Pacem in Terris As the Blueprint for World Order – America the Model
Recently Francis Fukuyama said in an interview that “for some people peace and prosperity is not enough and they want something more.”1 Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man which became a best seller as the Cold War came to an end. It is a misunderstood work, as it actually foresaw the very threats to liberal democracy or the Liberal Order that we are facing today. It was in Part V that Fukuyama described how those threats would come about, how they would be articulated. Indeed, reading the works of the now condemned post-liberal authors,2 it is as if Fukuyama’s Part V was the starting point of the script for their own disordered ideologies.
Fukuyama wrote:
“….if a strong community life is, as Tocqueville implies, democracy’s best guarantee that its citizens do not turn into last men, it is constantly threatened in contemporary societies. And what threatens the possibility of meaningful community is not a force external to the community, but those very principles of liberty and equality on which they are based, and which now are becoming so universal throughout the world.
“According to the Anglo-Saxon version of liberal theory on which the United States was founded, men have perfect rights but not perfect duties to their communities. Their duties are imperfect because they are derived from their rights; the community exists only to protect those rights. Moral obligation is therefore entirely contractual. It is not underwritten by God or fear for one’s eternal life or the natural order of the cosmos, but rather by the contractor’s self-interest in fulfillment of the contract by others….”3
Fukuyama continued:
“…Today, we have worked our way toward what is rightly considered a purer form of liberalism: the Supreme Court has decided that even the non-denominational assertion of `belief in God’ may offend atheists, and is therefore impermissible in public schools. In a situation in which all moralism and religious fanaticism are discouraged in the interest of tolerance, in an intellectual climate that weakens the possibility of belief in any one doctrine because of an overriding commitment to be open to all the world’s beliefs and `value system,’ it should not be surprising that the strength of community life has declined in America. The decline has occurred not despite liberal principles, but because of them. This suggests that no fundamental strengthening of community life will be possible unless individuals give back certain of their right to communities, and accept the return of certain historical forms of intolerance.”4
The concepts behind Fukuyama’s predictions received a mortal challenge in recent years. Robert R. Reilly in America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding critiqued the post-liberals Patrick Deneen and Michael Hanby most notably, and in the process addressed Fukuyama’s points. Deneen and Hanby argued that the American founding was flawed and that these flawed principles lead to the problems of today which was marked by a radical individualism which equates to the dissolution of communities. Reilly’s rebuttal is contained in Chapter 11 of his book and attacks Deneen’s central premise by pointing out Deneen bases his position on a sentence that never existed in the Federalist Papers. Deneen misquotes James Madison5, even creating a statement that Madison did not make, to support Deneen’s position that the Constitution was meant to protect or promote all manner of diversity. Deneen’s fabricated statement is “`The first object of government,’ writes Madison in Federalist 10, `is the protection of the diversity in the faculties of men.’“ Madison’s correct position was, as stated in Federalist 10, “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.”6 Reilly explains, “it is the protection of the faculties themselves, not of diversity, that is the government’s object” and so Madison sought to protect the essential (faculties) from the accidental (diversity).7 In Federalist 43, 45, and 51, Madison wrote respectively that “the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim”, that “the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people…is the supreme object to be pursued,” and “Justice is the end of government…the end of civil society…”8 Diversity was not a goal of government despite Deneen’s assertions. Reilly notes that Deneen’s position fails with these statements, that the Founders were not trying to protect appetites, for to do so one would not need a Constitution.9 Tyrants indulge their appetites but tyrants also have great, if not unlimited power, and do not need a Constitution which was a way to build consensus and also disperse power so as to protect the faculties of men.10
Reilly’s rebuttal of Deneen and the post-liberal first principles was an articulation of the American and Catholic position of the primacy of the person. Reilly articulated the Natural Law as the basis of the Founder’s thinking and as the principles which guide and were to guide the actions of the government. Essential to good government is virtue and numerous authorities support the Founders’ awareness of and belief in a common good.11 The Founders recognized that there existed a Divine purpose and proper end to things as there was a rational order established by Providence, and this informed all they did and understood.12 Reilly referenced the affirmations, the approvals, of the American Founding by both Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.13
With the attack on American founding principles and the promotion of a false narrative blaming these principles for alleged problems of today, American conservatism slides into fascism, nazi-ism, and tribalism. “Us” against “them” is being made a part of the country’s policy if not also ethos. Calls to ethnicity, tradition, and religion are used to mobilize support and engineer consent for a project that destroys its very supporters. The dark forces at work in all the countries of the West are now threatening to erase centuries of progress and to erase civilization itself, though they come in the name of civilization. These same dark forces while claiming to be Christian, are anything but as they rely on lies and force to impose their agenda, and their appeal is to fear, anger, and passions so as to gain power. Forgetting the founding principles of the Natural Law, these dark forces proceed to rip societies apart. These attacks are brought or fueled by the Russians along with a group of transnational elites, mostly the “tech-bros” to include the “Pay pal mafia.”
