Pacem in Terris Symposium

I am pleased and moved by my return to the United Nations, where, as the Holy See’s representative, I spent sixteen years sharing in the intense work undertaken for the development of peoples and for peace; where I nurtured deep and sincere friendships; where, above all, I sought always to defend the principles underlying international solidarity and to foster the unity of nations; where I witnessed the growth of marvellous people completely dedicated to the universal common good, even to the point of sacrificing their lives, like my unforgettable and dear friend Sergio Vieira de Mello. At the headquarters of the United Nations it was easy for me to observe, and almost to reach out and touch, how the great teachings found in Blessed John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris, on peace and harmony among peoples, were the object of a daily, intense endeavour — often difficult and complex — of planning and programming.

Forty years ago the encyclical Pacem in Terris proposed that a worldwide public authority be established in the concrete prospects of bringing about the universal common good. While John Paul II, in his Message for the 2003 World Day of Peace, recognized the significant progress achieved in making this noble vision of Blessed Pope John XXIII a reality, he drew a not entirely flattering picture of the forty years that had passed since the publication of Pacem in Terris: “Not only is it clear that Pope John XXIII’s vision of an effective international public authority at the service of human rights, freedom and peace has not yet been entirely achieved,” the Pope writes, “but there is still in fact much hesitation in the international community about the obligation to respect and implement human rights”[1].

It becomes more urgent than ever today, and suitable too, that we appreciate the value of the priceless guidelines offered by Pacem in Terris as we face the need — once more, as relevant as it is urgent — to enunciate clearly the role of a worldwide public authority. Of particular importance among these guidelines is the correlation between the historical content of the universal common good and the configuration and functioning of a worldwide public authority. This is a moral issue before it is a question of structure, and requires that at the centre of our considerations there be placed the human family and the universal common good to which it tends. In fact, in the perspective indicated by John XXIII, the value of the universal common good for a worldwide public authority must be that of a principle inspiring creativity in planning and giving great relevance to the manner in which it is configured. This is a principle that is at the same time both one and composite, just as the human family is one, composite and historically determined. Pacem in Terris teaches that, “Public authority, as the means of promoting the common good in civil society, is a postulate of the moral order. But the moral order likewise requires that this authority be effective in attaining its end. Hence the civil institutions in which such authority resides, becomes operative and promotes its ends, are endowed with a certain kind of structure and efficacy: a structure and efficacy which make such institutions capable of realising the common good by ways and means adequate to the changing historical conditions” (no. 136). It becomes urgently necessary, then, to determine the content of today’s universal common good. As we look at this, we are able to catch a glimpse of what should be the extent of the authority and functions that the world needs.

In this perspective, I believe it appropriate to indicate certain issues of particular interest for promoting the universal common good. These issues — if misunderstood and distorted — can give rise to much suffering. I list them because they must be our constant point of reference:

- the promotion of the authentic dignity of every person: men and women’s most precious possession is their dignity, therefore its promotion constitutes the central task of the service we are called to render to humanity;

- the defence of the inviolable right to life, in all its stages, from conception to natural death: this is the first and primordial right; it is the condition for all other rights of the person;

- the protection of the right to freedom of conscience and to religious freedom: because this protection safeguards one of mankind’s greatest goods — conscience — the effective practice of this right must be counted among the most serious duties of every society that seriously pursues the common good;

- the protection of the value and the rights of the family: the healthy status of the family is a necessary condition for the orderly development of society;

- the attention to be given to solidarity with all men and women, especially the weakest: both the older forms and the ever newer forms of works undertaken in international cooperation constitute the most fruitful commitment for overcoming evil and suffering;

- the promotion of democratic systems at various political levels and in different political spheres: in whatever ways are most suitable and adequate, these systems can set for themselves the categorical imperative of fostering — methodically and institutionally — the common good, justice, a spirit of service, dialogue and peace;

- to put people at the centre of social and economic life: this entails the organization of work in a way that is worthy of the human person, respect for the universal destination of goods, the right to private property and its intrinsic social function, the fight against poverty;

- the advancement of a culture inspired by human values: these are values that are able to respond credibly to the inescapable quest for truth and good that is inherent in the human nature.

