The Pontifical messages of the World Day of Peace (1968–2024): An analytical introduction

Abstract

The end of World War II brought about an international consensus, the apex of which was the commitment to a dialogue-based solution to conflict that rejects the use of force. Shortly thereafter, however, war threatened the world once again. This is the context for John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical Pacem in terris. In 1967 Paul VI inaugurated the annual World Day of Peace, publishing a pontifical message and establishing a custom that would continue with John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, up to the present day. In his 2004 message, John Paul II pointed out that the result has been ‘a synthesis of teaching about peace,’ a ‘science of peace’. In the messages as a whole, there is a coherence of thought and principle in line with Vatican II – basically what John Paul II called, ‘education for peace’ and ‘education for legality.’ In keeping with the dignity of the person, human relations (from interpersonal to international) should be woven of an integrative dynamic of gratuity and justice, both in the building of a peaceful coexistence and in conflict resolution. With the horizon of this dynamic and through analysis of the messages, those themes that the pontiffs deem most relevant for achieving lasting peace are identified. The article includes some emerging phenomena that affect peace and are dealt with in the pontifical messages, and finally, some conclusions are offered.

Keywords:

• World day of peace
• justice
• brotherhood
• popes
• church communication

View correction statement:

Correction

‘It is a commonplace that the history of civilization is largely the history of weapons.’ George Orwell (1945) ‘The contemporary world too needs the witness of unarmed prophets, who are often the objects of ridicule.’ Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004, no. 496)

1. Introduction

The aim of this article is to offer a panoramic view of the messages of the World Days of Peace and to highlight their theoretical and practical reflection on peace, within the framework of the Catholic Church as well as that of other religions, of each country’s civil society, and of international diplomacy. From a comprehensive reading of the teachings of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, a coherent line of thought on peace emerges.

Each new generation is called to choose peace. As Benedict XVI recalled, while with ‘material progress’, advances are evident, the same does not happen ‘in the field of ethical awareness and moral decision-making’. Although it is true that a generation can embrace the moral advances of previous generations and make them its own, it is also true that it might not. Such decisions ‘can never simply be made for us in advance by others—if that were the case, we would no longer be free. Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning’ (Benedict XVI 2007a, nos. 24 and 25).

In this sense, the debate on peace engages the responsibility of each generation. The current generation finds itself before a horizon full of conflict, and in the position of having to make decisions. Some characteristic aspects of our time could be the following: First, as John Paul II recalled in Evangelium vitae (1995, no. 27),¹ the idea that human beings should resolve their conflicts by rejecting war and adopting approaches in line with human dignity is slowly gaining ground; this cultural change is the fruit of a greater awareness of the full extent of human dignity. The second is that continuous technical progress increases the destructive capacity of weapons. The third, as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church points out,² is the growing interdependence of the human community, which has transformed the face of war, making any war potentially global (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 498). The capacity for self-destruction today is far greater than it was during World War II.

The messages of the World Day of Peace do not offer concrete political solutions to the various situations of violence in the world. They offer ethical principles for peaceful coexistence and for the transformation of inevitable conflicts, they point out red flags and denounce certain situations, reflecting in their proposals the evolution of the Church’s thinking on a wide range of issues such as disarmament, international relations, humanitarian law, and human rights. They also draw attention to aspects that are seemingly not associated with armed conflict but that actually prevent it and build peace, such as integral human development, education, dialogue, the family, solidarity, etc.

In these pages we will try to address the issue of the model of peace proposed by the pontiffs. In a first approach, one could say that the peace underlying the messages attempts to overcome the culture of a fragile and provisional peace based chiefly on power and fear, and to achieve a lasting peace based on a conception of the human person (Vatican Council II 1965, nos. 12–22) and on the integration of justice and charity in each person, in interpersonal relationships, and in human communities, including at the international level.

To approach the messages, we will first describe the context in which Paul VI inaugurated the Days of Peace; then we will turn to the ‘science of peace’ that, according to John Paul II, is what has come to form the body of the messages. It will then be possible, with the perspective of almost sixty years since the inception of this annual observance, to identify the main founding criteria for peaceful coexistence and to point out the convergences with current tendencies in peace studies. Finally, we will mention other emerging phenomena, also included in the messages, whose detailed analysis goes beyond the scope of this article, but which are relevant and complete its thematic overview.

The messages are divided as follows: Paul VI wrote eleven (1968–1978); John Paul II, twenty-seven (1979–2005); Benedict XVI, eight (2006–2013); and Francis, ten (2014–present).

They are addressed to ‘all men of good will’, as Paul VI declared in his first message (Paul VI 1968). At the end of each text, Paul VI included a specific appeal to Catholics, a practice often followed by other pontiffs.

2. Methodology and bibliography

The methodology is influenced by the fact that the set of messages does not follow a predetermined organizational plan. Each pontiff chooses the themes that he sees as most relevant in light of the challenges the world is facing during the time of his pontificate. The popes have as a reference John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in terris (1963). They quote it frequently in the Messages of the World Days of Peace,³ but they have not used it as a template from which to systematically develop the content of the messages.

