I.
A non-public conference took place on 1 June 2002 here in Barsbüttel which was organised jointly by the Institute for Theology and Peace and the Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference. Experts were invited from a variety of disciplines from several countries in Europe and North America. Representatives of the Bishops' Conferences from the USA, England, France and Germany also took part. Months before the Iraq crisis was making waves at international level, this conference attempted to analyse the difficult political situation and to formulate core elements of a joint church position. This has been quite successful, as proven by the statements of the Bishops' Conferences in the ensuing period. Whilst the clear, pioneering and strongly-committed words of Pope John Paul II were without a doubt the largest element of the common stance taken by the Catholic Church on the matter of Iraq, it is still true that the significance of the dialogue between the local churches should be no more undervalued here than the exchange with academic peace ethics and the related political and human science subjects.In this way, last summer's conference on Iraq offers an up-to-date example of the relevance of the Institute for Theology and Peace, whose 25th birthday we are celebrating today. This effectiveness of the Institute in the life of the church is all the more necessary since there are very few places in the church in Germany for continuous academic debate on matters related to peace and security. This realisation of a woeful shortcoming was, in a sense, the seed which led to the Institute's establishment. There have been and still are at the Theological Faculties a number of chairs for Christian social science and social ethics which have also been able to exert a considerable influence on the formulation of the Church's overall social teaching. However traditionally, their academic focus has been on managing economic and social problems; peace-related topics have tended to be pushed to the sidelines. The dynamic development of interest in the so-called Third World and in matters of international justice which took place in the course of the Second Vatican Council, particularly in Germany, pushed peace ethics per se even further into the sidelines. The idea that prevailed in the sixties and seventies was that overcoming social misery in the developing countries would almost automatically also lead to overcoming the lack of peace. Accordingly, even the famous idea of Pope Paul VI - that the new name for peace is development - was interpreted within the meaning of a unilinear cause and effect context, and not as a programmatic appeal for greater integration of content and questions related to social and peace ethics. Only the Catholic Working Group for Development and Peace, established in 1968 (later renamed German Commission for Justice and Peace) undertook efforts in this field to achieve greater differentiation. Against this background, the Institute for Theology and Peace was established on 15 July 1978, and commissioned both with documenting research into peace ethics and with its own academic work. To a certain degree, it is therefore a "successor" in the wave of newly-founded church organisations which had embedded the impetus of the Second Vatican Council in the institutional structure of German Catholicism. The founding fathers and committed promoters of the Institute deserve our grateful remembrance: Bishop and later Cardinal Dr. Franz Hengsbach and his successor in the office of the Military Bishop, Archbishop Dr. Elmar Maria Kredel, the Military general locum tenens Prelate Dr. Martin Gritz and Prelate Dr. Ernst Niermann, as well as - last but not least - the first head of the Institute, Professor Dr. Dr. Ernst-Josef Nagel, who unfortunately died an untimely death. Our appreciation applies to the broad view which led these pioneers to recognise the need for such an Institute. However, it also applies in equal measure to the circumspection with which they placed the Institute in the midst of the Church from the outset, as it is under the wing of the Catholic Military Chaplaincy. In the restless seventies and eighties, a time when refusal to render military service became a mass phenomenon among high school graduates, and intensive debates took place within society and the Church about the "arms race", and the moral responsibility of nuclear deterrent, an academic institute that fell within the aegis of the military chaplaincy was at risk of being discredited and placed by many in a specific corner from the outset. There were indeed such voices. For this reason, it was necessary to make it clear that it was not intended to be a military chaplaincy thinking factory, and certainly not a think tank supporting the armed forces, but a place embedded in the midst of the whole church in which research into and teaching about peace ethics could take place. Archbishop Kredel went to great pains when establishing the Institute to ensure that it would "not shut itself off, but seek an open, public dialogue".The integration of the Institute into the Church's supradiocesan structures in Germany that was necessary to achieve this dialogue has been achieved partly by the responsibility undertaken by the Catholic Military Chaplaincy for the Institute being institutionalised along the lines of a division of tasks among the German bishoprics. From this point of view, the Institute for Theology and Peace is hence also an institution including all bishops and of the whole Church in Germany. This is also concretely reflected in the composition of the Auxiliary Academic Council. By means of institutional precautions, it has been ensured from the outset that there was no doubt of the freedom of research and teaching, something which is also a typical element of academic studies linked to the Church. The level of legal provisions was only one side, however. As everywhere, it was to an equal degree also a matter at the Institute for Theology and Peace of appointing individuals who would fill the structures with life and certify the independence of the institution by demonstrating their independent spirit. Today, we can thank both Professor Ernst-Josef Nagel, who headed the Institute until 1995, and his successor, Dr. Heinz-Gerhard Justenhoven, who have made a major contribution by basing their work on their extensive experience, and through their intellectual freedom, to assuring the status of the Institute within and outside the Church. There is no doubt that this also applies to other academics who have studied and taught here at the Institute, and who have been able - in some cases also in other places - to obtain high academic reputations for themselves.
