Peace hb?o&n o. (A;ar a\r>c} ‘r met ift Ai 1 CilS ByJOStPtUHHfY t The twentieth century will be remembered for many scientific and cultural achievements. One inescapable fact about our era that we would prefer future gen- erations to forget is that it has witnessed the killing of between 80 and 100 million people through warfare. And there are still three decades left in this, the bloodiest century in the history of mankind! Since 1945 there have been more than 40 wars. One estimate indicates that in 5,560 years of re- corded history something like 14,000 wars have taken place. Years of relative peace number a mere 292. Our common global task of making a solid, en- cfuring peace was summed up by economist Kenneth Boulding when he said that if the human race is to survive, “it will have to change its ways of thinking more in the next 25 years than in the last 25,000.” Survival — in justice and peace — for all man- kind cuts across boundaries of national interest, racial differences and cultural diversity. Because the use of power ultimately involves questions of a moral and religious nature, we are pleased to make avail- able to as large an audience as possible these Christian Insights into peace and war. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, M.M. Director, The Christophers fiymj.™ Challenge to the Christian Conscience “I am confused by Christianity today,” writes a young collegian. ‘‘I don’t know whether to be a pacifist, a follower of the just war or a crusader. All three seem to be Christian positions.” This confusion is not without basis. At various times throughout their histories, the Churches have es- poused all three viewpoints. Even today, each posi- tion has its advocates. Can it be said that any of these positions provides a sure guide for the Chris- tian conscience? A historical review of Christian approaches to the agonizing questions of war and peace may help those seeking to form a right con- science on this all-important matter. The Witness of the Gospels and of Early Christianity Jesus stood in the Jewish prophetic tradition which looked to an era of universal peace and love, in which men would “beat their swords into plow- shares.” (Isaiah 2:4) In the Sermon on the Mount, He offered man the blueprint for this new era: "Happy are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.” (Matt. 5:6) Of old, people were for- bidden to murder, but Jesus commanded His follow- ers not even to be angry with others. (Matt. 5:21-23) He told His disciples to be governed no longer by the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” ethic. Instead, they are to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors. (Matt. 5:38-48) He quite clearly told Peter that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) Isolated texts from the New Testament have been used to justify killing and 1 violence. But can it be denied that the spirit of the Gospels is one of peace— a peace reached through non-violent love? With this background, it is not hard to see how early Christianity concluded that: n War was a denial of their belief that God was the Father of all men and nations; n The killing of enemies was incompatible with Christian love, which demanded total self-giving; O A Christian could not kill his brother — and men of all nations were regarded as his brothers in Christ. The persecuted Christian communities consistently responded to violence with non-violent love. Since Christians were barred from government posts, they did not formulate a position with regard to the politi- cal implications of their non-violent stance. Three Centuries of Non-Violence From the first to the fourth century, most Christians would neither engage in Rome’s military campaigns nor justify killing as a means to achieve one’s goals. This consistent practice caused the non-Christian Celsus (178 A.D.) to reproach them: “If all men were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion.’’ O St. Justin Martyr (165) writes: “We who former- ly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies, but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.’’ Q St. Clement of Alexandria (220) observes: “Vari- ous peoples incite the passions of war by martial music; Christians employ only the Word of God, the instrument of peace.’’ ^ St. Cyprian (258) lamented that, although homicide when committed by individuals was a crime, it was considered a virtue by the pagans when carried on publicly. After 170 A.D. there are isolated reports of Chris- tians in the Roman army, but it appears that they 2 acted as police rather than as soldiers. St. Martin of Tours (397) remained in the Roman army for two years after his conversion. But, when he was called upon to participate in battle, he resigned from the service stating: “I am a soldier of Christ, I cannot fight.” A subtle change began when the Roman Emperor Constantine in 313 recognized Christianity as the official religion of the empire. The Church became an institution closely linked with the civil authority, although it was never wholly identified with it. As such, Christianity attempted to develop an applica- tion of the law of love that permitted legitimate defense of the innocent against unjust aggression. Ever since, the greatest thinkers in Christendom have wrestled — with something less than success — to reconcile the fundamental dilemma between love ^and violence. Augustine’s Dilemma— And Ours Those who oppose warfare are often asked: ‘‘What would you do if someone tried to kill your family or attack your nation unjustly?” The barbarian inva- sions of the fourth and fifth centuries confronted Christians with this disturbing question. There were two general responses, neither of which was totally satisfactory: ^ Many who embraced non-violence found it possible to follow their consciences by entering monasteries; ^ Those who remained in society gradually es- poused the principles of the ‘‘just war.” These had previously been enunciated by Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. St. Ambrose (397) had made some adaptations of these principles to Christian thought, but St. Augus- tine (430) elaborated them in fuller detail. Augustine held that Christian perfection was not possible In this world and, consequently, that peace was not possible during man’s earthly pilgrimage. He also believed that one could be a Christian and kill his enemies because the destruction of the enemy’s body might actually benefit his soul. In fact, he 3 taught that only a man who loved his enemy might kill him: "No one indeed is fit to inflict punishment save the one who has first overcome hate in his heart. The love of enemies admits of no dispensation, but love does not exclude wars of mercy waged by the good." Augustine offered the following principles for the conduct of a just war: 1 . The intention must be to restore peace. 2. Only a legitimate authority may declare war. 3. The conduct of the war must be just. 4. Monks and clerics may not engage in warfare. The Crusades: Era of the Cross and the Sword The principles of the just war might have worked, had they consistently been followed. Instead, many barbarians were baptized with only an imperfect appreciation of the Gospel and their violent prac- tices diluted the witness of the Church. Many of them considered the cross, not as a sign of peace, but as a standard for battle. Clovis (511), for example, leader of the Franks, vowed that he would receive baptism if he were granted victory over his enemies. Augustine’s prohibition against clerics engaging in battle was not always obeyed. Around the year 1000, Bishop Bernward led the forces of Otto III, armed with a spear reputed to contain nails from the Cross of Christ! Pope Urban II ushered in the period of the Crusades in 1095 with the plea "Deus vult!" (God wills it.) While the Crusades began as a defensive action, they ultimately shattered Augus- tine’s precept about the just conduct of war. These "holy" wars between Christian and Moslem were marked by extensive atrocities on both sides. In this highly unstable period, it should not be over- looked that the Church made efforts to set stricter bounds on the ferocity of warfare. This was the era of the Peace of God (limiting those who could fight in wars) and the Truce of God (narrowing the fight- ing period between Easter and Christmas). Although 4 largely ignored, such provisions testify to the fact that peace was still a major goal of the Church. From today’s vantage point, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Christianity was more infected by the barbarity of the times than it influenced the times for the better. O In practice, if not always In theory, God came to be viewed as a God of wrath, more like the pagan deities than the Father of all men. ^ Just war principles were shelved when incon- venient. Cl Shedding the blood of one's enemies was seen as a way of defending the faith and meriting salva- tion. Reshaping the Just War Theory In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas (1274) ap- proached the serious problem of war and peace in his treatise On War in the Summa Theologiae. Thomas offered three principles for just warfare: 1. It must be waged by a public authority for the common good. 2. A just cause is required. 3. It must be fought with right intentions. In another passage, Thomas added what has come to be accepted as his fourth principle, that of pro- portionality: the harm done by war must not exceed the good that comes from it. Thomas believed that social violence was a necessary evil. Just as a physician may amputate to preserve the good of the body, so too may society engage in violence to preserve the peace. Like all analogies, this one has its limitations. Keeping the Peace - A Renaissance View St. Thomas More (1 535), a lawyer and English states- man, exemplified the effort of a competent Christian layman to bring into some rough harmony the de- 5 mands of the Gospel and the requirements of the civil state. He called for strict observance of just war principles