The Holy Father John Paul II, in an important document containing the programme for the Church’s mission at the beginning of the third millennium, helps us to identify better the content of the universal common good: “How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? The scenario of poverty can extend indefinitely, if in addition to its traditional forms we think of its newer patterns. These latter often affect financially affluent sectors and groups which are nevertheless threatened by despair at the lack of meaning in their lives, by drug addiction, by fear of abandonment in old age or sickness, by marginalization or social discrimination . . . And how can we remain indifferent to the prospect of an ecological crisis which is making vast areas of our planet uninhabitable and hostile to humanity? Or by the problems of peace, so often threatened by the spectre of catastrophic wars? Or by contempt for the fundamental human rights of so many people, especially children?”[2].

Keeping the teaching of Pacem in Terris ever before us, we know that in the perspective of the universal common good the human person is the first reality whose full value must be put to good use, with respect for his or her human dignity and fundamental human rights. This anthropological perspective is the prerequisite for fully understanding the unity of the human race (“the unity of the human family” is the term used in paragraph 132 of Pacem in Terris), the reality of the international human community, composed first of people then of States, made up first of concrete men, women and children then of diplomatic relations, embassies and multilateral treaties. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has recently published a collection of the Holy Father’s addresses to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See[3]. From these addresses we can see with great clarity how the Pope, through the Ambassadors, speaks to States and also to Nations and peoples, and therefore to the whole human family. Similarly, when we evaluate the Pope’s interventions at the United Nations we must realize that standing behind the UN is the unity of peoples and individuals. In this sense, the UN becomes an indispensable point of reference and it is unacceptable to regret historical periods of the past when this organization either did not exist or was made up of fewer member States.

This does not mean overlooking the limitations of the UN or of any other international organization. If, on the one hand, the existence of the United Nations is justified insofar as it is an expression of “the unity of the human family”, on the other, its inadequacies in completely fulfilling this role are clearly evident. However, these inadequacies should not lead us to underestimate its importance, rather they should prompt us to act with realism and common sense, as well as with a certain amount of creative courage, to make the UN stronger and adapt its structure and way of working so that it is better suited to the high purpose for which it was founded.

Realism and common sense can entail many things today; for example: greater conviction in appealing to the principle of subsidiarity for a real global governance; gradual reforms that make fuller use of multilateralism; adapting the structure of the UN to the real relationships existing between States, not an adaptation imposed upon them to the point of becoming an unchanging photograph of their status, but not unrealistically ignoring this status either; increasing support and incentives for the pedagogical efficiency of the UN’s international agencies.

These aspects, which I shall now look at more closely, seem to me to be in perfect harmony with the guidelines found in Pacem in Terris. Far from presenting a utopian vision, Pacem in Terris is marked by realism and concreteness, even if it does show a prophetic character that derives from the Gospel.

a) As is well known, Pacem in Terris devotes much attention to the issue of authority — a topic which, if we have to tell the truth, is today largely neglected by scholars — and, as already noted, calls for the establishment of a world authority. We should note that John XXIII considered “the influence exercised by public authority in all the nations of the world” (Pacem in Terris, no. 135) to be structurally inadequate for promoting the universal common good. This universal common good “gives rise to problems of the utmost gravity, complexity and urgency - especially as regards the preservation of the security and peace of the whole world” (ibid., no. 134). According to the Encyclical, the peace arising from this common good does not come about “through the normal diplomatic channels, or by top-level meetings” (ibid., no. 133). Pope John believes that no one single national authority, however powerful or strong, is able by itself to provide the basis for world peace and the universal common good. The “structural” inadequacies are not so much a matter of material aspects, such as economic or military strength, that today or tomorrow could be wielded by a true “world” power; rather, the fact is that the universal common good is a moral concept that is qualitative, not quantitative. Indeed, the reason that the universal common good requires an adequate worldwide political authority is not merely a technical matter, but is really an ethical question: authority is a “reductio ad unum”, that is, the moral (and not coercive) foundation of the “coexistentia membrorum”. Pacem in Terris is clear in this regard: “the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such general form of public authority” (no. 137).