II.
I have just indicated that the Institute for Theology and Peace at least in a broader sense was established thanks to the renewal movement of the Second Vatican Council. There is no question that this also applies in particular to the profile of the Institute. Importance here attaches less to the statements made by the Council on the group of problems concerned with war and peace and linking into this on the "Establishment of An International Community". These statements are by themselves perhaps not even among the strongest texts of the church assembly. Some well-meaning commentators only speak of a "compromise that was feasible and on which it was possible to reach a consensus for that time" (Helmut Weber) and refer to a certain lack of clarity.For the development of Catholic peace ethics and for forming profiles of this Institute, by contrast, there is much greater significance in some of the fundamental orientations provided by the Council to the Church in a large number of texts.For instance, the Second Vatican Council provided the impetus for a rediscovery of the whole spectrum of church and theological traditions, and thereby put an end to the virtual monopoly of certain school theologies. It is this matter, namely that of gaining a more profound and systematic understanding of the faith through debate with its multifarious developments and testimonials, to which the Institute for Theology and Peace knows that it is under a particular obligation. This is witnessed by the work in the field of research "Theological reflections on war and peace in the history of the Church", which has now continued for 16 years. The studies and symposia bear witness to a great deal of variety. The Institute has submitted comprehensive studies on central historical theological figures, such as Thomas Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas. Repeatedly, conferences have addressed Church teachings on peace in the various eras of intellectual history. The teaching about war in Ancient times has been dealt with intensively. Difficult topics such as the Crusades were not omitted. The publication of sources otherwise difficult to find is also of considerable value. In this way they have been made accessible to broader academic study. The bibliographic database entitled "Theology and Peace" on the Internet is an indispensable aid.In the light of all this, it is decisive that the Institute in its work pursues not merely a historical interest - however legitimate this may be. It is rather more concerned about the statement of faith itself, about the question of what faith can say about peace. This interest is the reason for turning to the history of the Church. This is the history of faith itself, and it is hence not to be perceived differently than in the testimonials of this history. Faith is believing in history. Many studies undertaken by the Institute have helped to throw light on faith by using peace as a guiding question, and in doing so have unleashed important driving forces for our time. The "Theology and Peace" and "Contributions towards Peace Ethics" series have become popular.In yet another manner, the teaching of the Council from the outset has had a characteristic and fruitful impact on peace ethics, as well as on the work of the Institute. The Second Vatican Council in fact largely opened up the discussion within the Church on the design of societal and also global societal matters, and has so to speak broadened the discussion by breaking the path towards a new understanding of reality. In a decisive part of the Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes" which relates to the "changing structure of life" being "part of a broader upheaval", it is stated that "mankind substitutes a dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one, and the result is an immense series of new problems calling for a new endeavour of analysis and synthesis". This describes a situation in terms of intellectual and theological history which cannot be suitably covered by terminology using solely the classical set of tools available to the church, namely more or less "suprachronological" order principles, nor convincingly covered in practice. Theological ethics must hence create in a new, open manner their own framework for understanding and for their relationship with the world, and indeed must even continually renew them. Above all, this means that this discipline is aware that it must make use of the - also more recent - philosophical knowledge and manners of perception, as well as of the results of the secular sciences, if it wishes to face up to its own substance. Against this background, it also becomes profoundly understandable once more why the Church in the Council so expressly announces its willingness to enter into a comprehensive "dialogue about all these different problems" in the world today, specifically mentioning human and social sciences.This forms the basis of the Institute for Theology and Peace in dealing with the multifarious topical questions of peace and security policy. In addition to basic historical research, this forms the second pillar of the academic work. Keywords from recent years here include humanitarian interventions, the reform of the United Nations, international terrorism and the war in Iraq. One always attempts here to enter into interdisciplinary discussions, including above all political and social sciences, international law, philosophy and history. Frequently, here also international cooperation is sought, particularly in the close relationships existing with research facilities in the United States.