As we have said, the messages do not follow a systematic order, in the sense that they are not developed by prior planning, nor are they a gloss on some broader document. They are, however, interconnected by threads, key terms, and evolution in understanding. To find these connections, we used an e-book that compiles all the messages; this facilitated textual analysis, enabled keyword and key-topic searches, provided their frequency, and allowed us to see in what historical moment those concepts appear and the timeframe during which they are mentioned (Cárdenas and Salcedo 2022). In so seeing, we were struck by the fact that some themes have been treated exclusively in several messages, a sign of the importance of a specific aspect of peace for the pontiffs.⁴ In this research work, we have also verified the continuity and evolution in the argumentation of the contents over the decades.

As for the bibliography, there are three main sources: the Messages of the Days of Peace themselves, magisterial documents, and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Other scientific bibliographical sources outside of the magisterium of the Church regarding peace and conflicts have also been consulted, illustrating the interaction that the Holy See maintains with experts, attentive to the evolution of thought on peace, war, and violence.

There is little bibliographic material that analyzes, specifically and as a whole, the popes’ World Day of Peace messages, from Paul VI to Francis.

3. The origin and context of the World Days of Peace

The origin of the Days of Peace is linked to the two World Wars, particularly the Second, which generated fear as well as concern for peace. This is manifested, for example, following World War I in the rise of pacifism and the first peace movements. The horror of the Second World War, and especially the use of nuclear arms along with the capacity for self-annihilation, facilitated an unprecedented commitment by the international community to seek a solution to conflicts through dialogue, rejecting war. The consensus was legally articulated with the creation of the United Nations in 1945 and the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This Declaration, an international legal document, uses the expression ‘human family’ and refers to people treating each other ‘in a spirit of brotherhood’ (United Nations 1948). Though achieved at a very high cost, the recognition of the dignity of every human being was a decisive step for humanity and formed the beginning of an awareness of human rights at a level that had not until that moment been reached in history (Paul VI 1975).

A few years later, however, the world was divided into two blocs, the arms race was escalating, the threat of nuclear war loomed on the horizon, and the battle between blocs was being waged different countries’ soil, converging with the decolonization movement. In the midst of this ‘cold war’ situation, Pope John XXIII’s encyclical letter Pacem in terris (1963) was published.⁵ Shortly afterward, on 8 December 1967, Paul VI inaugurated the World Day of Peace, setting the first of January of each year as the date of celebration.⁶ On that occasion, the pope would publish an annual message addressing various aspects of peace.

In launching these messages, Paul VI wanted to embrace and expand on the fundamental concepts of Pacem in terris. He wanted, for example, to point to truth, justice, freedom, and love as the pillars of peace; to recall that war is not an acceptable way to resolve conflicts; and to call for building human brotherhood, to seek the universal common good, etc.

The same year Paul VI established the World Day of Peace, he also published the encyclical Populorum progressio (Paul VI 1967). In this document, peace plays a central role in close relation with development. On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the encyclical, John Paul II reiterated this key idea in his 1987 World Day of Peace message: ‘Paul VI saw […] the intrinsic connection between the demands of justice in the world and the possibility of peace for the world. It is no mere coincidence that the very year of the publication of Populorum progressio also marked the institution of the annual World Day of Peace’ (John Paul II 1987, no. 9).

Finally, in order to frame the Day of Peace in biographical context, we should also consider the memory of the pontiffs who personally suffered the scourge of war. Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI experienced the oppression of totalitarian ideologies and the outbreak of World War II in their countries. Their personal identities were marked by these events (John Paul II 2005; Benedict XVI [Josef Ratzinger] 2005). As popes they felt challenged to keep the memory alive, but a memory free from rancor, so that future generations would not succumb to the error of resolving conflict through force and would avoid the temptation of violence. Their commitment to peace is evident in their messages, but, above all, in their determination to avoid war. They were aware that violence can self-replicate. Among the most paradigmatic testimonies, John Paul II wrote in his message for the World Day of Peace following the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, ‘Recent events, including the terrible killings just mentioned, move me to return to a theme which often stirs in the depths of my heart when I remember the events of history which have marked my life, especially my youth. The enormous suffering of peoples and individuals, even among my own friends and acquaintances, caused by Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, has never been far from my thoughts and prayers’ (John Paul II 2002, no. 2).

4. The ‘science of peace’

From this point onwards, we will deal with the content of the messages. First, we would like to highlight the general overview, the common trunk from which each of these texts branches out. The 2004 message provides a key to interpreting it. John Paul II makes this text a message about messages, a reflection on the objective and meaning of the pontiffs’ texts on peace: ‘At the dawn of each new year I have invited people of good will to reflect, in the light of reason and of faith, on different aspects of an orderly coexistence. The result has been a synthesis of teaching about peace which is a kind of primer on this fundamental theme’. According to John Paul II this doctrine is the ‘science of peace’. As such a science, it has substance and can be researched, studied, taught, and applied. In order to promote and consolidate the foundations of the science of peace, John Paul II then proposed two major paths of structured content in ‘education for peace’ and ‘education for legality’ (John Paul II 2004, nos. 2–8).

