The following is the Lectio Magistralis of His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, Cardinal Protector and Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, entitled Peace and Justice in the diplomatic action of the Holy See in the face of new challenges, for the Conference held on the occasion of the 325th anniversary of the founding of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, held in the Sala Ducale of the Apostolic Palace:
Lectio Magistralis of His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin
Peace and Justice in the diplomatic action of the Holy See
in the face of new challenges
Dear Cardinals,
Your Excellencies Members of the Diplomatic Corps,
Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not without trepidation that I thank all of you who, with different responsibilities and functions, wished to join together in this celebratory moment of an anniversary, 325 years since the founding of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. It is the task of the Secretary of State to welcome you in a new capacity compared to previous occasions, not only as Protector, but as Grand Chancellor of the Academy, a title assumed after the reform by the Holy Father Francis of venerable memory, with the Chirograph The Petrine Ministry of 15 April 2025. This is an additional responsibility for an institution which, throughout its centuries-long history, despite the most diverse and unexpected events, has faithfully preserved its function of preparing young priests called to exercise their ministry in the diplomatic service of the Holy See.
I am grateful to His Excellency the President Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio for echoing the expression “Jubilee” at the beginning of our work, the same that accompanied us during the past year and which we have linked to a hope that does not disappoint. A hope that also illuminates this worthy Institution that, as an integral part of the Secretariat of State, responds to a concrete need of the Apostolic See. Diplomatic activity shows the Successor of Peter’s care towards the particular churches, as the “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Vatican Council II, Lumen gentium, 23). From this same spiritual mission derives the Roman Pontiff's inherent right to be represented before the authorities of States and intergovernmental institutions so that the Church may offer “the valuable assistance of her spiritual energies and her organisation for the attainment of the common good of society” (Paul VI, Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, Preamble).
We are here on the day that the liturgy commemorates the Patron of our Institution, Saint Anthony the Abbot, whose teaching remains essential for those who are part of the family of the Academy: to those who asked him, “What must I do to please God?”, Anthony replied, “Wherever you go, always keep God in front of your eyes, and whatever you do, always rely on the testimony of the Holy Scriptures; wherever you live, do not leave early” (Life and Sayings of the Desert Fathers, PJ, I, 1). Our Patron Saint reminds us that it is God who guides the history and events of the human family; that the Good News is the source of inspiration for our actions and thoughts in our daily service; that the goal of peace and justice, which inspires the action of papal diplomacy, requires us to love all peoples, whatever their history, culture, religious reality, customs and geographical location.
The Grand Abbot's exhortation is profoundly meaningful, even more so in the times we are living in, which call for a journey of conversion also for those who act on the international stage and, in various capacities and for various reasons, are confronted with the aspirations for justice and the desires for peace of the human family. Despite the signs of war, violations of human life, destruction, uncertainty and a widespread sense of disorientation now prevailing, voices continue to rise from different regions of the planet calling for peace and justice. This cannot leave those who work in the context of international relations indifferent, but requires the establishment of a new style, capable of responding to the many difficulties with the certainty that in every corner of the earth there is a desire for good, despite all the uncertainties of tomorrow.
I would venture to say that even though our service follows different paths – the world of diplomacy, the ecclesial reality, the academic sphere and other dimensions of social life are represented here – today's meeting unites us in reflecting on how peace and justice can once again become the pillars of order among nations and not be limited to mere aspirations or empty claims. In a context that is critical, to say the least, for international relations, it is not difficult, unfortunately, to recognize that the coexistence of individuals and peoples has lost sight of the ways to achieve the deepest aspirations of the human family, starting with stability, peace, and economic and social development. And this, in different ways, affects the whole world and not only areas of conflict. Just think of the political decisions that find support only in the force of arms or the will to power that inspires language and demonstrations on the international stage, rooted in behaviours that, due to their severity and effects, go beyond the tragedies of war. In the phase we are currently experiencing, the international order is no longer what it was eighty years ago when the UN, the United Nations System and new forms of understanding and collaboration between states were established in accordance with international law and within the framework of international law. We must acknowledge this and, not as mere spectators, perhaps with some nostalgia for the world that once was, but in order to be ready to act as protagonists.
