Introduction
The phrase "Dona nobis pacem" is Latin for "Grant us peace." It originates from the Agnus Dei section of the Roman Catholic Mass. The phrase is a part of the liturgy traditionally chanted or sung during the breaking of the bread. In this context, "Agnus Dei" refers to Jesus Christ in his role as the sacrificial Lamb of God, and "Dona nobis pacem" is a plea for peace.
Appropriate in our current time, eh?
As some of you will know, my relationship to the Roman Catholic Church began when I attended Saint Mary’s College High School in Berkeley California. Prior to that, I had little religious education outside of your standard “Hebrew School” classes that I took growing up as a member of Congregation Beth El. You can read about my reflections on the lessons of my high school education here:
In all likelihood, my views about the importance of peace stem from a combination of the teachings of Judaism, my life experiences working with and among members of the United States military and intelligence communities, and most certainly from my high school education.
The Roman Catholic Church very consistently advocates for peace and the cessation of war. This is a direct reflection of its teachings on the sanctity of human life and the moral imperative to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The Church's position is grounded in a belief that peace is not only the absence of war but also encompasses justice, respect for human dignity, and commitment to the common good.
The teachings I received at St. Mary’s emphasized reconciliation, forgiveness, and the importance of dialogue in resolving conflicts. I distinctly remember Brother John Cislo encouraging us to actively think about how nations and individuals should work towards peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding. This requires all of us to seek diplomatic solutions, humanitarian efforts, and the protection of vulnerable populations in times of conflict.
However, in the context of a world that is growing safer and safer for human beings, we still have work to do. Most people, in most places, live in the safest time in history for humans. Most people, in most places, enjoy shelter, food/water security, and access to appropriate healthcare. Where that is not true today is typically the result of some form of political failure or abject negligence on the part of a nation state to secure these things for their population.
Violence Need Not Be The State Response to Violence
The Jimmy Carter administration serves as a surprising but illustrative example of that principle. Under Carter, the United States adopted a foreign policy that prioritized diplomacy and negotiation over military intervention, a stark contrast to the often interventionist policies of the Cold War era. This approach was grounded in Carter's personal beliefs, deeply influenced by his Christian faith, which emphasized peace and reconciliation.
Carter's commitment to peaceful solutions is exemplified in the Camp David Accords, where he successfully brokered a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, two nations long embroiled in conflict. This achievement demonstrated that patient, sustained diplomacy could resolve longstanding disputes without resorting to violence. It also highlighted the potential for peaceful mediation by third parties in international conflicts.
Moreover, Carter's administration showed restraint in military actions. In the wake of the Vietnam War, there was a clear reluctance to engage in overseas military operations. This period of relative military inactivity underlines the possibility of a major power choosing non-violence in its international relations, even during tense geopolitical times.
Carter's focus on human rights further supports the notion that states can address injustice and oppression without resorting to violence. By emphasizing human rights in foreign policy, his administration sought to alleviate the conditions that often lead to violent conflict, such as oppression, inequality, and human suffering.
We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people, including Egypt and Israel. We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years. We brought peace between US and most of the countries in Latin America because of the Panama Canal Treaty. We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union.
President Jimmy Carter in a 2011 interview with The Guardian
The Carter presidency offers us a compelling case study in how national and international conflicts can be addressed through means other than violence. It suggests that diplomacy, human rights advocacy, and a commitment to peace can be effective tools in a state's arsenal, potentially more powerful and certainly more humane than military might.
Stoic Moral Psychology Lights a Way
Many people I know, indeed most people I know, view anger as a valuable emotion. Their assertion is that it can be a powerful motivator for change and a response to injustice or wrongdoing. In their view, anger can energize individuals and groups to address issues, right wrongs, and advocate for themselves or others. It often brings attention to problems that might otherwise be ignored and can be a catalyst for positive action. Such a perspective sees anger not as an irrational outburst, but as a justified and sometimes necessary response to certain situations.
However, my view of anger has always aligned with that of the Stoics. My (and their) challenge to this view emphasizes the disruptive and irrational nature of anger. It seems obvious to me that anger more often hinders than helps in achieving rational and virtuous outcomes.
In Stoic psychology, anger is seen as a counterproductive and detrimental emotion, a view articulated by prominent Stoics like Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. These philosophers argued that anger arises from irrational and mistaken beliefs about being harmed and is contrary to the Stoic pursuit of virtue and rational living.
Seneca, in his treatise "On Anger," describes anger as a temporary madness that overrides reason. He advocates for calmness and understanding in response to provocations, emphasizing that anger is more harmful to the person who harbors it than to its target. Epictetus, in his Discourses, echoes this sentiment, suggesting that individuals have the power to choose their responses to external events, implying that anger is not an inevitable reaction.
Marcus Aurelius, in his "Meditations," reflects on the futility of anger in achieving peace of mind. He suggests that tranquility is disturbed by anger, which is a product of irrational judgments. Stoics propose practical techniques to combat anger, such as pausing before reacting and considering the broader perspective of life's impermanence. Epictetus gave us a much shorter (and more direct less sugar coated) version of the same thing in his “Handbook.”