When people are no longer satisfied with peace and prosperity – the essentials to the good life as Reilly and the ancients would call it – then civilization is in danger. Peace and prosperity require reason, cooperation, unity which form the basis of civilization and allow for the good life. Civilization is not just things like music, literature, roads, science. It is reason, unity, solidarity, justice, truth, all of which is oriented to the service of the person. Civilization is supposed to bring peace and prosperity so that the person can develop materially and spiritually. The Natural Law, as understood through the Law of Nations, presented the way forward for mankind to achieve its deepest held and most cherished goals by establishing a unity of right order between the domestic and the international. Perhaps one of the best statements of this way forward is a papal encyclical by the name of Pacem In Terris, promulgated in April, 1963 by Pope John XXIII.
The Milieu
All of this became clearer to the leadership of the Catholic Church during and after World War II, especially since the Vatican had refused to join the League of Nations. Tens of millions were killed or wounded or lost in the space of more than a dozen years (1931-1945) in a war fought on every continent. Genocide was practiced by every aggressor, and every aggressor was a tyranny of sorts. War, not peace, reigned destroying families and many people. Nationalism and exaggerated nationalism reduced others to less than human because tribalism does the same thing to members of the tribe that it does to non-members. The killing was done, aided and abetted by Christians, and in particular, Catholics. Looking back, World War II is a perennial teacher as it presents the archetype of evil – Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini. The Catholic Church had a moment of clarity after World War II, a clarity that America realized with our Founding.
The man who expressed this clarity for the Catholic Church was ultimately declared a saint, John XXIII. He was the Roman Pontiff from October, 1958 until June, 1963, and the one who called the Vatican II Council. The Council would enshrine the principles which Pope John put forth during his pontificate in Mater et Magistra and in Pacem In Terris. But these were not new principles he put forth. These are the Church’s teachings, held and shared over the years.
This article presents an overview of Pacem in Terris and also references a work by Peter Riga, a Catholic priest, scholar, lawyer and professor. Riga is dead now but in 1963-64 he wrote and published an important book explaining Pacem In Terris. That book is entitled Peace on Earth: A Commentary on Pope John’s Encyclical (Herder and Herder, NY, 1964) and it carries a nihil obstat and imprimatur which means the Church considered it to be without doctrinal error and fit for publication. Riga’s book is important as a contemporary analysis of the world and the need to bring people together with the Catholic participation in that effort essential. He also provides valuable insights into the Catholic mind in America at the time.
An Overview
The forward to Riga’s book is by the Belgian Leo Joseph Cardinal Suenens. Cardinal Suenens summarized the encyclical as an “appeal for respect for the individual…appeal for collaboration among nations…appeal for the creation of a supranational power….appeal for collaboration among men despite their ideological differences…..”14
The encyclical addresses “all men of good will” which was the “first time in the history of papal encyclicals” that happened.15 It hearkens to the “concept of the law of nature [which] is by no means an invention of the Catholic Church, as is sometimes erroneously believed.”16 Riga explained that “John XXIII put an end, at least in theory, to the Catholic ghetto mentality which has been prevalent since the Reformation. The concept of the Church as an armed fortress fighting off the onslaught of the enemy is a thing of the past. The Pope told Catholics that they must become involved in the modern world, with all its particular problems….”17
Pacem in Terris is a call to cooperation between all peoples with the basis of that cooperation being the Natural Law, and with Catholics becoming involved in, if not leading, the effort for right order. The encyclical is a restatement in succinct form of the Law of Nations, and it draws on many authorities and sources over the years to include addresses of Pope Pius XII.
