“Peace on Earth”? An Evangelical Reflection on the 60th Anniversary of Pacem in terris

Recently there have been a number of reflections from prominent Roman Catholics on Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical Pacem in terris to commemorate the 60th anniversary of its publication (April 11, 1963). The encyclical was written after the Cuban Missile Crisis cooled, but while the world was still very much aware of the near brush with nuclear war and devastation that had threatened the world. It was also written during the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Pacem in terris was a call for universal peace and the building of relationships between states based not on fear of one another, but on trust. John XXIII appealed to the United Nations as a mechanism for implementing the hope of world peace (see Pt paragraphs 142-145). Alessandro Gisotti notes that “Sixty years after its publication, Pacem in terris continues to be the North Star that points the way for those who, especially in the field of diplomacy, are committed to promoting dialogue between peoples and building peace between nations.”

Writing for First Things, George Weigel has a slightly more sober analysis of Pacem in terris’s legacy. “An inspiring and noble vision, an inadequate analysis of the obstacles to that vision’s realization: that seems a reasonable judgment on Pacem in terris at its sixtieth anniversary.” Noble, yet inadequate. The inadequacy is due to an overreliance on the anthropological and sociological optimism that is embedded in notion of the “common good” of humanity. Weigel writes: “John XXIII taught that the world had entered a new historical moment, characterized by the widespread conviction that ‘all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity.’ That conviction implied that the classic Catholic social doctrine principle of the common good had a global, not only national, dimension—which in turn meant that ‘peace on earth’ had to be pursued through the establishment of a “worldwide public authority.” While noble, according to Weigel, this approach lacked an Augustinian reading to balance it out. “Was the pope, some asked, sufficiently aware of the expansiveness of human political folly, and the dangers of tyranny embedded in utopian visions of human perfectibility, as Augustine surely was?”

Reading Pacem in terris after sixty years and from an evangelical viewpoint suggests that while Weigel is on the right track, he does not go far enough in his analysis, and thus falls short of important biblical insights. The classic Catholic doctrine of the common good, which was adopted from the Thomist tradition and has defined the Social Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for decades, stems from a different trajectory than the Bible. While it is true that there is a common grace which humanity benefits from thanks to God’s grace and mercy, while it is true that we are to seek the welfare of the city (Jeremiah 29:7) and we are called to do good to all (Galatians 6:10) this is not the common good taught by Rome, invoked by John XXIII in Pt, and referenced by George Weigel. Rome teaches that by nature man is good. Sin wounds, but it does not devastate. The Catholic Church fully affirms and embraces this teaching (see Gaudium et spes, 16). In Roman Catholicism there is an overly optimistic understanding of human nature after the fall. This is underscored by the complete absence of sin in Pacem in terris. However, an appeal for world peace that does not acknowledge sin (i.e. the Augustinian reading) will inevitably fall short of its objective.

While affirming common grace, the evangelical faith rejects the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the common good, along with its teachings on the effects of sin and the inherent abilities of human nature after the fall. The Bible teaches that due to sin we are dead and without life. Paul makes this abundantly clear in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 2:1-7). Only when we affirm our status due to sin can we fully appreciate the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Furthermore, a biblical understanding of sin provides a proper framework for making sense of appeals for world peace. Seeking peace and the welfare of the city means meeting the physical needs of our neighbor (James 2:15-16), making sure that human dignity and religious freedom are respected in the context of a society characterized by institutional pluralism (e.g. family, church, state, business, … all having their spheres acknowledged), but it also means proclaiming the biblical gospel, which includes a turning from sin, repentance, and trust in Christ alone for salvation.

One insight a biblical understanding of sin provides is the inability of secular agencies (such as the U.N.) to accomplish objectives such as world peace. This insight is also owed to the evangelical doctrine of sphere-sovereignty which teaches that entities far removed from communities and nations should not be given unchecked powers. Of the U.N. John XXIII wrote: “May the day be not long delayed when every human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal rights; those rights, that is, which derive directly from his dignity as a human person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable” (Pt 145). This is fruit of the Catholic doctrine of the “common good” and applied to the U.N. Pt is not the only example of a pope’s appeal to the U.N. for executing the agenda of the Roman Catholic Church. In his encyclical Laudato sì Pope Francis appealed to the U.N. to deal with environmental issues (see Ls paragraphs 4 and 169).

George Weigel described Pt as noble yet inadequate. Inadequate because it was overly reliant on the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the common good, while not acknowledging Augustine’s recognition of the folly of utopian ideas of human perfectibility. An evangelical assessment goes farther. While Rt may be noble, it is not only inadequate, but is misguided. The doctrine of common good (not to be confused with common grace) does not require a proper balance, but must instead be questioned on biblical grounds. Otherwise an overly optimistic evaluation of man and human agencies will persist. This does not mean that the evangelical church stands idly by and is not interested in world peace and related issues (such as environmental concerns). The church most certainly has a role to play, but it is informed by a biblical understanding of sin and its devastating effects on mankind. It is also informed by a proper understanding of the different responsibilities assigned to different aspects of created life (e.g. individual family, community, nation, etc.). While it prays for peace and advocates for it, and while it pursues initiatives of creation care, the church realizes that perfect peace and a new creation are eschatological promises that will be realized in the new heavens and the new earth. The church is an active participant in the theological reality of the “already but not yet.” Rt falls far short of this realization.