and believed that the noblest wars were those undertaken by the State, not on its own behalf, but to come to the aid of the injured. Erasmus (1 536), a classical scholar and moralist from Holland, criticized his fellow Christians for honoring the just war theory more in the breach than in the observance. Believing that Jesus Christ should be the model for Christian behavior, he stated: “Christ com- pared Himself to a hen, Christians behave like hawks. Christ was a shepherd of the sheep, Chris- tians tear each other like wolves. And who is re- sponsible for all this? Not the common people, but kings . . . not the young but the greybeards . . . not the laity but the bishops.” Limiting Warfare — A Reformation Approach In the early 16th century, Martin Luther (1546) dis- cussed the ever-burning question of war. Like Augus- tine and Thomas, Luther posited a painful tension between the right of the state to defend itself and the Christian’s obligation to avoid violence, a ten- sion that manifested itself in the stand he took during the Peasants’ War. He held that: Q The State could engage in a just war with its concomitant violence, but It must do so mournfully. n The Church could not engage in violence— its only weapon was the Word of God. Luther considered war just only if it sought peace: “I could more easily number the sands or count all the blades of grass,” he said, “than narrate all the blessings of peace.” John Calvin (1564) was more belligerent in his doctrine. He repeatedly stated that no consideration could be paid to humanity where the honor of God was at stake. Since the State’s function was to support true religion, Calvin’s concern was not so much with “just” means as with “holy” results. With the rise of the strong, centralized nation-state 6 in the centuries that followed, it became harder for the Churches — Protestant or Catholic— to mitigate the increasingly widespread destructiveness of wars. As established (official) Churches, they were In a poor position to raise their voices effectively against the sound of marching feet — regardless of the During the period of the 16th through the 18th cen- turies, three “peace Churches’’ arose whose influ- ence continues to this day: 1. The Anabaptists (now Mennonites and Hutter- ites) were radically pacifist and eschewed any active involvement in society. 2. The Brethren were pacifists who believed that, as a Church, they could support no wars. 3. The Quakers, though pacifists, attempted to change society by political means. Like the early Christians, these Churches have been a committed minority providing an extremely valu- able witness to the love ethic of the Gospels which is too easily overlooked by majorities both in Church and State. The Present — From the Howitzer to the Atom Bomb In our times when nuclear weapons have added a new and horrifying dimension to the quest for peace, the Churches and their theologians are beginning to re-evaluate the historic Christian attitudes toward war. The major denominations have rejected total nuclear war. The universal fatherhood of God, the common brotherhood of man, the consequences of violence and the necessity for worldwide peace- keeping institutions are of common concern today. “The War to End Wars” World War I was a new type of conflict in the 7 tattered history of mankind. In 1917, Marshal Foch of France pointed to this when he stated: “Truly a new era has begun, that of national wars which are to absorb into the struggle all the resources of the nation; which are not to be aimed at dynastic interests, but at the de- fense or spread of philosophic ideas first, of principles of independence and unity,” The Era of Total War Political scientist Hans Morgenthau observes that the first World War marked the beginning of the process by which entire nations were mobilized for all-out or “total” wars. World War I was a stern challenge to religion. Christian nations fought bitterly against each other. Historian Roland Bainton observes that “the Churches in every land gave support to their governments.” In Germany, Catholics and Protes- tants alike looked upon the conflict as one of de- fense against enemies bent on the Fatherland’s strangulation. In the United States, as in the other Allied countries, men of all faiths were united with each other as never before. A Voice in the Wasteland Little recognition has been given to the energetic role played by Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) in the first World War. From the beginning he promised that he would be impartial, that his only concern would be for peace. At various times and by in- genious means he attempted to secure the exchange of prisoners, humane treatment for the captured and limitation in the fighting. He repeatedly entreated the opposing governments to show compassion to civilians. He was disdainfully ignored, only to be vindicated by later events. In Pacem Dei Munus, his 8 letter of 1920, he counseled that all states “should unite in one league, or rather in a sort of family of peoples, calculated to maintain their own inde- pendence and safeguard the order of human soci- ety.’’ This plea for an organized unity of nations was to become a chorus as leaders of various Chris- tian Churches took up the call for peace with justice. Benedict also stated that the moral law must apply to international affairs as well as to individuals. This lessened the sharp split seen by earlier moralists between individual morality and the ethics of the State. Another significant step was taken in 1914 with the founding of the Fellowship of Reconciliation by Richard Roberts, a Presbyterian, and Henry Hodgkin, a Quaker. Its work was to “abolish war and to create a community of concern transcending all national boundaries and selfish interests . . .’’ Theology in the Roaring Twenties In the United States, the Churches after World War I sought to eliminate future wars by taking one of three paths: 1 . To vastly reduce the amount of armaments each nation could possess. 2. To refuse as Churches to support any more wars. 3. To develop an international machinery of justice and communication which would seek to resolve conflicts by non-violent pressure. Many religious leaders warmly endorsed the World Court and the League of Nations. The non-violent success of Mohandas K. Gandhi in India during this period was an undoubted influence. Before the Gathering Storm In 1931 a Theological Convention at Fribourg stressed the following points regarding modern wars: 1 . Before a State could engage in a fully legiti- mate war it must have made use of all the international machinery available for the set- tlement of the dispute. 9 2. States are first subject to the moral law be- fore they are to their own laws. 3. Modern war was no longer considered a pro- portionate means of establishing justice and peace. This did not rule out, however, a limited war of defense. In the United States, Reinhold Neibuhr, a Protestant theologian and moralist, criticized the assumptions of the Churches as idealistic and called for “realism” in international relations. In 1932, his work Moral Mon and Immoral Society, stressed that, while men acted morally as individuals, they often acted im- morally as members of large groups. He conse- quently believed that recourse to war may be neces- sary where non-violent measures fail to produce peace. World War II— The Storm Breaks Just 21 years after the Armistice of 1918, World War II erupted. In the course of this carnage, 50 million people were killed, 25 million of whom were civilians. In America and Europe, this war was de- clared “just” by clergy on both sides. In Germany, in 1 939, the Roman Catholic hierarchy urged soldiers to support their country and “to do their duty in obedience to the Fuhrer, ready for sacrifice and with commitment of the whole being.” In the Allied countries, there was widespread backing for the war among Catholic and Protestant clergy. Yet many entered the war with a mournful mood. A minister from Canada was representative when he stated: “. . . this is the saddest war in history. There is not a jot or atom of hatred in our hearts . . . We expect nothing from this war except that everything sweet and precious will be crushed out of life for most of us. Nevertheless, we could do no other.” Pope Pius XII worked untiringly to heal the wounds of battle. While he did not officially intervene, his constant pleas for peace through justice and his behind-the-scenes intervention for the innocent vic- tims leave little doubt as to his concern for peace. 10 Solitary Witnesses in the Third Reich Within the Third Reich there were isolated instances of conscientious objection to the war. Hans Jagger- statter, an Austrian Catholic, refused induction into the German army and stated: “I cannot and may not take an oath in favor of a government that is fight- ing an unjust war.” The clergy with whom he con- sulted, including his local bishop, all urged him to enter the army. But he remained steadfast to the end and was beheaded bn August 9, 1943. The Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who had strong pacifist leanings, was also killed for re- sisting the war of Hitler. He was hanged by the SS on April 21, 1944, after being found guilty of participating in a plot on the Fuhrer’s life. The Cold War Begins Following the war, all Churches condemned the atrocities of the Nazi regime, some of which came to light only after the Allied victory. The mass murder of 6 million Jews, while suspected, became a hor- rible reality with the liberation of such death camps as Dachau and Buchenwald. