Pope to Assisi Peace Meeting: 'May we be unarmed instruments of the Lord's peace'
Pope Leo XIV urged participants in the Community of Sant’Egidio’s International Meeting for Peace in Assisi to be “unarmed instruments” of peace. He declared that war can never be waged in God’s name and that there is no holy war; only peace is holy. The Pope called for rejecting religious justifications for war and cultivating mediation, dialogue, prayer, and action in service of peace. The three-day gathering marked 40 years since the 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace initiated by Saint John Paul II.
about 5 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV urged participants in the International Meeting for Peace in Assisi to reject religious justifications for war and work through prayer, dialogue and mediation toward peace. In a video message marking 40 years since the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, he called on believers to become “unarmed instruments” of peace.
The three-day gathering, organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio, was held under the theme “Unarmed and Disarming Peace” and concluded on October 27. Leo greeted the organizers, religious leaders and Franciscans taking part, and said he would have liked to join them at the tomb of St. Francis.
The Pope linked the meeting to the 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace, initiated by Saint John Paul II, who later called for the “spirit of Assisi” to continue.
Leo said that “war can never be waged in the name of God,” adding that there is no such thing as a holy war and that “only peace is holy.” He urged participants to cultivate the spirit of Assisi through rejection of religious justifications for war, mediation, dialogue and reflection joined with action for peace.
He called for peace to become a shared ideal and guide for decisions, saying, “We must rebuild peace everywhere, not prepare for more wars.” He also warned against manipulating God’s name to justify conflict.
Leo described prayer as the foundation of the Assisi journey and as a humble strength, even when it may appear weak in the face of worldly power. He appealed for prayer for the hearts of those who pursue war and terrorism, saying it is never in vain.
He called on religious leaders to foster dialogue among believers and across society, so that arrogance gives way to negotiation and understanding and humanity can move away from cycles of violence. He concluded by praying that God would grant peace to the world’s nations and make people instruments of the Lord’s peace.
The Church’s theological rejection of holy war and its vision of peace as a moral imperative
The Church’s rejection of holy war does not mean that every use of armed force is always morally forbidden. It means that war cannot be made holy by religious purpose, authorized as a means of advancing the faith, or directed against people because they hold another religion. The Church’s positive vision is more demanding than simply ending hostilities: peace is a continuing moral work grounded in justice, respect for human dignity, fraternity, and love.
“Holy war” can mean different things, so an important distinction is needed. In the theological argument presented by Gregory Reichberg, a Christian holy war is not merely a war fought by Christians or one in which combatants invoke God. It is the use of armed force as an instrument of spiritual ends, placed in service of religious authority. The theologian Charles Journet argues that this contradicts the Gospel: Jesus refused violence in his own defense, and his Kingdom is “not of this world.” On that basis, Journet concludes that there can be no Christian holy war “in the proper sense.”
This is a normative theological claim—a judgment about what is consistent with Christian faith—not a claim that Christians or churchmen have never participated in wars. Reichberg explicitly distinguishes the moral question from the historical record, which includes popes and other church leaders involved in warfare. He also notes that the Church’s rejection of forced conversion and offensive holy war became established much earlier, while some theologians continued to debate defensive holy war. Acknowledging that history matters: the theological rejection should not be used to deny past actions or their consequences.
The central issue is the purpose and authority of violence. The Church’s contemporary moral outlook does not treat religious difference as a warrant for war. James Turner Johnson, summarizing modern Catholic teaching, says that its concern for protecting religion is framed in terms of a fundamental human right—not a claim that the pope may command civil authorities to defend Catholicism by force. He also describes a general presumption against violence that requires grave reasons to overcome.
Rejecting holy war does not, by itself, settle every question about armed defense. Journet’s argument, as summarized by Reichberg, distinguishes the Church acting in its spiritual sphere from temporal society’s possible use of force: Journet considers just war compatible with the Gospel, while denying that war can be justified as the Church’s own spiritual instrument. Reichberg emphasizes that Journet gives Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence a central place in Christian moral reflection rather than treating it as an ideal too inconvenient to apply.
That distinction should not make the moral cost of war seem small. A just-war argument is not a declaration that a conflict is sacred, spiritually purifying, or free from evil. Johnson cites Jacques Maritain’s warning that invoking holiness amid grave suffering risks sacrilege, and the U.S. bishops’ condemnation of violence committed in religion’s name, including murder, rape, forced displacement, and hatred. The available sources do not set out the full criteria for judging a particular war, so they cannot determine whether a specific conflict qualifies as legitimate defense. They do support the more basic distinction: religion is not a license to wage war, and a possible moral justification for defense is not the same as a holy purpose.
The Second Vatican Council rejects definitions of peace that amount merely to silence or stability. Peace is not simply the absence of war, a balance of power between hostile nations, or order imposed by dictatorship. It is “an enterprise of justice”: a social order built through the pursuit of the common good and the protection of people’s well-being. Because circumstances change and human beings remain vulnerable to sin, peace must be built continually rather than assumed to be permanently secured.
This account makes peace a moral imperative rather than a passive preference. The Council says that respect for individuals and peoples, recognition of their dignity, and the practiced habit of brotherhood are necessary for peace. It also describes peace as the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice alone can provide. Christians are therefore summoned not only to approve peace in principle but to join with others in pleading for it and bringing it about.
That does not mean every quiet arrangement is genuine peace. A policy that suppresses violence while leaving grave injustice unaddressed may preserve order without fulfilling the Council’s richer meaning of peace. Conversely, the Council praises those who renounce violence in defending their rights and use other methods available to them, so long as doing so does not violate the rights or duties of others or of the community.
The moral vision is rooted in Christ’s reconciliation of humanity. Gaudium et Spes links earthly peace to Christ, who reconciles people with God and overcomes hatred. It presents the Christian task as doing “in love what the truth requires”: peace is not indifference to truth or justice, but a way of pursuing them without turning religious conviction into a pretext for hatred or coercion.
Pope John Paul II made the spiritual dimension of that task explicit in 2003. He observed that modern humanity had rejected war as a means of settling disputes between states, except in legitimate defense against an aggressor, and stressed that peace means more than the simple absence of war. He also connected peace with conversion of heart, prayer, penance, and love, calling for work and prayer so that war might disappear from humanity’s horizon.
The result is a twofold Christian responsibility: refuse to sacralize violence, and work actively for the just conditions that make peace possible. The Council acknowledges that the threat of war persists while sin persists; it does not offer a claim that peace can be secured by good intentions alone. But it holds out the Christian hope that as people overcome sin through love, they can also overcome violence.
The core distinction, then, is between religious violence that claims divine sanction and the morally serious pursuit of peace. Catholic teaching rejects the first and calls for the second—not as passive avoidance of conflict, but as sustained work for justice, dignity, reconciliation, and the common good.