The current state of international relations calls on everyone to take concrete action to formulate proposals, promote research and contribute to the development of strategies to make discourse, programmes and activities credible. In the various roles and tasks entrusted to us, the challenge is to offer not just a competent contribution, but a vision of the future based on reflection, ideas and concrete possibilities. Today, for those who work in institutions, faced with the dramatic events affecting the international order, it is not easy to explain why justice is replaced by force and peace by war. The difficulties increase in the knowledge that the consequences are the fragility of the world order, the growth of tensions even in situations that seemed reconciled, the increase in various types of international crimes, and the widening gap between the levels of development of peoples and countries. Paradoxically the same dimension of security, now invoked for every action from prevention to rearmament, necessitates an approach that is no longer limited to military and terrorism issues alone, but that is also open to guaranteeing food, health, education, environment and energy security. And this is without forgetting security in religious matters, which must be ensured in the face of violence against believers through the use of weapons, discrimination, isolation, or the exploitation of faith, the privatization of religious practice and even indifference towards any transcendent dimension.
These elements – already sufficiently alarming for diplomacy, the Church, academia and society – are accompanied by the observation that principles such as self-determination of peoples, territorial sovereignty and the rules governing war itself are being called into question. In fact, we are witnessing the relativisation of the entire apparatus built by international law for areas such as disarmament, development cooperation, respect for fundamental rights, intellectual property, trade and commercial transit.
It is in this climate of unease that the desire to provide answers must become even stronger, namely the need to seek and develop solutions that abandon the idea of the use of force, the will to power and contempt for the rules in order to achieve objectives that deny justice. It is time to contribute to the development of a doctrine that responds to the current situation and is at the same time a proposal for education, training and research. Faced with the new international order that emerged in the sixteenth century, the School of Salamanca, from which modern international law originated, updated the vision of “war” systematized by Thomas Aquinas – from Augustine of Hippo onwards, it was one of the areas on which the Church reflected – so today, arguments capable of overcoming the limits and barriers that, before being material, are often those of the soul, appear necessary. Peace, as Paul VI said before the UN General Assembly, “is not built merely by means of politics and a balance of power and interests. Iti s built with the mind, with ideas, with the works of peace” (Paul VI, Address to the United Nations, 4 October 1965). And in this I address first of all the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy which, in the renewed path entrusted to it, must combine the growth of its students in the priestly ministry with up-to-date training and research in the diplomatic sciences, projected onto the future needs of the Holy See in its international action.
2. The image we see before us is made up of appeals for collaboration, negotiation and dialogue, but these are easily confused with acts of domination and exclusion that go as far as the elimination of the other. This means that when analysing international relations, the analysis does not only concern their legitimacy, but requires the ability to identify ways to overcome obstacles in a precise and concrete manner, even when a sense of powerlessness prevails, which is often translated as injustice. The Holy See operates along these lines with its diplomacy, seeing in every level of activity and responsibility the possibility of seeking ways and means to ensure an international order based on justice and in which the principle and goal of coexistence is peace. It does so in accordance with the principles, customs and rules of diplomacy, maintaining its own style. As Pastor reports in his famous History of the Popes, Fabio Chigi – the future Pope Alexander VII – while he was Apostolic Nuncio in Cologne and participated in the Münster negotiations that led to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, liked to describe the work of the diplomat with the expression: “do much, say little”. (L. von Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. XIV/1, Rome 1961, 321). Today, the appeal of the media seems to have overshadowed this attitude.
It is an extremely arduous and laborious journey, but which precisely in moments of particular difficulty commits everyone to building a vision of tomorrow, supported by an authentic hope and by the capacity for personal involvement. These are the cornerstones that inspire and guide the reflection of the magisterium of the Church in the contemporary age in the face of conflicts and destruction. I think of Benedict XV who, at the end of the First World War, in the encyclical Pacen Dei munus (1920), advanced the idea of peace as a gift from God that, however, needed to be built in accordance with justice and through the contribution of every human being; Pius XII, who in his Christmas Radio Message 1944, still during the Second World War, outlined justice as a prerequisite for building a peaceful international order; Saint John XXIII who, in Pacem in terris (1963), faced with the abyss to which the possible use of atomic weapons would lead, did not hesitate to recall how much peace needs justice; Saint Paul VI who, in Populorum Progressio (1967), made development the new name for peace; Saint John Paul II who, in Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987), called for a higher level of international order; Benedict XVI who, in Caritas in Veritate (2009), indicated that the construction of peace requires diplomatic action; and Francis who, in Fratelli tutti (2020), proposes an architecture of peace that peacemakers must bring about.
