“Rediscovering the meaning of words”

cc. At the beginning of each year, the Pope addresses the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See at a New Year’s reception. In his speech, he addresses numerous topics from world politics and social life, formulating the position of the Roman Catholic Church on these issues. This year was no exception. The variety of topics and the responses to them are impressive, and the entire address is worth reading. We are publishing an excerpt here that focuses on secular issues.

[…]
Dear Ambassadors,
Prompted by the tragic events of the sack of Rome in 410 AD, Saint Augustine wrote De Civitate Dei, The City of God. […]
    The City of God does not propose a political program. Instead, it offers valuable reflections on fundamental issues concerning social and political life, such as the search for a more just and peaceful coexistence among peoples. Augustine also warns of the grave dangers to political life arising from false representations of history, excessive nationalism and the distortion of the ideal of the political leader.
    Although the context in which we live today is different from that of the fifth century, some similarities remain highly relevant. We are now, as then, in an era of widespread migratory movements; as then, we are living at a time of a profound readjustment of geopolitical balances and cultural paradigms; as then, we are, in Pope Francis’s well-known expression, not in an era of change but in a change of era.
    In our time, the weakness of multilateralism is a particular cause for concern at the international level. A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies. War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading. The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined. Peace is no longer sought as a gift and a desirable good in itself, or in the pursuit of “the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men and women.” Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence. […]
    It was precisely this attitude that led humanity into the tragedy of the Second World War. From those ashes, the United Nations was born, whose eightieth anniversary was recently celebrated. The UN was established by the determination of fifty-one nations as the center of multilateral cooperation in order to prevent future global catastrophes, for safeguarding peace, defending fundamental human rights and promoting sustainable development.
    I would like to draw particular attention to the importance of international humanitarian law. Compliance with this cannot depend on mere circumstances and military or strategic interests. Humanitarian law, in addition to guaranteeing a minimum of humanity during the ravages of war, is a commitment that States have made. Such law must always prevail over the ambitions of belligerents, in order to mitigate the devastating effects of war, also with a view to reconstruction. We cannot ignore that the destruction of hospitals, energy infrastructure, homes and places essential to daily life constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The Holy See firmly reiterates its condemnation of any form of involvement of civilians in military operations. It likewise hopes that the international community will remember that the protection of the principle of the inviolability of human dignity and the sanctity of life always counts for more than any mere national interest.
    With this in mind, the United Nations has mediated conflicts, promoted development and helped States protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. In a world facing complex challenges such as geopolitical tensions, inequalities and climate crises, the UN should play a key role in fostering dialogue and humanitarian support, helping to build a more just future. 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.
    The purpose of multilateralism, then, is to provide a place where people can meet and talk, modeled on the ancient Roman Forum or the medieval square. At the same time, in order to engage in dialogue, there needs to be agreement on the words and concepts that are used. Rediscovering the meaning of words is perhaps one of the primary challenges of our time. When words lose their connection to reality, and reality itself becomes debatable and ultimately incommunicable, we become like the two people to whom Saint Augustine refers, who are forced to stay together without either of them knowing the other’s language. […]
    Today, the meaning of words is ever more fluid, and the concepts they represent are increasingly ambiguous. Language is no longer the preferred means by which human beings come to know and encounter one another. Moreover, in the contortions of semantic ambiguity, language is becoming more and more a weapon with which to deceive, or to strike and offend opponents. We need words once again to express distinct and clear realities unequivocally. Only in this way can authentic dialogue resume without misunderstandings. This should happen in our homes and public spaces, in politics, in the media and on social media. It should likewise occur in the context of international relations and multilateralism, so that the latter can regain the strength needed for undertaking its role of encounter and mediation. This is indeed necessary for preventing conflicts, and for ensuring that no one is tempted to prevail over others with the mindset of force, whether verbal, physical or military.
    We should also note the paradox that this weakening of language is often invoked in the name of freedom of expression itself. However, on closer inspection, the opposite is true, for freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed precisely by the certainty of language and the fact that every term is anchored in the truth. 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.
    In a similar way, religious freedom risks being curtailed. As Benedict XVI recalled, this is the first of all human rights, because it expresses the most fundamental reality of the person. The most recent data show that violations of religious freedom are on the rise, and that sixty-four percent of the world’s population suffers serious violations of this right. […]
    In its international relations and actions, the Holy See consistently takes a stand in defense of the inalienable dignity of every person. It cannot be overlooked, for example, that every migrant is a person and, as such, has inalienable rights that must be respected in every situation. Not all migrants move by choice, but many are forced to flee because of violence, persecution, conflict and even the effects of climate change, as in various parts of Africa and Asia. In this year, which also marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the International Organization for Migration, I renew the Holy See’s hope that the actions taken by States against criminality and human trafficking will not become a pretext for undermining the dignity of migrants and refugees. […]
    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. […]
    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.

[…] •

Source: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2026/january/documents/20260109-corpo-diplomatico.html of 9 January 2026