Władysław Piwowarski
Peace as the fundamental value in
the social teaching of the Church
Collectanea Theologica 56/Fasciculus specialis, 57-60C o lle c ta n e a T h eo lo g ica 56 (1986) fasc. sp ecialis
W ŁADYSŁAW PIW O W A R SK I, LUBLIN
PEACE AS THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE IN THE SOCIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
The w orld peace constitutes one of th e central fundam ental values of th e social teaching of th e Church, especially since W orld W ar II. A ddresses of Pius XII, th e teachings of th e V atican Council II and the Popes — John XXIII, Paul V I and John Paul II, are m ark ed by the anxiety to keep peace on the w orld-w ide level. The con tem porary w orld is pluralistic and full of conflicts. In this situation, co-existence betw een countries is possible only on th e basis of dialogue, compromise and peace. A turning point in th e Church w hen th a t fact w as ta k en into consideration w as the teaching of John XXIII and the V atican Council II. Church opened herself to th e w orld and assum ed a dialogue on th e w orld's scale. The testim o ny of this change of th e Church in relation to th e w orld w as Jo h n 's XXIII encyclical Pacem in terris (1963) called "The G reat C hart of C atholic D eclaration of Hum an Rights", and tw o conciliar docu ments, C onstitution Gaudium et spes (1965) and D eclaration Digni
tatis hum anae (1965). Social docum ents and personal testim onies of
Paul VI and John Paul II furnish a confirm ation of th e change; they for instance personally spoke in support of peace at a session of the G eneral A ssem bly of UNO (Paul VI in 1965, John Paul II in 1979).
C onsidering a w ide range of problem s related to peace as the fundam ental social value, below only m ost im portant ones w ill be presented w hich provide a "key" to th e social teaching of th e Church in th e range discussed here. These are th e following: tra ditional and new philosophy of peace, dynam ic and "open" notion of peace, realization of values conditioning preservation of peace and care for developm ent and order in th e world.
O ne should add th at th e term "value" is not im equivocally de fined in the literatu re on th e subject. O ne of m ore recent definitions runs as follows: "V alues are internalized standards of behaviours inherited by persons in the process of secularization, in th e cultural context of a definite so ciety "1. Standards of behaviours are on the one hand orientated on life goals and on th e other on th e needs of individuals. This is w hy some em phasize th a t values are of objective and subjective ch aracter which means th at they are esteem ed and
1 G. H e p p , Z erfa ll der p o litisc h e n K ultur? W e r tv o r s te llu n g e n im W a n d e l, M ö n c h e n g la d b a c h 1984, p. 3.
m ay be desired2. If values assum e im portance and approval on th e social level, one speaks of social values. C ertain values receive broader or even general social consent, th en th e y are treated as fundam ental values. These values now include peace3.
1. Traditional and N ew Philosophy of Peace
From sociological point of view, "philosophy of peace" agrees w ith an expression tak en from M ax W eber and g enerally recognized in th e literatu re of th e subject, nam ely "legitim ization of peace", This notion com prises cognitive, valuation and em otional elem ents w hich explain and justify th e w hole of undertakings of social groups and societies in th eir attem pts to m ake real those values treated as obvious and no t subject to questioning at a longer time. As is clear, w hat is m eant here is not only a scientific know ledge but an y know ledge, and w h at is more, rational attitu d es and activ ity in life. A function of legitim ization is to provide sense (meaning) to social groups and societies and to create th e m orale am ong their members. Thanks to th e latter, th e y realize their historical situation, th e p re sent and th e future. W ithout such legitim ization, or even w orse w ith th e spread of false legitim ization, individuals, social groups and w hole societies m ay be broken and undergo degeneration. It is so as social consciousness affects social practice.
W hen peace is concerned, creation of proper legitim ization is a m atter of particular significance. H ere on th e one hand th e w hole hum an fam ily is involved, and on th e other, th e sense and m orale of contem porary w orld w here th ere is no m ore and th ere can not be an altern ativ e to peace. On this background th e w ords spoken by John Paul II in UNO are characteristic:
"This is quite a new view of th e m atter of peace. It is com ple te ly modern, to some exten t different from th e traditional one, and at th e same tim e deeper and m ore thorough. It is a view w hich considers th e origin of w ar and in some m easure its v ery essence, in a m ore com plex w ay..."4
The Pope sets th e traditional view of th e w orld peace against th e new, deeper and m ore thorough one.
A tradition al view of peace consists in former legitim ization of peace w ithin th e fram ew orks of w hich peace w as understood as a state w ithout w ar or revolution, th at is absence of m anifest use of violence. In justified cases, iusta revolutio or justum bellum w ere
2 Cf. V. Z s i f k o v i t s , D er F riede als W e r t. Z ur W e r tp r o b le m a tik der
F ried en sio rsch u n g , M ü n c h e n -W ie n 1973, p. 18.
3 Ibid., p. 41.
4 J o h n P a u l ' s II a d d re s s to U N O in N ew Y o rk from 2 O cto b er, 1979, in: J a n P a w e l II, N a u c za n ie sp o łe c zn e , vol. II, W a rs z a w a 1982, N o. И , p. 316.
perm itted of. M oreover, w ithin this legitim ization revolution and w ar w ere treated as a m eans leading to peace.
C hurch w as also familiar w ith older pro-pacific legitim ization. An exam ple m ay be furnished by a long-lasting discussion on ju
stum bellum. H owever, since th e tim e w hen encyclical Pacem in terris w as published and th e V atican Council II took place, Church
has excluded w ar as a m eans of solving international conflicts. In
Gaudium et spes, the Council makes a statem ent that "peace is not
simply absence of w ar..."5, and John Paul II in UNO rep eats after Paul VI: "N o m ore war, no more! No m ore w ill an y people stand in opposition against others but th ey w ill alw ays stand to g eth er"6.
