(3 of 4)
The U.S.: "We Agree." At the traditional Holy Thursday reception for diplomats accredited to the Vatican, the Pope said that he hoped his encyclical "will be heard and understood by all"—and it seemed that it was. There was a chorus of praise from leaders of other churches, and U.N. Secretary General U. Thant chimed in with "respectful homage" to the Pope for "his great wisdom, vision and courage." As a description of personal rights and the role of government, Pacem in Terns so closely conformed to Western practice and ideals that the U.S. State Department abandoned its custom of ignoring papal encyclicals and said: "No country could be more responsive than the U.S. to its profound appeal to, and reassertion of, the dignity of the individual, and man's right to peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." An American diplomat in Rome exulted: "It embodies everything the U.S. has been working for. We couldn't agree with it more."
The words from the Red world were equally warm. Moscow's Izvestia, whose Editor Aleksei Adzhubei visited Pope John in March, made it clear that the encyclical met with favor in the Kremlin. Without waiting for guidance from Moscow, leaders of Communist parties in Italy, Belgium and France hailed the peace-loving tone of Pacem in Terris; Paris' L'Humanité called it a major step toward unity of action for peace, and Poland's Zycie Warszawy heralded it as an encyclical of "peaceful coexistence." These appraisals shrugged off the letter's strong rejection of totalitarianism, and concentrated on its espousal of those causes—such as the liberation of the working classes and anti-colonialism—that Communists like to talk about. The Vatican radio hastily said that the Communists were missing the point: the "central nucleus" of the encyclical was "the dignity of the human being, his rights, his duties."
More Startling Moves? The Red world may also have been impressed by the implication of Pacem in Terris that Vatican efforts to achieve a new accord with Moscow will continue—even though it put those efforts clearly into perspective. Pope John's recent overtures to Communist leaders are not an accommodation of church teaching with that of Marx, but a bold stroke of diplomacy intended to remind men of both East and West that a new era is dawning, requiring new policies. To Pope John, the world is in the midst of evolution, and political institutions need not be identified with the teachings that they stem from. Even if doctrines remain the same, the movements they foster "cannot avoid being subject to changes." Thus he notes, in what may be a forecast of even more startling moves by the Vatican, "It can happen that a meeting for the attainment of some practical end, which was formerly deemed inopportune or unproductive, might now or in the future be considered useful."