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals emphasized a recognition by the Allied powers that the individual must obey a law higher than that of the State in certain cir- cumstances. On the other hand, violations of the “rules of war” were not so readily punished by the victors in the case of their own forces. The Allied nations also came under censure, albeit belatedly, for the fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden, and the atomic annihilation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These were regarded as indiscriminate assaults on predominantly civilian populations. Three issues confronted the Churches after the war 1 1 which are still of major concern today: 1. The need for a strong international body to mediate conflicts and ensure prevention of future wars. 2. The cessation of construction of and testing for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. 3. The inviolability of individual conscience re- garding participation in all, or particular, wars. In a remarkable allocution to Military Doctors (October 19, 1953), Pius XII said: “Let there be punishment on an international scale for every war not called for by absolute necessity. The only constraint to wage war is defense against an injustice of the utmost gravity which strikes the entire community and which cannot be coped with by any other means — for otherwise one would give free course, in international relations, to brutal violence and irresponsibility.” Relating the principle of proportionality to modern times, he added: “Defending oneself against any kind of in- justice, however, is not sufficient reason to resort to war. When the losses that it brings are not comparable to those of the ‘injustice tolerated,’ one may have the obligation of ‘sub- mitting to the injustice.’ This is particularly applicable to the A.B.C. war (atomic, bio- logical, chemical).” In his short tenure as Pope (1958-1963), John XXIII did much to advance the cause of world peace. In his letter “Pacem in Terris,” the Pope decried the arms race and called upon nations to solve their difficulties by negotiation and mutual trust. He gave strong endorsement to the United Nations: “It is our earnest wish that the UNO — in its 12 structure and its means — may become more equal to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks. May the day soon come when every human being will find therein an effective safe- guard for the rights which derive directly from his dignity as a person . . (#145) “The Joys and Hopes ... of Men” The Second Vatican Council attempted to look upon war “with an entirely new attitude.’’ In its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Council took the following positions: 1. It condemned the concept of “total’’ war, while conceding that in the absence of a “competent and sufficiently powerful author- ity at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate de- fense once every means of peaceful settle- ment has been exhausted.’’ (#79, 80) 2. It declared the arms race “an utterly treach- erous trap for humanity’’ which “injures the poor to an intolerable degree.’’ (#81) 3. It demanded an end of the arms race, “not Indeed a unilateral disarmament, but one proceeding at an equal pace according to agreement, and backed up by authentic and workable safeguards.’’ (#82) 4. It called for a “universal public authority’’ which would be “endowed with effective power to safeguard, on behalf of all, security, regard for justice and respect for rights.’’ (#82) 5. It urged international cooperation to end “ex- cessive economic inequalities’’ between na- tions which are among the chief causes of war. (#83) 6. It foresaw a “surpassing need for renewed education of attitudes and for new inspira- tion in the area of public opinion ... to in- struct all in the sentiments of peace.’’ (#82) 7. It told members of the armed forces that as long as they were agents of security and free- dom, they were making a “genuine contribu- tion to the establishment of peace.’’ (#79) On October 4, 1965, during Vatican II, Pope Paul VI 13 made his dramatic appeal before the United Nations: “No more war, war never again.’’ In a later letter, “The Progress of Peoples,’’ (1967) the Pope stated that the modern word for peace was “develop- ment” and repeated his call made at Bombay in 1965 that a World Fund be established to care for the most destitute of the world. The Pope repeated that it should be financed in part by the money “spent on arms.” The World Council of Churches At their meeting in Uppsala In 1968j the World Council of Churches showed a concern for peace that they had evidenced many times before. They made the following specific points: 1. War is incompatible with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. 2. Human survival can only be insured if all na- tions disarm themselves of atomic, biological, and chemical weapons of warfare. 3. The atomic non-proliferation treaty should be signed by all nations. 4. The USA and the USSR should agree not to establish anti-ballistic missile systems or to undertake underground testing. 5. They urged the Churches to support peace re- search and to “encourage educational pro- grammes in the service of peace.” 6. They supported selective conscientious ob- jectors; i.e., those who object to particular wars. The United States Catholic Bishops In November, 1968, the Roman Catholic bishops of the United States issued an in-depth, urgent call for international peace. Among their many proposals, the following are salient: 1 . The bishops condemned unlimited wars and seriously questioned “whether the policy of maintaining nuclear superiority is meaningful for society.” 