Peace and legality or, in other words, love and justice, constitute two inseparable dimensions for fostering orderly coexistence and arbitrating dignified conflict resolution procedures. These two concepts, which make up the ‘science of peace’, implicitly or explicitly run through the nearly sixty messages. Love and justice are the firm roots that maintain a lasting peace, and Gaudium et spes (Vatican Council II 1965, no. 78), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992, no. 2304), and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church express this same line of thought (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 494).⁷ Love and justice are presented as safe coordinates from which to approach the new challenges that the world is experiencing.

The popes have been unceasing in their efforts to provide a foundation for peace. Their messages have come up against some widespread perspectives that make the aspiration for peace less effective: peace is often considered a hazy idea or an emotion; it is politicized, idealized, and instrumentalized; it seems like an unattainable ideal, perhaps especially in this time of armed conflict, which inspires feelings of impotence and leads to fatalism; and many also understand peace as the mere absence of violence. It is not enough to say that ‘peace is possible’ (Paul VI 1973). The concept of peace has a positive and real substance, and therefore everyone can practice it. In this sense, peace is everyone’s responsibility and a permanent commitment.

The variety of themes the popes have explored in their messages underlies the same idea: ‘Thus Peace’—said Paul VI—'is a pinnacle that presupposes a complex inner supporting framework. Peace is like a flexible body that needs a stout skeleton to give it strength. The stability and beauty of the structure of Peace depend on the support of various causes and conditions. These are often absent. Even when they exist, they are not always strong enough for their function of ensuring that the pyramid of Peace should have a solid base and a lofty summit’ (Paul VI 1977).

‘Body’, ‘skeleton’, ‘pyramid’, ‘construction’, ‘glossary,’ or ‘tree’ (Benedict XVI 2007b, no.10), define peace as a consequence, a result that adheres to an ‘architecture’. The messages break down the elements that make up peace, highlighting its breadth, internal logic, and dynamism: it is always under construction, always in danger (Camilleri 2020, 19).

The popes’ concern with a science of peace developed in parallel with scientific research for peace in civil society. Peace studies as a scientific discipline began after the Second World War. Peace studies programs have been on the rise in universities and specialized institutes, especially since the 1980s, and are a well-established reality today (to wit, in 1980 there were 75 peace studies programs in the United States, and today there are more than 400⁸). The development of this discipline has also led to the inclusion of peace education in primary and secondary school curricula.⁹

In the origin and evolution of peace studies, Norwegian sociologist and mathematician Johan Galtung, credited with pioneering the field through research on violence, holds a prominent place.¹⁰ The positive peace developed by Galtung opened a broader field, addressing the cultural, structural, and social aspects that promote peaceful coexistence and prevent conflicts—notably, the development of human rights (Johann Galtung 1998). Galtung’s vision of peace, integrative and holistic, is the one that has prevailed to this day from the academic standpoint, and it essentially aligns with the proposal put forth by the popes’ messages.

Galtung founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) in 1959. In the same decades in which peace studies institutes expanded, the development of nonviolence also grew¹¹ and involvement of civil society increased, as reflected in the number and joint action of NGOs dedicated to peace in different areas (the abolition of certain weapons (Alfieri and Sanfrancisco 2023), human rights, etc.).

5. The bottom line of the messages: Peace and legality

Based on the 2004 message, the genome of the science of peace would consist of two interconnected chains: education for peace and education for legality, or love and justice. In this section we will share some themes that, linked to this common thread, seem to be more relevant for the model of peace offered by the pontiffs. In this sense, ‘education for peace”’—identified with love—opens up the broad field of charity (love, fraternity, solidarity, moral and ethical principles, beliefs, humanity understood as a family, benevolence, forgiveness, reconciliation, etc.); on the other hand, with education for ‘legality’, identified with justice, there flourish such themes as positive legislation, tribunals, the role of international organizations in the construction and preservation of peace, human rights, international treaties, respect for agreements, humanitarian law, etc.

Charity and justice represent the very broad structure of peace, and we will point out the most salient concepts below.

5.1. Peace and charity

The messages try to reason with ethical arguments to which any person of good will could agree and address aspects, such as those just mentioned, not enforceable by positive law but necessary for peaceful coexistence. Among these, the concept of ‘brotherhood’ stands out. It appears 139 times throughout all the messages, and the 1971 and 2014 messages are entirely dedicated to it. Brotherhood serves as a foundation for dignity and equal rights and broadens the horizons of action for peace.

