It has been said that "old men will dream dreams" (Joel 2:28), and so I will share my own "dreams" (which are not mine alone) in the form of a few general reflections. I have no illusions in putting forth these ideals, but perhaps they can give “points of departure” for inspiration and creativity. In any case, please forgive an old man for dreaming in the midst of the deepening clouds of the nightmares that make up the awful reality of too many people and that threaten to swallow us all.Catholic social teaching inspires me to visualize some of the exigencies of what Pope Francis and now Pope Leo XIV have called the “culture of encounter” as a social ideal that integrates the principle of subsidiarity with the vitality of solidarity by means of the inherent dynamics of “communion.” The common good is properly attained within concrete relationships that form interpersonal and communal bonds. But a genuine human community is not closed in upon itself, but open, expansive, and welcoming.
Certainly it must defend itself against violence and crime both within and from outside itself, but self-defense is not its defining characteristic or ideal. Defense is unfortunately necessary, but it should aspire as much as possible to non-violence, which does not exclude – in my view – the use of physical force to restrain an aggressor (ideally as a “last resort”). Moreover, defense should be tempered by mercy and attention to the ineradicable human dignity of even those persons who perpetrate violence against us.
Still, this means that the practice of non-violence does not necessarily oppose within society the physical restraint of criminals and their being-deprived of certain external freedoms. Civil authorities have public and transparent legal procedures ("due process") for arresting, charging, adjudicating in a fair trial, and when appropriate sentencing convicted criminals to jail. These processes are necessary to repair in some measure the injustice that criminals have inflicted on their victims and the common good, as well as to protect the community. The use of physical force in fighting crime should not be considered "violence" unless it is intentionally wielded to violate or degrade the intrinsic inalienable dignity of human persons. If physical force is used outside procedurally established norms, beyond limits recognized by civil society, or in disrespect for the nature of human persons, then such force becomes violence because it departs from the service of public justice in accordance with the "rule of law."
The rule of law is not an abstraction, but a standard worthy of international consensus that is shaped by recognition of the dignity of the human person and the rights entailed by that dignity, as well as the basic compassion appropriate to the humanity we all share. A judicial system inspired by non-violence, moreover, will also seek ways that allow for and (as much as possible) actively facilitate the conversion, healing, and rehabilitation of criminals. Non-violence never loses sight of the good of each human person that is essential to the growth of “relationality” (human-persons-in-communion). It therefore tends toward the realization of the depths of a proper and fully human interpersonal common good, and it moves society toward practices that fulfill justice by “exceeding” it — by fostering restoration and forgiveness, healing and compassion, and other ways that indicate the transcendence of the human person and of the significance of human relationships.
Through Christianity, we have come to know that the human condition is existentially “fallen away” from God’s loving design and wounded by original sin, but also that human persons are redeemed according to the grace of God that reaches its definitive realization beyond the limits of present historical time. People who do not profess Christian faith can still recognize that human existence is profoundly fragile yet has a transcendent destiny toward an ultimately fulfilling Mystery, and that this transcendence is central to human dignity. Of course, temporal societies (even non-violent ones) are governed within history, and formed to achieve purposes that we understand and measure within history. Temporal ideals and methods cannot ever replace the immeasurable gifts of grace freely given by God’s love for the ultimate salvation, healing, and transforming of persons. Human laws, however, can be constituted in light of God’s “supernatural” plan of love, so that they tend more and more to “make space for” the overflowing of Divine love, and perhaps even remotely “signify” it as far as their historically contingent limits make possible. At the very least, human law and the physical force it may require must not oppose or usurp the freedom of God’s summons to human hearts, much less do violence to the essential goodness of persons as God has created them.
Similar standards regarding “non-violent physical force” apply to military self-defense, wherein physical action is taken to protect the rights of a people against a foreign invasion. The immense possibilities of human material power that continue to emerge in these times require ongoing reflection on the means used even in societal self-defense (with confidence that some appropriate means corresponding to the duty to defend people will be found). Still, actions designed to thwart and disarm contemporary large-scale military aggression will inevitably impact many people involved in, but not entirely responsible for, the evil of the aggression (usually because of their own unavoidable ignorance or misconceptions, or because they themselves are under various forms of coercion). Those who participate as individual agents within the armed forces of a politically-organized program of violence can be stopped by means of sometimes-highly-complex but ultimately limited kinds of physical force. It is not for the sake of euphemism that I use these broad terms to refer to "enemy combatants," who in the monstrous wars of recent history have often been wantonly conscripted from civilian life, and are thus also in some way victims of the violent political regime that forces them to carry out its belligerent action.
This entails a challenge for our consciences, insofar as we recognize that our efforts to stop the agents of the aggressor will inevitably result in death, catastrophic injury, and destruction for some of these people. A non-violent attitude requires in these circumstances a clear and precise formative intention: we must will to stop and turn away the “enemy combatants” without positively willing to murder them. (This still leaves for consideration many questions, including the distinction between murder and “intending to kill” an assailant because it is the only way to stop them, the distinction between combatants who carry out the immediate activity of aggression and non-combatants whose lives may not be taken or threatened solely as a means of gaining leverage against the aggressor, and other considerations that pertain to the fundamental principles of the “just war” tradition as well as modern conventions recognized by international law. I don’t know how to formulate all the questions much less answer them.)
The fundamental point is that social defense must not become a pretext for returning violence with violence. This requires, certainly, that defensive force does not become the instrument of vengeance, retribution, hatred, cruelty, or any kind of disregard for the human dignity of persons (even though the heat of battle makes it very hard to sustain these criteria when defensive action is drawn out into prolonged conflict, or to remember to persevere in the intentionality and interior form of non-violence).
All of this strikes me as – at least – an ideal that should be proposed and aspired to, even though people will fall short on the practical level. We need to seek the freedom, creativity, and magnanimity to become more truly human in the ways we understand one another, relate to one another, and seek to resolve our conflicts. We need a wisdom that we cannot construct from out of ourselves, that comes from a Source greater than ourselves.
We need this wisdom for the whole range of challenges that continue to emerge in this new epoch, as we seek a more adequate integrally human common good in all the levels of interaction that bring us together. The art of politics in a community is not simply to ‘keep the peace” but also to foster and encourage the personal and interpersonal dimensions of human life. Moreover, through openness, hospitality, and dialogue, communities form vital bonds with one another and learn to appreciate the diversity (if I may use this word) that enriches humanity. A prevailing openness and commitment to dialogue – real, difficult, time-consuming, slowly-moving, patient dialogue – builds the solidarity of communities. Here arises the concrete recognition of the common bond of humanity, the fundamental dignity that is mysteriously given and sustained, that calls for love and respect, a personalistic enrichment of the foundational reality signified by an old and unfashionable term: human nature.
As a Christian, my hope for all goodness – including what we can (however imperfectly) achieve in the political arrangements of this world – rests in Jesus Christ. The One who was crucified and is risen sustains His saving presence through history and demonstrates that He is the answer to our times as well. Everyone is seeking Him (whether they know it or not). We seek Him in our silence, our words, and our actions. Concern for the common good of our globally interconnected world – especially for the poor and those who suffer injustices and oppression – constitutes for us a work of Christian love (agape, caritas), a “work of mercy.”
This is my “old man’s dream” — that we might respond to violence with works of mercy, that by loving our enemies they might be changed and become our friends, that the human community might begin to move beyond the destruction of violence and toward the vitality of fraternity.