The encyclical18 has six parts: Introduction (paragraphs 1-7), Part I (“Order Between Men”; paragraphs 8-45), Part II (“Relations Between Individuals and the Public Authorities”; paragraphs 46-79), Part III (“Relations Between States”; paragraphs 80-129), Part IV (“Relationship of Men and of Political Communities with the World Community”; paragraphs 130-145), Part V (“Pastoral Exhortations”; paragraphs 146-172).
Introduction and Part I – The Natural Law and the Primacy of the Person
John XXIII writes that Man must repair to the Natural Law for there to be right order and peace. The law of nature, the Natural Law, is “inscribed…in man’s nature and that is where we must look for them…” and this governs “how a man must behave towards his fellows in society.”19 This principle is repeated later in the encyclical where he writes “The principles we have set out in this document take their rise from the very nature of things. They derive, for the most part, from the consideration of man’s natural rights.”20
Essential to right order is the primacy of the person. John XXIII writes:
“We must devote our attention first of all to that order which should prevail among men. 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…endowed with intelligence and free will…has rights and duties…rights and duties are universal and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable…..”21
This was a principle that the Pope put forth in an earlier encyclical, Mater et Magistra (1961), in which he wrote “….individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution. That is necessarily so, for men are by nature social beings. This fact must be recognized, as also the fact that they are raised in the plan of Providence to an order of reality which is above nature.”22 All groups of people are to serve the person, the individual human being. This includes the domestic society, international society, ethnic groups, the family, various associations, and more. And, in addition, all things must serve the person — culture, rights, duties, religion, ethnicity, and in short, everything.23
As “each individual man is truly a person,” he has rights and duties.24 The rights are set out in paragraphs 11 through 27. These include the “means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and finally the necessary social services…to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever though no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.”25 Man has a “right to freedom in investigating the truth…within the limits of the moral order and the common good – to freedom of speech and publication….to pursue whatever profession he may choose…to be accurately informed about public events.”26 Man has the right to “share in the benefits of culture…to receive a good general education…a technical or professional training….”27
Other rights include the “right to worship God according to one’s conscience,” to “choose freely one’s state in life,” various economic rights, the “right to meet together and to form associations with their fellows,” the “right to freedom of movement” or to emigrate and immigrate, and the right to “take an active part in public life” which having an “inalienable right to juridical security…immune from arbitrary attack.”28
Peter Riga confirmed that America is the model for social organization. He wrote:
“….the United States is in a privileged position. The primacy of the human person in our laws and Constitution is a great contribution to the world. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution which limits government, and the Bill of Rights are ideals for the international political community….the fundamental principles of these American documents conform exactly to those of the United Nations Charter, of UNESCO, and of the Universal Declaration of human Rights….the basis of any human society, whether it be familial, national, or international: the rights of the human person, which, when guaranteed and promoted by positive laws and constitutions, are called civil rights….”29
With rights come duties.30 Men must cooperate as man is “social by nature…must live together and consult each other’s interests.” Society must be well-ordered and provide “abundant resources” and this “postulates not only the mutual recognition and fulfillment of rights and duties, but also the involvement and collaboration of all men in the many enterprises which our present civilization makes possible, encourages or indeed demands.”31
There must be “an attitude of responsibility” and the understanding that the “personal dignity” of a man includes an understanding that “he enjoy Freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts….Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement…..There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force….”32
This last thought was a continuation of an earlier point mentioned in Mater et Magistra. John XXIII wrote “Experience has shown that where personal initiative is lacking, political tyranny ensues, and in addition, economic stagnation in the production of a wide range of consumer goods and of services of the material and spiritual order – those, namely, which are in a great measure dependent upon the exercise and stimulus of individual creative talent.”33
Society “can be considered well-ordered, creative, and consonant with human dignity [when] it must be based on truth….” This means “human society…demands that men be guided by justice, respect the rights of others and do their duty….that they be animated by such love as will make them feel the needs of others as their own, and induce them to share their goods with others, and to…make all men alike heirs to the noblest of intellectual and spiritual values.” This is not enough as “human society thrives on freedom…on the use of means which are consistent with the dignity of its individual members, who, being endowed with reason, assume responsibility for their own actions.”34
Part II Relations Between Individuals and the Public Authorities (Domestic Societies)
The purpose of government is to develop the person which is the essence of the common good. There are two aspects of the common good: a qualitative aspect and a quantitative aspect.
