War erupted onto the global scene in July 1914. Not two months later, the newly ordained Cardinal Giacomo Della Chiesa was elected pope and became Pope Benedict XV. Pope from 1914 until his death in 1922, World War I proved a major event during Benedict’s papacy. The Pope’s background as Secretary of State under Leo XIII, however, prepared him for navigating this tumultuous time from the neutral Holy See.[1] Moreover, his faith gave him a heart for justice and peace for all God’s people. As such, Benedict XV became known as the “Benefactor of the Peoples” and published many statements admonishing continued conflict. One article, “Dès Le Début,” outlined a specific peace plan for the cessation of WWI.[2] An analysis of this piece reveals that the Church, generally, and the Catholic Church, specifically, carries wisdom regarding war and peace. The document also suggests that the church may be able to offer needed insight in times of conflict that secular powers cannot see. In particular, when compared with President Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” and the Treaty of Versailles, Pope Benedict XV’s 1917 peace plan exposes the Catholic Church’s disposition towards just peace for all. Interestingly, like the two secular plans, Benedict’s apostolic exhortation also offers recommendations on interstate relations. Yet, even when discussing foreign affairs, the Catholic Church maintains its commitment to impartiality for the sake of long-term peace.
Pope Benedict XV’s “Dès Le Début”: Just Peace for All Issued three years after the outbreak of World War I, Benedict XV wrote “Dès Le Début” to “exhort peoples and belligerent governments to become brothers again,” else cruelty would continue.[3] This plan included a complete ceasefire and disarmament of all belligerents, replacing the material force of arms” for the “moral force of law.” The proposal called for “complete and reciprocal surrender” because the damage and cost of war was too high and could not be continued to be fought “only for economic reasons.” Lastly, the Church argued for “true freedom and community of the seas” and returning all occupied territories to their original governments.[4] Undergirding this plan were three main principles. First, the Catholic Church would “maintain perfect impartiality,” just like God “loves all his children with equal affection.” Second, “do as much good as possible to all, regardless of nationality or religion,” as modeled by Christ. Third, “omit nothing” which could end the war as quickly as possible.[5] It is these principles that differentiate the Church’s approach to peace from secular decision-making because they focus on creating peace for all persons. Overall, the warring powers did not respond favorably to the Pope’s recommendations. Benedict himself even acknowledged that “all that we have done to achieve this very noble goal” was not recognized.[6] Italy and France responded with skepticism. French president Georges Clemenceau even declared the exhortation decidedly pro-German and called Pope Benedict the “German Pope.”[7] Thus, the powerbrokers largely ignored the Church’s proposal. Even still, the verbiage of later peace plans and treaties, such as Wilson’s Fourteen Point plan, echoed some of the verbiage of Benedict’s exhortation while simultaneously championing a nationalist agenda. Wilson’s Fourteen Points: Peace for U.S. Interests In January 1918, roughly nine months before the Allied and Central powers called the armistice, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed his “Fourteen Point” plan. Like the Church one year earlier, the U.S. also wanted to see peace. However, unlike Benedict’s desire for peace for the welfare of all, Wilson sought peace because he believed that “The programme of the world’s peace, therefore, is our programme.”[8] Said otherwise, global peace would benefit the U.S.’s economic, military, and political objectives because war “made the life of our own people impossible,” wrote Wilson.[9] A philosophical or moral commitment to peace, siblinghood, and collective flourishing did not motivate Wilson’s proposal. This becomes apparent when looking at the dissenting language and underlying spirit between the two approaches to peace. Wilson proposes only a reduction of national armaments, rather than disarmament and ceasefire, in point four. In points 2 and 3, he emphasizes economic considerations – a topic Benedict barely approached. Point two does discuss free navigation of the sea, like Benedict; however, Wilson caveats this by allowing for closure for international action. Wilson then argues for the evacuation and return of occupied territories in points six through thirteen. Yet, again, he introduces a caveat. In point five, he advocates for an impartial “adjustment of all colonial claims.” To this adjudication Wilson adds that both “the populations concerned” and “the government whose title is to be determined” are to be considered. This is different from Benedict’s proposal in two ways. First, Benedict recommends returning all territory. Full stop. Second, the word “to be determined” suggests openness in deciding who yields authority over a territory. Given that the U.S. would be a major powerbroker in post-WWI decision-making, this addition further emboldened the U.S.’s power, particularly if the League of Nations were to form as Wilson proposes in point 14. Lastly, Wilson concludes by stating that the U.S. harbors no desire to impair German greatness – only if Germany “is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing.”[10] In Benedict’s plan, national flourishing was to be unconditional. Thus, though both men wanted to see peace so the world could be “made fit and safe to live in,” their unique motivations for peace disclose the difference between state-sponsored and church-influenced peace plans.[11] One benefits the victors while the other remembers all involved. The Treaty of Versailles further highlights this discrepancy. The Treaty of Versailles: To the Victors Goes the Peace The Treaty of Versailles, signed by all WWI participatory nations, marked not only the official end to the war in 1919 but also a stark dichotomy from Pope Benedict’s proposal. Though similar to Benedict and Wilson in that the Treaty of Versailles required all conquered territory to be returned and granted sovereignty, the punitive nature of the Treaty delineated it to a league of its own. To begin, the Treaty of Versailles positioned all powers – the Allied and Associated powers – against Germany.