbers of people who think you are crazy or who routinely call you - your nation, and your religion "the great Satan" or "criminal"?



-- Joseph (joestong@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003

Answers

Thanks, Joe.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Joe,

Good summary on social justice teachings of the Church. I had been planning to add a "political" section to my Catholic Youth Web Portal for the RCIA and high school students from my parish. The first part of this article (with a couple of edits to add references to more material on the topics) would be a great starting place. Can I copy and paste from here and place it (with edits) on my website? I'll give you the credit, of course.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.


Hollis,

Sure, if you think the posts are any good or useful! ;-)

Drop me a line (yes, my email is a real email address) sometime and I'll give you any biographical material you may need.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.


Please make sure all those children memorise this passage from Pacem in Terris :-). Blessings gents

John XXIII called upon transnational organizations like the United Nations to have a larger role in "ordering the world community." He wrote:

"As we know from experience, men frequently differ widely in knowledge, virtue, intelligence, and wealth, but that is no valid argument in favor of a system whereby those who are in a position of superiority impose their will arbitrarily on others. On the contrary, such men have a greater share in the common responsibility to help others reach perfection by their mutual efforts. So, too, on the international level: some nations may have attained to a superior degree of scientific, cultural and economic development. But that does not entitle them to exert unjust political dominion over other nations. It means that they have to make a greater contribution to the common cause of social progress. The fact is that no one can be by nature superior to his fellows, since all men are equally noble in natural dignity. And consequently there are no differences at all between political communities from the point of view of natural dignity."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.


Jmj

Thanks for that quotation, Kiwi, as it helps me to see how great my nation, the U.S.A., is.

Although she has her "international warts" (worst of all the export of pornography and contraceptives), she lives up to papal expectations mentioned in your quote. She does not "exert unjust political dominion over other nations", and she does "make a greater contribution to the common cause of social progress."

On the first point, America does not do what she could do -- establish a huge worldwide empire, rivalling the one Britain had for centuries -- but she does not. When she enters a place, it is to correct something broken, and then she backs out instead of annexing lands.

On the second point, America is more generous than any other nation in the world in sharing technology, education, food, fine arts, etc..

People who utter words of hatred or disrespect about America or her current president are much to be pitied, because they are mired in ignorance.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.



(b) The Heretical Proposition

The heretical proposition contained in Pacem In Terris is the opening sentence of paragraph 14. The Latin version, as published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, No. 55, 257-304, is as follows: -

“In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectam conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri.”

This means, “We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess (his) religion privately and publicly.”

Catholic teaching, of course, is that man has the right to profess and practise the Catholic religion, but that he has no right to practise any other religion. Hence, no objection can be made to the assertion that man “should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience,” since the word “rightful” implies that one is not necessarily entitled simply to follow his conscience in the worship of God, unless his conscience is “rightful” - i.e., one presumes, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Man certainly has the free will to practice according to his conscience, but he does not have the RIGHT.

-- Ed Richards (loztre@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.


Thanks Ed,

Um, maybe it's the pre-morning-coffee daze, but I couldn't follow your post. Did you leave out a paragraph?

Following one's conscience is a right Religion is a matter of conscience following one's religion is a right... would seem to be a proper syllogism.

I think the "problem" with P et T is that it is written for all men of good will, not specifically for Catholics. Thus, if you are trying to establish universally acceptable principles for people "of good will" - your criteria or principles have to be reasonable- based on sound philosophy rather than specifically on theology.

Truth being one, of course, means that solid philosophical premises will inevitably lead one towards conclusions in harmony with Divine revelation. And that's the point: first let's get all the world's people (atheists and hindus, moslems and jews, buddhists and taoists... talking and thinking about such universal values, and then once they accept as self-evidently true certain rights, their cultures will be that much more open to Christianity.)

Freedom, truth, justice, solidarity lead to faith!

Without freedom, you will have no virtue Without virtue you will be incapable of recognizing wisdom without wisdom (truth) you will be incapable of acting justly and without justice, there is no solidarity (charity).

Now, in dictatorships where freedom is restricted, vices abound.

But it's also now apparent - in the West - today in 2003 rather than in 1960, that freedom, while the sine qua non is not the CAUSE of virtue... freedom alone will not make people saints! Nor will education alone.

So the encyclical cuts both ways; to the east and to the west.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Joe, I think I comprehend what you are saying, however the right to be wrong, still comes out wrong. Pharoah, had the right to be wrong defying Moses but he paid the price. The prisons are full of people who had the right to be wrong. What the pope says in that encyclical sounds very loving and charitable here, but it won't fly on the other side.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Hey wait a mintute.... moral judgements are possible only when the person making them has knowledge of what is right and wrong - have you never heard of "invincible ignorance" or the duty to "educate one's moral conscience"?

In other words, yes, there is no such thing as a "right to be wrong" when you know that option A is wrong... but if you grew up being told that A is OK, or that A is not a sin... then your conscience, while objectively erroneous, will subjectively be right.

Or do you think Pagans go around thinking "oh man, I am such a pagan"?

No, they really thought Zeus was a god living on Mount Olympus and having some say in the lives of men... they had to be converted from this sincere belief into the truth of Christ...

St Paul writes of this in Romans quoting Wisdom. Pagans know certain truths - natural law...but other truths they didn't know. Paul didn't say that their religious instincts were evil to the core - he used them as a stepping stone for the gospel.