The common good concerns the general welfare, and the common good “can never exist fully and completely unless the human person is taken into account at all times.”35 The “attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of the civil authorities.”36 Indeed, as set out in Mater et Magistra, the common good “must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.”37 The “common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily.” Indeed, the “safeguard [of] the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority.”38 He continues that “any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force.”39
Quantitatively, the civil authorizes are not to promote just one person or one group of people in society. The common good is to account for the “various characteristics distinctive of each individual people”40 but that is not all. The “civil authority must strive to promote the common good in the interest of all, without favoring any individual citizen or category of citizen” and as Leo XIII said, the “civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual, or of some few persons….”41
At this point, it is important to understand that the criteria for the common good of domestic societies must also apply to the common good of the international society or the community of states:
“The common good of individual States is something that cannot be determined without reference to the human person, and the same is true of the common good of all states taken together. Hence the public authority of the world community must likewise have as its special aim the recognition, respect safeguarding and promotion of the rights of the human person….”42
Part III Relations Between States or the Community of Nations
The idea of a community of nations is one that has been a central part of American identity from the beginning of our nation’s existence. Pacem in Terris makes clear there is a community of nations and that rules apply to this community, as rules apply to every community there ever was and is. There are several key ideas or concepts that John XXIII set forth by which this community is to be guided. These are that all men are brothers, and are united to each other by virtue of our similar nature.43 All men are to act from love and not from fear. The Natural Law is to regulate relations, and the moral law is to govern relations between countries. To promote the common good of the international society which also serves to promote or advance the common good of each of the states that compose the international society, there are the following general imperatives with their requirements: truth44, justice45, solidarity46, freedom47.
The moral order is to regulate the conduct of states with each other. Reciprocal rights and duties apply to states just as with persons in society.48 “The same law of nature that governs the life and conduct of individuals must also regulate the relations of political communities with one another.”49 Political leaders may not “lay aside their natural dignity while acting in their country’s name and in its interests. They are still bound by the natural law, which is the rule that governs all moral conduct, and they have no authority to depart from its slightest precepts.”50 Every society has a “ruling authority” which “is a fact which follows from the moral order itself. Such authority, therefore, cannot be misdirected against the moral order” for it would then “cease to exist”.51
The moral order therefore directs how each state’s ruling authority is to act, and that spells the end of the state supremacy doctrine. Riga explains what this means:
“….power politics in which the weak are preyed upon by the strong. The Holy Father states that this is directly opposed to the moral law. There is an authority over the individual states, and this authority exists because the universal common good, including universal peace, cannot be procured by any one state.
“Fortunately , the theory of state supremacy has been successfully challenged throughout the world, not only pragmatically but also in various schools of law and political science. To discern this general disapproval of power politics, it is only necessary to recall, as the Holy Father himself does, the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations…..If, as the signs indicate a universal juridical order is evolving despite obstacles which make progress slow and laborious, it is certainly owing to men’s common longing for peace and their increasingly widespread belief that an enduring peace can be founded only on a law of reason, a law of justice and liberty, rooted firmly in the recognition of the rights of the human person. Conversely, if the doctrine of unlimited state sovereignty were to prevail, the world would be condemned to perpetual instability and virtual anarchy. Pope writes approvingly of the strides which have been made in recent years toward the rule of natural law, and as he points out, modern technology and weaponry have made absolute national sovereignty an item the world can no longer afford….”52
By 1963, the long-held Christian belief in a community of nations was taking juridical form and becoming an everyday reality thanks to America.
Part IV Relationships of Men and of Political Communities with the World Community
Pacem In Terris approved of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which truly took account of each human being as a person), and the international order that rose up after World War II as a result of America’s efforts. All of this was a vital step in the direction of a long-held Catholic and Christian desire of a unified world under one political authority.