[12] The Treaty restricted Germany’s territory and required Germany to return all taken territory and possessions both from during the war and before.[13] It also required Germany to demobilize all forces and reduce them to proscribed numbers.[14] While this may sound like Benedict’s cry for ceasefire, important to remember is that the Treaty of Versailles limited only Germany’s military ability. Lastly, the Treaty established tribunals for only German personnel.[15] These are just few of the many ways the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted Germany in its legal text. Moreover, not only did the Treaty hurt Germany, it also gave power to the Allied and Associated Powers in multiple lines that made Germany act “in favor of” these powers.[16] This built an inherent power dynamic which meant that Benedict’s vision of becoming “brothers again” could never actualize.[17] The Treaty also hardly explicitly discussed “peace,” aside from calling for the League of Nations “in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security.”[18] Other than this line, the Treaty seems motivated by taking vengeance against Germany. Instead, just peace for all became just peace for all except Germany. Benedict’s words did not remain in the heads of the drafters of the Treaty of Versailles by 1919. Rather, the victors sought retribution for death and destruction – regardless the costs on the aggressors. Conclusion: The Church’s Potential Impact on War and Peace By looking at both the shared and dissenting language of Benedict’s peace plan, Wilson’s “Fourteen Points,” and the Treaty of Versailles, the unique approach that the church can offer amid conflict emerges. The Church, broadly speaking, provides a balanced perspective attuned to honoring the inherent value, dignity, and worth of all persons – to include all belligerents. The secular world it seems, based on Wilson’s plan and the Treaty of Versailles, cares more about casting blame and receiving restitution, economic or territorial, than about establishing just peace providing for long-term collective flourishing. Pragmatically, this does not mean that the Catholic Church advocated for pacifism in WWI. Rather, the just peace for which Pope Benedict argues was to “render impossible the return of such conflicts and to prepare the solution of the economic question, so important for the future and the material welfare of all the belligerent States.”[19] This distinction remains true of the Catholic Church today. The Catholic Catechism acknowledges that sometimes war for self-defense is acceptable, though it urges “all citizens and governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.”[20] This duality emerges in the Church’s stance on peace, too. The Catechism teaches that While “respect for and development of human life require peace…” “…Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries.” Moreover, “Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of person and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.”[21] This suggests that sometimes war may be necessary in order to achieve peace; and yet, if peace can be achieved without conflict, this course of action must be pursued. Such seemed to be the mindset of Pope Benedict XV, too. Though he argued against WWI from its onset, he did not condemn any nation or the general act of war. Rather, Benedict called for the war to end – no caveats, no conditions – so that cruelty may end and “peoples and belligerent governments [could] become brothers again.”[22] However, the history of WWI’s end demonstrates that the international community privileges politics over the Church or other religious institutions on matters pertaining to war and peace. Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” and the Treaty of Versailles highlight that the nation-state and victorious global superpowers receive preference in post-conflict adjudication. This does not mean, then, that the Church should cease advocating for just peace for all persons. It does mean, however, Church leaders should become wise on matters of international relations and conflict studies so they can artfully navigate conversation, while also recognizing that they are not experts. Thus, it also means owning one’s domain and claiming expertise on topics such as reconciliation, mediation, mercy, and the human condition. Perhaps, then, Church and state can work together to make a more just society for all persons and end the “the lack of mutual love between men, the contempt of authority,” and “the injustice of relations between the various social classes” that Pope Benedict argued caused the First World War.[23] [1] “Benedict XV: 1914-1922,” The Vatican, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/it/biography/documents/hf_ben-xv_bio_20060214_biography.html, last accessed 20 April 2019. [2] For more examples, see: “Ubi Primum,” “Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: Appealing for Peace,” “To the Peoples Now at War and to Their Rulers,” “Address of the Holy Father Benedict XV to the Sacred College of Cardinals in the Evidence of Christmas Solemnity,” and “Quod Iam Diu: On the Future Peace Conference.” [3] “From the Beginning,” Apostolic Exhortation, 1 August 1917, from Acts of SS Benedict XV, Vol. I, p. 181-183, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xv_exh_19170801_des-le-debut.html, last accessed 20 April 2019. [4] “From the Beginning.” [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] “Benedict XV: 1914-1922.” [8] “President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points,” 8 January 1918, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp, last accessed 20 April 2019. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] “Treaty of Peace with the Germans (Treaty of Versailles),” 28 June 1919, For. Rel. (Paris Peace Conference, XIII) 55, 740, 743; Senate Document 51, 66th Congress, 1st Session, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0043.pdf, last accessed 20 April 2019, 43-44. [13] Ibid, 59-64, 77, 87-89, 99, 109-112. [14] Ibid, Part V, Section I, Chapter I, Article 159, 115. [15] Ibid, Part VII, “Penalties,” Article 227, 136. [16] Ibid, 107. [17] “From the Beginning.” [18] “Treaty of Peace with the Germans (Treaty of Versailles),” 48. [19] “From the Beginning.” [20] “Safeguarding Peace,” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: The Vatican), http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P81.HTM, last accessed 20 April 2019, paragraph 2307-08. [21] Ibid, paragraph 2304. [22] “From the Beginning.” [23] “Benedict XV: 1914-1922.” |