In his 1971 message, Paul VI highlighted the brotherhood contained in the Declaration of Human Rights. He considered it a civilizational milestone, “as a voice arising anew from the conscience of civil society […]: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’” (Paul VI 1971). And again, in 1975, he said that ‘all men are brothers. And at last the whole of civilization has admitted this fundamental principle’ (Paul VI 1975).

We note that the Declaration of Human Rights recognizes brotherhood as a pre-political relational truth: before being fellow citizens, we are brothers and sisters. ‘Fraternity is an essential human quality, for we are relational beings’ (Francis 2014, no. 1). It is therefore a solidarity that arises from mutual self-recognition as members of the human family. Consequently, if brotherhood fades, fragmentation occurs. Brotherhood acts as a nexus and integrating element between justice and love, and it contributes to an orderly coexistence.

Although—as John Paul II recalled—‘certainly law is the first road leading to peace’ (John Paul II 2004, no. 10), peace is the daughter of justice and charity, not of justice alone. There is a connection with the phenomenology of relationships between people, which would not be fully human if they were based exclusively on justice. As Josef Pieper affirms, ‘the world is not to be kept in order through justice alone’ (Pieper 2010, 125). This logic of wholeness is the logic of benevolence that, in the worlds of John Paul II, must permeate all human relationships: ‘Consequently, love is also the loftiest and most noble form of relationship possible between human beings. Love must thus enliven every sector of human life and extend to the international order. Only a humanity in which there reigns the ‘civilization of love’ will be able to enjoy authentic and lasting peace.’ (John Paul II 2004, no. 10). Historical experience makes it difficult to think that some present-day conflicts will be resolved exclusively by justice, which, though necessary, will often not be achieved fully or at all.¹²

Justice and love are two faces of human existence (John Paul II 2004, no. 10). John Paul II condensed this principle, so useful for peace, when he said that there is ‘no peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness’ (John Paul II 2002). Consequently, to resolve disputes between individuals and communities alike, love and justice should not be presented as ‘opposing forces’ (John Paul II 2004, no. 10), but as irreplicable elements of the solution. The peace promoted by the popes seeks to integrate love and justice, avoiding the pretense of a false charity that attempts to circumvent justice while simultaneously transcending the limits of justice.

It is not possible to enumerate here all the practical expressions of the integration of love into justice. We will mention some that are currently more prominent and that we believe illustrate well the projection and the role that integrated brotherhood can play in social relationships:

1. When brotherhood is considered the foundation of social relations, the possibility of appealing to forgiveness becomes more achievable. There is an evolution from forgiveness, traditionally restricted to the private and religious sphere, to forgiveness understood as a valid tool in the public sphere as a social and political virtue, converging with justice in conflict resolution (Tutu 2000; Madina et al. 2008). The Christian proposal of forgiveness and reconciliation runs through all the pontifical messages, mentioned 258 times across all the messages, and merits three messages exclusively dedicated to it (Paul VI 1975; John Paul II 1997; John Paul II 2002).

2. Brotherhood highlights the existence of a universal common good. The recognition that we belong to the human family has various implications for peace and coexistence, such as the interdependence of human beings or the duty of solidarity toward those community members with the greatest need. Bearing in mind the global situation of the 1960s, John XXIII had already expressed in Pacem in terris the idea of a universal common good, which has become evident with globalization. In this sense it is affirmed that peace is indivisible and universal, it is for everyone everywhere: ‘one peace’ (John Paul II 1986, no. 1). ‘Common good’ appears 122 times throughout all the messages.

3. Brotherhood provides a holistic and integral view of people. A manifestation of this ‘new view’ would be, for example, the adoption in many areas (including in the judicial world) of restorative justice. The sense of brotherhood makes it more clearly understood that reparations (for example, after a conflict) should reach the whole person, not just some aspects. As far as is possible, reparations have to reach the same depth that the offense reached and bring healing. An institutional example of restorative justice is the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, which, in recent decades and in several nations, have contributed to healing the wounds caused by conflicts (Hayner 2008).

4. Brotherhood also allows us to revalorize the concept of ‘relationship.’ Delving deeper into this concept helps us to understand that when peace and war are decided, the destiny of brothers and sisters with faces and voices is decided. The idea of ‘relationship’ also establishes dialogue as an essential part of coexistence along with the need to recover it when relationships break down—dialogue is one path to peace. John Paul II dedicated two messages to dialogue (1983; 2001), Francis dedicated one message to dialogue (2022), and it is mentioned 246 times throughout all of the messages. In alignment with the emphasis on relationships, it is significant that Pope Francis has dedicated a message of peace to the culture of care (Francis 2021).

5. In the messages, the family appears as one of the main focuses of education for peace. Biological brotherhood is the model for universal brotherhood. Its original leading role in the transmission of values of peaceful coexistence is reiterated, since it is the social group into which human beings are born and in which they will be in situations for the first time that they will soon encounter in life. The family is a ‘laboratory’ of conflicts and of the shared search for solutions, where the concepts of love, brotherhood, justice, dialogue, coexistence, forgiveness, and the like, should be naturally internalized. Two messages are dedicated exclusively to the family (John Paul II 1994; Benedict XVI 2008) and show concern for the negative external forces that dissolve family nuclei, such as misery, war, and crime. Violent situations also arise within the family when its relationships are based on domination instead of on mutual self-giving.

