Pope Pius XII on wars of aggression

Every war of aggression against any ordinance which God gives to man in the interests of peace and bids him respect and endorse, preserve and defend, is a sin and a crime. It is an attack upon the Majesty of God, the Creator and Orderer of the World. If any people threatened with, or already the victim of, an unjust aggression be minded to think and act in a Christian way, it cannot remain in a passive indifference. All the more does the solidarity of the family of peoples forbid the other members to behave like simple onlookers in an attitude of unconcerned neutrality.

Who can ever measure the harm done in the past by such indifference, so far removed from Christian feeling, towards aggressive wars? How pointedly it has given proof of the lack of security among the "great" and, above all, among the "little". Has it, on the other hand, brought any advantage at all? On the contrary, It has only reassured and encouraged the authors and favourers of aggression, by forcing single peoples, abandoned to themselves, to a necessary and indefinite increase of their armaments.

Resting upon God and upon the order established by Him, the Christian will for peace is, accordingly, strong as steel. It is of a temper very different from the mere humanitarian sentiment, too often nothing but a sensitiveness which detests war only because of its horrors and atrocities, its havoc and its dire results, but not also because of its injustice.

In such a sentiment, hedonistic and utilitarian in character, and materialistic in origin, there is wanting the firm foundation of a strict and unconditional obligation. It forms the kind of soul in which the empty sham of compromise takes root, the attempt to save oneself at the cost of others, and in every case the success of the aggressor.

So true is this that neither the consideration of the sorrows and evils following from war, by itself, nor the exact balancing of action and advantage, suffice for a final decision whether it is morally lawful or, in a given concrete case, morally binding, to resist the aggressor (supposing always a well-founded likelihood of success).

One thing is certain: the precept of peace is of Divine right. Its end is the protection of things that constitute the good of mankind, in so far as it is the good of the Creator. Now among these are some so important for human society that their defence against unjust aggression is beyond question fully lawful. The United Nations as a body are bound to defend them, having the duty not to forsake the nation assaulted.

Guide For Living

To trust in God, by Pope Pius XII

What does it mean to trust in God?

Trust in God means the abandonment of oneself, with all the forces of the will sustained by grace and love, in spite of all the doubts suggested by appearances to the contrary, to the wisdom, the infinite love of God. It means believing that nothing in this world escapes His Providence, whether in the universal or in the particular order; that nothing great or small happens which is not foreseen, willed or permitted, directed always by Providence to its exalted ends, which in this world are always inspired by love for men.

It means believing that God can permit, at times here below, for some time, pre-eminence of atheism and of impiety, the lamentable obscuring of a sense of justice, the violation of law, the tormenting of innocent, peaceful, undefended, helpless men. It means believing that God at times thus lets trials befall individuals and peoples, trials of which the malice of men is the instrument in a design of justice directed towards the punishment of sin, towards purifying persons and peoples through the expiations of this present life and bringing them back by this way to Himself; but it means believing at the same time that this justice always remains here below the justice of a Father inspired and dominated by love.

However severe may seem the Hand of the Divine Surgeon when he cuts with the lancet into the live flesh, it is always an active love that guides and drives it in, and only the good of men and peoples makes Him intervene in such a painful way.

It means, finally, believing that the fierce intensity of the trial, like the triumph of evil, will endure here below for only a fixed time and not longer; that the hour of God will come, the hour of mercy, the hour of holy rejoicing, the hour of the new canticle of liberation, the hour of exultation and of joy, the hour in which, after having let the hurricane loose for a moment upon humanity, the all-powerful Hand of the Heavenly Father, with an imperceptible motion, will detain it and disperse it, and, by ways little known to the mind or to the hopes of men, justice, calm and peace will be restored to the nations.

We know well that the most serious difficulty for those who have not a correct sense of the Divine comes from seeing so many innocent victims involved in suffering by the same tempest which overwhelms sinners. Men never remain indifferent when the hurricane which tears up the great trees also cuts down the lowly little flowers which opened at their feet only to lavish the grace of their beauty and fragrance on the air around them. And yet these flowers and their perfumes are the work of God and of His wonderful designing. If he has allowed any of these flowers to be swept away in the storm, can He not, do you think, have assigned a goal unseen by the human eye for the sacrifice of that most unoffending creature in the general arrangement of the law by which He prevails over and governs nature? How much more, then, will His omnipotence and love direct the lot of pure and innocent human beings to good.

