Disarmament, Vulnerability and Dialogue (3)

The Way of the Gospel towards Peace

In today’s globalised and interconnected world, avoiding new wars is not enough. If we truly desire peace—not just a fragile ceasefire, but the kind that reflects God’s Kingdom—we must pursue it through other more radical means. One such path is the call to radical disarmament.

The False Promise of Deterrence

During the Cold War, deterrence was seen by many as a necessary evil—a way to prevent catastrophe by threatening catastrophe. But even then, it was deeply uneasy ground for Christian ethics. Today, with more nations armed, more weapons systems automated, and global tensions rising, it has become clear: deterrence is not peace. It is fear.

Pope Benedict XVI described reliance on nuclear arms as not just “baneful” but “completely fallacious.” For, he said, in a nuclear war, “there would be no victors, only victims.” And Pope Francis takes this further: the abolition of nuclear weapons is not optional—it is a “moral and humanitarian imperative” (Fratelli tutti 262). He challenges us to look not at strategic doctrines but at the human cost—the real faces of war: displaced families, wounded children, mourning parents.

The belief that global stability can rest indefinitely on the threat of mass destruction is either “naïve or wilful”, as John Finnis wrote. Either way, it is a situation that one should not quietly tolerate.

Not Strategy, But Discipleship

Today’s Church, more clearly than ever, sees deterrence not as a path to peace, but as an obstacle to it.

Several Christian thinkers have laid this bare in their reflection and civic action. John Finnis has strongly argued that nuclear deterrence involves a readiness to commit mass murder. In his co-authored book Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (1988), he and others critique deterrence not because Christians must be naïve about global threats, but because no strategic need can justify the deliberate targeting of the innocent.

According to the authors of this book, deterrence is a public commitment to do evil— a threat to annihilate civilian populations—if “necessary.” In this sense, deterrence becomes a policy of conditional violence. But Christians do not make peace through threats. We follow Christ, who confronted evil not with greater power, but with suffering love.

The logic of deterrence belongs to the world of utilitarian calculation. The logic of the Gospel belongs to the cross. It is about vulnerability, not domination. The moment we justify evil “for the greater good,” we begin to lose the path Jesus has pointed us to.

Trusting in God, Not Threats

This stance does not deny the right to legitimate defence. The Church has long upheld the just defense of innocent life. But what Finnis and others highlight is this: even in defending the innocent, we may not intentionally destroy the innocent in return. The logic of deterrence crosses that line.

Christians are not called to be passive or naïve. It means we are called to act within our power while trusting God for the outcome. As Finnis put it: “We are not responsible for everything—only for what lies within our power.” It is the courage to act rightly and humanely - also when involved in a legitimate conflict - even when doing so seems vulnerable or costly.

Deterrence asks us to accept the threat of mass murder as a safeguard. The Gospel asks us to refuse such threats. That’s not recklessness. It’s faith in God’s all-encompassing Providence, as Finnis argues. Divine providence does not demand that we secure the future through threats, but that we act faithfully within our limited powers, trusting in God’s ultimate justice. Thus, the Gospel calls us instead to embody peace now, even at the cost of vulnerability.

Never to Be a Perpetrator

War almost never divides the world into clear victims and villains. But before the judgment seat of God, we must ask: Where do we want to be found? We must ask: do we wish to be found among those who wielded the threat of annihilation? Or among those who, though vulnerable, refused to make peace by threatening mass murder?

The Incarnation and the Cross teach us what kind of power God embraces. I recognise that this path is easier to live out personally than to implement politically. Decisions involving entire nations are complicated and applying the values of the Gospel to geopolitics is complex.

But the direction of discipleship must always point toward peace. This means giving real priority—not just rhetorical gestures—to non-violent paths rooted in dialogue, diplomacy and the hope for reconciliation.

For, as Pope Pius XII said just before the Second World War:

“Nothing is lost with peace; everything can be lost with war.

This is the last piece of a series of three articles on contemporary Church teaching on armed conflicts and just war.

Image by Mirosław i Joanna Bucholc from Pixabay