POPE PIUS XII

on

e World Commn^

I

Discourse of Pope Pius XII to the fifth

annual congress of the Union of Italian

Catholic Jurists, Rome, December 6, 1953

with commentaries by

EDWARD A. CONWAY, SJ.
/

and /

GUSTAVE WEIGEL, SJ.

Edited by Charles Keenan, S.J.

THE AMERICA PRESS



About the authors

POPE Plus XII is justly called the Pope of Peace.
During the fifteen years of his pontificate the Vicar of

the Prince of Peace has devoted scores of major pro-

nouncements to the world’s primary problem: how to

bring about that “peace which is the work of justice”

—

the motto of his pontificate.

REV. EDWARD A. CONWAY, S.J., associate
editor of America since 1948, is also a Vice President

of the Catholic Association for International Peace, a

member of the National Advisory Board of United World

Federalists, Inc., and of the Council of the World Move-

ment for World Federal Government.

REV. GUSTAVE WEIGEL, S.J. was professor
(1937-48) and dean (1942-48) of theology at the Catho-

lic University of Chile. He is now professor of ecclesiology

at Woodstock College, Woodstock, Md. He has lectured

and written extensively on Church-State relations.



POPE PIUS XII

on

THE WORLD COMMUNITY

Discourse of Pope Pius XII to the fifth
annual congress of the Union of Italian

Catholic lurists, Rome, December 6, 1953

with commentaries by

EDWARD A. CONWAY, SJ.
and

GUSTAVE WEIGEU SJ.

Edited hy Charles Keenan^ S.J.

THE AMERICA PRESS
70 East 45th Street

New York 17, N. Y.



r

Nihil Ohstat: John M. A. Fearns, S.T.D.

Censor Librorum

Imprimatur: ijl Francis Cardinal Spellman, D. D.

Archbishop of New York

March 30, 1954

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book

or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is

contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and

Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

(This formula is now in general use in the Archdiocese of New York)

2



CONTENTS

1.

Pope Pius XII to the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists 5

2. Organization of the World Community 18

By Rev. Edward A. Conway, S.J.

3. Religious Toleration in the World Community 26

By Rev. Gustave Weigel, S. J.

Reading List 31

3



FOREWORD

The following pages contain the discourse of Pope Pius XII

to the fifth annual congress of the Union of Italian Catholic

Jurists, delivered in Rome, December 6, 1953. The Holy

Father’s address had two main themes: the organization of

the world community, and religious toleration in the or-

ganized world community. Two chapters of commentary

are added. Rev. Edward A. Conway, S.
J.,

discusses that

part of the address which dealt with the organization of

the world community. This chapter first appeared as an

article in America, December 26, 1953. Rev. Gustave Wei-

gel, S. J.’s discussion of religious toleration in the organized

world community was delivered as an address over the

Vatican Radio on December 11, 1953 and was published in

America, January 9, 1954.

4



1 .

Pope Pius XII

to the

Union of Italian Catholic Jurists

IT GIVES US great satisfaction, beloved sons of the Union

of Italian Catholic Jurists, to see you gathered round Us

here and to bid you heartfelt welcome.

In the beginning of October another congress of jurists,

dealing with international penal law, gathered in Our

summer residence. Your convention is rather national in

character, but the subject it is treating, “The Nation and

the International Community,” touches again the relations

between peoples and sovereign states.

It is not by chance that congresses are multiplying for

the study of international questions, be they scientific, eco-

nomic or political. The clear fact that relations between

individuals of various nations and between nations them-

selves are growing in multiplicity and intensity makes daily

more urgent a right ordering of international relations, both

private and public; all the more so since this mutual draw-

ing together is caused not only by vastly improved techno-

logical progress and by free choice but also by the more

profound action of an intrinsic law of development •

This movement, thenTiTnoTto be repressed but fostered

and promoted.

In this work of expansion, communities of states and

peoples, whether already existing or only a goal to be

achieved, have naturally a special importance. They are

communities in which sovereign states, that is to say, states

which are subordinate to no other state, are united into a

juridical community to attain definite juridical ends.

5



It would give a false idea of these juridical conuuunities

to compare them to world empires of the past or of the

present, in which different racial stocks, peoples and states

become fused, whether they want it or not, into a single

conglomeration of states.

In the present instance, however, states, remaining sover-

eign, freely unite into a juridical community.

Urge to World Community

In this connection, the history of the world, which shows

a continuous succession of struggles for power, no doubt

might make the establishment of a juridical community of

free states seem almost utopian.

\ The conflicts of the past have too often been motivated

by a desire to subjugate other nations and to extend the

! range of one’s own power, or by the necessity of defending

j

one’s liberty and one’s own independent existence.

