Nonviolent action is activity undertaken to call for, struggle for, or achieve change without using violence. This paper examines St. John XXIII’s historic encyclical on world peace, Pacem in terris, and its relationship to nonviolent action. It focuses on two nonviolent actions that contributed to this historic magisterial teaching: John’s efforts to foster a resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis and a fast undertaken by the spiritual activist Lanza del Vasto during Lent 1963. It argues that the very writing of this papal letter was a form of nonviolent action and that it has inspired nonviolent action around the world since it was promulgated, including Catholic leadership in the People Power Revolution in the Philippines.

In this essay, the author describes the trajectory toward a just peace framework in contemporary Catholic social teaching, as well as similar trends in the broader Christian community. He articulates a refined just peace framework or process that has arisen from and within a pastoral approach that listens to the experiences and voices of people in conflict situations across various cultural spaces. He then turns to the recent and challenging case of the war in Ukraine to explore and argue for a just peace approach rooted in the praxis of accompaniment. The author also reflects on the distinction between and implications of an accompaniment approach and a justification-of-war approach to initiate more inquiry on this topic.

In this essay, the author describes the trajectory toward a just peace framework in contemporary Catholic social teaching, as well as similar trends in the broader Christian community. He articulates a refined just peace framework or process that has arisen from and within a pastoral approach that listens to the experiences and voices of people in conflict situations across various cultural spaces. He then turns to the recent and challenging case of the war in Ukraine to explore and argue for a just peace approach rooted in the praxis of accompaniment. The author also reflects on the distinction between and implications of an accompaniment approach and a justification-of-war approach to initiate more inquiry on this topic.