III.
We all probably still remember quite clearly the frequently controversial discussions which took place from the late summer of last year until the spring of this year on a war against Iraq. The Catholic Church was extremely prominent in this debate worldwide - starting with the urgent appeals for peace by the Pope and his closest associates through the many messages coming from Bishops' Conferences and individual bishops, and on to the many peace-related activities in parishes. These initiatives have received a great deal of attention in the media, and also in the political arena. They have led to gratitude, as well as to criticism, and sometimes hopefully also to thoughtfulness. The public interest shown to the Church in this conflict should not deceive us, however. What was probably interesting above all was the concrete vote on a contentious matter and the concomitant influence on the debate going on within society and in the political arena. By contrast, the whole several-month discussion probably made virtually no contribution towards better communicating Church teachings on peace in their entirety, or even in their fundamentals, either to the public or to political decision-makers. Indeed, it will probably be necessary to state that the aggravated question at the heart of the debate, i.e. should there be a military attack against Iraq or not? - reanimated precisely the narrowing of the scope of the debate in peace ethics that the Church's thinking on peace is working so hard to overcome. There was much talk in those days of a "just war" (or indeed also of an "unjust war"), and thus also the critical queries of the Church on the legitimacy of military deployment became caught up in such perceptions. However, the foundation, horizon and perspectives of the Church's proclamation on peace did not become evident in this manner.This is precisely why I would like to take today's event as an opportunity at least in approximate terms to recall several central statements of the Church's teachings on peace, and to outline the conceptual developments on which they are based. Here, I am using in particular two major documents submitted by the German bishops in the past 20 years: The joint pastoral letter which appeared in 1983 entitled "Out of Justice, Peace" and the pastoral letter entitled "A Just Peace" from 2000. It will come as no surprise that the Directors of the Institute for Theology and Peace of that time also collaborated in the preparations for these bishops' pastoral letters in both cases. In this way, the Institute performed valuable services for the whole Church.
IV.
