MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
DAY OF PEACE

To all of you who are building peace,
To all of you who are the leaders of the nations,
To you, brothers and sisters, citizens of the world,
To you young people, who dare to dream of a better world,

It is to all of you, men and women of good will, that I address myself today, in order to invite you, on the occasion of the Fourteenth World Day of Peace (1 January 1981), to think about the state of the world and about the great cause of peace. I do this from a powerful conviction: that peace is possible, but that it is also something that has to be continually won, a good thing that has to be attained through ever renewed efforts. Each generation feels in a new way the permanent need for peace in the face of the daily problems of life. Yes, it is every day that the ideal of peace has to be made into a concrete reality by each one of us .

1. In presenting to you today the theme of freedom as the subject of your thoughts, I am following the line of Pope John XXIII in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris, when he put forward freedom as one of the "four pillars that support the house of peace". Freedom responds to a deep and widespread aspiration of the modern world, and this is shown for example by the frequency with which the term "freedom " is used, even though not always in the same sense, by believers and non-believers, scientists and economists, those who live in democratic societies and those who live under totalitarian regimes. Each one gives the term a special nuance, and even a profoundly different meaning. As we seek to develop our service of peace, we must therefore understand clearly the real nature of this true freedom that is at one and the same time the root of peace and its fruit.

2. Peace must be realized in truth; it must be built upon justice; it must be animated by love; it must be brought to being in freedom (cf . Pacem in Terris). Without a deep and universal respect for freedom, peace will elude man. We have only to look around us to be convinced of this . For the spectacle that meets our eyes at the beginning of the Eighties seems hardly reassuring, although large numbers of men and women, Whether ordinary citizens or leaders of society, are very worried about peace, often to the point of desperation. Their aspirations do not find realization in true peace, because of the absence of freedom, or the violation of freedom, or again because of the ambiguous or mistaken way in which freedom is exercised.

For what can be the freedom of nations, whose existence, aspirations and reactions are conditioned by fear instead of mutual trust, by oppression instead of the free pursuit of their common good? Freedom is wounded when the relationships between peoples are based not upon respect for the equal dignity of each but upon the right of the most powerful, upon the attitude of dominant blocs and upon military or political imperialism. The freedom of nations is wounded when small nations are forced to align themselves with large ones, in order to ensure their right to independent existence or to survival. Freedom is wounded when dialogue between equal partners is no longer possible, by reason of economic or financial domination exercised by privileged and powerful nations.

And within a nation, on the political level, does peace have a real chance when the free sharing in collective decisions or the free enjoyment of individual liberties is not guaranteed? There is no true freedom - which is the foundation of peace - when all powers are concentrated in the hands of a single social class, a single race or a single group, or when the common good is merged with the interests of a single party that is identified with the State. There is no true freedom vvhen the freedoms of individuals are absorbed by a collective group "denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history" (Octogesima Adveniens, 26). True freedom is also absent when various forms of anarchy, set up as a theory, lead to the systematic denial or challenging of all authority, leading in extreme cases to political terrorism or to blind acts of violence, vvhether spontaneous or organized. Nor is there any true freedom when internal security is set up as the single and supreme norm regulating relationships between authority and the citizens, as if it were the only means - or the main one - of maintaining peace. In this context, one cannot ignore the problem of systematic or selective repression - accompanied by assassination and torture, cases of disappearance or banishment - suffered by so many people, including bishops, priests, religious and Christian lay people working in the service of their neighbour.

3. On the social level, it is hard to describe as truly free those men and women who lack the guar antee of honest and adequate employment, or all those people in country villages who are still the victims of regrettable servitude, of ten the heritage of a dependent past or colonial mentality. Nor is there enough freedom for those who, as the result of uncontrolled industrial, urban or bureaucratic development, find themselves caught up in a gigantic machine, in a tangle of unwanted or unmanageable procedures that leave no room for a social development worthy of man. Freedom is also reduced - and more than appears at first sight - in a society that lets itself be guided by the dogma of indefinite material growth, by the pursuit of wealth or by the arms race. The economic crisis now affecting all societies, if it is not faced with principles of another order, could easily lead to the adoption of measures that would reduce still further the measure of freedom that peace needs if it is to blossom and flourish.

