Please read below for the unofficial transcript of the pope’s November 26 in-flight press conference, during his flight from Tokyo, Japan to Rome; compiled by the Catholic News Agency
Jean-Marie Guenois (Le Figaro, France): You said that true peace can only be a disarmed peace, but what happens for self-defense, when one country is attacked by another? In this case, does the possibility of a just war still exist? And a small question: there has been talk of an encyclical on non-violence, is this encyclical still planned?
Pope Francis: Yes, the project is there but [maybe] the next pope will do it, because … As soon as I have time … There are projects that are in the drawer, the [encyclical] on peace for example. It is maturing there, but I feel, when the time comes I will do it. But I speak a lot [about this]. For example, the problem of bullying with school children: it’s a problem of violence!
I talked to the young Japanese about this topic. It is a problem that we are trying to help solve with many educational programs. It is a problem of willingness and the problems of violence must be taken up. But an encyclical on violence I do not yet feel is mature; really, I have to pray much more, and seek the way.
On peace and arms there is that Roman saying: ‘if you desire peace, prepare for war,’ and we were not mature there. International organizations fail, the United Nations fails. They do so many things, so many worthy reflections. Countries like Norway, for example, always willing to reflect, to look for a way out, to avoid wars. This is being done and I like it, but it is but a little.
Still more needs to be done. You think, without offense, of the [UN] Security Council: there is a problem with weapons, everyone agrees to solve that problem to avoid an accidental war, everyone votes yes, then one with the right to veto says no and everything stops . I have heard – I don’t know how to judge – that perhaps the United Nations should take a step forward by giving up the right to veto for some nations in the security council. I’m not a technician in this but I felt like it is a possibility. I don’t know what to say, but it would be nice if everyone had the same rights.
Though in the global equilibrium there are arguments that at this moment I am not able to judge, but all that is done to stop the production of weapons and stop wars and to choose negotiations, even with the help of facilitators and helpers, this must always be done – always. And take the results. Some say they are few, but let’s start with a little and then we go further. The result of negotiation is to solve problems. For example, the case of Ukraine and Russia, there is no mention of weapons but there was a negotiation for the exchange of prisoners. This is positive: always a step for peace.
There has now been an exchange to think about the planning of a government regime in the Donbass and they are discussing it. A beautiful and ugly thing happened a short time ago. The bad thing, I must say, is the hypocrisy of the arms trade: Christian countries, or at least of Christian culture, European countries that speak of peace and live on weapons. This is called hypocrisy. It is an evangelical word, Jesus said it, somewhere in chapter 23 of Matthew. To end with that hypocrisy and that a nation may have the courage to say: “I cannot speak of peace because my economy earns so much with the manufacture of arms.”
But these are all things that [we do] without insulting and dirtying that country, but speaking like brothers. Human brotherhood! Let’s stop, guys, let’s stop because the thing is bad! In a port, now I don’t remember well, a ship full of weapons arrived that had to pass the weapons in a bigger ship that had to go to Yemen -we know what happens in Yemen. Port workers said no. They were good! And the ship has returned to her home. It’s one case, but it teaches us how to go about it. And peace today is very weak, very weak! But do not be discouraged, do we help this weakness with weapons?
Guenois: And legitimate self-defence with weapons?
Pope Francis: The hypothesis of self-defense always remains. It is a hypothesis that even in moral theology must be contemplated, but as a last resort, last resort with weapons! The legitimate defense with diplomacy, with mediation … Last resort: legitimate defense, but I stress last resort. We are making an ethical progress and I like to question all these things. It means that humanity goes ahead also for good, not just for evil.