In this ethical perspective, universal authority is to be built patiently, ever founded on the unity of the human family and placed at the service of this family, so as not to become “an instrument to serve the interests of the few” (ibid., no. 138). A guarantee of protection for all this is the principle of subsidiarity, which John XXIII purposely inserted in paragraphs 140 and 141 of Pacem in Terris, right in the middle of his reflections on worldwide political authority. The time has now come to go about the task of applying the principle of subsidiarity to the use of authority in the international sphere, or, better yet, of parsing authority in terms of subsidiarity. There is an urgent need to create an articulated system of authority, a subsidiary network of authority if we intend to pursue the goal, in the international sphere, of ensuring that authority takes on new authoritativeness. This can happen if the exercise of authority is spread out, articulated and participatory, so that the different levels of authority — local, regional, State, continental, worldwide — mutually assist each other in fulfilling their duties without overlapping, which weakens rather than strengthens authority. We can say that today the moment has arrived for all of us together to put our hand to a “constitutional engineering of humanity”. This is not a matter of drafting the constitution of a worldwide super-State, and it would be an error to interpret the UN in this sense. The UN is neither a super-State nor a super-court-of-law. Furthermore, it is not a matter of sitting down to prepare an abstract schema of coercive regulations. Rather, it means continuing to reinforce a process already underway, that of the participatory construction of transparent and subsidiary levels of authority. The moment has now come to speed up this process and, above all, to balance the relationships between the different levels of authority, creating new ones also. The cause of peace makes this necessary, a cause that is overrun today by problems that are both local and global.

b) Moreover, this process of constructing a subsidiary and articulated concept of authority cannot succeed unless it takes a path common to all men and women, based on shared and lived values. Hence the great emphasis in Pacem in Terris on the doctrine of human rights; this is perhaps the most systematic presentation of this topic in the entire corpus of the Church’s social doctrine.

It will be necessary, therefore, to develop the pedagogical potential of international organizations and of the UN in particular. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, and the Charter of the United Nations should once more come to be considered by all as an ethical and binding “paradigm” for every State-member. In the recent past, some people have complained of a certain relativistic drift or, better still, of a procedural drift in the way the United Nations understands human rights. Following the lead of Pacem in Terris, we should increase the awareness that the rights and values affirmed in these solemn documents are not the result of some human assembly, however lofty and authoritative this assembly may be, but are more the expression of an “order” and the reflection of the centrality and the dignity of the human person and of the unity of the human family. In the past, mankind has not always been inspired by this understanding of human rights, and the corresponding risk is the break down of the authority of international organizations and the weakening of their pedagogical effectiveness with regard to the peoples and Nations that are members of them.

c) It will also be necessary, with a healthy realism and at the same time with courage, to move things forward for the better, to think once more, and very profoundly, about revising the structure of the UN; for, as everyone knows, the present structure reflects the international situation that had emerged from the Second World War. We must identify ways that will permit all the State-members of the UN to find sufficient guarantees that their interests will be respected, and which will at the same time ensure that listening and promotion effectively take place in that assembly, in accordance with the principle of the dignity of all Nations and peoples—which Pacem in Terris spoke about—on the basis of a framework of values that are truly shared and are not merely empty words.

Now that I have shared these various reflections, the following question naturally comes to mind: does not the present UN crisis, which has also been brought about by decisions concerning the war in Iraq, contradict the call made in Pacem in Terris for a worldwide political authority? Those who have followed the arguments which I have presented will have certainly understood that the answer here is “no”. Rather, in my opinion, the call made in the Encyclical becomes more acute and urgent because of the current crisis. We cannot do without the UN, an international organization that is to be considered both as a destination towards which we are travelling and as a point of departure. It is a destination because the worldwide community is built prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and in many different ways. It is a point of departure because it can play a role that, more than symbolic, is strongly pedagogical and supportive of authentic relations, duly respecting subsidiarity. The weakening of international bodies entails a decline in the awareness of people, represented in them, of humanity’s status as one family. These bodies cannot be strengthened without reinforcing their capacity to express a moral order and articulating a subsidiary system of authority for a worldwide governance, all of which must be done with realistic courage.

Humanity must come to understand ever more clearly that everyone is united in a single destiny that requires the shared taking on of responsibilities. We must sense the need for a greater moral awareness that will provide direction on this common path. The men and women of our time must be able to direct progress towards the true good of humanity, the humanity of today and the humanity of tomorrow. Considering the obligatory nature of ethics and the historical dimension of the content of the common good, we must ensure that the selection of means appropriate for this end is consistent: institutions and resources and, above all else, a moral and educational commitment that is both community-oriented and universal.

[1] John Paul II, Message for the 2003 World Day of Peace, “Pacem in Terris, a Permanent Commitment”, 5.

[2] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, 50-51: AAS 93 (2001), 303-304.

[3] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, John Paul II and the Family of Peoples. The Addresses of the Holy Father to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (1978-2002), edited by the Most Reverend G. Crepaldi, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2002.