In the Church, much is said about unity. Dialogue, concord, and understanding are constantly invoked. They are noble words, deeply Christian, but also dangerous when used without precision. Because not all peace is true, nor is all unity Catholic. The history of the Church knows well a recurring temptation: to sacrifice truth in the name of harmony. That has been called, clearly, irenism.
It is worth saying it from the beginning, without euphemisms. Irenism is not charity. Nor is it pastoral prudence. It is the attempt to resolve doctrinal conflicts by looking the other way, as if real differences were secondary misunderstandings. And when that approach takes hold, faith ceases to be something that is transmitted and becomes something that is administered with caution, almost with shame.
What the Church understands by irenism
The Church does not condemn the desire for peace. On the contrary. What it rejects is the idea that peace is achieved by lowering the content of the faith. Pius XII denounced it lucidly in Humani generis: there exists an imprudent irenism that, driven by a false conciliatory zeal, seeks to reconcile even what is irreconcilable in the dogmatic realm. It is not a matter of tone, but of fidelity.
Decades earlier, Pius XI had already warned in Mortalium animos against projects of Christian unity built on vague formulas, in which each one keeps what is theirs while pretending a non-existent communion. For the Pope, that false unity does not strengthen the Church, but weakens it from within.
The reason is simple: revealed truth is not a matter of opinion. It cannot be adapted to the cultural climate nor negotiated to avoid tensions.
Christian unity and revealed truth
One of the most frequent errors of irenism is to treat the unity of the Church as if it were a human agreement. But unity is not manufactured. It is received. Christ entrusted it to his Church along with a concrete faith, concrete sacraments, and a concrete structure. To separate unity from truth is to empty it of content.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it serenely: the Church is one and that unity is manifested visibly in the confession of the same faith, in the common celebration of worship, and in hierarchical communion. At the same time, it recognizes that historical divisions have wounded that unity and that outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church there exist authentic elements of sanctification and truth.
But here is the point that irenism usually erases: recognizing elements of truth outside the Church does not amount to affirming that all positions are equally valid nor that doctrinal differences lack importance. Charity does not require lying, nor does respect oblige silence.
Vatican II and the rejection of “false irenism”
The Council itself expressly warns against “false irenism.” Unitatis redintegratio says it without beating around the bush: nothing is so foreign to authentic ecumenism as deforming or diluting Catholic doctrine to facilitate agreements.
Ecumenical dialogue, as the Church understands it, requires clarity, fidelity, and depth. It does not consist in hiding what divides, but in explaining with greater precision what the Church believes and lives. When dialogue becomes a diplomatic exercise to avoid conflicts, it ceases to be a path toward unity and turns into a strategy of evasion.
Irenism and pastoral care: a frequent error
Today, irenism is not usually presented as a theological theory, but as a pastoral slogan. It is often heard that “doctrine divides,” that “it is not the time to speak of certain truths,” that the important thing is not to discomfort. Little by little, the proclamation weakens and the mission dilutes into a permanent dialogue that leads nowhere.
The declaration Dominus Iesus recalled something that today seems annoying to say: dialogue does not substitute evangelization. One does not dialogue to silence Christ, but to announce him with charity and truth. When dialogue becomes an excuse not to proclaim what the Church believes, irenism has already done its work.
Confusing peace with pacifism
The consequences of irenism are not theoretical. They become visible when the Church, out of fear of discomforting, stops naming evil where it manifests crudely. The case of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is a painful and current example. Thousands of faithful—Catholics and from other Christian confessions—have been killed or expelled from their lands by jihadist groups, while much of the West prefers to speak of “intercommunity conflicts” or “generalized violence,” carefully avoiding mentioning the religious motivation.
Here, irenism operates as moral anesthesia. In the name of interreligious dialogue, the language is toned down, the causes are diluted, and a systematic persecution against Christians is avoided from being clearly denounced. It is not diplomatic prudence: it is refusal to call things by their name.
The Catholic tradition has never taught that peace is preserved at the expense of the victims. The doctrine of just war—from St. Augustine to the Catechism—does not glorify violence, but recognizes legitimate defense and that, in a world wounded by sin, passivity in the face of the aggressor can be a form of injustice. Denying this teaching out of fear of seeming “harsh” is not compassion; it is cowardice.
Christian peace is not an empty peace
The Church is called to unity, but to unity in truth. The peace that Christ offers is not comfortable silence, but communion born of fidelity. Every time the Church has tried to buy peace by lowering doctrinal clarity, the result has been the same: confusion among the faithful and pastoral sterility.
Charity without truth becomes sentimentalism. Truth without charity, hardness. Irenism breaks that balance and ends up betraying both. That is why it is not an innocent option, but a constant temptation that demands discernment and firmness.