President Eberhard Sinner welcomes State Bishop Dr Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the representatives of the consular corps, the numerous members of the Bavarian State Parliament and all the guests present. He asks for a minute's silence in memory of our recently deceased Board member Gerhard Hermann.

He refers to the long-standing contacts of OWWF Bavaria, especially to Russia. A highlight of the relations was the project of a peace chapel, placed between the Soviet and the German military cemetery on the battlefield of Stalingrad, agreed in 2012 on the occasion of a visit to Moscow and Volgograd. This "European House" is the first monument of reconciliation erected by German civil society in Russia. The patrons of the chapel were the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and the then German Foreign Minister and now Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who visited the construction site together in 2015 and laid the foundation stone. The then cherished expectation of a peaceful growing together of Europe was finally destroyed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the signs already present at that time - Chechen war from 1999, Georgia/Caucasus war in 2008, annexation of Crimea and active support of the East Ukrainian separatist movement in 2014 - were not interpreted correctly in the West.
Here is a small kaleidoscope on Rossoschka and photos of the consecration of the chapel in 2016.

In his excellent speech, Bishop Dr Heinrich Bedford-Strohm explained the further development of the concept of "just war" into "just peace".

 
To the manuscript of the speech, the following is a brief summary.

The Bishop began by emphasising the urgency of the topic and the need not to blunt ourselves in the face of the Ukraine war, despite the multitude of wars around the world. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is shaking the sense of security and has global repercussions, as shown by the rising number of deaths from hunger due to shortages of essential goods.
The Bishop's concern lies in the fact that military solutions are almost exclusively discussed, while other options receive little attention. He pleads for thoughtfulness and stresses that military force can only ever be a sad emergency measure and should never develop a momentum of its own.

In view of the current situation with the deployment of German tanks in the Ukraine war, the Bishop speaks of a "turning point in time", but stresses that this must not mean a reversal of ethical values or foreign policy principles. Protecting Ukrainians from Russian aggression could be the only justification for the use of German tanks.

The Bishop calls for a thorough analysis of the causes and consequences for the prevention of violence in the future. He raises the question of ethically justifiable options for action in view of the current situation and emphasises that war is always a defeat and military violence is never just but terrible. Nevertheless, there may be situations in which refraining from it would be even more terrible.
The Bishop would like to show a "map" of the peace ethics discussion and outline the course of the discussion since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with particular reference to the Church's formation of judgement.
Landesbischof Bedford-Strohm's lecture thus offers an insight into the ethical questions and challenges arising in connection with the Ukraine war and calls for thoughtfulness and a broader discussion on non-military possible solutions.

In his lecture, Bishop Prof. Dr. Heinrich Bedford-Strohm presents a map of the discussion on peace ethics. He identifies four positions within this debate

• Unconditional or deontological pacifism: This position excludes the use of military force from the outset, based on the unconditional duty of non-violence. Biblical texts, especially the commandments of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, are cited as a basis.
• Argumentative pacifism: This position integrates political analyses alongside biblical norms in its ethical justification. The conclusion is that violence has never led to peace and therefore non-violence is the only reasonable option. Exceptions to non-violence can be discussed in certain situations.
• Responsibility pacifism: Here, non-violence is preferred, but it is recognised that in certain situations a use of force may be ethically permissible as an "impossible option". The use of violence is always seen as associated with guilt.
• Justice ethics approach: This position emphasises the option for the weak, the protection of human dignity and protection from violence. Conflicts between these principles require an analysis of the situation to determine whether the use of violence is justified or even called for.

The Bishop points out that the just-ethics position represents the limit of what can be considered legitimate from the perspective of the Christian faith. Behind this is the long tradition of the "doctrine of just war". This doctrine sets out criteria for just wars, such as a legitimate authority, a just cause, the ultimate means, a right intention and an appropriate mode of using force.The Bishop also refers to the development of the peace ethics debate since the fall of the Berlin Wall. New forms of conflict, such as terrorism and the need to protect people from brutal violence, have led to questions for the strictly pacifist position. It has been recognised that there may be situations where military means may be ethically legitimate or even necessary to protect threatened people.

In conclusion, the Bishop emphasises that the position of the just war ethical approach takes up criteria of just war, but cannot serve as a general legitimisation of military approaches. It remains important to continue the ethical discussion and to always critically question the use of force.

Minimising military force remains the central goal of evangelical judgement in peace ethics. Nevertheless, dealing with actual military aggression requires a continuous development of ethical reflection. In light of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, it is important to keep in mind the principles of just peace and law-preserving violence.
The World Council of Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church, has unanimously condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine as illegal and unjustifiable. The consensus among both states and churches is clear. This large global consensus has emphasised the importance of an immediate ceasefire and of dialogue and negotiations to achieve sustainable peace. At the same time, the misuse of religion to justify armed attacks and hatred is strongly rejected.

The World Council of Churches has launched a peace initiative aimed at overcoming violence and promoting dialogue between the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox churches. A planned round table in Geneva is intended to provide an opportunity to find common solutions and move the peace process forward. It is important that the churches contribute to overcoming the violence and open new doors for peace.

Three insights for the future emerge from this situation. First, in certain circumstances it is morally legitimate to defend oneself, even with weapons, if it is the only effective option and in compliance with the principle of proportionality. Secondly, attention to military aspects of peacekeeping must not diminish the importance of disarmament strategies. Instead of spending more money on armaments, peace and security policy intelligence is needed. Thirdly, the underfunding of civilian measures to save human lives remains a moral scandal. The absurd distribution of resources between arms spending and human development must be repeatedly addressed by the churches in order to prevent violent conflicts.

The churches' peace witness means that "peace is higher than all reason" and thus has concrete worldly consequences. The churches are called to live out this witness and to understand that peace is inseparable from justice and concern for humanity.