John XXIII wrote that countries are interdependent:
“…each country’s social progress, order, security and peace are necessarily linked with the social progress, order, security and peace of every other country….no State can fittingly pursue its own interest in isolation from the rest, nor…develop itself as it should. The prosperity and progress of any State is in part consequence, and in part cause, of the prosperity and progress of all other states.”53
The moral order requires a public authority for all the earth. He explained 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…the universal common good presents us with problems which are world-wide in their dimensions; problems…which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization and means co-extensive with problems, and with a world wide sphere of activity…the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such general form of public authority.”54
This must occur by consent of all nations and not be imposed by force and it must operate with “fairness, absolute impartiality, and with dedication to the common good of all peoples”55
The “duty of universal authority…is to create world conditions in which the public authorities of each nation, its citizens and intermediate groups, can carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and claim their rights with greater security.”56 The principle of subsidiarity still applies and cannot allow the world authority to “arrogate any of the functions of the individual States to itself.”57
The goal remains a world authority and John XXIII made clear that it is “our earnest wish that the United Nations Organization may be able progressively adapt its structure and methods of operation to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks.”58
Riga, a contemporary of Pope John, understood the significance of these words and of the encyclical especially as it involved the Catholics of his day who were isolationist and insular. He made clear that
“Part IV is the most momentous section of the encyclical. For the first time in papal history, a relatively complete statement on the moral obligation to form an effective world community has been embodied in the text of an encyclical. This part of the letter will cause great consternation among Catholics who have consistently opposed any surrender of national sovereignty. The Holy Father argues that what was always a truth – the solidarity of the human race – has now become a pragmatic reality. As a consequence, the moral order demands the formation of a world community which will promote the rights of man on a worldwide scale….
“The basis for the world community is the need to promote rights and dignity of the human person as expressed in the Universal Declaration of human Rights of the United Nations and elsewhere. For many reason, these rights can no longer effectively promoted by the individual states. But while technology has made the world a true community, this community existed before the advent of modern technology…[At this point Riga cites to paragraph 132 of Pacem In Terris that begins with “The unity of the human family has always existed…..there will always exist the objective need to promote in sufficient measure the universal common good, that is, the common good of the entire human family.”]
“Two conclusions follow from this observation. First, the justification for a world political community does not depend on the consent of individual nations to relinquish sovereignty but on the moral law, which demands that the common good of the whole human family be reconciled with and adjusted to the subordinate rights of individual states. Since the common good, in this age of advanced technology, cannot be guaranteed by individual states, no matter how good their will a superior political community must promote and guarantee the rights to the human family. From this comes the second conclusion: al men, and particularly all Catholics, have a serious obligation in conscience to aid, foster and participate in this world community. [Riga references to paragraph 137 of Pacem In Terris]
“If this is a demand of the moral order, then Catholic isolationists and those who would say that what is good for the nation is good for the world are obviously in opposition to a moral demand. There is an authority over and beyond that of the individual political community, and it exists not by force from above but by right from below that is, from the moral order.”59
Riga quoted to Thomas Merton for the model for such a world order being “the Western tradition of liberalism [which] has always hoped to attain a more equitable world order by peaceful collaboration among nations. This is also the doctrine of the Church. Father Delp and Count von Moltke hoped to build a new Germany on Christian principles. Pope John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra clarified and exposed these principles….”60
The Liberal Order is the way to realize Christian objectives, and America the executor of that effort as it is the successful model of the same.
Peace and Pastoral Exhortations
John XXIII provided the motives for mankind to strive towards peace. These are 1) an agreement that relations between states regulated “with the principles of right reason:…truth, justice and vigorous and sincere co-operation”; 2) a “craving to be rid of the threat of war, and to see peace preserved and made daily more secure?”; 3) and an understanding that “proceedings follow a rational and dignified course” from treaties that start with “some point of agreement” that is “sincere lasting and beneficial in their effects.”61
Riga held that this peace is realizable by the Liberal Order with the rule of law playing a primary role:
”Universal peace is primarily a question of law, and this law, properly understood, must embody in concrete and operative structure s the inalienable rights possess by every human being. These rights, of an ethical and philosophical nature, are incompatible with any form of government which denies the ascendancy of the human person over all external political authority. Without this foundation, this inner life, any attempt to erect the formal structures of society or of peace will be wasted effort…
“In mature society, justice is a means to an end which is liberty. And liberty is that condition of civil life which is necessary to enable all members of society to cooperate in peace and prosperity, to achieve their perfection, to attain their happiness, and thereby to fulfill in human dignity their divine destiny. Thus, the end of government and of law is adequately defined as a just and ordered liberty..’
