The intrinsic link between nonviolence (NV) and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) is grounded on the fundamental values of human dignity and the common good, which form the backbone of the CST. As global conflicts and social injustices persist, the dialogue around nonviolence in CST forms a strong foundation for developing a framework for moral and ethical evaluation of nonviolent practice against all forms of violence and violation of human rights. This article 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. The virtues and practices include confronting the issue rather than the person, practicing forgiveness, tolerance, and reconciliation, embracing the enemy as a child of God, and protecting human dignity and the common good. It explores how the combination of CST and nonviolence can address human actions that sustain marginalization, racism, conflicts, oppression, domination, and diverse forms of social exclusion.
Theological and Political Resources for Nonviolence in CST
The theological foundation of the Christian teaching is rooted in the nonviolence approach to social action by Jesus in the Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) serves as a seminal text, emphasizing love, forgiveness, care of the poor, and standing up for values that protect human dignity and the common good while transforming social evils that threaten the harmonious existence of humanity. There is evidence that early Christians in the Roman Empire did not participate in wars or join the Roman army. Instead, they would even dismiss Christians who joined the Roman army. However, this changed over the years when St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas began exploring the ethics of just war (Sniegocki, 2019). They emphasized that war should be limited as much as possible and carried out only as a last resort with justifying intentions like saving lives. Later papal justifications for crusades against non-Christians furthered the just war approach, while emphasizing that war should be a last resort. However, with the heightened militarization of wars and conflicts, the Church has constantly called for peaceful and nonviolent means to end conflicts. The above approach to justification for the war de-escalated during the Cold War. Subsequent papal encyclicals called for restraint on war and instead emphasized nonviolent approaches to ending conflicts.
At the height of the Cold War and nuclearization between the Russian and United States (US) blocks, Pope John XXIII, in encyclical Pacem in Terris in 1963, called for an end to conflict and raised doubts on whether just war theory could be applied in the era of nuclear war. He observed that “it is contrary to reason to hold that war is now a suitable way to restore rights which have been violated.” Paul Paul VI, on the World Day of Peace message of 1976 reiterated “Peace cannot be built by violence. It can never be secured through force of arms but only through the force of love, dialogue, and understanding.” The encyclical Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II emphasized peace and social justice, aligning closely with nonviolent values. Pope John II equally advocated for nonviolence but recognized that using violent means as a last resort was permissible, as long as it was authorized by a legitimate authority, and only as a last resort in cases of gross human rights violations. Similarly, Pope John dissuaded Christians and people of goodwill from following political leaders who propagate violence.
At the World Day of Peace 2002, following terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, Pope John II reiterated the need to reflect “upon the demands of justice and the call to forgiveness in the face of the grave problems which continue to afflict the world, not the least of which is the new level of violence introduced by organized terrorism.” Pope Francis, at the marking of the World Day of Peace in 2017, titled his message “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace.” He called on Catholics and people of goodwill to inculcate active nonviolence as a “way of life” and “a style of politics for peace” (no. 2) and that nonviolence should be “practiced before all else within families” (no. 5), with a strong foundation from the teaching of Christ. Nevertheless, there are constant tensions between achieving the nonviolence approach and practical challenges of shifting the nature of conflicts.
Dilemmas and Tensions in Practicing Nonviolence
As demonstrated above, the church has had a strong tradition of advocating for nonviolence for many years. However, the dilemma rests on the tension between active nonviolence and a just war approach to addressing gross human rights violations. According to Hrynkow and Power, the two are not mutually exclusive despite the tension. Resolving this tension entails a nuanced and well-grounded understanding of Just War Theory (JWT) and nonviolent ethics (Hrynkow and Power 2019). The priority should be to address root causes of wars and conflicts, with the understanding that any recourse to the use of violent force should be a last resort in extreme circumstances of saving human life.
The practice of nonviolence requires a well-coordinated and organized resistance. Authorities and those opposed to a nonviolent cause often tend to disrupt peaceful protests as a way of tainting the organizers. This makes nonviolent movements vulnerable to abuse, loss of lives, and destruction of property. In Kenya, the young generation, referred to as the Gen-Z, organized a series of nonviolent demonstrations between May and June 2024 against the Finance Bill 2024. They rallied many Gen-Z followers against the bill, claiming that it introduced punitive taxes that most citizens could not afford. Eventually, they succeeded in forcing the government to abandon the bill. The Gen-Z conducted widespread civic education and as a nonviolent strategy to gain support. Hence, educating the public on strategies of nonviolence is critical for the sustainability of the nonviolence movement. At the same time, nonviolent movements draw on a wide variety of strategic tactics that may include protests and even non-cooperation, such as civil disobedience, to confront authority. This can sometimes be interpreted as undermining authority by breaking the law. However, as Martin Luther King Jr. reiterates in his ‘Letter from the Birmingham Jail, ’ unjust laws should not be obeyed, and there should be a moral imperative to resist such laws.