5.2. Peace and legality

As we have indicated, justice, along with charity, is the other foundation of peace. From the first messages, respect for the law is considered a priority, a guarantee of coexistence, and a precondition for the development of individuals and nations.

Without a just order there is no justice and, if there is no justice, everyone is not given his or her due, causing spirals of suffering, indignity, and violence due to violated rights (in the messages, the word ‘justice’ appears 404 times and ‘injustice’ 79, throughout all of the messages).

We will highlight six aspects of the need for a secure legal framework:

• a.  Compliance with the law contributes to resolving conflicts through reason, justice, dialogue, and negotiation. The culture that adopts the use of force as the appropriate and normalized means of dispute resolution cannot be a model for civilization. Human beings are capable of evolving legally and ethically and finding more dignified ways to resolve their conflicts. In this sense, in addition to being a right, ‘peace is a duty’, as Paul VI frequently recalled in his messages (Paul VI 1969, 1973, 1974).

• b.  International law is one of the main guarantors of peace. The popes have promoted and supported the international organizations that approved the Declaration of the rights of human beings as well as the rules and agreements of the international laws that foster peace. John Paul II, for example, said, ‘In this task of teaching peace, there is a particularly urgent need to lead individuals and peoples to respect the international order and to respect the commitments assumed by the Authorities which legitimately represent them. Peace and international law are closely linked to each other: law favours peace’ (John Paul II 2004, no. 5).

   The Holy See has supported the UN’s work from the beginning (it appears 59 times in the messages) and has had a permanent observer in that organization since 1964. Paul VI and the later popes have followed the same path of achieving a just international order, while at the same time warning against various tendencies in international law that could undermine the goal of peace (John Paul II 2000, no. 12). They did not abandon this ideal when there were failures, setbacks, or disfunction in international organizations, which shows that they view respect for law and international consensus as the only ways to achieve lasting peace, even at the risk of appearing naïve. The growing interdependence among nations makes it increasingly clear that peace cannot be achieved in isolation. In this sense, the messages teach us to realistically value and respect the difficult consensuses achieved at the international level, even if their outcome and evolution have not always been as satisfactory as we might have hoped (the UN, Geneva Convention on refugees, creation of the International Criminal Court or humanitarian law, etc.).

   This enduring position of the Church over the years has allowed her to participate in various international forums and promote and adhere to international peace and human rights treaties. On other occasions the Church has taken the initiative, as with John Paul II’s call to declare terrorism a crime against humanity (John Paul II 2002, no. 4) or, with regard to a safe environment, to consider it ‘as a right that must be included in an updated Charter of Human Rights’ (John Paul II 1990, no. 9). There is also Benedict XVI’s emphasis on the imperative to not merely comply with international non-proliferation treaties of nuclear weapons but to take additional steps towards the reduction and dismantling of existing arsenals (Benedict XVI 2007c, no. 15), or Francis’ condemnation of the new slavery (Francis 2015).

   Interdependence, accentuated by the phenomenon of globalization, makes it increasingly convenient to create new formulas for coordination and cooperation to promote the universal common good. New international legal developments are needed in matters that transcend state borders and affect coexistence: conventional and nuclear weapons; trafficking in human beings, organs, and drugs; the environment; migrants and refugees; global technological tools, etc.

• c.  There is a close link between the promotion of human rights and the culture of peace. The 1969 and 1999 messages address this idea. In the 1999 message John Paul II states, ‘how could there be war if every human right were respected? Complete observance of human rights is the surest road to establishing solid relations between States. The culture of human rights cannot fail to be a culture of peace’ (John Paul II 1999, no. 12). Three other messages were exclusively dedicated to specific human rights.¹³ The expressions ‘human rights’ or ‘rights of the person’ appear 140 times throughout the messages.

   The defense and promotion of human rights (and of their universality and indivisibility) served as one of the primary means for articulating and substantiating the concept of peace. The Church’s commitment to human rights has gone hand in hand with their spread and influence throughout the world (for example, in the fall of the Soviet regime) and their reception in many countries’ legislation, including at the constitutional level, benefitting millions of people over the last sixty years.

   Out of all human rights, the messages consider the right to life and the right to religious freedom to be essential from the perspective of peace. ‘The first of these—writes John Paul II—is the basic right to life. Human life is sacred and inviolable from conception to its natural end’ (John Paul II 1999, no. 4). The concept of the right to life evolved over the decades, progressively expanding to encompass broader issues such as arms trafficking, drugs, the environment, torture (Daverio 2023), and terrorism. Consistent with this statement, the latest development of the right to life led to the 2018 reform of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, where the new wording indicates that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, no. 2267).