I p This time, on the contrary, it is precisely the will to pre-
i

' vent threatening conflicts that urges men toward a suprana-

tional juridical community. Utilitarian considerations,

which certainly carry considerable weight, point toward the

working out of peace.

And finally, perhaps, it is precisely because of techno-

logical progress that this mingling of men of different na-

I tions has awakened the faith, implanted in the hearts and

souls of individuals, in a higher community of men, willed

by the Creator and rooted in the unity of their common

origin, nature and final destiny,

i. These and other similar considerations show that ad-

vance toward establishing a community of peoples does not

look, as to a unique and ultimate norm, to the will of the

states, but rather to nature, to the Creator.

The right to existence, the right to respect from others

and to one’s good name, the right to one’s own culture and

6



national character, the right to develop oneself, the right

to demand observance of international treaties, and other

like rights, are exigencies of the law of nations, dictated by

nature itself.

The positive law of different peoples, also indispensable

in the community of states, has the office of defining more

exactly the rights derived from nature and of adapting them

to concrete circumstances; also of making other provisions,

directed, of course, toward the common good, on the basis

of a positive agreement which, once freely entered into, has

binding force.

In this community of nations, then, every state becomes

a part of the system of international law, and hence of na-

tural law, which is both foundation and crown of the whole.

I Thus the individual nation no longer is—nor in fact was it

jever—“sovereign,” in the sense of being entirely without

irestrictions.

I

True Meaning of Sovereignty

“Sovereignty” in the true sense means self-rule and ex-

clusive competence concerning what has to be done and how

it is to be done in regard to the affairs of a definite territory,

always within the framework of international law, without

however becoming dependent on the juridical system of

any other state.

Every state is immediately subject to international law.

States which would lack this fullness of power, or whose

independence of the power of any other state would not be

guaranteed by international law, would not be sovereign.

But no state could complain about a limitation of its

sovereignty if it were denied the power of acting arbitrarily

and without regard for other states. Sovereignty is not a

divinization of the state, or omnipotence of the state in the

7



Hegelian sense, or after the manner of absolute juridical

positivism.

Difficulties to be Faced

There is no need to explain to you students of law how

the setting up, maintenance and operation of a real com-

munity of states, especially one that would embrace all

peoples, give rise to many duties and problems, some of

them extremely difficult and complicated, which cannot

be solved by a simple yes-or-no answer.

Such would be the question of race and origin, with

their biological, psychological and social consequences; the

question of language; the question of family life, with its

relations, varying according to nation, between husband

and wife, parents, the larger family group; the question of

the equality or equivalence of rights in what regards goods,

contracts and persons for the citizens of one sovereign state

who either live for a short time in a foreign state or, retain-

ing their own nationality, establish permanent residence

there; the question of the right of immigration or of emi-

gration, and other like questions.

The jurist, the statesman, the individual state, as well

as the community of states should here take account of all

the inborn inclinations of individuals and communities in

their contracts and reciprocal relations: such as the tendency

to adapt or to assimilate, often pushed even to an attempt

to absorb; or contrariwise, the tendency to exclude and to

destroy anything that appears incapable of assimilation;

the tendency to expand, to embrace what is new, as on the

contrary, the tendency to retreat and to segregate oneself;

the tendency to give oneself entirely, forgetful of self, and

its opposite, attachment to oneself, excluding any service

of others; the lust for power, the yearning to keep others

in subjection, and so on.

8



All these instincts, either of self-aggrandizement or of

self-defense, have their roots in the natural dispositions of

individuals, of peoples, of races and of communities, and

\ in their restrictions and limitations. One never finds in

‘ them everything that is good and just. God alone, the ori-

gin of all things, possesses within Himself, by reason of His

infinity, all that is good.

Fundamental Principle

From what We have said, it is easy to deduce the funda-

mental theoretical principle for dealing with these difficul-

ties and tendencies: within the limits of the possible and

lawful, to promote everything that facilitates union and

makes it more effective; to remove everything that disturbs

it; to tolerate at times that which it is impossible to correct

but which, on the other hand, must not be permitted to

make shipwreck of the community from which a higher

good is hoped for.

The difficulty rests in the application of this principle.

Problem of Coexistence

In this connection. We wish to treat with you who are

happy to profess yourselves Catholic jurists, concerning one

of the questions which arise in a community of peoples,

that is, the practical coexistence (convivenza) of Catholic

with non-Catholic states.

Depending upon the religious belief of the great major-

ity of citizens, or by reason of an explicit declaration of

law, peoples and member states of the international com-

munity will be divided into those that are Christian, non-

Christian, indifferent to religion or consciously without it,

or even professedly atheist.

