“How do we center active nonviolence in Catholic social teaching?” This is not the same question as how do we prioritize active nonviolence. The question about ‘centering’ is deeper, more expansive, and with significant implications for CST and praxis.
Jesus centered active nonviolence when he called us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), which includes respecting the image of God in all persons; to offer no violent resistance to one who does evil (Matthew 5:39); to become peacemakers; to forgive and repent; to be abundantly merciful (Matthew 5-7); and to love as he has loved us (John 15:12). Jesus embodied nonviolence by actively resisting systematic dehumanization, as when he defied the Sabbath laws to heal the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1-6); when he confronted the powerful and economically unjust at the Temple (John 2:13 22); when he challenged the men accusing a woman of adultery toward a more restorative justice approach (John 8:1-11); and when on the night before he died he asked Peter to put down his sword rather than violently defend even Jesus, an innocent person (Matthew 26:52).
Since the Catholic Nonviolence Initiative (CNI) began in 2016, there has been a renewed conversation about the understanding and commitment to nonviolence, as well as related themes of just peace, just war, and peacebuilding. Pope Francis offered a notable contribution with his “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace” 2017 message. His encyclical Fratelli tutti also enhanced this conversation in many ways, including particular sections on war (255-262). Perhaps more importantly, Francis’ many concrete expressions of active nonviolence, including the synodal process, have been transformative for the mission of the Church.
The theological conversation has been enriched with healthy discussions on challenging questions and issues of the implications of centering active nonviolence. One set of discussions have been around gaining clarity on how to better understand active nonviolence and violence as we sort through various claims, ethical analysis, and Catholic teaching on these issues.
Another set of discussions have focused on developing a more constructive moral framework for CST that has more breadth, through engaging conflict constructively and building sustainable peace, which is more effective at preventing and breaking cycles of violence and better illuminates the way of Jesus in accord with the mission of the Church. These discussions have asked questions and developed proposals related to peacebuilding, just peace, and ‘just war.’ For instance, how do we better integrate peacebuilding with active nonviolence? When theologies and praxis of nonviolence are too narrowly focused on nonviolent resistance, we can miss the need for peacebuilding within a campaign and undermine the cohesiveness, discipline, and impact of the nonviolent action. Further, when we devalue the peacebuilding aspect, a nonviolent resistance campaign may refuse or struggle in negotiations with adversaries, as well as struggle with governance after a successful movement. When theologies and praxis of peacebuilding devalue or avoid attention to nonviolence (whether as a mode of resistance or more broadly as a constructive method), we can fail to adequately shift power and our dialogue or advocacy efforts are more likely to fail or generate only minor changes. This also leaves or creates more space for key actors to lean into violent methods under the claims of shifting power or for what they claim is the sake of ‘peace’ or even ‘just peace.’
In the same set of discussions around developing a moral framework, are questions about the content, relationship, and role of a just peace framework on the one hand, and a just war framework on the other hand. What might a just peace framework or process of moral reasoning entail? Would centering active nonviolence imply CST and praxis focusing on a just peace approach in our formation/education, advocacy, investments, etc.? Does the just war framework already adequately entail ‘just peace’ or should just war reasoning remain the basis of CST with some further integration of just peace themes, particularly in jus post bellum? Even if a certain context seems to signal a just cause for war, is it practically possible to enact anything adequately close to a ‘just war’? Does maintaining just war reasoning in CST function (regardless of intention) 1) to maintain the conditions (cultural, structural, political, and spiritual) for justifications of war and more significantly cycles of violence/trauma; 2) to truncate the attention to, development, and impact of active nonviolence; 3) to generate action (such as war) which is inconsistent with human dignity, and thus, fails to adequately illuminate our shared dignity? For the Church to adequately center nonviolence, as well as better engage conflict, break cycles of violence, and build a more sustainable just peace, is it time to not only de-center just war reasoning but also let it go as official Catholic teaching, even while for now components of it may remain to some extent in international law?
Critical to developing moral frameworks in CST is the capacity to integrate pastoral sensitivity, as Pope Francis so regularly demonstrates. How might the Church as well as Christians in various roles, such as advocates, educators, policymakers, diplomats, activists, etc. respond in praxis to really difficult situations? For instance, how might the Church and Christians respond when a person, group, community, or nation is facing pending or actual violent aggression, and they are either unsure how to respond or they react with violence? How does the Church draw on the theme and praxis of accompaniment in such contexts? How would centering active nonviolence impact the style of accompaniment, and in turn our moral reasoning?
As President of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference and Cardinal of Yangon, Myanmar, Charles Maung Bo’s contributions to these discussions crystalized in his powerful 2023 letter to the Synod called “Our Mission as Active Nonviolence.” He called for a “An official Church teaching on nonviolence and just peace and inclusion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of a robust description of nonviolence, key nonviolent practices, and the norms of a just peace ethic would deepen Catholic understanding of and commitment to Gospel nonviolence and help inspire a global embrace of nonviolence.”
In the context of this overarching inquiry, we asked the authors in this series to consider answering one or more of the following questions: What resources (theological, political, or otherwise) provide support for the conversation to center nonviolence in CST? What are virtues or practices that movements practicing nonviolence employ that might surprise or assist scholars of CST? What tensions or issues arise when trying to center nonviolence in conversations in CST? What are the practical and theoretical implications of centering nonviolence compared to prioritizing nonviolence? How can theories of nonviolence enrich accounts of domination, capitalism, anti-Black racism, or sexism in CST? How would centering nonviolence in CST impact the analysis and praxis of nonviolence and defense?
In this series of reflections, Kelly Johnson who is the Chair of Social Justice at Dayton University offers an analysis of how practicing nonviolence is the missing link to better integrate Catholic social doctrine and moral theology, or the realm of personal practice. KC Choi who is Professor of Asian American Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, argues that a “focus on the small things—on shifting, adjusting, or experimenting with as something as simple or seemingly insignificant as our daily social practices—demonstrates how centering a nonviolent theory of social change in Catholic social teaching makes its principles translatable into a form of radical politics that is perceptible or legible and, perhaps more significantly, workable across demographically diverse communities.” Elias Opongo who is the director of Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations in Kenya, explores the theological and political resources that integrate nonviolence in CST, examines the virtues and practices of nonviolent movements, identifies the existing tensions, and considers how nonviolent theories can enrich CST’s approach to social transformation. Edgar Antonio López who is a Professor in the Faculty of Theology at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, Colombia, offers an analysis on how the notion of quality of life, an extended conception of the common good, and the solidarity with the victims can move nonviolence from the margins of Catholic Social Teaching to its center. David DeCosse, who is the Director of Religious and Catholic Ethics at Santa Clara University, offers an analysis on how we understand the terms of nonviolence and violence, as well as the moral connotations associated with these themes. David Cochran who is a Professor of Politics at Loras Colleges offers an analysis of political science contributions to centering nonviolence in terms of the latest research on effectiveness of active nonviolence and of war. In my blog essay, I offer an analysis of the relation between active nonviolence and legitimate defense. I argue that centering nonviolence would shift our focus to defending dignity and alter the style of defense we affirm and spotlight. This style will center practices such as unarmed civilian protection, strategic nonviolent resistance, and nonviolent civilian-based defense.
Tuning in to active nonviolence as a center of gravity in Jesus’ way, we can sense nonviolence as integral to the mission of the Church. This enables us to have a broader imagination of nonviolent praxis, a sturdier identity as interconnected beings, and an engrained commitment to better persist in active nonviolence even during difficult circumstances.
We hope this series of essays will be stimulating as well as encourage ongoing reflection and praxis in centering active nonviolence.