At the level of the mind, freedom can also suffer from manipulation of various kinds. This is the case when the social communications media misuse their power and disregard strict objectivity. It is also the case when psychological procedures are used without regard for the dignity of the person. Moreover, freedom will always remain very incomplete, or at least hard to exercise, in the case of men, women and children for whom illiteracy constitutes a kind of daily slavery in a world that presupposes education.

At the beginning of 1981, which has been declared by the United Nations the Year of the Disabled, it is also fitting to include in this picture those of our brothers and sisters who have suffered damage to their physical or mental completeness. Is our society sufhciently aware of its duty to set in motion all means that will enable them to share more freely in life with others, to have access to the human advancement that corresponds to their rights as human beings and to their abilities, in accordance with their dignity?

Encouraging efforts already being made
and praiseworthy accomplishments

4. However, side by side with these typical examples in which more or less serious conditioning obstructs the proper exercise of freedom and could be changed, there is also another side to the picture of the modern world seeking peace in freedom, and it is a positive one. It is the image of a multitude of men and women who believe in this ideal, who are committed to placing freedom at the service of peace, to respecting it, to promoting it, to upholding and defending it, and who are ready to make the efforts and even sacrifices that this commitment demands. I am thinking of all the Heads of State, Heads of Government, politicians, international officials and civil leaders at all levels who are trying to make available to everyone the freedoms that have been solemnly proclaimed. My thoughts also go to those who know that freedom cannot be divided, and who as a result seek out, with full objectivity, in situations as they change, fresh attacks on freedom in the sphere of personal life, family life, cultural life, social and economic development and political life. I am thinking of men and women throughout the world, fired by a solidarity that knows no frontiers, for whom it is impossible, in a civilization that has become worldwide, to isolate their own freedom from the freedom that their brothers and sisters in other continents are struggling to gain and safeguard. I am thinking especially of the young people who believe that one only becomes really free by striving to obtain for others that same freedom.

5. Freedom in its essence is within man, is connatural to the human person and is the distinctive sign of man's nature. The freedom of the individual finds its basis in man's transcendent dignity: a dignity given to him by God, his Creator, and which directs him towards God. Because he has been created in God's image (cf. Gen 1:27), man is inseparable from freedom, that freedom which no external force or constraint can ever take away, and which constitutes his fundamental right, both as an individual and as a member of society. Man is free because he possesses the faculty of self-determination with regard to what is true and what is good. He is free because he possesses the faculty of choice, "as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint" (Constitution Gaudiufm et Spes, 17). To be free is to be able to choose and to want to choose; it is to live according to one's conscience.

6. Man must therefore be able to make his choices in accordance with values to which he gives his support; this is the way in which he will show his resporisibility, and it is up to society to favour this freedom, while taking into account the common good.

The various authorities in society must make possible the exercise of true freedom in all its manifestations. They must endeavour to guarantee each individual's possibility of realizing his or her human potential to the full. They must allow each person a juridically protected domain of independence, so that every human being can live, individually and collectively, in accordance with the demands of his or her conscience. Moreover, this freedom is called for in the major international pacts and other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on the same subject, as also in the vast majority of national Constitutions. This is only right, since the State, as the recipient of a mandate given by its citizens, must not only recognize the basic freedoms of individuals but also protect and foster them. The State will play this positive role by respecting the rule of law and seeking the common good in accordance with the demands of the moral law. Similarly, the freely constituted intermediate groups will make their own contribution to safeguarding and advancing these freedoms. This noble task concerns all living forces in society.

Some kinds of "freedom" do not really deserve the name, and we must take care to defend true freedom against various counterfeits. For example, the consumer society - that excess of goods not needed by man - can in a way constitute an abuse of freedom, when the more and more insatiable pursuit of goods is not subjected to the law of justice and of social love. Such consumerism involves a limitation of the freedom of others; and from the viewpoint of international solidarity it even affects whole societies which are unable to obtain the minimum of goods required for their essential needs. The existence of areas of absolute poverty in the world and the existence of hunger and malnutrition pose a serious question to the countries that have developed freely, without regard for those countries lacking even the minimum and perhaps at times at their expense. It could even be said that within the rich countries the uncontrolled pursuit of material goods and all kinds of services offers only an apparent increase of freedom to those who benefit from them, since it sets up as a basic human value the possession of things, instead of aiming at a certain material prosperity as the condition and means for the full development of the talents of the individual in collaboration with and in harmony with his fellowmen .

JOANNES PAULUS PP. II