The interests of religion and morality will require for

the whole extent of the international community a well-

9



defined rule, which will hold for all the territory of the in-

dividual sovereign member-states of the international com-

munity. According to probability and depending on cir-

cumstances, it can be foreseen that this ruling of positive

law will be thus enunciated:

Within its own territory and for its own citizens, each

state will regulate religious and moral affairs by its own

laws. Nevertheless, throughout the whole territory of the

international community of states, the citizens of every

member-state will be allowed the exercise of their own be-

liefs and ethical and religious practices, in so far as these

do not contravene the penal laws of the state in which they

are residing.

Can Catholics Consent?

For the jurist, the statesman and the Catholic state arises

here the question: can they give their consent to such a rul-

ing when there is question of entering and remaining in an

international community?

Now, in regard to religious and moral interests, a two-

fold question arises. The first deals with the objective truth

and the obligation of conscience toward what is objectively

true and good.

The second deals with the practical attitude of the in-

ternational community toward the individual sovereign

state and the attitude of the individual state toward the

international community in what regards religion and

morality.

The first question can hardly be a matter for discussion

and legal ruling between the individual states and the inter-

national community, especially in the case of a plurality

of different religious beliefs within the international com-

munity. On the other hand, the second question can be of

extreme importance and urgency.

10



Now to give the right answer to the second question.

Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority,

no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious

character, can give a positive command or positive author-

ization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to

religious truth or moral good.

Such a command or such an authorization would have

no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No

authority may give such a command, because it is contrary

to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error

and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent.

Not even God could give such a positive command or

positive authorization, because it would be in contradiction

to His absolute truth and sanctity.

Norm of Tolerance

Another question, essentially different, is this: could

the norm be established in a community of states—at least

in certain circumstances—that the free exercise of a belief

and of a religious or moral practice which possesses validity

in one of the member states, be not hindered throughout

the entire territory of the community of nations by state

laws or coercive measures?

In other words, the question is raised whether in these

circumstances non impedire or toleration is permissible,

and whether, consequently, positive repression is not always

a duty.

We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God,

although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress

error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the non

impedire without contradicting His infinite perfection?

Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not

give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and

would not even communicate the right to impede or to

11



repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as
they are gives an afl5rmative answer.

great measure. Cod reprobates them, but He permits them

to exist. Hence the affirmation that religious and moral

error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because

toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid abso-

lutely and unconditionally.

Moreover, God has not given even to human authority

such an absolute and universal command in matters of

faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the

common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience,

to the sources of revelation and to the practice of the

Church.

To omit here other scriptural texts which are adduced

in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of The

Cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in

the field of the world together with the good seed in view

of the harvest (Matt. 13: 24-30)

.

The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot

therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be sub-

ordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some

circumstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate

as the better policy toleration of error in order to promote

a greater good.

Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse

must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious

question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the states-

man and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in con-

sideration of the community of nations in regard to a for-

No Absolute Duty to Suppress

shows that error and sin are in the world in

Two Principles for Statesmen

12



mula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the

norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be

spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this

with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be

justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Before all else the Catholic statesman must judge if this

condition is verified in the concrete—this is the “question

of fact.”

In his decision he will permit himself to be guided by

weighing the dangerous consequences that stem from toler-

ation against those from which the community of nations

will be spared if the formula of toleration be accepted.

Moreover, he will be guided by the good which, accord-

ing to a wise prognosis, can be derived from toleration for

the international community as such, and indirectly for the

member state. In that which concerns religion and mor-

ality he will also ask for the judgment of the Church.

For her, only he to whom Christ has entrusted the guid-

ance of His whole Church is competent to speak in the last

instance on such vital questions touching international

life: that is, the Roman Pontiff.

International Institutions Compared

The institution of a community of nations, which today

has been partly realized but which is striving to be estab-

lished and consolidated upon a higher and more perfect

level, is an ascent from the lower to the higher, that is, from

a plurality of sovereign states to the greatest possible unity.

The Church of Christ has, in virtue of a mandate from

her Divine Founder, a similar universal mission. She must

draw to herself and bind together in religious unity the

men of all races and of all times. But here the process is

13



in a certain sense the contrary: she descends from the

higher to the lower.

In the former case, the superior juridical unity of na-

tions was and still is to be created. In the latter, the juri-

dical community with its universal end, its constitution,

its powers and those in whom these powers are invested,

are already established from the beginning, by the will and

decree of Christ Himself. The duty of this universal com-

munity from the outset is to incorporate all men and all

races, (cf. Matt. 28:19) and thereby to bring them to the

full truth and the grace of Jesus Christ.

The Church, in the fulfilment of this her mission, has

always been faced and is still faced in large measure by the

same problems which the functioning of a community of

sovereign states must overcome; only she feels them more

acutely, for she is obligated to the purpose of her mission,

determined by her Founder Himself, a purpose which pene-

trates to the very depths of the spirit and heart of man.