Through the languishing of faith in men's hearts, through the pleasure-seeking that moulds and captivates their lives, men are driven to judge as evil, and as unmixed evil, all the physical mishaps of this earth. They have forgotten that suffering stands at the threshold of life as the way that leads to the smiles of the cradle. They have forgotten that it is more often than not the shadow of the Cross of Calvary thrown on the path of the Resurrection; they have forgotten that the cross is frequently a gift of God, a gift which is needed in order to offer to the Divine Justice our share of expiation. They have forgotten that the only real evil is the sin that offends God. They have forgotten what the Apostle says: "The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us", that we ought to look on "the Author and Finisher of Faith, Jesus, Who for the joy set before Him, endured a cross.".

Do you, too, dear children, look upon your sufferings thus, and you will find the strength not merely to accept them with resignation, but to love them, to glory in them as the Apostles and saints. . . .

Look upon your sufferings and difficulties in the light of the sufferings of the Crucified, in the light of the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin, the most innocent of creatures and the most intimate sharer in the Passion of Our Lord, and you will be able to understand that to be like the Exemplar, the Son of God, King of Sufferings, is the noblest and safest way to Heaven and victory.

Guide For Living, Radio address on "Divine Providence in Human Events", June 29, 1941

Pius XII on peace

It is necessary first of all to renew the hearts of men, to repress covetousness and greed, to allay hatreds, to really put into practice the norms and dealings of justice, to bring about a better distribution of wealth, to foster mutual charity and to stir up virtue in all.

Mirabile Illud

Pius XII on brotherhood of mankind

And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another as members and sharing in their suffering but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation. It is true, unfortunately, especially today, that there are are some who extol enmity, hatred and spite as if they enhanced the dignity and the worth of man. Let us, however, while we look with sorrow on the disastrous consequences of this teaching, follow our peaceful King who taught us to love not only those who are of a different nation or race, but even our enemies. While Our heart overflows with the sweetness of the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles, We extol with him the length, and the breadth, and the height, and the depth of the charity of Christ, which neither diversity of race or customs can diminish, nor trackless wastes of the ocean weaken, nor wars, whether just or unjust, destroy.

Mystici Corporis Christi, para 96

Herd immunity

I've been seeing a lot of articles about vaccinations over the last week, so I've been thinking about the issue of herd immunity as an argument to have one's children vaccinated. (I'm not addressing the separate issue of unethically-derived vaccines in this post.)

With the 3-parent baby issue, topical at the moment, you get supporters of the procedure talking about how children with mitochondrial diseases suffer and die, while simultaneously dismissing the arguments of opponents as being emotive. With vaccines it's that children might get diseases, suffer, and maybe die if they're not vaccinated, but if opponents say children sometimes experience adverse reactions to the vaccines, suffer, and maybe die, they too are being emotive!

Both sides use emotive arguments. Understandably so. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: either way there are risks.

Another motif that keeps recurring in arguments between pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers is the matter of herd immunity.

Someone declares that she (it is usually a she in these discussions!) has refused to have her children vaccinated, owing to concerns about possible reactions.

Then someone else argues back that she should have her children vaccinated, to contribute to herd immunity.

Now hang on a minute! What this argument is effectively saying is, you should be willing to sacrifice your child for the sake of the common good!

In my opinion, the only reason to vaccinate one's child should be to protect the child being vaccinated. If a parent decides vaccination is too risky, she (or he) is hardly going to decide to do it for the herd. Would any parent who had concerns be persuaded to vaccinate his child because the herd could use some more contributors?

It is one thing for an adult to decide to take that risk for the common good himself. That would be a selfless decision. But to decide that someone else (specifically an infant) should take that risk is another matter altogether.

Here is something that Pope Pius XII said on the subject of Medico-Moral Problems in 1952, not specifically about vaccination but I think the principle is applicable to this issue too:

"In support of their view they appeal to the fact that the individual is subordinate to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed for it....
... It must be pointed out that man as a person, in the final reckoning, does not exist for the benefit of society; on the contrary, the community exists for the individual man."

 Guide For Living