When the German Bishops' Conference submitted its pastoral letter entitled "Out of Justice, Peace" two decades ago, it was certain to arouse strong public interest. It was the time of intense debates on the so-called "arms race", in other words the stationing of US medium-range missiles in response to the massive defence spending by the Warsaw Pact with medium-range nuclear missiles. This specific and contentious question was however linked to a much more profound conflict: The question was one of the legitimacy of any atomic defence and the concept of deterrence, intended to ensure the fragile stability between the Blocs. There was no united view on this among the bishops either. How was one to deal with the ethical dilemma that the use of weapons of mass destruction was morally not permissible under any circumstances, but that this not withstanding, the threat to use such weapons nevertheless created or at least helped to maintain a situation of relative security? The bishops at that time were very clear in their definition of the grave and fundamental ethical problems attached to the strategy of nuclear deterrence, as well as of the dangers that would have been linked to immediately leaving this concept. This led to the concept that deterrence with nuclear weapons could be considered tolerable from an ethical point of view for a limited period, but on condition that serious efforts were to be undertaken to overcome it through a process of bilateral disarmament and a search for alternative security strategies. Unfortunately, it was almost exclusively these questions on nuclear deterrence that were perceived in the broad public. In fact, what the bishops were pursuing in "Out of Justice, Peace" was a profound analysis of the whole range of peace-related problems and an extensive ethical orientation of peace policy, as well as of peace-related activities undertaken both in society and in the Church. Security policy was expressly placed here "within the framework of peace policy" and safeguarding peace (including by military means), which occupied all public attention, was subordinated to the promotion of peace in the overall context of the efforts to achieve peaceable co-existence. The title of the bishops' pastoral letter - "Out of Justice, Peace" - already implies the foundation on which peace is based and which should hence be afforded particular attention. Three fields of peace promotion above all are subjected to a detailed discussion in "Out of Justice, Peace": Respect for and promotion of human rights, efforts to achieve greater international justice, and finally the construction of a system of world peace which was to include amongst other things strengthening the United Nations and further developments in the international legal system, including the establishment of a World Court. Much of this also sounds astoundingly, perhaps frighteningly topical today too - twenty years after "Out of Justice, Peace". There is still much to be done.
V.
The collapse of Communism and the end of the confrontation between the Blocs at the start of the nineties have however changed the international situation in a way which has also made it necessary for the Church to re-consider its position. I would like to point out here that these developments were a reason to celebrate, and they still are. It is however equally impossible to overlook the fact that many upheavals have taken place since then, and partly as a result of the global political transition, and massive destructive forces have been released.Ethnically-motivated or exacerbated conflicts have escalated in particular. Even in Europe, minorities have been expelled and massacred. Particularly in Africa, the number of violent conflicts within states has increased dramatically. The lines of conflict are virtually incomprehensible to us in many cases. Regular troops are involved in the fighting, as are partisans and guerrilla units and gangs of all sorts which are fighting for a certain population group, a tribe or indeed only to assert their own interests. Many countries now no longer have a state power in the traditional sense. Many states have in effect disintegrated. It is not infrequent - as is happening at present in Congo - for the neighbouring states to seize what they see as an opportunity, thereby exacerbating the crisis still further.There is no mistaking the fact that religious fundamentalism has also become more popular in recent years - especially in the Islamic world, in the shape of religious nationalism, but also for instance in India. Multireligious societies - such as in Nigeria - are at risk of being destroyed in the chaos caused by religiously-charged violence. Against this background, the bishops' pastoral letter entitled "A Just Peace", published in 2000, asked "Is mankind returning to that state of ubiquitous violence which has characterised its history, [...]?"
VI.