In this state of affairs conflicts are inevitable, and history

shows that there have always been conflicts. There still are,

and according to the words of the Lord, there will be till

the end of time.

For the Church with her mission has been, and is, con-

fronted with men and nations of marvelous culture, with

others of almost incredible lack of civilization, and with all

possible intermediate degrees: diversity of extraction, of

language, of philosophy, of religious belief, of national as-

pirations and characteristics; free peoples and enslaved peo-

ples; peoples that have never belonged to the Church and

peoples that have been separated from her communion.

Church Cannot Ignore Reality

The Church must live among them and with them; she

can never declare before anyone that she is “not interested.”

14



The mandate imposed upon her by her Divine Founder

renders it impossible for her to follow a policy of non-inter-

ference or laissez faire.

She has the duty of teaching and educating in all the

inflexibility of truth and goodness, and with this absolute

obligation she must remain and work among men and na-

tions that in mental outlook are completely different from

each other.

Let Us return now, however, to the two propositions

mentioned above: and in the first place to the one which

denies unconditionally everything that is religiously false

and morally wrong. With regard to this point there never

has been, and there is not now, in the Church any vacilla-

tion or any compromise, either in theory or in practice.

Her deportment has not changed in the course of his-

tory, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the

most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice:

either incense for idols or blood for Christ.

The place where you are now present. Eternal Rome,

with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glori-

ous memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to

the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before

the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the

ground.

But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation

of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the mar-

tyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently

repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles.

Tradition of Tolerance

Concerning the second proposition, that is to say, con-

cerning tolerance in determined circumstances, toleration

even in cases in which one could proceed to repression, the

Church—out of regard for those who in good conscience

15



(though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of a different

opinion—has been led to act and has acted with that toler-

ance, after she became the state Church under Constantine

the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for

higher and more cogent motives.

So she acts today, and also in the future she will be

faced with the same necessity. In such individual cases the

attitude of the Church is determined by what is demanded

for safeguarding and considering the honum commune on

the one hand—the common good of the Church and the

State in individual states; and on the other, the common

good of the universal Church, the reign of God over the

whole world.

In considering the “pro” and “con” for resolving the

“question of fact,” as well as what concerns the final and

supreme judge in these matters, no other norms are valid

for the Church except the norms which We have just indi-

cated for the Catholic jurist and statesman.

The ideas We have set forth may also be useful for the

Catholic jurist and statesman when, in their studies or in

the exercise of their profession, they come in contact with

the agreements (concordats, treaties, agreements, modus

vivendi, etc.) which the Church (that is to say, for a long

time now, the Apostolic See) has concluded and still con-

cludes with sovereign states.

Purpose of Concordats

The concordats are for her an expression of the collab-

oration between the Church and the State. In principle, that

is, in theory, she cannot approve complete separation of the

two powers. The concordats, therefore, must assure to the

Church a stable condition in right and in fact in the state

with which they are concluded, and must guarantee to her

full independence in the fulfilment of her divine mission.

16



It is possible that the Church and the State proclaim in

a concordat their common religious conviction; but it may

also happen that a concordat have, together with other pur-

poses, that of forestalling disputes with regard to questions

of principle and of removing from the very beginning pos-

sible matters of conflict.

When the Church has set her signature to a concordat,

it holds for everything contained therein. But, with the

mutual acknowledgment of both high contracting parties,

it may not hold in the same way for everything.

It may signify an express approval, but it may also mean

a simple tolerance, according to those two principles which

are the norm for the co-existence (convivenza

)

of the Church

and her faithful with the civil powers and with men of an-

other belief.

This, beloved sons, is what We intended to treat of with

you rather fully.

For the rest, We are confident that the international

community can banish every danger of war and establish

the peace, and, as far as the Church is concerned, can guar-

antee to her freedom of action everywhere, so that she may

be able to establish in the spirit and the heart, in the

thoughts and the actions of men, the Kingdom of Him

who is the Redeemer, the Lawgiver, the Judge, the Lord

of the world, Jesus Christ, who rules as God over all things,

blessed forever (Rom. 9:5).

While with Our paternal good wishes We follow your

work for the greater good of nations and for the perfecting

of international relations, from the fulness of Our heart We

impart to you, as a pledge of the richest divine graces, the

Apostolic Benediction.

17



2 .

Organization

of the

World Conununity

IN HIS DISCOURSE on December 6 to the Union of Ital-

ian Catholic Jurists, commenting on the theme of their fifth

annual congress (“The Nations and the International Com-

munity”)
, the Holy Father reaffirmed a proposition by now

familiar: the shrinking of the world into a neighborhood

makes it daily more necessary to regulate international re-

lationships, both private and public. This is all the more

mandatory, declared the Holy Father,

since this mutual drawing together is caused not

only by vastly improved technological progress and

by free choice but also by the more profound action

of an intrinsic law of development. This movement

then is not to be repressed, but fostered and promoted

(emphasis added)

.