Such an em phatic attitu d e of Church seeking new legitim ization for th e w orld peace finds com prehensive m otivation, included especially in m essages of Paul VI and John Paul II addressed on the W orld Day of Peace7. Firstly, one can observe an increasing desire for p eace and grow ing consciousness of peace on all continents. Regardless of divisions concerning one's outlook, religion and po litics, people are m ore aw are of th e fact th a t now adays peace consti tutes the essential problem. On the one hand, this is connected with quantitative and q u alitative increase of the m eans of m ass ex ter m ination, w hereas on th e other, w ith loss of faith and tru st in the efforts of states and international organizations w ith the aim of p re serving p eace in th e world. Secondly, th e o bjective situation w hich w as created after W orld W ar II is indicative of a new q u ality in international relations. It consists in absurdity of w ar as a m eans of solving conflicts in the world. For the first time in history m an kind as a w hole has been th reaten ed and w hat is m ore th ere is a possibility th a t both sides tak in g p art in th e w ar m ay be destroyed. In this situation w ar is not possible and peace has becom e a sine qua non condition of th e hum an fam ily existing and developing8.
In th e face of general w ill to h ave peace and a possibility of m ass exterm ination, it is not enough to accept th e statem ent that problem of p eace comes down to survival in th e situation of con flicts and tensions, eg. through control over arm am ents or through disarm am ent. It is necessary to seek m ore perm anent bases of world peace. It is obvious for C hristians th a t it is im possible to build up real peace betw een nations w ithout establishing such legitim ization in people's consciousness w hich assum es th e existence of God,
mo-5 S obór W a ty k a ń s k i II, K o n s ty tu c ja d u s z p a ste r sk a o K o ściele w św iecie
w s p ó łc z e s n y m , in: N a u c za n ie sp o łe c zn e K ościoła, W a rs z a w a 1984, No. 78, p. 245.
• J o h n P a u l ' s II a d d re s s to U N O , ibid., N o. 10, p. 314.
7 T he W o rld D ay of P e a c e w as in itia te d b y P au l VI in 1967, S ince th a t
y e a r, P opes a n n o u n c e sp e c ia l a d d re s se s on th a t g re a t day.
8 Cf. J. К o n d z i e 1 a, N o r m a ty w n e a s p e k ty w y c h o w a n ia dla p o k o ju (N or m a tiv e A sp e c ts of P eace-B iased E ducation), R oczniki N a u k S p ołecznych, vol. V II, L ublin 1979, pp. 27—33.
rai order and w orld-w ide order. The question is of fundam ental and norm ative consensus concerning values w hich w ould find general approval regardless of th e differences dividing peoples, natio n s and states. R. Bellah defines it as "civil relig io n '/w h ic h is n ecessary for th e integration of each society9.
However, religion, understood even in most general terms, is not a formal principle of contem porary w orld w hich is secularized and pluralistic. Secularization leads am ong other things to rejecting the transcendent foundation of activities on th e international level, w hereas pluralism as a consequence of secularization becom es m a nifest in the num erosity of com peting ideologies, outlooks, system s of values and attitudes. In this situation it is difficult to find a com mon foundation of peace for all mankind. N evertheless, it is a n e cessity now to find such a foundation. In search of new legitim iza tion for w orld peace in secularized and pluralistic world, th e Church has concentrated on man, as a whole, and on each man, regardless of his outlook, n ationality and political views. This has found its expression in hum anistic and personalistic attitude of th e Church as regards th e question of w orld peace.
2. Positive, Dynamic, "Open" Peace
In interdisciplinary investigations on th e complex process of peace, one observes a lack of adequate definition of peace10 w hich would gain general acceptance among representatives of different, sciences. A m biguity of th e term "peace" occurs not only in science but also in ev ery d ay language. H aving this in mind, K. Blokesch says th at the expression "peace" is an "em pty form ula”, a notion which is m anipulated and provided w ith different contents11.
D espite th e existing problems, politologists tried to define th e notion of peace, first ex negativo and then also ex positivo. Here, a big role w as played by J. G altung w ho w orked out th e following definition: "peace is such, a state of affairs w ithin a system of broad er croups of people, especially nations, w here th ere is no organ ized use or th reat of violence"12. The definition cited here concerns 9 R. N. B e l l a h , B e y o n d beliei. E ssays on relig io n in a p o st-tra d itio n a l
w o rld , N ew Y ork 1970, p. 168.
10 Cf. for in s ta n c e J. K o n d z i e l a , B adania nad p o k o je m . T eoria i je j za
sto so w a n ie (R esearch on Peace. T h e o ry a n d Its A p p licatio n ), W a rs z a w a 1974,
p. 47; H. E. T ö d t , F ried en , in: C h ristlich er G laube in m o d ern er G esellsch aft, vol. 13, F reib u rg -B asel-W ien , 1976, p. 85; V. Z s i f k o v i t s , ibid., p. 14; B. S u - t о r, F ried en serzieh u n g als A u lg a b e p o litisc h e r B ildung, M ö n c h e n g la d b a c h 1983, pp. 4— 6.
11 K. B l o k e s c h , Irrlich ter in d er F rie d e n sd isk u ssio n , M ö n c h e n g la d b a c h 1982, pp. 3— 4.
12 J. G a l t u n g , F ried en slo rsch u n g , in: E. K r i p p e n d o r t (ed.), Frieden-
