In his first address to the diplomatic corps (January 9), Pope Leo, within a reasoned geopolitical presentation, did not spare criticism of Western culture. It was not to take a leave of it, and even less to give voice to the “quasi-religious” right, but rather so that it may have a role in the world’s cultural and geopolitical future. Like Pope Francis, he emphasizes the urgency of ensuring that a renewed global governance is consistent with the demands of the “new peoples,” beyond power relations and the claims of colonizing ideologies.
By necessity, this year’s intervention reflects the Secretariat of State’s greater influence and aligns with the themes, language, and concerns of recent decades. But it also contains observations more explicitly tied to the pontiff: from the well-founded appeal to Augustine to the topic of old and new rights, from the issue of persecution to the need for a shared language.
De civitate Dei and Rights
The Augustinian reference is to De Civitate Dei (The City of God) and to the urgency of answering the charge that the Christian faith was at the origin of imperial decay. “As then, we are in an age of profound migratory movements; as then, we are in a time of deep realignment of geopolitical balances and cultural paradigms; as then, we are, in the noted _expression_ of Pope Francis, not in an era of change but in a change of era.”
Part of the profound transmutation underway is the discussion of old and new rights. Riding on the expansion of fundamental rights since 1948 (of the child, of women, of the elderly, of the environment, of peace, etc.), we have arrived at “sexual rights,” “reproductive rights,” “reproductive health”—that is, the affirmation of “individual rights” which, compared to “fundamental rights” (personal liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of movement, etc.), tolerate no limits and transform “non-discrimination” from a condition for asserting a right into a right in itself. They sometimes overlap with the former, effectively nullifying them, and create conditions for their progressive irrelevance and erasure (cf. SettimanaNews article referenced).
The pope refers to a “package” that includes, among other things, family legislation, care for nascent life (abortion), surrogacy, and death issues between palliative care and euthanasia. In the current context, “a real short-circuit of human rights is occurring. The right to freedom of _expression_, to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religion, and even to life suffer limitations in the name of other so-called new rights, with the result that the very framework of human rights loses its vigor, leaving room for coercion and domination. This happens when each right becomes self-referential and especially when it loses its connection with the reality of things, their nature, and the truth.”
Persecutions and words
No less explicit is the denunciation of the resurgent anti-religious persecutions, particularly against Christianity. About 64% of the world’s population suffers from them, and among them, 380 million Christians are affected—one in seven. There is explicit reference to Bangladesh, the African Sahel, Nigeria, the Middle East, and Mozambique.
In parallel he notes “a subtler form of religious discrimination against Christians that is spreading even in countries where they are numerically majoritarian, such as in Europe or the Americas, where sometimes their ability to proclaim evangelical truths is limited for political or ideological reasons, especially when they defend the dignity of the weakest, the unborn, or refugees and migrants, or promote the family.” The connection between persecution and what may be called “Christianophobia” remains imprecise: from the extent of each to their respective reasons (cf. SettimanaNews).
The possibility of dialogue to overcome growing conflicts requires “that words once again express certain realities unequivocally.” Paradoxically, a weakening of language is claimed in the name of that very freedom of _expression_. In contrast, “freedom of speech and _expression_ is guaranteed precisely by the certainty of language and by the fact that each term is anchored to truth. It is painful to note how, especially in the West, spaces for authentic freedom of _expression_ are increasingly being reduced, while a new, Orwellian-sounding language is developing which, in trying to be ever more inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that animate it.”
The set of critical observations feeds an interpretation as pro-right. It even echoes the words of U.S. vice president J.D. Vance at the Munich conference (February 2025), overlooking the sharp response then-Cardinal Prevost gave to the American’s fanciful appeal to Augustine’s ordo amoris to justify anti-immigrant laws.
Multilateralism and humanitarian law
More predictable, but decisive, are two essential references for coexistence among peoples: multilateralism among states and the binding force of humanitarian law in conflicts.
The Holy See denounces the progressive and senseless erosion of international institutions. “To a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks the consensus of all is being substituted a diplomacy of force, by individuals or groups of allies. War has returned to fashion, and a bellicose fervor is spreading. The principle established after WWII that prohibited countries from using force to violate the borders of others has been broken.”
There is a desire for a glorious peace through war. “It is precisely this attitude that led humanity into the tragedy of World War II, from whose ashes the United Nations was born, whose 80th anniversary was recently celebrated.”
The race to rearm and to develop ever more devastating weapons now rests on a thinly considered justification. This grave warning is coupled with an urgent appeal to humanitarian law to at least mitigate the catastrophic effects of war. “One cannot remain silent about the destruction of hospitals, energy infrastructure, homes, and places essential to daily life, which constitutes a serious violation of humanitarian law.” No state or military necessity can outweigh the inviolability of human dignity and the sanctity of life.
There is an apparent double reference to U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The former is reproached for wanting to destroy multilateralism, for ignoring migrants’ rights, and for not respecting the will of the Venezuelan people. The latter is accused of attacking independent countries such as Ukraine, of ignoring humanitarian law, and of erasing respect for detainees, especially political prisoners. China under Xi Jinping is mentioned only marginally, with a suggestion to adopt a peaceful, dialoguing approach to disputes.
184 states
Calls to defend the poor, migrants, prisoners, families, children, drug addicts, and the dying recur insistently. The list of the significant ongoing conflicts is essential yet specific: from Ukraine to the Holy Land, from the Caribbean (Venezuela) to Haiti, from the Great Lakes to Sudan, from Myanmar to East Asia.
Support for and consensus around the UN are accompanied by the need to reform it without pursuing colonialist-type ideologies. The pope also signals positive developments, including the preservation of the Dayton Accords, the peace declaration between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Vietnam’s willingness to reach agreements. He speaks unusually positively of Italy for the new agreement on spiritual assistance to the armed forces, the agrivoltaics facility at Santa Maria di Galeria, cordial relations with the President of the Republic, and the management of the recently concluded jubilee.
In total, 184 states maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and in 93 of those cases, their missions are based in Rome. Beyond states, supranational bodies also have representation: from the European Union to the Arab League, from the International Organization for Migration to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.