A conviction that this innate drive toward unity must even-

tually be satisfied is apparent in the first third of the Holy

Father's address, to which this article is restricted. This

conviction may account for the comparatively optimistic

tone of his remarks.

The Holy Father’s next paragraph calls for the most

careful exegesis. He begins by alluding to *'questa opera di

ampliamento/' which I take to mean the task of enlarging

the area of unity. Of particular importance in this work are

“communities of states and peoples, whether already exist-

ing or only a goal to be achieved.” Which, we might won-

der, are these communities that “already exist”? Benelux,

18



the Council of Europe, Nato, the United Nations? Which

are the ones in blueprints? The six-nation European Po-

litical Community, Atlantic Union, or a world federal gov-

ernment? It is difficult to decide. His Holiness continues

with a definition which fits only a world federal government

or perhaps the European Political Community as originally

projected. They are communities, the Holy Father ex-

plains,

in which sovereign states, that is to say states which

are subordinate to no other state, are united into a

juridical community to attain definite juridical ends.

It would give a false idea of these juridical commu-

nities if one were to compare them with world em-

pires of the past or of the present, in which different

racial stocks, peoples and states become fused, willy-

nilly, into a single conglomeration of states (unico

complesso statale). In the present instance, how-

ever, states, remaining sovereign, freely unite into a

juridical community.

“The present instance” to which His Holiness refers must

be his present conception of the ideal international com-

munity, since the one he defines is nowhere concretized in

the world today.

A Juridical World Community Utopian?

His next words seem to bear out this interpretation.

The history of the world, says the Holy Father, recording

as it does a continuing series of struggles for power, would

doubtless make the setting up of a juridical community of

free states seem almost utopian. In our time, however, a

contrary current is running. Instead of the will to war,

this time

[

it is precisely the will to forestall quarrels imperiling

the peace (minacciosi dissidi) that urges men toward

19



a supranational juridical community. [Besides,] prac-

)

tical considerations, which certainly carry consider-

able weight, are being directed toward works of

peace. Finally, perhaps it is precisely this mingling

of men of different nations because of technological

progress (Vavvicinamento tecnico) that has awakened

the faith, implanted in the hearts and souls of indi-

viduals, in a higher community of men, [the one]

willed by the Creator and rooted in the unity of their

common origin, nature and final destiny (emphasis

added)

.

One can hardly escape the impression that the present Pon-

tiff thinks that both man’s technology and his nature are

ineluctably propelling mankind toward political unity. At

any rate, he proceeds at once to set up guideposts to that

goal, emphasizing in the process the primacy of the natural

law, and explaining a little more fully what he meant by

the phrase, “an intrinsic law of development’’:

These and other similar considerations show that ad-

vance toward establishing a community of peoples

does not look, as to a unique and ultimate norm, to

the will of the states, but rather to nature, to the Cre-

ator. The right to existence, the right to respect from

others and to one’s good name, the right to one’s own

culture and national character, the right to develop

one’s self, the right to demand observance of inter-

national treaties and other like rights are exigencies

of the law of nations, dictated by nature itself. The

positive law of different peoples, also indispensable

in the community of the states, has the office of defin-

ing more exactly the rights derived from nature and

of adapting them to concrete circumstances. It also

has the function of making other provisions, directed.

20



of course, toward the common good, on the basis of a

positive agreement, which, once freely entered into,

has binding force.

Thus the state which becomes part of this community of

peoples “is fitted into the system of international law and

hence into the order of the natural law, which sustains and

crowns the whole.”

What Is “Sovereignty”?

Here, the Holy Father launches into the most extended

discussion he has ever devoted to the much-mooted question

of “sovereignty”:

In this way, the individual nation is no longer—nor

in fact was it ever—“sovereign” in the sense of being

completely unlimited. “Sovereignty” in the true sense

of the word means self-rule (autarchia) and exclusive

competence concerning what has to be done and how

it has to be done in regard to the affairs of a definite

territory (alle cose e alio spazio), always within the

framework of international law, without, however,

becoming dependent on the juridical system of any

other state. Every state is immediately subject to in-

ternational law. States which would lack this fulness

of power, or whose independence of the power of any

other state would not be guaranteed by international

law, would not be sovereign. But no state could com-

plain about a limitation of its sovereignty just be-

cause it was denied the power of acting arbitrarily

and without regard for other states. Sovereignty is

not a divinization of the state, or omnipotence of the

state in the Hegelian sense, or after the manner of

absolute juridical positivism.