Stoicism and the teachings of Jesus Christ share several similarities, particularly in their emphasis on inner virtue, the importance of personal integrity, and the value of treating others with kindness and respect. Both philosophies advocate for self-control and the pursuit of moral excellence, stressing the significance of inner peace and emotional resilience. They encourage individuals to focus on their own behaviors and attitudes rather than external circumstances, promoting a life guided by ethical principles and compassion towards others. This alignment in values underscores a common thread in both philosophies, highlighting the enduring relevance of their teachings in promoting a virtuous and fulfilling life.
From where I’m sitting these days, anger is indeed a wasted emotion that disturbs peace, rational thinking, and the pursuit of virtue. What if instead, we focused on a life of reason, emotional control, and inner serenity. As we role into the season where Christians around the world stop to celebrate the birth of the prince of peace, it seems appropriate to reflect on how all of us might benefit from simply being a little more stoic.
Finding Serenity Amidst Conflict
The current season, traditionally a time of joy and peace, can present a starkly different reality for those in war-torn areas like Gaza. The contrast between the peaceful imagery of Christmas and the harshness of life in Gaza right now and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is going to be jarring. This disparity can profoundly affect one's daily outlook, making the search for peace not just a philosophical quest but a necessary coping mechanism for survival.
For those enduring the hardships of a war zone, the Stoic philosophy offers a guiding light. Stoicism teaches us to distinguish between what is within our control and what is not. In the most challenging environments, this principle becomes crucial. The external environment, often unpredictable and dangerous, is beyond one's control. However, the internal response to these external circumstances remains a personal choice. Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher who lived through tumultuous times himself, emphasized that our reactions to events are what define our peace of mind, not the events themselves.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, feelings of persecution pervade both sides, each perceiving themselves as aggrieved and misunderstood. This sense of historical and ongoing injustice fuels a narrative of victimhood that is often exacerbated by social media. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook not only amplify these sentiments but also disrupt our attempts at maintaining a Stoic perspective, which emphasizes rationality and emotional resilience.
The constant barrage of biased information and emotionally charged content challenges our ability to remain detached and objectively assess situations. In light of this, recommitting to Stoic principles becomes crucial. It involves consciously stepping back from the immediacy and partiality of social media narratives to evaluate the larger picture with equanimity. By doing so, we can better understand the complexities of the conflict, recognize the humanity on both sides, and foster a mindset geared towards constructive dialogue and peace, rather than perpetuating cycles of blame and retaliation.
In finding peace during the holiday season under our current circumstances, it's essential to focus on small, controllable aspects of daily life. This could mean creating simple routines, finding moments of quiet reflection, or engaging in small acts of kindness and connection with others. These actions, though seemingly insignificant in the grand scheme, can foster a sense of normalcy and inner calm.
Moreover, the Stoic practice of reflecting on and appreciating the present moment becomes even more critical. Amidst chaos, there can be moments of beauty, human kindness, and resilience. Recognizing and valuing these moments can provide a sense of hope and peace. Marcus Aurelius, who led Rome through years of war, found solace in the small, everyday joys and the steadfastness of human virtue.
The holiday season, even in the most dire situations, offers an opportunity to remember and connect with the deeper values of humanity—compassion, resilience, and the enduring human spirit. It’s about focusing on what can be controlled—personal attitudes and actions—and finding peace in the understanding that some things are beyond individual influence. It's about acknowledging the harshness of the external world while cultivating an internal world of calm, resilience, and hope.
Conclusion
As I reflect on the diverse influences and teachings that have shaped my perspectives on peace, I am remain perhaps most thankful for my high school education. Even though I retain the perspective of an atheist, my Lasallian education’s consistent advocacy for peace, deeply rooted in the sanctity of human life and the pursuit of just and dignified resolutions was very influential. It certainly gave me a strong sense that our first duty is to each other and the preservation of human dignity.
As well, the presidency of Jimmy Carter also exemplified the practical application of these principles at a national and international level. His administration, influenced by his Christian faith and commitment to peace, chose diplomacy over military intervention, as seen by the successful Camp David Accords and the general avoidance of military conflicts. This approach underscores the potential of non-violence and human rights advocacy in resolving conflicts and addressing global injustices.
Stoic psychology offers a philosophical underpinning to this approach, particularly in its treatment of anger. Stoics like Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius viewed anger as a destructive emotion arising from irrational beliefs, contrasting it with the pursuit of virtue and rational living. This perspective challenges the common view of anger as a necessary motivator for change, suggesting instead that calmness and understanding are more effective in achieving peace and rational outcomes.
In these lights, and in this season, Stoicism and the teachings of Jesus Christ converge in their advocacy for inner virtue, personal integrity, and the importance of treating others with kindness and respect. As we navigate a world often divided by conflict and misunderstanding, we are reminded of the value in embracing a Stoic approach to life, focusing on reason, emotional control, and inner serenity, even in the most challenging circumstances. You, being in control of your own emotions, are invited to help spread peace through the rejection of anger.