How shall I make this clearer? Every non-Judeo-Christian religion is man's attempt to say something about God or the Divine. It has some truth to it, some authentic human values (respect for elders, etc), and some authentic insights as to the nature of God... but also lots of mistakes and errors. (cf. Summa Contra Gentiles).

The pagans don't knowingly go around sinning when they are "good pagans". They are judged according to what they thought was the truth and what opportunties they had of accessing the truth... clearly they're at a disadvantage as far as objective health of mind, soul, and body are concerned...but God is not unjust by condemning them for not doing what they could not have known was necessary!

You don't have a right to do what you know is wrong.

But the trick is knowing what is right! And unless God reveals His will to you via other men (whether they write you letters or preach to you in person or via others), how would you know divine revelation?

Good pagans are to be converted into good Christians - and both have a moral responsibility to know what is true and obey what is good.

Until these pagans come to be evangelized though, their consciences must be respected. No forced conversions. So practically speaking, apart from things knowable by natural law, their religious rites and practices are to be tolerated (ie religious rights) by us.

The Church must respect others as we would have them respect us...and in the civil peace of orderly human and religious rights, the truth of the Gospel (the Way and the Truth leading to true human flourishing: Life) will shine out and win the day, if we Catholics are faithful!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Joe you must know the gospel of John: It was the light that came to Every Man who comes into the world. You know the rest, the emphasis is EVERY MAN.. Invincible ignorance is a product of the past 2 or 3 hundred years. No pope ex-cathedra ever mentioned invincible ignorance. Read the 3 ex cathedra declarations. no invincibale ignorance.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Jmj

Ed R, I am shocked and appalled at what you have done here. Your entire post of the 23rd, except the last sentence, is copied-and-pasted from someone else's essay, but you gave the author no credit. You made it seem as though you yourself had written it.

Well, maybe I'm not surprised about why you didn't reveal the source. The text is from an essay, by one John Daly, entitled "Does 'Pacem In Terris' Teach A Heretical Doctrine of Religious Liberty?" A good reason for you to be rightly ashamed to reveal this is that Mr. Daly is a "sedevacantist" -- and thus a schismatic of the worst kind (and perhaps even a heretic). His work is published at a sedevacantist Internet site, which I am not going to waste time linking here.

Mr. Daly tried to analyze "Pacem in Terris" [PiT] correctly, but did not succeed. Your quote from Daly points to article 14 of PiT. The pope, writing to all the people of the world, actually enumerates a large number of human/civil rights between articles 11 and 27, preceded by these words in #9: "Any well-regulated and productive association of men in society demands the acceptance of one fundamental 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."

Daly quotes the Latin of #14 and his own translation of the Latin, as follows:
"In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectam conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri."
"We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess (his) religion privately and publicly."
[The official Vatican translation reads: "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public."]

Notice the word "juribus" in the Latin. It is a form of the noun "jus" (or "ius"), which means "a right." It is not a coincidence that it looks like the words "just" and "justice," because a "right" is something due in justice to a person. A right, says Fr. John Hardon's "Dictionary," is "the moral power to do, to have, or to exact."

A proper analysis of Pope John XXIII's words (in my opinion) leads one to see that his goal was to speak up for the "moral power" of people to be able to practice religion unhindered by others or by governments. His main goal was to protect the rights of Catholics to practice their religion, privately and publicly, even in places like Soviet Russia (and its puppets) and anti-Christian Moslem nations. Another goal was to say that just civil liberties include the freedom of non-Catholics to practice their religions in "Catholic" nations. But he had no goal of telling Catholics that non-Catholics' religions might be just as "right" (correct) as their own.

Ed R, if you reject PiT #14, no one had better appoint you to a judgeship, because you would imprison a Hindu defendant for practicing Hinduism, because he (allegedly) has no "right" to do that. We know that it is not "right" (correct) to practice Hinduism, but a person has a civil "right" (power) to do it.
Ed, please return to Catholicism!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.


John, siorry I did not give the writer credit. An unintential oversight. No I'm not ashamed of what he said. Though no sedevacantist, I can still agree with him on some points. If you are correct that pope john just meant this for freedom from government, that is ok, but why did he not clarify it? On the other hand John Paul says in pictures that which leaves no doubt. It is not easy for me to write this, but he did our faith no favors by Kissing the Koran, Mark of Shiva, praying with Jews and all other sects. Leaving others to their own devices is one thing but causing indifferentism to it is another. Even scandal is not too harsh a word. We have been warned many times over in the bible and by popes about praying with infidels. Our present pope seems to have not heeded that warning.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Ed.

You wrote: "Leaving others to their own devices is one thing but causing indifferentism to it is another."

I have been following the pope's reign very closely, almost since the beginning. Not even in the slightest can I agree with your characterization of his life and work.

I am 100% certain that he is against religious indifferentism. I think that if you would read his book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," you would see what I mean. In the book, he pointed out the flaws in each of the world's (so-called) "great [non-Catholic] religions," and this even got some non-Christians rather upset with him.

This pope has gone all over the world to spread the gospel and to strengthen Catholics in their faith. He has his own "tactics" for trying to draw non-Christians to the true faith. You are free to express an opinion that his "tactics" are not good, but don't let them mislead you into believing that he thinks it to be perfectly OK for people to remain non-Catholics. I can assure you that he wants everyone to join the true Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), March 27, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