Difficulties to be Overcome

Speaking as though his ideal of an international com-

21



munity is still feasible, the Holy Father next discusses the

obstacles that lie in the way of the “establishment, main-

tenance and functioning of a real community of states, espe-

cially of one which would embrace all the peoples*' (empha-

sis added) . He hardly had to explain to jurists, he said,

that such an undertaking would give rise to a host of prob-

lems, “some of them extremely difficult and complicated,

which cannot be solved by simple yes-or-no answer.” For

example, he said, everyone concerned must take into ac-

count the “innate tendencies” of both individuals and

groups either to assimilate others, even to the point of

forcibly absorbing them, or to exclude them, even to the

point of destroying those who seem unassimilable.

Among the more specific problems, he said, are those

of race and origin, with their biological, psychical and social

consequences; the language question; the differing inter-

pretations of property rights and contractual obligations;

the rights of aliens in either temporary or permanent resi-

dence; and finally the whole immigration-emigration prob-

lem.

The Holy Father did not list these difficulties to dis-

courage immediate efforts toward unification. He sug-

gested a “fundamental theoretical principle for coping

with these difficulties and tendencies”:

Within the limits of the possible and the lawful, to

promote everything that facilitates union and makes

it more effective; to raise dikes against anything that

disturbs it; to tolerate at times that which it is impos-

sible to correct, but which, on the other hand, must

not be permitted to make shipwreck of the commu-

nity of peoples, because of the higher good that is

expected from it.

The Holy Father, after setting out his “fundamental the-

22



oretical principle,” rather wryly remarked: “The difficulty

rests in the application of that principle.”

His Holiness then addressed himself to one question

which presents itself in a community of the peoples, that is,

“the practical living together of the Catholic and non-Cath-

olic communities.” Comment on this porticm can be left

to those who have been debating the question of religious

tolerance for the past several years. I have concentrated

on the first third of the Pope’s address, since I feared it

would be overlooked because of the discussions the remain-

ing two-thirds are bound to arouse. (News reports from

Vatican City did in fact feature the section on toleration.)

UN Charter Revision Implied

In the latter part of the long discourse, however, are

several remarks which seem to shed light on the Holy Fath-

er’s present attitude toward the United Nations. At one

point he compared and contrasted two international organ-

izations, the temporal and the spiritual:

The setting up of a community of peoples, which to-

day has been partially realized, but which is striving

to be established and consolidated on a more elevated

and perfect level, is an ascent from the lower to the

higher, that is, from a pluralism of sovereign states

to the greatest possible unity (emphasis added)

.

That, in effect, is what Cardinal Stritch, chairman of the

Bishops' Committee on the Pope’s Peace Plan, remarked to

the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild in Chicago November 1: “At-

tempts have been made to obtain an international society

under law, but the organization that now exists is only a

start.”

The Catholic Church, continued the Holy Father, has

a universal mission similar to that of the community of

the peoples. This ascription of a universal mission to the

23



community under discussion, coupled with the reference

to a community “which embraces all the peoples/' seems

conclusive proof that he was not limiting his remarks to a

European political community, as most news reports have

suggested. He never mentioned a European community.

The constitution of the Church and all its powers and

their depositories were from the beginning established by

the will and institution of Christ himself. The “higher

juridical unity of the community of the peoples/' on the

other hand, “had to be, or still has to be, created."

The implication of those parts of the Holy Father's

. address I have discussed seems to be that what he called the

I

law of development toward unity immanent in human na-
' ture, aroused and incited by scientific developments, has

already “partially realized" the community of the peoples

I
in the form of the United Nations. What remains to be

done, he seems further to imply, is to transform this “plu-

ralism of sovereign states" into the “higher unity" of a

“supranational juridical community."

Complete Papal Teaching

Since April 6, 1951, the Holy Father has devoted three

discourses to describing how the world should be organized

for peace. In his 1951 address to members of the World

Movement for World Federal Government, he specified

what he mean by “federalism" as opposed to the “mechan-

ical unitarism" which destroys all differences in a mono-

lithic, materialistic state. In his little-noticed but highly

provocative speech to the International Congress of Penal

Law on October 3, 1953, he unflinchingly followed the de-

mands of the natural law by calling not only for an inter-

national penal code but for a court with jurisdiction reach-

ing into individual “sovereign" states.

This December 6 discourse completes a trilogy which

24



should be studied as an organic whole. That study will

reveal, I believe, a papal conception of the ideal organiza-

tion of the world as profoundly wise as it is daringly im-

aginative.

25



3.

Religious Toleration

in the

World Community

PHILOSOPHERS and poets have always dreamed in beau-

tiful colors of the day either past or future when men live in

a single society enveloping and protecting all other social

groupings. This thought has always been appealing to the

idealist and romantic youth, but mankind as an existent

reality has shown no great readiness to actualize such a

dream. In fact, sober observers have declared that such a

single, unitary world society is impossible. For them, the

inevitable selfishness of individuals and of the limited so-

cieties which they form prevents the juridical organization

of the great society which is mankind.