Peace and justice have regained their deepest meaning because, as Pope Leo XIV reminded us at the beginning of his ministry, they are rooted in the Christian mystery. They are, in other words, a gift that is linked to human action, inspiring it and leading it to the “disarming path of diplomacy, mediation and international law, which is sadly too often undermined by the growing violations of hard-won treaties, at a time when what is needed is the strengthening of supranational institutions, not their delegitimization” (Leo XIV, Message for World Peace Day, 1 January 2026).
3. As I find myself in a context of academic reflection, I will allow myself to share some reflections, starting from two questions: in a world increasingly dominated by the primacy of conflict, how can diplomacy reconcile today’s tragedies with the need for a peaceful future for peoples and countries? And so, how can diplomats operate in relation to what is happening?
In short, one could respond by inviting them not to limit themselves to interpreting reality. Indeed, from this we can only conclude that emergency has become the standard modus operandi and that resorting to conflict is the only method used. Unfortunately, however, we must recognize the lack of planning in the development of political choices, legal rules or economic programmes to rebuild an international order that is suited to real needs, designed and aimed at establishing “the foundations on an international level for a community of all men to work for the solution to the serious problems of our times, to encourage progress everywhere, and to obviate wars of whatever kind” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 84). This definition of the international order is not a call for orderly co-existence or the absence of conflict, but is rather the need for stability in the community of states, knowing that stability is by its very nature mutable and often manifests itself in unpredictable ways. Diplomacy, then, cannot be limited to protecting individual advantages or needs, but is called upon to contribute to building the common good, which remains the primary objective of social life in every community, both national and international. It is not a question of adding up the well-being of individuals, but of achieving “those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 26).
We can work to contribute to this process if we are aware that peace remains the fruit of justice and not merely a consequence of good deeds (cf. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 71). This invitation is also a duty for those in positions of responsibility. This is especially true in light of the need to emerge from a profound crisis that disregards the values on which the Community of Nations has gradually been built and, consequently, the rules that govern its structure, social balance, the sovereignty of states and their political, institutional and economic independence.
Operating within international dynamics and institutions, we must combine the responsible performance of our service, based on competence, dedication, professionalism and transparency, with the ability to help free diplomacy from outdated forms or nationalistic sentiments and the protection of particular interests. As has happened in other moments in the history of international relations, without resorting to declarative tones – “do much, say little” - it is a question of prioritizing engagement with what is emerging or being determined at this stage in contemporary societies. In other words, it is necessary to act on what is happening, not to take refuge in fanciful scenarios, recognizing that in building peace, it is “difficult … to understand clearly the relation between the objective requirements of justice and concrete situations … in the given state of human society” (Pacem in Terris, 154). This brings to mind the method outlined by Pope Francis, according to whom, “Rather than experts in dire predictions, dour judges bent on rooting out every threat and deviation, we should appear as joyful messengers of challenging proposals, guardians of goodness and beauty” (Evangelii Gaudium, 168).
Faced with the violation of the binding principles of international law and the basic rules of coexistence in the society of states, with conflict proposed as the only method of governing international relations, we must overcome that sense of powerlessness that turns into anguish in the face of the use of force that destroys the aspirations of peoples, exacerbates inequalities and creates unjust balances. This is despite the fact that international law, particularly that produced and codified since the end of the Second World War, has constituted a regulatory system inspired by ethical and moral principles which, together with religious values, have contributed to its foundation, its development and the opening up of new perspectives. Those who work in international relations must confront these principles and values, and not see them as limits to their will and ambitions. Conscience and reason cannot tolerate violations of sovereignty in its various forms, the forced displacement of entire peoples, changes in the ethnic composition of territories, the removal of the means necessary for economic activity, or the limitation of freedoms. The diplomacy of the Holy See has lived through history and been a witness to moments that teach how the emergence of uncontrolled and uncontrollable factors can easily render force irrelevant. This is even more true today, given the rapid connection between events, their immediate awareness and the consequent easy recourse to immediate solutions or emotional reactions. This is the exact opposite of discernment and deliberation, which are essential characteristics of diplomatic action.
