The 13th-century theologian and thinker, Thomas Aquinas, put forward a scheme of three standards by which the waging of war could still be justified as a 'just war'. As is our custom, we have smuggled in one false definition: which of the following wasn't Aquinas'?

As recently as 1992 the Catholic Church has formulated a powerful four-pronged definition of Just War, which has clearly moved on far from Aquinas' day in the light of developments in weapons and technology ~ not least in the 20th century, with the mechanisation of gunfire and the rapid development of '3-dimensional warfare' (land, sea [inc. submarines] and sky; or indeed the use of physical, biochemical and nuclear weapons). Again, ONE of the stipulations below has been falsified: which one?

With the dubious benefit of 2,000-odd years of history, political and technical progress, Christians ~ as followers of the Prince of Peace ~ may well look, collectively, askance back over their shoulders at wars (and similar) waged in the name of their faith over that period. As recently as Victorian times (the later 19th century), the British 'establishment' in particular assumed a virtually divine right to colonise wherever they pleased, subduing 'natives', helping themselves to natural resources (minerals, rubber, tea / cocoa / coffee etc.) and obliging, rather than persuading, local populations to adopt Christianity. All but ONE of these are genuine quotations representative of the mindset of such days; which ONE is NOT genuine?

What is a Christian to do when their country is at war ~ possibly, though not necessarily, against an enemy who (if victorious) would also try to crush Christian observance, such as happened under Communist Russia and in her satellite states? If there is conscription and the individual is otherwise eligible, he or she would face religious qualms (as well as natural apprehension and distaste) if commanded to shoot or bomb an 'enemy' human being in contravention of the Ten Commandments. Which of the following would NOT have been an option for a British Christian during either or both World Wars of the earlier 20th century?

After a war &/or 'regime change' (a somewhat ghastly, but handy label for when a previous ruler is toppled from charge of a country), there are often simmering scores to be settled between various interest-groups. The following are mostly examples of Christian leader figures who urged for peaceful change, and tried their best to be ~ and encourage other key players to be ~ civil and forgiving of their erstwhile enemies once the power base had changed. Which is the 'odd man out'?

While your author was studying for his Teaching Certificate at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (1982, also the time of the Falklands War), he signed an international petition urging the US Navy to change its decision on naming a new nuclear submarine 'Corpus Christi' ~ after the city on the Texas coast. On what particular grounds was this petition raised?

During World War 2, besides extensive combatant deaths, unprecedented numbers of civilians were killed, in many cases in air-raids (including by carpet-bombing on both 'sides' and from the German V1 and V2 flying-bombs); the Nazis also obliterated over 10 million Jews and others whom they regarded as subhuman (gay and disabled people, travellers/'gypsies' and various other now largely better-protected minority groups). After the War, those chiefly responsible were tried and executed despite their pleas that they had 'only been obeying orders'. Wernher von Braun, meanwhile, the ballistics mastermind behind the rocket programmes, contrived to be captured by the Americans (near Oberammergau, as happens) and went on not only to be the guiding force behind the NASA space program, but to become a professing personal Christian who had discussions with the likes ~ if any! ~ of Billy Graham and Revd Dr Martin Luther King. What might be a best Christian response to his particular 'trajectory'?

Particularly during the aerial bombing campaigns of WW2 ~ though, sadly, also more recently with ISIS destroying 'pagan' artefacts in the Fertile Crescent ~ much wonderful heritage was destroyed alongside the annihilation of enemy industry and civilians. Shortly after WW2 the citizens of two European cities came together to bemoan the loss of their cathedrals and other mediaeval features, and to enter into partnership, not only to help restore one another's damage, but to put youth work and exchanges in place ~ so that never again could there be such catastrophic and wanton misunderstanding between peoples. Which were the two cities?

Here is a passage from the Old Testament, in which one of the Prophets describes a vision of eternal peace under God, to which surely many people could broadly wish humanity might aspire: 'Strong nations ... will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more ... Every man will sit under his own ... tree and no-one will make them afraid; All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.' (NIV translation, abridged) Which prophet wrote these words?

This quiz has been drafted ~ suitably to its baleful topic, perhaps ~ during the liturgically soul-searching season of Lent 2016, which has also encompassed the centenary of the Easter Uprising in Dublin that effectively kick-started the process of independence for the southern majority of the island of Ireland. The northern six counties have remained part of the (otherwise!) United Kingdom since shortly after the First World War. Political arguments then raged as to whether those six counties should unite with Eire (the south) or remain linked with mainland Britain. In the 1970s and 80s 'the Troubles' ~ mainly fomented by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) with bombings and other attacks, including pub-bombings on the mainland, political assassinations, and the Grand Hotel timebomb at Brighton (during the mid-1980s annual conference of the then-governing Conservatives) ~ seemed both permanent and futile. Routine reports of atrocities tended to refer to the IRA and its sympathisers as 'Catholics' and loyalists as 'Protestants' which were, at best, clumsily simplistic sectarian labels. British premier Tony Blair eventually convened talks in the spring of 1998 which established effective peace and ushered in power-sharing in Northern Ireland. To those of us who had long seen these people as sworn enemies, it was indeed remarkable to watch Martin McGuiness (of Sinn Fein, the political party associated with the IRA) and Dr Ian Paisley (of the Ulster Unionists) shaking hands and working together, even becoming known as the latter-day 'Chuckle Brothers'. The political accord which brought about this remarkable change is usually known by the date on which its nub was agreed: which day was this?