Today the thesis of the impossibility of a world society,

juridically structured, needs re-examination. It is no longer

so clear that this impossibility is objective. The ever-in-

creasing numbers of human beings populating the earth,

the conquest of space and time by modern means of loco-

motion and communication, the widespread destructiveness

of conflicts between un-united nations, are pushing the men

of our day to do something more than dream of a world

society. There are many who think that it alone can effect

the survival of mankind, and man’s urge to survival is so

great that he will adopt all means necessary thereunto, even

though in the past such means as a world federation were

judged impossible.

For those who are engaged in the planning of the new

society many obstacles present themselves. Religion, one

of the strongest forces in the making of human history,

26



seems a divisive element rather than a unifying cement.

Islam divides Mohammedan from Hindu, Catholicism sepa-

rates its adherents from Protestants, Judaism cuts ofE Israel

from the Gentiles. Will not religion itself be the great

stumbling block to world union, even though at first gaze

the notion of the fatherhood of one God and the brother-

hood of all men should seem to be a unifying force?

This disconcerting reflection need no longer terrify the

pioneers in the work of juridically organizing the nations

into one family. The message of Pope Pius XII to the na-

tional convention of the Italian Catholic Union of Jurists

in Rome on December 6, 1953 shows the way out of the

religious difficulty. In his carefully meditated study, the

Pope outlines the juridical solution of the problem of re-

ligious disunion.

True Meaning of “Toleration''

The Holy Father makes it quite clear that the world

union our age is contemplating cannot be built on the

foundation of a common religion or in terms of one re-

ligious vision. The union can only be based on the one

universal natural law which is achieved by human reason

alone. The bearing of such a new juridical society to

religion is clearly explained in accord with the perennial

doctrine of Catholicism.

According to the Pope, the position of the new juridical

world order in the matter of religion will be friendly and

cordial toleration. This word has hideous overtones for

many men today because it seems so negative, so conde-

scending, so smugly narrow-minded. However, in the dis-

course of the Pope, the notion is positive and broad. In

the realm of medicine the word “toleration” has a meaning

which is only good. If a man cannot take penicillin be-

cause instead of doing him good it threatens his life, we

27



say that he is intolerant to penicillin. Yet this does not

mean that he is fanatically and blindly opposed to anti-

biotics, but only that he cannot assimilate them to his

advantage. If he can take the wonder drug, we say that

he is tolerant to it. In such a context the word “tolerance”

denotes an enriching quality which is highly desirable and

salutary.

Application to New “World Union”

In the same sense the new world union would be tol-

erant of different and theoretically conflicting religions.

The new society would not try to impose one definite

religion on all men nor make such religious uniformity a

condition for the new federation. The ecumenical society

would protect and befriend religion and religious belief

without taking on itself the office of becoming the arbiter

of what that religion must be, for it is not the function of

a purely natural organization to presume to such a role. It

is God alone who tells us what the true religion is, and He

has done so supematurally, using media which are above

and beyond the powers of nature. Even God permits

the existence of religions other than the one He Himself

has structured. A prudent government will do well to

imitate its Creator.

What is more, governments in a world society would

have the obligation of practising such tolerance. The state

is not an Hegelian idolatrous absolute but only the working

instrument for society’s welfare. The peace of the citizenry

and their prosperity in the secular order are the state's sole

purpose. Peace means a condition of freedom compatible

with public order and the exigencies of living together.

Moreover, for the end of conjoint harmonious living in a

concrete society conditioned by its own history and culture,

it will be necessary for the State of that society to accept

28



situations not of its own making but inherent in the evo-

lution of the community it serves.

At times such situations, from a theological point of

view, are not id^l, but in vital practice the state is obliged

to maintain them lest peace and its consequent freedoms

be destroyed by the state, whose only purpose is to preserve

them. In the new world union it cannot be the obligation

of the state to deal with the theological question of religious

truth. Its sole obligation will be to keep together in peace

and harmony citizens who are free and responsible agents,

who will one day meet their Maker to give a reckoning for

their personal religious decisions.

Expected Effect of Papal Statement

This lofty doctrine of Pope Pius XII, the highest au-

thentic teacher of the Catholic Church, will be enthusias-

tically received by all men of good will. It certainly clarifies

the obscurities lurking in the minds of so many of our non-

Catholic brethren who feel that the Catholic Church is a

conspiracy to rob them of their right to follow conscience

in their religious decisions. It will encourage those who

are striving for world union because they will know that

the great spiritual force of Catholicism is propitious to their

efforts. Above all, it will end the accusation of not a few

who assert that the Catholic Church has a double norm for

solving Church-State relationships.