“The supreme test of any society or government, national orientation, will be the degree to which it protects and promotes these rights, thus establish the human person to achieve his destiny in the liberty and dignity of a true son of God….”62
The final part of the encyclical dealt with pastoral matters. It called on Catholics to take part in public life, to cooperate with others of good will, to advance issues of importance to all, and to change things gradually from within. It was a call for Catholics to leave the ghettoes, seek cause for unity with and cooperate with people of different faiths, nationalities, beliefs, and more all for the common good.63
Conclusion
If you have been following me for a while you will know I have been speaking about the Natural Law and the Law of Nations. Nowhere are the principles of the Natural Law and the Law of Nations more clearly set forth than in Pacem in Terris. That document is a restatement of the things John Eppstein wrote about in The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations, and the Natural Law the Malines Group as set forth in The Code of International Ethics. It is an accumulation of centuries of wisdom and Catholic teaching applied to the situation of the modern era. The reasonable and correct conclusion that one can, must, draw from St. John XXIII’s encyclical, is that America is the model of social organization and all men of good will and good faith are to support this model, while spreading it about the world.
1 The Bulwark, “Why Populism Is Winning,” November 17, 2025, YouTube, 7:09 mark.
2 See, Christophe Cardinal Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, “The Response of the Social Doctrine of the Church”, September 13, 2025. The Apostolic Nuncio condemned by name the works of Patrick Deneen, Rod Dreher and Adrian Vermeule. In addition, he condemned R.R.Reno.
3 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, (Avon Books, New York, 1992), 323.
4 Ibid., 326.
5 Robert R. Reilly, America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2020), 292.
6 Reilly, 295.
7 Ibid., 295-296.
8 Ibid., 297.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 297-298.
11 Ibid., 298-307.
12 Ibid., 310-313.
13 Ibid., 314.
14 Peter Riga, Peace on Earth: A Commentary on Pope John’s Encyclical (Herder and Herder, New York, 1964), 11-23.
15 Ibid., 32.
16 Ibid., 32.
17 Ibid., 31.
18 John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (PT) at The Holy See website https://vatican.va
19 PT, para. 7.
20 PT, para. 157.
21 PT, paras. 8 and 9.
22 John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, para. 219.
23 Of note, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes this concept and Pacem In Terris in large measure is congruent with the UDHR.
24 PT, para. 9.
25 PT, para. 11.
26 PT, para. 12.
27 PT, para. 13.
28 PT, paras. 14 through 27.
29 Riga, pp. 58-60.
30 With rights, there are duties. These duties are personal and they are societal. Rights carry corresponding duties. The right to life includes the duty to “preserve one’s life.” The “right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion.” The “right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it.” (Pacem in Terris, para. 29) In addition, “one man’s natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men; the duty…of recognizing and respecting that right” and all this comes from the natural law. (Pacem in Terris, para. 30) Men, “social by nature,…must live together and consult each other’s interests.” In other words they have to collaborate. (Pacem in Terris, paras. 31-33) Society must be well-ordered and provide “abundant resources” and this “postulates not only the mutual recognition and fulfillment of rights and duties, but also the involvement and collaboration of all men in the many enterprises which our present civilization makes possible, encourages or indeed demands.”(Pacem In Terris, paras. 31-33)