Critics have also argued that nonviolence is limited in realizing its goals, particularly given the changing nature of wars and conflicts worldwide. Some argue that wars of extreme violence, like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, use heavy weapons that seem to create quite difficult, if not insurmountable challenges to identifying strategic nonviolent resistance tactics. However, diplomatic approaches pushing for negotiation and mediation qualify for a nonviolent strategy for peace. In contrast to what can be achieved through war, a combination of different nonviolent methods such as diplomacy, mass protests, sanctions, negotiation, and mediation have proven to be more effective conflict resolution strategies toward sustainable peace.
Another perceived challenge, according to Gunay, is how nonviolence tends to create an ‘othering’ tension—those who choose nonviolence are seen as selecting the “sublime ethical position” that ought to be admired and taken as the choice par excellence. Conversely, those who resort to violence are seen as the evil ones standing against human progress. However, nonviolence action should rather be based on the principles of promoting human dignity and safeguarding the common good, which are the critical foundations of CST. There should not be any action of ‘othering’ that may lead to demonizing a person. It is the bad action that propagates violence, oppression, discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization that ought to be condemned.
Nonviolent Values and Virtues That May Enrich CST
McCarthy observes that movements practicing nonviolence often employ virtues, values, and practices that can inform the expansion of CST application. For example, they practice radical hospitality, which entails welcoming strangers and enemies into one’s community without prejudice. This practice challenges traditional social norms and extends the principle of love thy neighbor to a radical shift. For example, in standing for the values of justice, one does not reduce the oppressor’s humanity. The oppressor is seen as a human being with his or her desires to achieve in life. However, the supremacy of human dignity has to be given priority. Such radical inclusivity can provide valuable insights for CST, emphasizing the importance of community and solidarity.
Nonviolent movements also emphasize building cohesive and supportive communities that engender solidarity and mutual encouragement. This focus on communal relationships can offer CST a model for fostering a sense of cohesiveness and collective responsibility for transforming society. CST scholars can better understand social transformation strategies by studying how nonviolent principles can be effectively implemented in religious and secular contexts (Dear 1994). The solidarity within this nonviolent community builds a unified front for social justice through awareness raising, peace education, and the formation of new nonviolent members while focusing on issues that promote human dignity without demonizing the oppressor.
Social theories advanced by nonviolent movements can also enrich the CST. Such may, according to Opongo, include addressing socioeconomic divisions in society that promote racism, dominations of one group against the other, sexism, and political and economic exclusions. As McCarthy reiterates, understanding these social issues and theories that explain their origins and manifestations is critical for dismantling the structures that sustain them. For example, by advocating for nonviolent resistance against exploitative economic systems, these theories align with CST’s critique of unchecked capitalism while calling for equitable economic policies that acknowledge human dignity and social justice.
Conclusion
Integrating nonviolence into the CST provides a positive enrichment of social justice strategies that promote human dignity and the common good. Nonviolence is intrinsic to CST given that it fundamentally draws on protecting human dignity and safeguarding common good. It captures the human responsibility to use all nonviolent means to guarantee the two central values of CST: human dignity and the common good. The nonviolent practice incorporates theological, social, and political resources that can be applied to the CST, particularly in addressing extreme situations of social oppression. Such may enrich CST’s approach to addressing issues like political domination, unchecked capitalism, racism, sexism, and other forms of social exclusion. However, there are constant tensions in the practice of nonviolence. Critics claim that nonviolence seems limited in achieving viable results in extreme contexts of violence like the war between Russia and Ukraine or the Palestinian conflict. However, a combination of diverse nonviolent approaches like mediation, negotiation, mass protests, and peacebuilding strategies can contribute to the ending of such conflicts. Another tension is the push by the Catholic Just War Tradition that allows for violent intervention in extreme situations of human rights violation. While the church stands for nonviolence as the preferred choice of action, situations of extreme violence create considerable challenges and set limits on common tactics in the practice of nonviolence.
