188.
在我們這個時代，一種強權文化正在成形；在這種文化中，資源的多寡與支配的能力，往往決定議程，也決定作出決策的標準。如此一來，人類的公共福祉被推到背景，處於戰火中的民族所承受的具體悲劇，也在戰略利益面前被降為次要考量。這種權力至上的文化滲入社會，改變人與人之間的關係和行為模式；它藉著使戰爭正常化、追求更強大的軍事力量、利用多邊主義的危機，並助長一種虛假的現實主義而不斷壯大。 這種現實主義堅稱：除此之外，別無選擇。

189.
一九六五年，聖保祿六世教宗在聯合國大會上發出有力的呼聲：「永遠不要再有戰爭，永遠不要再有戰爭！」然而，我們必須承認，儘管人們渴望和平，也一再作出和平宣言，過去六十年仍有許多令人震驚的殘酷衝突。這些衝突往往大規模波及平民，造成無辜者死亡、大量流離失所、社會動盪，以及長久難以癒合的創傷。即便如此，公共論述中仍曾普遍相信：戰爭只能作為最後手段，必須受到嚴格的倫理與法律限制，並且始終以和平的政治願景為目標。第一次世界大戰結束後，這方面的觀念已有若干發展；第二次世界大戰後，情勢更出現關鍵轉折，和平被置於國際秩序的核心。這一點尤其體現在《聯合國憲章》中，其宗旨是「欲免後世再遭今代人類兩度身歷慘不堪言之戰禍」。18同樣地，許多國家的憲法也把動用武力的條件限制在極端且嚴格限定的情況之下。即使在冷戰時期，儘管嚴重衝突依然存在，人們仍保有強烈的共識：必須不惜一切代價避免新的世界大戰。

190.
然而今天，在關於重新武裝的公共論述與決策中，我們正在見證一場真正的思維轉變。令人憂心的是，戰爭重新被視為國際政治的常規工具，而過去曾限制戰爭的倫理原則正逐漸遭到侵蝕。那些長期拖延的區域衝突、不斷升高的緊張局勢與相互威脅，幾乎變得稀鬆平常；一些原以為早已被超越、由領土擴張慾望所驅動的衝突形式，也再次浮現。公共輿論也逐漸受到兩極化的媒體敘事所塑造與制約，而這些敘事往往又被那些偏好衝突與對立的演算法進一步放大。

191.
我們同時也目睹了令人不安的歷史記憶流失：關於猶太人大屠殺與兩次世界大戰的第一手見證正在逐漸消失。這使得過去容易被選擇性地改寫，甚至扭曲；在假新聞與敘事操弄遮蔽了歷史教訓的當下，情況尤其嚴重。一旦不再保有對戰爭恐怖的鮮活記憶，政治決策就可能只以權力為依據，而完全不考慮長遠的後果。

192.
在這一切之上，媒體與數位層面又增加了新的關鍵變數。傳播網絡、碎片化的資訊環境，以及獎勵衝突的演算法，可能放大兩極化與怨恨情緒，加劇宣傳操作，也使共同分辨變得更加困難。於是，戰爭不僅在戰場上被發動，也透過簡化的敘事、敵我二分的心態、虛假訊息與恐懼，在文化層面被預先塑造。當歷史記憶逐漸淡去，保護平民與最脆弱者的倫理原則也被削弱時，暴力就更容易被合理化，彷彿它是必要的、不可避免的，甚至是經過「淨化」而不再殘酷的選項。正是在這樣的處境下，人類正一步步滑向一種暴力的強權文化；在其中，和平不再被視為一項必須承擔的責任，而只是衝突與衝突之間脆弱的間隙。今天，比以往任何時候都更需要重申：在最嚴格意義上的自衛權不受影響的前提下，過去常被用來為各種戰爭辯護的「正義之戰」理論，已經過時。人類擁有更有效、更能促進生命與解決衝突的工具，例如對話、外交與寬恕。動用武力、暴力與武器，反映的是關係的貧乏，而這總是會為平民帶來災難性的後果。

Pope Leo XIV
Magnifica humanitas:188-192
The culture of power,The normalization of war

188.
In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.

189.
In 1965, the words of Saint Paul VI resounded powerfully at the UN General Assembly: “Never again war, never again war!” [180] We must acknowledge that, despite the desires and declarations for peace, the past sixty years have been marked by conflicts of astonishing brutality, often affecting civilian populations on a massive scale, leading to the death of innocent victims, mass displacement, social destabilization and long-lasting wounds.

Nevertheless, in public discourse, there was a widespread conviction that war should remain a last resort, subject to strict ethical and legal limits, and always oriented toward a political vision of peace. Following developments in the immediate post-First World War period, a turning point occurred after the Second World War: peace was made the focus of the international order, as attested in particular by the United Nations Charter, with the intention to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” [181] Likewise, many national constitutions restricted the use of force to extreme and strictly limited circumstances. Even during the Cold War, despite the existence of serious conflicts, there remained the awareness that a new world war had to be avoided at all costs.

190.
Today, however, we are witnessing a real paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being eroded.

Regional conflicts that drag on over time, escalating tensions and reciprocal threats are becoming almost commonplace, and forms of conflict driven by the desire for territorial expansion that were thought to be overcome are re-emerging. Public opinion is gradually being shaped and conditioned by polarizing media narratives, which are often amplified by algorithms that prioritize conflict and confrontation.

191.
We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of historical memory, as first-hand accounts of the Holocaust and the two World Wars are disappearing. This leads to a selective or distorted rewriting of the past, in a context where fake news and the manipulation of narratives obscure the lessons that have been learned. Without a living memory of the horrors of war, political decisions risk being made on the basis of power alone, without any consideration for the long-term consequences.

192.
To all of this, the media and digital dimensions are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear.

When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts.

Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. [182] Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.