31 PT, paras. 31-33.
32 PT, para. 34
33 John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, para. 57.
34 PT, para. 35.
35 PT, para. 55.
36 PT, para. 54.
37 PT, para. 58.
38 PT, para. 60.
39 PT, para. 61, 104.
40 PT, para. 55.
41 PT, para. 56.
42 PT, para. 139.
43 All references are to Pacem in Terris with the paragraph in brackets. “All men are united by their common origin and fellowship, their redemption by Christ, and their supernatural destiny.” [121] “We are hopeful that, by establishing contact with one another and by a policy of negotiation, nations will come to a better recognition of the natural ties that bind them together as men…love not fear must dominate the relationships between individuals and…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.” [129]
44 Principles flowing from truth (numbers in brackets refer to the paragraph in Pacem in Terris in which that point may be found). These are: “mutual ties between States must be governed by truth….the elimination of every trace of racial discrimination…the consequent recognition of the inviolable principle that all States are by nature equal in dignity [88]…each of them…has the right to exist, to develop, and to possess the necessary means and accept a primary responsibility for its own development….[each is] entitled to its good name and to the respect which is its due [86] [truth]….there is no valid argument in favor of a system whereby those who are in a position of superiority [may] impose their will arbitrarily on others…such men have a greater share in the common responsibility to help others to reach perfection by their mutual efforts. [87] So, too on the international level: some nations may have attained to a superior degree of scientific, cultural and economic development…that does not entitle them to exert unjust political domination over other nations…they have to make a greater contribution to the common cause of social progress…[88]…..[“unruffled impartiality” needed in] the promotion and spread of mutual understanding between nations…it does mean the utter rejection of ways of disseminating information which violate the principles of truth and justice, and injure the reputation of another nation….[90]…..”
45 Principles flowing from justice. These are “right to existence, to self development, and to the means necessary to achieve this….to play the leading part in the process of their own development….States are likewise duty bound to safeguard all such rights effectively…it would be criminal in a State to aim at improving itself by the use of methods which involve other nations in injury and unjust oppression….[cites to a St. Augustine quote: “Take away justice, and what are kingdoms but mighty bands of robbers”] [92]….a clash of interests among States…must be settled in a truly human way, not by armed force nor by deceit or trickery…mutual assessment of the arguments and feelings…a mature and objective investigation…and an equitable reconciliation of opposing views…” [93]
Principles of justice concerning the treatment of minorities in countries as not every ethnicity gets its own country. [94] Hence, “any attempt to check the vitality and growth of these ethnic minorities is a flagrant violation of justice…more so if such perverse efforts are aimed at their very extinction…..[95] best interests of justice are served by those public authorities who…improve the human conditions of the members of these minority groups, especially in what concerns their language, culture, ancient traditions, and their economic activity and enterprise….[96; Pius XII Christmas 1941]….[the minority groups may] tend to magnify unduly characteristics proper to their own people…even rate them above those human values which are common to all mankind, as though the good of the entire human family should subserve the interests of their own particular groups. A more reasonable attitude…would be to recognize the advantages…which accrue to them from their own special situation…that their constant association with a people steeped in a different civilization…has no small part to play in the development of their own particular genius and spirit…they can absorb into their very being those virtues which characterize the other nation. But…these minority groups must…learn to share their customs and way of life. It will never happen if they sow seeds of disaffection which can only produce a harvest of evils, stifling the political development of nations….”[97]
46 These are the dictates of solidarity. Relationships between States “must be regulated in accordance with the principles of truth and justice, [so] States must further these relationships by taking positive steps to pool their material and spiritual resources….this can be achieved by all kinds of mutual collaboration…in the economic social, political, educational, health, and athletic spheres….We must bear in mind that of its very nature civil authority exists, not to confine men within the frontiers of their own nations, but primarily to protect the common good of the State, which certainly cannot be divorced from the common good of the entire human family….[98] in pursuing their own interests, civil societies, far from causing injury to others, must join plans and forces whenever the efforts of particular States cannot achieve the desired goal….”[99]
