Abolishing War Argument Analysis

1152 Words3 Pages

To abolish means to formally put an end to a system, practice or institution. Abolishing war means to get rid of active of violence between 2 or more states. The word “abolish”, in my opinion, does not give the phrase enough power; it does not hit hard enough. Imagine “terminate war” or “exterminate war”, it makes you realize more what people are arguing over. Abolishing War? An appeal to Christian Leaders and Theologians is on the pro side of the abolishing war argument. The document argues that we need to find a non-violent alternative to war. It uses the “teaching of Jesus Christ which summons Christians to renounce war and to seek with the wider and religious and human communities to develop alternatives to protect the innocent, to restrain, to restrain aggressors and to overcome injustice”. This specific article …show more content…

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine stating, “The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”. This, I believe, goes along with the second article. Just war theorists combine a moral hatred towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. Just like the second article explains, war is necessary of we want to live worthy lives. In The Challenge of Peace, catholic bishops state “Catholic teaching has always understood peace in positive terms. In the words of Pope John Paul II: "Peace is not just the absence of war . . .. Like a cathedral, peace must be constructed patiently and with unshakable faith." The first article mention John Paul II “War never again”. We could be at peace but a political war can still be

Open Document