This brings us to the central topic of the more recent pastoral letter on peace: violence, as opposed to power. Simply going through the Biblical writings shows us that violence - both suffered and meted out - is experienced as a phenomenon profoundly characterising and determining one's overall perception of the world, of human relationships and even of God. It leaves its mark at collective level, in other words on groups or nations, as well as at individual level, often over generations. The violent act settles into the offenders' consciousness, aware as they are of the need to be prepared for attacks by their victims in future. And equally, it shapes the victims: Some people fall into apathetic desperation as a result of violence, whilst others feel moved to take revenge. European history in particular has shown that violent experiences even in the distant past can start to undermine the foundation of a society and the co-existence of peoples. Bosnia and Ireland are prime examples of this. This condensed outline shows by itself that the violence permeating human life in its individual, societal and political dimensions is the fundamental structure of the problem of peace. And it is precisely this factor that the guiding socioethical perspective of a just peace attempts to address. Its core aim is not violence management, but the eradication of violence from people's lives, even if this is possible only gradually. Much greater attention must be paid to prevention. Hence, from the guiding picture of a just peace arises an absolute priority for a policy which is inspired by the spirit of freedom from violence. The focus is on violence prevention, the reduction of the causes of violence and fundamental alteration of violent relationships. "The ideal of a just peace is based", as it says in the text, "on a very simple understanding: a world that does not provide the majority of people with the basic needs of a humane life is not viable. Even when there are no wars, such a world is still full of violence. A situation dominated by long-term and severe injustice is inherently violent. It follows that justice creates peace."Political notions determined by this concept can be referred to a multi-facetted field of tasks. I can only name a few central keywords at this juncture:the expansion of violence prevention through conflict management;the continuing appeal for respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which are indispensable elements of a just and peaceable system;a political framework to monitor the processes of economic globalisation, giving appropriate consideration to the interests of the poor countries, favouring stability and working to counter the radicalisation potentials arising from the impoverishment of large sections of the population in the developing countries; andthe promotion of reconciliation processes between inimical groups and ethnicities in the follow-up to violent conflicts.Many of these tasks can however only be mastered successfully if international cooperation is strengthened, especially at state level. There is a need to build up a global political system which is typified by its reliability and its ability to act, equally as by means of legally legitimate participation rights for all. In their current state, the United Nations clearly do not yet meet these minimum requirements for an international system. The failure of the international community in many crises speaks for itself here. Hegemonic concepts as they are evidently being discussed at present in parts of the political class in the USA, are by contrast far from being a useable alternative. They are diametrically opposed to the core concept of a global system - to the application of the law in international relationships. It must be stated at this point that it is not in the right of the strongest, but in the growing permeation of the law that we can find the prospect of just, peaceful co-existence in the world of the states and in the world community.
VII.
There is no doubt that there is a special characteristic of the socioethical conception submitted in the pastoral letter on peace and the policy of a just peace, that the matter of the use of military force must be strictly placed in the context of a comprehensively understood peace policy. Therefore, the old distinction between safeguarding peace and promoting peace, which could hardly correspond to today's situation in the world, was no longer tackled in the more recent document. Under the guiding perspective of a just peace, it simultaneously becomes clear that the deployment of military force cannot be a normal case in the political arena, but only an exceptional case. Furthermore, even the well-founded use of force is not suited to overcome violent situations from the ground up, because it is itself irrevocably subject to the logic of violence. Experience also teaches us that the attempt to strictly curtail the use of force repeatedly fails in the concrete conditions of a military conflict. War is therefore always "a defeat for humanity", as Pope John Paul II recently re-emphasised, and military force is always evil.This however does not rule out the existence of cases occurring in grey areas where military interventions might be considered to be the lesser evil. And even if it is the central goal of a policy of a just peace not to permit such grey areas to arise at all, and to avoid situations in which the only alternatives are balancing between actions all of which cause problems, the question will repeatedly arise in the unforeseeable future as to whether the deployment of weapons is justified, and perhaps indeed necessary, in a concrete situation. Aggressors must not be able to count from the outset on an attack on weaker countries not perhaps also being defended by military means. Equally, the deployment of force to prevent genocide may be legitimate and necessary.I do not however wish here to repeat the criteria