Solidarity is essential to the “universal common good.” This “universal common good requires the encouragement in all nations of every kind of reciprocation between citizens and their intermediate societies….whatever their ethnic background, men possess, besides the special characteristics which distinguish them from other men, other very important elements in common with the rest of mankind…these can form the basis of their progressive development and self-realization especially in regard to spiritual values…therefore, the right and duty to carry on their lives with others in society. [100]….It is imperative, therefore, that nations enter into collaboration with each other, and facilitate the circulation of goods, capital and manpower….[101]…We advocate…bringing the work to the workers…this way many people will be afforded an opportunity of increasing their resources without being expose to the painful necessity of uprooting themselves from their own homes, settling in a strange environment, and forming a new social contacts….[102]….[The problem of political refugees 103-104]…the plights of those who for political reasons have been exiled from their own homelands [103]….Here surely is our proof that, in defining the scope of a just freedom within which individual citizens may live lives worthy of their human dignity, the rulers of some nations have been far too restrictive….the very right to freedom is called in question, and even flatly denied…a complete reversal of the right order of society, for the whole raison d’etre of public authority is to safeguard the interest of the community. Its sovereign duty is to recognize the noble realm of freedom and protect its rights. [104]….refugees are persons and all their rights as persons must be recognized. Refugees cannot lose these rights simply because they are deprived of citizenship of their own States. [105]…among man’s personal rights we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents…therefore the duty of State officials to accept such immigrants…so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood, permits…to further the aims of those who may wish to become members of a new society. [106]….Our public approval and commendation to every undertaking, founded on the principles of human solidarity or of Christian charity, which aims at relieving the distress of those who are compelled to emigrate from their country to another…..”[107]
Solidarity, the Common good, peace. The Encyclical noted that the arms race involved “a vast outlay of intellectual and material resources” which “saddled with a great burden” some countries while “other countries lack the help they need for their economic and social development.” [109] With the arms race supposedly to assure peace, “people are living in the grip of constant fear…While it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare to assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstance…there is reason to fear that the very testing of nuclear devices for war purposes can, if continued, lead to serious danger for various forms of life.” [110-111] There is therefore a “need for disarmament” which is based on “justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity”. [112] “Nuclear weapons must be banned…Pope Pius XII: `The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time.’”[112][Pius XII Christmas 1941] “Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men’s minds But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today’s world be replaced by…mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.” [113]
47 In Liberty and Freedom [120-129]. Allied with the idea that states have rights and duties, there is the understanding that “relations between States must be regulated by the principle of freedom.” In general, “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…all should help to develop in others an increasing awareness of their duties, an adventurous and enterprising spirit, and the resolution to take the initiative for their own advancement in every field of endeavor.” [120] The wealthy nations are to “render every kind of assistance to those States which are still in the process of economic development.” [121] The “poorer States shall in as short a time as possible attain to a degree of economic development that enables their citizens to live in conditions more in keeping with their human dignity.” [122] The help must be so as to “guarantee[] to them [the poorer states] the preservation of their own freedom…they are themselves playing the major role in their economic and social development…they are themselves to shoulder the main burden of it.” [123] The “freedom, integrity and security of other nations” is secured by a “new order founded on moral principles.” [124] Quoting Pius XII from Christmas 1941, “smaller States cannot be denied their right, in keeping with the common good, to political freedom, and to the adoption of a position of neutrality in the conflicts between nations. No State can be denied this right, for it is a postulate of the natural law itself, as also of international law…smaller States have also the right of assuring their own economic development…only with the effective guaranteeing of these rights that smaller nations can fittingly promote the common good of all mankind, as well as the material welfare and the cultural and spiritual progress of their own people.” [124] The wealthier States, “must have the highest possible respect for the latter’s national characteristics and time honored civil institutions…repudiate any policy of domination. If this can be achieved, then a precious contribution will have been made to the formation of a world community….[as] each individual nation, conscious of its rights and duties, can work on terms of equality with the rest for the attainment of universal prosperity.” [125]
48 PT, paras. 80 and 91.
49 PT, para. 80.
50 PT, para. 81.
51 PT, para. 83.
52 Riga, p. 114.
53 PT, paras. 130-131.
54 PT, paras. 136-137.
55 PT, para. 138.
56 PT, para. 141.
57 PT, para. 141.
58 PT, para. 145.
59 Riga, 142, 143.
60 Ibid., 145.
61 PT, paras. 114-118.
62 Riga, 191-192.
63 PT paras. 146-172. Of particular note, see paras. 161 and 162 which states in relevant part: “There are indeed some people…burn with a desire to institute wholesale reforms whenever they come across situations which show scant regard for justice or are wholly out of keeping with its claims They tackle the problem with such impetuosity that one would think they were embarking on some political revolution. [162] We would remind such people that it is the law of nature that all things must be of gradual growth. If there is to be any improvement in human institutions, the work must be done slowly and deliberately from within. Pope Pius XII expressed it…..”