2. They criticized the U.S. decision to build an ABM {anti-ballistic missile) system that would 14 lead other nations “to increase their offensive nuclear forces.” 3. They called for early passage of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. 4. The bishops advocated ever wider support for foreign aid programs which “should never merely serve national self-interest except to the extent that national interest is genuinely part and parcel of the general good of the human community.” 5. The bishops urged all “to support efforts for a stronger and more effective United Nations as a means to world peace.” 6. They questioned whether the U.S. action in Vietnam had already exceeded the principle of proportionality in warfare. 7. Joining the Bishops of Vatican II, they praised “those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights . . . provided that this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the commu- nity itself.” Furthermore, while recognizing that the United States makes legal provision for those who find all wars immoral, they urged the modification of the draft law “mak- ing it possible, although not easy,” for per- sons to be selective conscientious objectors, “without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizen- In the past, the Christian Churches have been justly criticized for not having taken a stronger stand in behalf of peace. There is mounting evidence, how- ever, that this will not be the pattern of the future. The '“Jesus and I” outlook, which concerned itself largely with personal perfection, is being replaced by an attitude that takes into account the com- munal aspects of salvation. Both Protestant and Catholic thinkers are developing a theology of man 15 which stresses that individual salvation is achieved in response to the divine call to work for the total betterment of all men. The statements and concrete actions of Churches concern themselves increasingly with pressing social problems: poverty, illiteracy, alienation from God and man, and warfare. These are seen as a threat not only to humane living but also to human survival. We are witnessing a return to the fundamental New Testament insight that the perfecting of this world is an absolute prerequisite to bringing about the Kingdom of God. For centu- ries, in an attempt to mitigate its evils, our Churches have elaborated various theologies of war. In our times, an emerging theology of peace is calling attention to the essential role of the Christian in a war-torn world: reconciliation of enemies. The implications of universal brotherhood are leading to an examination of such realities as the arms race, revolution, and foreign policy from the perspective of Christian ethics. Our major Churches have also supported the United Nations as man’s best hope for peaceful cooperation among nations and eventual world unity. Churches are increasingly performing a valuable service as constructive critics of governments when their policies fall short of truly human principles. It is important to note that statements, even by leading Church bodies — how- ever bold and soundly based — are no more than words. Only to the extent that Christians respond in action to the challenging words of their leader- ship will man’s historic quest for peace become an attainable reality. The fact that government officials, military experts and scientists have been unable to agree on the best way to achieve a just peace should deter any of us from proposing oversimplified solutions. 16 But each person can do something constructive to take meaningful, effective steps toward a more peaceful world. Each person must look to his own conscience to discover what he should do to pro- mote peace. Suggestions like the following may be of some assistance: 1. LEARN ABOUT PEACE. It is harder to work for peace than to drift into war. Keep informed about current events and examine the various proposals advanced for the achieving of a peaceful world. 2. PROMOTE PEACE THROUGH EDUCATION. A “peace” dimension can be added to almost any course of study from grade school through university. The humanities can focus on the religious, social, and historical views of peace. The sciences can examine man’s technological achievements and what these can do to re- move the seeds of global war. Business sub- jects can discuss the role of business in shap- ing a world free from want. 3. BREAK THE LINK BETWEEN VIOLENCE AND COURAGE. The man or woman of moral strength is the one who energetically labors for non-violent solutions to community and national problems. Courage and violence have no necessary connection. 4. PUNCTURE THE MYTH. Convince others that war is neither noble nor glorious. Total war, in this nuclear age, is an unspeakable evil, universally condemned by thinking men of every faith and conviction. 5. SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION. Through everyday conversations, letters to newspapers and your elected representatives, you can help dispose countless persons towards peace and away from war. 6. COOPERATE WITH OTHERS. Associate your- self with responsible individuals and groups to call for such programs as economic assist- ance to needy countries . . . limitation of the arms race ... a cabinet-level Department of Peace . . . provision for selective conscientious objectors. 7. VOTE FOR PEACE. Become involved in party 17 politics to participate in the selection of primary candidates who are peace-minded rather than war-minded. Take the time and trouble to secure their election and back them up when their advocacy of peace leads them into taking unpopular positions. 8. SUPPORT THE UNITED NATIONS. With all its handicaps, the United Nations provides a forum for the peaceful airing of disputes, furnishes a peace-keeping force to police con- tested borders and recruits technical experts to promote human betterment in economically underdeveloped regions. 9. ENCOURAGE TRUE PATRIOTISM. The real patriot is the person who is not afraid to criticize the defective policies of the country which he loves. He never belittles or disdains the affection of others for their native lands. Our common humanity is more basic than any political distinctions. Peace Is Possible Perhaps the biggest barrier to world peace Is that most people do not believe that it is possible to attain. Yet, men have reached the moon only be- cause countless people before them from every land believed that this dream could be achieved. While their contemporaries laughed at them, these men persevered in their cause until it was accomplished. Today we are on the threshold of an age in which nations can live in peace. President Richard Nixon, speaking in Rumania in 1969, stated it well: “. . . nations can have widely different internal orders and live in peace. Nations can have widely different economic interests and live in peace.” It is important to remember that not some blind fate but man made war. President John F. Kennedy reminded us that men can overcome war: ‘‘Too many of us think that peace is impossible, unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist be- lief. It leads to the conclusion that war is in- evitable — that mankind is doomed — that we are gripped by forces we cannot control . . . Our problems are man-made. They can be solved by man.” 18 A PRAYER FOR PEACE Few men in history have done more to bring peace between warring classes and factions than St. Francis of Assisi. The prayer attributed to him de- serves study, recitation and carrying into practice: “Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; And where there is sadness, joy. O, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; To be understood as to understand; To be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.” JOSEPH J. FAHEY is on the faculty of the Depart- ment of Religious Studies at Manhattan College in New York City. He is Secretary of the College’s Pacem in Terris Institute and a member of its Board of Directors. He has also taught at Fordham Univer- sity and served as a theological consultant to Wil- liam H. Sadlier, Inc., publishers. Mr. Fahey, who has published various articles on theology and peace, has studied at Union Theological Seminary and is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Religious Studies at New York University. ABOUT THE CHRISTOPHERS The purpose of the Christopher movement is summed up in the name “Christopher,” which comes from the Greek word meaning “Christ-bearer.” Through lit- erature and broadcasts millions of people are en- couraged to show personal responsibility and in- dividual initiative in raising the standards of public life, especially . . . government . . . education . . . labor-management relations . . . literature . . . and entertainment. The Christopher motto, “Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness,” serves as a reminder that positive, constructive action does far more to solve the towering problems that beset mankind than any amount of sterile complaining. Christopher News Notes go out to more than one million persons 7 times a year, free upon request. A syndicated Christopher column appears daily in 68 newspapers. Christopher books number 26* Tele- vision and radio programs are scheduled daily or weekly on 3,263 stations. Expenses of $800,000 must be met each year by voluntary contributions. All gifts are tax-deductible. Legal title for wills: “The Christophers, Inc.” 20 Copies of “Peace, War and the Christian Conscience” may be obtained in quantity for an offering of $2 per 100, $9 for 500 and $17 per 1000. First printing, 130,000 copies. Second printing, 100,000 copies. Third printing, 100,000 copies. Fourth printing, 75,000 copies Fifth printing, 50,000 copies Sixth printing, 50,000 copies Seventh printing, 30/000 copies Hit ClISIOPMS 12 m] 46IP SMtl NfWYORHJ.y.lOOI/