   With regard to religious freedom, which is mentioned 91 times in the messages, John Paul II stated that ‘religion expresses the deepest aspirations of the human person, shapes people’s vision of the world and affects their relationships with others […]. Religious freedom therefore constitutes the very heart of human rights’ (John Paul II 1999, no. 5). Today, religious freedom is a human right at risk, as persecution and discrimination on the basis of religion has increased. According to some reports, 62 percent of the world’s population live in countries without religious freedom, and the most persecuted group is Christians (Aid to the Church in Need 2023).

   On the other hand, religions have been used for gaining power or for violent purposes and thus (both in the past and currently in some types of terrorism) they have fostered anti-religious tendencies—especially monotheistic religions, as they are seen as harboring a principle of violence within themselves (Assmann 2014). The pontifical messages unequivocally reject the instrumentalization of religion for violent purposes, and they condemn fanaticism, fundamentalism, and intolerance (Benedict XVI 2011, no. 7). Pope Francis promotes initiatives, consistent with the impulses of previous pontificates (for example, the ‘Days of Prayer for Peace’ in Assisi, which began in 1986), for the creation of a new consciousness that sees collaboration between religions as a broad platform for the rejection of violence and as a potential force for peace (Francis and Al-Tayyeb 2019).

• d.  Justice promotes integral human development—a prerequisite of lasting peace. The awareness of the deep relationship between peace and development and its global dimension, contained in Populorum progressio (‘development [is the] new name of peace’, writes Paul VI [1967, no. 76]), initiated a path of no return in which peace and integral human development go hand in hand in the January 1 messages, intertwining repeatedly. There are two messages dedicated exclusively to poverty (John Paul II 1993; Benedict XVI 2009).

   Almost 60 years later, the call of Paul VI is still valid today, posing challenges to the organization of a globalized economy that cares above all about its own profits. Growing inequalities reveal the relationship between injustice and violence and urge us to analyze its causes in greater depth (Francis 2020a).

   On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Popolorum progressio, John Paul II delved into the concept of solidarity, stating that it is the ethical presupposition of integral human development. If a society is in solidarity, then development will be integral (John Paul II 1987, no. 7).

• e.  The messages warn of the link between international law and human rights, truth and ethics. On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of Pacem in terris, John Paul II commented on this aspect of the 2003 message: ‘international politics [must also be subject to] moral judgment” and not be considered a “free zone,’” a realm of necessity detatched from morality and subject only to partisan interests.” The criterion of interest and the rejection of morality end up making international dialogue useless and rendering international organizations meaningless. The populations are then discouraged by the lack of results and the conviction grows that conflicts are best resolved through violence. In the same vein, he pointed out that peace cannot be sustained exclusively by organizations and tools (which are undoubtedly necessary) and requires a link to morality as well as, continued John Paul II, the acknowledgement that ‘peace is not essentially about structures but about people’ (John Paul II 2003a, nos. 7–8).

• f.  The legal system in the face of the expansion and consolidation of international terrorism. Although terrorism is not a new phenomenon (it appears 43 times in the text of the messages, the first time in 1970), its international expansion, especially from the beginning of the twenty-first century, is new, as is its position in the international landscape as non-State actors that confront State actors, its capacity to strike in any emblematic place in the world, and the impact (in terms of the dissemination of terror) terrorists have in the media, mainly through social networks.

   John Paul II said that ‘a legal system made up of norms established down the centuries as a means of disciplining relations between sovereign States finds it difficult to deal with conflicts which also involve entities incapable of being considered States in the traditional sense. This is particularly the case with terrorist groups’ (John Paul II 2004, no. 8).

6. Other emerging phenomena that affect peace

Changes in the world and in societies bring about new phenomena that affect human coexistence. The popes try to include them in their messages (for example, Pope Francis’ 2024 message on Artificial Intelligence), explaining their connection with peace, offering lines of thought or pointing out ethical dimensions. Some have already been mentioned throughout the article. They are phenomena that arise and grow with globalization. The popes’ messages, concerned with a peace for a world filled with real faces and stories, include them to the extent that they require deeper reflection and, in light of the science of peace, become interesting reflection points for an evolving world. We have listed some below, because of their importance and to complete the thematic overview:

• There is a growing awareness of the need to reform the United Nations. “In this regard”—says John Paul II—'the United Nations Organization itself must offer all its Member States an equal opportunity to be part of the decision-making process, eliminating privileges and discriminations which weaken its role and its credibility’. (John Paul II 2000, no. 11). In the same vein, Benedict XVI expressed the Catholic Church’s desire for ‘institutional and operative renewal which would enable it to respond to the changed needs of the present time, characterized by the vast phenomenon of globalization’ (Benedict XVI 2006, no. 15).

• The spread of the principle of solidarity in recent decades, and an associated increase in consciousness of the common destiny of humanity (John Paul II 1986 and 1987). In the face of the globalization of indifference (Francis 2016), there is increased attention to those most in need, reflected in the increase in humanitarian aid and cooperation institutions.