which the Catholic Church names with regard to the matter of weighing up in deciding on the use of military force. The bishops' pastoral letter entitled "A Just Peace" here falls back on the inheritance of the classical theories of the "just war", and makes it fruitful against the background of a changed global political situation and embedded in the new overall socioethical concept. The Barsbüttel Institute has made a significant contribution towards this, both from a historical and a systematic point of view.It should however be mentioned that the reflections by the bishops on "The Significance and Limitation of Military Means" clearly contradict the temptation which is evidently growing once more today to see war as a more or less normal political tool. The Church's resistance to the war in Iraq can be understood not least on the basis of concerns about such a development. In fact, it was all the more doubtful whether this campaign was in accord at least with the minimum requirements to legitimise the use of military force. This applied - to give it a classical definition - both to the causa iusta and to the criterion of the ultima ratio, as well as to the matter of the legitimate authority which may order military deployment. It speaks for the presence of mind of the Institute that - without seeking to be unduly topical - it is publishing as Vol. 25 of the series "Theology and Peace" an analysis entitled "A Just Peace - The Responsibility of the Global Community" which is worthy of the anniversary year.Today's celebration in an Institute that is linked to the military chaplaincy provides the occasion, in connection with the problems just named, to attract attention to soldiers - especially Christian ones. The Second Vatican Council clearly set the moral requirement to which they are subjected: "All those who enter the military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow-countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace". Following this statement by the Council, the military chaplaincy within the German Federal Armed Forces has always made particularly careful efforts to interpret the service rendered by soldiers in terms of their moral requirement through faith, to form soldiers' ethical judgement-forming ability, and to create a framework in which military service conforms to a perception of a soldier as a moral decision-maker. In this, the principles of internal leadership, on which the Church continues to place the greatest possible emphasis, are also identified.Were politics in Germany also to deviate from the principle of the highly restricted use of military means, considerable problems would of necessity arise for soldiers, and also for their chaplains. Soldiers who use and are subjected to force have a right to their deployment being on a sound and justifiable ethical footing. This includes not lastly also transparency as to the purposes.
VIII.
When the bishops submitted their pastoral letter on peace in 2000, September 11 had not yet taken place. In contradistinction to the opinion of some critics, there is nevertheless no reason to lay aside this pastoral letter as if it were already out-of-date. From the point of view of the bishops, not only the basic theological and socioethical reflection remains valid, but also the analysis of the central peace policy problems - at least in their main elements. Terrorism is not expressly addressed in "A Just Peace". However, it is precisely part of the context of the dissolution of reliable power structures and increasing removal from the sphere of the state and the privatisation of violence which the pastoral letter of the German Bishops' Conference describes as the core problem of the security situation after the end of the Cold War. Now, we must analyse in greater detail the new threat posed by terrorism; this also includes Nagel's studies on minority problems.On the other hand, unless all appearances are deceptive, we are in a process of far-reaching and indeed dangerous global political transformation. This also entails significant challenges for research into peace ethics. Much of this has been touched upon in my reflections. Above all, the further development of international law and the international order is likely to require even greater attention in future. The Institute for Theology and Peace is in the midst of these processes. In the Church, we all depend on its work, perhaps more than ever.On behalf of the German bishops and the whole Church in our country, I would like to offer our deepest thanks to the Institute for Theology and Peace, to its founding fathers for their manifest courage, no less the former and the current head and deputy head, the general locum tenens, and those bearing responsibility in the Office of the Military Bishop, the members of the Board of Trustees and of the Advisory Academic Council. Above all, I ask for the future that God's rich blessings will come down from Heaven to the Earth, bringing the courage to take a deep look at the history of the peace effort, particularly in a Christian spirit, and at peace ethics as the theory of a practice which we need to meet the responsibility of the faith for peace. 
    cf. on this: Dienst am Frieden. Stellungnahme der Päpste, des II. Vatikanischen Konzils und der Bischofssynode = Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhles 23, Bonn n.d. (1980), texts from 1963-1980.    cf. Art. 79 to 82 of the Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes".    ibid, Art. 83 to 90.    cf. E.-J. Nagel/H. Oberham, Dem Frieden verpflichtet. Konzeptionen und Entwicklungen der katholischen Friedensethik seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Munich 1982.    cf. GS 5.    cf. GS 3.    Both appeared in the series entitled "The German Bishops", Bonn n.d. (1983/2001).    Out of Justice, Peace, No. 4.3.1.    A Just Peace, 6.  A Just Peace, 59.  A Just Peace, title of Chapter II.7.  A Just Peace, 133 (GS 79)