Papal Diplomacy after Augustine: Pope Leo XIV on the UN, Conscience, and the Inviolability of Life

On 9 January 2026, Pope Leo XIV addressed the members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See for the first time since his election, gathering ambassadors in the Hall of Benediction of the Vatican Apostolic Palace. The annual meeting with the diplomatic community is a longstanding Vatican tradition in which the Pope offers a broad assessment of global affairs and outlines the Holy See's priorities for the year ahead.

Structuring his reflections around themes drawn from Saint Augustine's De Civitate Dei, the Pope surveyed a wide range of pressing issues – from armed conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to humanitarian emergencies across Africa and Latin America . He also addressed the state of multilateral institutions, the condition of fundamental freedoms, and what he perceives as a deepening crisis within the international human rights framework.

The excerpts below focus on three closely related areas of the address. First, the Pope calls for a reform of the United Nations so that it may better serve the common good rather than ideological agendas. Second, he raises concern about the shrinking space for freedom of expression and conscience, particularly in Western democracies, and defends the role of conscientious objection. Third – and at greatest length – he reaffirms the centrality of the family and the inviolability of human life, rejecting abortion, surrogacy, and euthanasia in unequivocal terms. He concludes by warning that the erosion of foundational rights such as life, conscience, and religious freedom in favour of newly asserted entitlements risks hollowing out the entire edifice of human rights.

„Efforts are therefore needed to ensure that the United Nations not only reflects the situation of today’s world rather than that of the post-war period, but that it is also more focused and efficient in pursuing policies aimed at the unity of the human family instead of ideologies.”

„It is painful to see how, especially in the West, the space for genuine freedom of expression is rapidly shrinking.  At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it. Unfortunately, this leads to other consequences that end up restricting fundamental human rights, starting with the freedom of conscience.  In this regard, conscientious objection allows individuals to refuse legal or professional obligations that conflict with moral, ethical or religious principles deeply rooted in their personal lives.  This may be the refusal of military service in the name of non-violence, or the refusal on the part of doctors and healthcare professionals to engage in practices such as abortion or euthanasia.  Conscientious objection is not rebellion, but an act of fidelity to oneself.  At this moment in history, freedom of conscience seems increasingly to be questioned by States, even those that claim to be based on democracy and human rights.  This freedom, however, establishes a balance between the collective interest and individual dignity.  It also emphasizes that a truly free society does not impose uniformity but protects the diversity of consciences, preventing authoritarian tendencies and promoting an ethical dialogue that enriches the social fabric.”

Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, who, “by calling them into existence out of love, has at the same time called them to love.” This vocation is revealed in a privileged and unique way within the family. It is in this context that we learn to love and foster the capacity to serve life, thus contributing to the development of society and the Church’s mission.

Despite its centrality, the institution of the family faces two crucial challenges today.  On the one hand, there is a worrying tendency in the international system to neglect and underestimate its fundamental social role, leading to its progressive institutional marginalization. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the growing and painful reality of fragile, broken and suffering families, afflicted by internal difficulties and disturbing phenomena, including domestic violence.

The vocation to love and to life, which manifests itself in an important way in the exclusive and indissoluble union between a woman and a man, implies a fundamental ethical imperative for enabling families to welcome and fully care for unborn life.  This is increasingly a priority, especially in those countries that are experiencing a dramatic decline in birth rates.  Life, in fact, is a priceless gift that develops within a committed relationship based on mutual self-giving and service.

In light of this profound vision of life as a gift to be cherished, and of the family as its responsible guardian, we categorically reject any practice that denies or exploits the origin of life and its development.  Among these is abortion, which cuts short a growing life and refuses to welcome the gift of life.  In this regard, the Holy See expresses deep concern about projects aimed at financing cross-border mobility for the purpose of accessing the so-called “right to safe abortion.”  It also considers it deplorable that public resources are allocated to suppress life, rather than being invested to support mothers and families.  The primary objective must remain the protection of every unborn child and the effective and concrete support of every woman so that she is able to welcome life.

Likewise, there is the practice of surrogacy.  By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, this violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a “product,” and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family.

Similar considerations can be extended to the sick and to those who are elderly or isolated, who at times struggle to find a reason to continue living.  Civil society and States also have a responsibility to respond concretely to situations of vulnerability, offering solutions to human suffering, such as palliative care, and promoting policies of authentic solidarity, rather than encouraging deceptive forms of compassion such as euthanasia.

A comparable reflection can be made concerning the many young people who are forced to confront numerous hardships, including drug addiction.  In order to prevent millions of young people around the world from falling victim to substance abuse, concerted efforts are required to eradicate this scourge upon humanity and the drug trafficking that fuels it.  Together with these efforts, there must be adequate policies for recovery from addiction, as well as greater investment in human development, education and the creation of employment opportunities.

In light of these challenges, we firmly reiterate that the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right.  A society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it.

The aforementioned considerations lead me to believe that, in the current context, we are seeing an actual “short circuit” of human rights.  The right to freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, religious freedom and even the right to life are being restricted in the name of other so-called new rights, with the result that the very framework of human rights is losing its vitality and creating space for force and oppression.  This occurs when each right becomes self-referential, and especially when it becomes disconnected from reality, nature and truth.”