• The increase in recent decades of migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons, due to violence and economic factors. The need arises to act in the countries of origin and to strengthen integration, given the challenges of coexistence that can occur among people of diverse cultures (Francis 2018).

• The consolidation of an ecological conscience (John Paul II 1990; Francis 2020b) and the conviction that world peace is threatened by the destruction of the natural environment. Benedict XVI said that “there is an increasingly clear link between combatting environmental degradation and promoting an integral human development” (Benedict XVI 2010, no. 10).

• The growing respect for and protection of minorities as a sign of a democratic society and a factor for coexistence (John Paul II 1989).

• The doctrine of “nonviolence” as a way of life and a mode of conflict resolution. It was first cited in the messages of Paul VI (1976) and was taken up again in 2004 in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 496). Benedict XVI devoted an Angelus talk to the topic (Benedict XVI 2007c), and Francis addressed it in his 2017 Day of Peace message (Francis 2017).

• The growing media influence on coexistence and a call for their responsibility in education for peace (John Paul II 1983, no. 11; Benedict XVI 2012, no. 2; Francis 2016, no. 6).

• Losing the memory of World War II is a factor that weakens the desire for peace and revives the paradigm of conflict. At the same time, collective memories (genocides, expulsions, etc.) and the aspiration to preserve memories for the sake of peace are gaining prominence (Francis 2020b).

• The increase in arms trafficking and the expansion of the legal arms trade (Benedict XVI 2006, no. 15; Francis 2014, no. 7).

• A growing disregard for human life, especially the lives of women, girls, and boys: trafficking, violence, prostitution, etc. This is a new form of slavery (Francis 2015).

• The inclusion of civilian populations in conflicts, often directly, as the first targets of fighting forces (John Paul II 2000, no. 8). Protection for civilian populations is deteriorating (Francis 2024).

• The consolidation of an increasingly aggressive market and the rise of new, less visible wars in the financial sector (Francis 2014, no. 6). For this reason, “in many quarters it is now recognized that a new model of development is needed, as well as a new approach to the economy” (Benedict 2013, no. 5).

• The rise in organized crime (Francis 2022, no. 4), at times capable of challenging States, and corruption at the private level and in public structures, reinforcing injustices and violence, especially toward the weakest.

• International terrorism and organized crime have given rise to the “security era”,” which, as a reaction to that violence, assumes that peace is based only on the security that separates us from others. Pope Francis said that it is characterized by ‘a perverse dichotomy that tries to defend and ensure stability and peace through a false sense of security sustained by a mentality of fear and mistrust, one that ends up poisoning relationships between peoples and obstructing any form of dialogue’ (Francis 2020b, no. 1).

7. Conclusion

The peace that the messages present revolves around the human person and his or her dignity, as understood by Christianity. With this in mind, they offer some basic guidelines to structure peace, which call both for humanity’s aspiration for peace and for common ground based on belonging to the human family.

Culture and historical inertia have led to a vision that considers as a systematic requirement of society that “relations between individuals and between States are […] characterized by permanent conflict” (Paul II 1986, no. 3). Faced with this idea, the Church makes a univocal proposal: renounce the culture of war and embrace the culture of peace.

The culture of peace is based on the “science of peace,” which substantiates the concept and articulates the path to a just peace beyond the mere absence of violence or a peace based on fear. The search for a just and positive peace expands its radius of action: the science of peace as an autonomous discipline and its proposals impact the prevention of peace.

The popes’ proposal is based on the integration of charity and justice at all levels of human relationships, restoring to human relationships what is rightfully theirs. ‘We cannot ignore’—says Benedict XVI—"the fact that some currents of modern culture, built upon rationalist and individualist economic principles, have cut off the concept of justice from its transcendent roots, detaching it from charity and solidarity: The ‘earthly city’ is promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness” (Benedict XVI 2012, no. 4).

In order to express, in the civil sphere, the necessity of gratuity in relationships between people and peoples, the popes promote the idea of brotherhood from the very first messages. Brotherhood is the bedrock of solidarity, which assures integral human development and other dimensions that the popes reveal in their texts. Brotherhood is one of the most relevant concepts in the peace that they propose.

The messages consider education one of the main pathways to peace. They also recognize that it is a long road, since the conviction that peace is a duty, or the idea of brotherhood—as Paul VI said—“are principles which already exist, but still in a theoretical and in practice immature, weak and tender state, only at the beginning of their penetration into the profound and operative consciousness of Peoples” (Paul VI 1976).

The construction of true peace is an ongoing commitment, day by day, in individuals and communities. It is during times of peace, and not only during war, when we must work for peace. Putting the person at the center of peace also means facing the effects war has on people, beyond the economic ones, to heal the wounds inflicted and avoid passing them on to the next generation, thereby perpetuating a cycle of violence.