According to the accusation, the Church demands lib-

erty for personal religious belief in countries where Catho-

lics constitute a minority, while Catholic uniformity is im-

posed on all citizens in lands where Catholics form a polit-

ical majority. The doctrine of the Pope is wholly different,

for he speaks of a tolerant world-wide society formed by

individual sovereign states. Catholic and non-Cathohc,

which will govern in their own communities in accord with

29



the principles obtaining in the total world federation. This,

according to the Pope, is in thorough harmony with the

abiding doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The Pope’s discourse makes it evident again how much

the Catholic Church strives for a lasting peace for the whole

world. It is not the peace induced by a coercive govern-

ment, but the harmony and concord of free communities

in a world where uniformity of vision is not to be found.

When the world society envisioned by Pope Pius will

eventually come into being, no one can say. However, the

ideal is inspiring. It shows the path we must follow in our

precarious search for peace.

r

30



READING LIST

Catholic Association for International Peace, The Role of

the Christian in the World for Peace: A Symposium,

Washington, D. C., 1953

Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs,

Unesco and Catholic Collaboration (Proceedings of

Eighth Annual Meeting). Washington, D. C., 1953

Conway, Edward A., S.J., “Catholics and World Federa-

tion/’ America (New York), LXXX, 231-33, Dec. 4,

1948

“Pius XII and World Federation,” ibid., LXXXV,

93-95, April 28, 1951

“Catholics and Revision of the UN Charter: I,” ibid.,
LXXXVIII, 230-32, Nov. 29, 1952

“Catholics and Revision of the UN Charter: II,”
ibid., LXXXIX, 129-131, May 2, 1953

“Case for World Federation,” Catholic Mind (New

York)
, Feb., 1954

D’Souza, Jerome, S.J., “The United Nations,” Jubilee

(New York)
,
Oct., 1953

Higgins, Msgr. George G., “Religious Critics of the United

Nations,” Catholic Mind, May, 1954

Koenig, Msgr. Harry C., “Pius XII and the UN,” ibid,,

March, 1954

31



Lynch, William F., S.
J.,

“Nationalism and International-

ism,” ibid., March, 1954

Pope Pius XII, “World Federalism,” ibid., June, 1951

“International Penal Law,” ibid., Feb., 1954

“1953 Christmas Eve Address,” ibid., March, 1954

Zizzamia, Alba, Catholicism and Internationalism: A Papal

Anthology. New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 1954.

(A reprint from Thought, Winter, 1953-54)

“A Catholic Looks at Unesco,” Catholic Mind, Dec.,

1953

32



THE

C^atLoiic CLl

was organized 26 years ago to make

good books available at a saving. Expert

editorial advice of Rev. Harold C. Gar-

diner, S.J. and his authoritative Catholic

critics and authors ensures a fine selec-

tion. You save up to 40% on your book
purchases during the year.

MEMBERSHIP IS FREE in the Catholic Book Club-
no dues or fees, no postage or handling charges. You

simply agree to purchase at least FOUR selections each
year you are a member. You may cancel membership
after taking and paying for four selections.

THE CATHOLIC BOOK CLUB NEWS each month,
without charge, brings you a description of the forthcom-

ing selection. From this you can decide on the selection.

IF YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT the book described in
the NEWS, you do nothing and it will come to you auto-
matically. If you do not care to receive it, you simply notify

us on the Member’s Option Form enclosed with the NEWS.
Return the Form hy the specified date, telling us not to send
the book; or to send in its place one of the alternate selec-

tions listed on the Form.

• A Gift Book is given to you when you
join.

• You receive a valuable Bonus Book after
the purchase of each four selections.

YOU PAY for a selection after you receive it. A bill
is attached to the book as it is mailed. Payments for books
are made within ten days, either by check, money order
or bank draft.

THE CATHOLIC BOOK CLUB
70 East 45th Street, New York 17, N. Y.



Think what it means to you .

^Qrp
^ subscriber to —

CJ'Urry'*^^ I

America
National Catholic Weekly Review

• The most influential religious and lay leaders

READ AMERICA

• Priests, teachers, administrators, business,

professional, government men, educators,

librarians, students, the self-educated

READ AMERICA

AMERICA answers
people’s questions about

what the news means and what are its fore-

seeable sequels.

AMERICA presents an
honest evaluation authori-

tatively on domestic and world affairs, meets

an issue squarely, seeks always to inform its

readers, to interpret actions and indicate trends

in political assemblies, in social problems, in

cults and cultures, in education, in today’s

world—anywhere where truth is challenged!

SUBSCRIPTION RATES:

$7.00 yearly in U.S. $8.00 in Canada

$8.50 foreign

Every Week

The Reason

Think

what

it

means

f 4^

%

to

subscribe

to
I

AMERICA!

'-''I

THE AMERICA PRESS • 70 East 45th St., New York 17 !|

420