4. In the use of force in place of rules, in forms of agreement based only on the advantage and the interest of a few, in the inability to address common issues through solutions that involve everyone, we find the profound crisis suffered by the multilateral system of international relations. A more in-depth analysis, however, shows that it is not just a question of states wanting to reduce international institutions to a marginal role, but rather the emergence of a multipolarism inspired by the primacy of power and regulated by the ability to demonstrate self-sufficiency, by the determination to preserve state and supranational borders, thinking that they are impermeable. Yet as early as 1795, Immanuel Kant, in his Perpetual Peace, pointed out that “the violation of law at one point on earth is felt at all points” (I. Kant, Political Writings, Turin, 2010, 305).
A characterizing factor of multipolarism is the recourse to conflict – military, economic, ideological – which is often not limited just to the use of weapons, but also underpins political orientations, systems of alliance and the different allocation of resources within states. This fact is even more worrying, as it affects not only the objective that the state or states intend to pursue through military action, but also directly the entire course of international relations. Indeed, these positions are taken not only by countries involved in conflicts, but also by those that support the need for security as a way to prepare for war or to launch preventive rearmament campaigns. It seems to have been forgotten that the right of states to guarantee their own security, and with it the sovereignty and social life of those living on their territory, does not authorize them to take preventive action or launch attacks in ways that are increasingly distant from international law. That legality which, despite its many limitations, had granted stability to the multilateral system, replacing the iustum potentiae equilibrium present in international life with the prohibition of the use and threat of force – war and deterrence, therefore. As John XXIII indicated, “this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today’s world be replaced by … the realization that true and lasting peace among nations” can consist “only in mutual trust” (Pacem in Terris, 113). From multipolarism, today as throughout history, we learn that the arms race can only lead to armed peace or mutual distrust between states. Weapons deterrence and the expansion of the arms industry and military research are the path to isolation and closure, as well as the basis for political, military and economic choices justified by the need to anticipate or counter hypothetical attacks. Those who work in the field of diplomacy are well aware that what distinguishes prevention from arbitrariness can easily be ignored if the legal norms and ethical and moral principles that inspire and guarantee its legitimacy are disregarded.
All this finds immediate confirmation if we look at the bloody conflicts that various nations are experiencing and which often leave us as helpless spectators. Indeed, an increasing number of people are almost indifferent, either because they are unable to distinguish the veracity of data and information, or because they prefer to take sides, thus introducing into their small or large everyday world the practice of opposition that is characteristic of war. In other cases, then, disinterest reveals an attitude that emerges when asked to take responsibility, echoing the words of Cain: “Am I my brother's keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). Finally, there are many who argue that wars and conflicts of various kinds have always been part of the life of the international community.
These are positions and attitudes that are difficult to sustain in the face of dramatic situations and the tendency to see the use of force as the only means of resolving conflicts, contrasts and differences of opinion that may arise in relations between states. The conviction has thus arisen that peace can be achieved only after the enemy has effectively been annihilated. And the enemy can become a people, a nation, an institution or an economic space that is opposed to the vision of whoever is strongest at the time, forgetting that the category of enemy is not a coincidence, but is created by the game of power or the will to demonstrate it towards someone.
5. It is not difficult to grasp that the time we are living in demands choices that call not only on diplomacy, but which involve other dimensions of international life. The idea of being able to rebuild an international order that can protect us from fear and discouragement also leaves open the search for ways to make an effective contribution. This begins with interpreting actions that touch on the foundations of peace and the meaning of justice. This task cannot remain merely a desire, but must rather stimulate us to break out of the limited realities, including professional ones, in which we are immersed and in which we seek answers to every question, often in vain.