Despite the contradictory perspectives and the continuous existence of wars—or precisely because of it—it is in keeping with human dignity to resolve conflicts through dialogue, discussion, and negotiation. As we mentioned at the beginning of this article, a growing number of public opinion sectors and authors argue that war is no longer an acceptable means of conflict resolution (Kaldor 2010, 242–245).

The Magisterium of the Church calls for “war [to] be considered in a new way” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 497). The new sensitivity toward war does not seek to be a third way between extreme pacifism and a warmongering mentality; instead it strives to approach the use of arms while taking other paradigms into account—an approach echoed in the sentiment of John Paul II when he said that war “is always a defeat for humanity” (John Paul II 2003b).

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Kira Howes for the translation from Spanish.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2024.2345499)

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jaime Cárdenas del Carre

Jaime Cárdenas del Carre is from San Sebastián (Spain). He currently lives in Rome and teaches Social Communication in Scenarios of Violence at the School of Communications of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. Among his degrees are a Doctorate in Canon Law from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and a degree in Law from the University of Navarra and the University of the Basque Country. He also has a Master’s in Armed Conflict and Crisis Resolution from the Universidad Oberta de Catalunya. In his professional work he has conducted field research, sessions and interviews on victims, social reconciliation and forgiveness, conflicts, refugees, etc., in various countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Romania, Uganda, Lebanon, Honduras and Nigeria, and coordinated social projects in Guatemala and Uganda. He has also participated as an independent observer in EUNAVFOR MED, Joint Military Mission "SOPHIA" of the European Union in the Central Mediterranean and the coasts of Libya, embarked on the F-80 Victoria Frigate of the Spanish Navy during the month of July 2017. His areas of interest include: the story of peace and violence; the offense-revenge cycle; victims; social reconciliation after human rights violations; memory, collective forgiveness and truth commissions; refugees; and protection of minors and vulnerable persons.

Notes

1 The Church considers one sign of hope to be “the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but ‘non-violent’ means to counter the armed aggressor” (John Paul II 1995, no. 27).

2 “Seeking alternative solutions to war for resolving international conflicts has taken on tremendous urgency today, since ‘the terrifying power of the means of destruction—to which even medium and small-sized countries have access—and the ever closer links between the peoples of the whole world make it very difficult or practically impossible to limit the consequences of a conflict’” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 498, emphasis in the original).

3 The popes cite it 44 times in their messages. On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the encyclical, John Paul II dedicated his 2003 message, “Pacem in terris, A Permanent Commitment,” to it.

4 The messages that exclusively address same topic multiple times are as follows: brotherhood (1971 and 2014); reconciliation and forgiveness (1975, 1997, and 2002); human rights (1969 and 1999); education for peace (1979, 2004, and 2012); truth (1980, 2006); family (1994 and 2008); dialogue (1983 and 2001); poverty and development (1987, 1993, and 2009); the environment (1990, 2010, and 2020); and justice (1998 and 2002).

5 Pacem in terris appeared at a time that parallels the present, when the “cold war” drums are beating once again, a war of aggression is underway in Europe, the specter of nuclear war is returning, and two regions of the world are particularly unstable: the Middle East, and Africa. In this regard, see Pope Francis’s “Message to Cardinal Turkson” (2023).

6 For its part, the United Nations has celebrated the International Day of Peace every September 21 since 1993.

7 “Peace is not merely the absence of war, nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Rather it is founded on a correct understanding of the human person and requires the establishment of an order based on justice and charity” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004, no. 494).

8 University of Louisville, History of Peace Studies. Accessed 2 November 2023. https://louisville.edu/peace/academic-programs/peace-studies/history-of-peace-studies#:∼:text=As%20an%20academic%20subject%2C%20Peace,1948%20at%20Indiana’s%20Manchester%20College.

9 See, for example, the educational work of Glencree in Ireland https://glencree.ie/resources/programmes/peace-education-and-young-adults/(accessed 4 November 2023) or Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco (2004).

10 Galtung warned that violence does not consist only of direct violence, but also the structural and cultural violence found in any society, and that education and peace work involves addressing structural and cultural violence without waiting for armed conflict (direct violence) to erupt.

11 In the 1980s, civil resistance and nonviolence played a decisive role in the fall of the communist government in Poland. These forces were “decisive in the revolution of conscience that made possible the 1989 non-violent revolution that displaced European communism” (John Paul II 2003a).

12 Also in that 2004 message, John Paul II said, “I say it again here, as my thoughts turn in particular to the continuing crisis in Palestine and the Middle East: a solution to the grave problems which for too long have caused suffering for the peoples of those regions will not be found until a decision is made to transcend the logic of simple justice and to be open also to the logic of forgiveness.” Emphasis in the original.

13 For example, the right to life (1977), to education (1979), to freedom (1981), to development (1987), to religious freedom (1988 and 2011), to freedom of conscience (1991), the rights of women (1995), the rights of minorities (1989), respect for the human person (2007), and rights related to the environment (1990, 2010, and 2020).