Peace should be understood in positive terms. It is not merely the absence of war, but as the document says, "an enterprise of justice." But how then, on the conceptual level, do we reconcile this positive platform of peace without implying that that peace can be an end of war, or in other words, that "just wars" may play a role in this "enterprise of justice?" It seems to me that until this distinction is made wars and violence will always be justified on the grounds that they are necessary to bring about peace. In a manner of speaking, we must be able to make a distinction between the "justice" being sought by the positive platform of peace and the "justice" sought by certain acts of war. This distinction must speak to the fact that the act of war, although it may be a "just" act, is inferior to the "just" act of peace.

To a certain extent, the document's response to this is consider in the legitimizing presmises of just war and the conditions set forth. Particularly, it begins with the Augustinian notion of the "not yet"-ness of the kingdom of God. The question I am considering here gets to the heart of the mystery surrounding the "already but not yet"-ness of the kingdom of God. This contradiction carries through into many considerations of the just use of force. Very often it is the presence of violence or conflict that justifies its continued use for "the sake of peace" (one example Nixon's escalation in Vietnam as justified in his silent majority speech). Despite the fact that it may be "just" to some extent, this feedback loop seems to me deeply troubling.

Surely there is war that is justified, and surely there may be war that is even just (although that bar is increasibly difficult to reach) but that the same time we must wrestle with the fact that so long as war can be justifed and even seen as just that will be a fundamental conceptual legitimization for its continued use. In the letter there are important premises for the positive platform of peace, and the case of nuclear proliferation is an good case through which to understand the evils intrinsic to an ethos of deterrance, preparedness and preemption. While I don't doubt that this letter, nor even Vatican II would disagree, I do feel that the lead was buried. A positive platform of peace implies that so long as peace is the ultimate goal, all war is failure of this "enterprise of justice." The fact that it may be just or justifed does not change the fact that it is a defeat in the fight for peace. Until the question is turned on its head, and "just war" is understood from the basic state of being of conflict, peace will never be achieved. The faith, trust and courageous strength that qualifies the state of peace is worth striving for, so long as the assumption is that we are in a state of conflict, war will always be seen as necessary, or worse, inevitable. I wonder if the best way to make war inevitable, is to believe that it is.