Perhaps we should start by assessing whether it is right to continue acting in isolation, even if that isolation is that of a group of countries, opposing or even seeking to eliminate any obstacle that might in some way disturb our ambition or the fulfilment of our reckless desires. Disapplying or ignoring the rules of warfare, starting with making the civilian population a military target or depriving it of the means necessary for survival, is not only a way of conducting hostilities or a desire to end conflicts, but rather the realization of the principle of fait accompli that manifests itself in the will of rulers and ruled. One thing is now clear: what is happening does not concern localized problems, but structures that affect the whole world and relations between peoples. Therefore, the need to provide alternative answers consisting of common strategies and paths, as well as the conclusion of agreements between states, is imposed not only on diplomatic activity, but is required at all institutional levels. In fact, it is precisely the lack of responses to selfishness, abuse, injustice or positions designed to guarantee borders and territories that extinguish the culture of peace and the dimension of justice, i.e. the factors that hold a society together, creating cohesion and guaranteeing identities.
This entails an appeal “to the individual conscience, to the duty which every man has of voluntarily contributing to the common good” (Pacem in Terris, 48). The contempt for peace and justice that pervades the international dimension in increasingly violent forms must be considered in terms of the effects it has produced and could produce. Therefore, it cannot be ignored, nor is it useful to accept or reject the positions taken by some of the protagonists of international life that contradict the idea and goal of the common good. This is why fragmented reactions that lack the necessary firmness and precision are no longer sufficient.
A common contribution of ideas and concrete acts must be aimed at demonstrating how dangerous is the attitude of those who, without considering its scope and consequences, trust in conflict as a means of resolving every problem, ignoring any consideration of how inhuman and dehumanizing war is. Likewise, a renewal of the various intergovernmental institutions should be encouraged, not only by eliminating any institutional conditions or structures that, in the face of threats to peace and violations of justice, hinder their work, but also by making them functional to the scenarios present today in the international community: protection of human life, elimination of underdevelopment, human mobility, transfer of expertise in new technologies, availability of natural resources, and so on. This is not just a list of agendas, but the actual situations in which conflicts arise or wars break out and which only multilateral action can prevent, resolve or govern.
6. As operators in international scenarios, can we still hope for peace and be builders of effective justice so as to give new life to international relations? The experience of an institution such as the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, which has continued despite the ups and downs of the Church and the world, shows how necessary it is to have a commitment that starts from the bottom up, involves creativity, and does not hide problems. Study and research become, in fact, indispensable factors not only for a technically satisfactory education, but also for proposing possible actions and effectively implementing them, even when it comes to governing the most difficult situations. The diplomat’s ability manifests itself fully in proposing not only solutions that are already planned and perhaps regulated, but also in knowing how to consistently and wisely interpret new scenarios, perhaps unpredictable and far from established practices.
Therefore, demonstrating foresight and healthy realism means not being confined to waiting, nor thinking that, ultimately, it is up to others to act and intervene. They are the method for overcoming the sense of powerlessness that can arise and for ensuring conditions that can overcome the pain and anguish of the victims of conflict and injustice. For the papal diplomat, this means sharing the problems and the life itself of people, populations and states, with that Light that comes from the Risen One and the commitment to bringing the Good News to all peoples, even in highly limited conditions and subject to the most diverse forms of violence and illegality.
The unfolding of international relations is subject to constant change, and those who work in this field are well aware that the success of processes to establish true peace, as well as the construction of institutions capable of governing situations to prevent and resolve conflicts, are the result of loyal cooperation carried out in good faith and mutual respect. The only way to overcome opposing views and even conflicts is through the attitude and act of forgiveness, because “to forgive does not mean to deny evil, but to prevent it from generating further evil. It is not to say that nothing has happened, but to do everything possible to ensure that resentment does not determine the future” (Leo XIV, General Audience, 20 August 2025).
Studying diplomacy at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy means believing in our neighbour, in our travelling companion, in those we meet to negotiate objectives and differences, or with whom we share spaces of life and relationships. And this with the intention and the will to involve in such an approach and methodology all those who influence the international context. Only in this way can we be true “peacemakers” capable of satisfying “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt 5:3-10).
Thank you!
